When Bush hatred makes you a moron...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Where does it say anything about realism?

The militant anti-communism part. Nixon was the ultimate realism and he was making detente with the communists (better for US interests).

Read the next paragraph as well:

Over the past quarter century, the neocons have sought, with increasing success, to rid the Republican Party of its isolationists, its anti-imperialists, and its realists. The younger neocons, such as William Kristol (son of Irving) and Elliott Abrams (son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter), have promoted a new right-wing internationalism that holds that America should be both a global cop and a global missionary for freedom.

[Kidlicious]

Why is a realist either an imperialist or an isolationists? This is a question for those of you who can't recognize one.

edit: last sentence is not clear. this isn't a question directed at Imran, although he can answer.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The anti-realism is a smokescreen.

Seeing as how Neo-Conservatism really began as a political movement in response to Nixon and Kissinger's detente, I'd say anti-realism is at the core of Neo-Conservatism.

[Agathon]

I see it this way. Traditional conservatives are basically *******s, sometimes Machiavellian, but really just the inheritors of the old ruling class mentality. They wish to preserve a hierarchical society, but they do not really have any great ideology and tend towards pragmatism when pressed. They don't hate the poor, they just think that they should know their place. In America it is somewhat different with the emphasis on success and wealth and mobility, but it isn't too different.

Neocons are not the same thing at all. They are like the Inner Party in Nineteen-Eighty-Four: accomplished practitioners at doublethink. They share the Inner Party's dictum: to preserve the infallibility of doctrine at all costs, even though they themselves cannot be said to believe it. Hence the refusal to admit facts that conflict with their view. A traditional conservative would attempt to deal with conflicting facts in a practical way (by compromise, diplomacy, rethinking of goals), the neocons just pretend that the facts that don't suit them do not exist.

[Agathon]

Seeing as how Neo-Conservatism really began as a political movement in response to Nixon and Kissinger's detente, I'd say anti-realism is at the core of Neo-Conservatism.

It doesn't matter what it was then. It is what it is now. It's no accident that many of them are former left wing extremists - the same tendency afflicts many on the left.

It's now postmodern politics. That is the best definition of neoconservatism you could wish for: postmodern politics.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Why is a realist either an imperialist or an isolationists? This is a question for those of you who can't recognize one.

They are both, depending on the circumstances. Realists believe that the international system is anarchical and no state can really trust another. That means that no supranational organization can govern the actions of individual states. It assumes that all states act in their own self-interest and their primary goal is to preserve security. Also they believe relations between states are based on relative power. They also believe that states are inherantly agressive and territorial expansion is only controled by other powers (balance of power or hegemony flows from this theory, depending on what type of realist you are).

So they can be imperialist or isolationist as the situation demands. Imperialist in some cases (to gain more power), isolationist in others (perhaps to perserve security)

[Agathon]

As I said: I don't think they are realists in any sense of the term.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The anti-realism is a smokescreen.

Seeing as how Neo-Conservatism really began as a political movement in response to Nixon and Kissinger's detente, I'd say anti-realism is at the core of Neo-Conservatism.

That's not what your article says, Imran. I go hmmm when you mention Nixon and Kissenger, but I can see detente not being popular. However, the article says it started as a rebellion against the left going progressively more loonie, doesn't it?

[Agathon]

However, the article says it started as a rebellion against the left going progressively more loonie, doesn't it?

If you mean the left actually starting to want to do something substantial about race problems, militarism and imperial adventurism, then yes.

[notyoueither]

No, I mean going loonie, like by having a future senator and presidential candidate testify to Congress that American troops were the new Mongols.

[Kidlicious]

You know I seem to remember from my world politics class that realism is more of a theory of how world politics works. Don't realists believe that everyone is truly a realist?

[Agathon]

They are both, depending on the circumstances. Realists believe that the international system is anarchical and no state can really trust another. That means that no supranational organization can govern the actions of individual states. It assumes that all states act in their own self-interest and their primary goal is to preserve security

I don't think they really are like that in practice. In practice it's a bunch of rich people's representatives trying to stop the world's poor from taking what's theirs.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Kid: I see you are fond of Wikipedia, so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_relations

Oh, and interstingly:

Liberalism holds that state preferences, rather than state capabilities, are the primary determinant of state behavior. Preferences will vary from state to state, depending on their culture, economic system, or type of government.

Seems to speak to neo-conservatism doesn't it?

However, the article says it started as a rebellion against the left going progressively more loonie, doesn't it?

For Kristol and the 5 or 6 others of the old, old guard, but it didn't begin as a 'movement' (as opposed to just a philosophy.. which is why I was specific to say movement) until the mid 70s.

[Agathon]

No, I mean going loonie, like by having a future senator and presidential candidate testify to Congress that American troops were the new Mongols.

That's an extreme comparison, but My Lai certainly justifies that label, and we know that My Lai was but the tip of the iceberg.

[notyoueither]

No, we don't.