Tweet
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, and if I considered PNAC to be a neoconservative be all and end all, then I'd consider this to have some merit.
I'll quote wiki:
[q=wikipedia]The meaning of the term has changed over time. It was possibly first used circa 1970 by socialist author and activist Michael Harrington to characterize former leftists who had moved significantly to the right – people he derided as "socialists for Nixon." The "neoconservatives" thus described in this original sense tended to remain supporters of the welfare state, but had distinguished themselves from others on the left by allying with the Nixon administration over foreign policy, especially in their anti-communism, their support for the Vietnam War, and strident opposition to the Soviet Union.
This support for the welfare state is not implied by the contemporary use of the term, which critics suggest implies support for an aggressive worldwide foreign policy, especially one supportive of unilateralism and less concerned with international consensus through organizations such as the United Nations. However, neoconservatives describe their shared view as a belief that national security is best attained by promoting freedom and democracy abroad through the support of pro-democracy movements, foreign aid and in certain cases military intervention. This is a departure from the classic conservative tendency to support friendly regimes in matters of trade and anti-communism even at the expense of undermining existing democratic systems. Author Paul Berman in his book Terror and Liberalism describes it as, "Freedom for others means safety for ourselves. Let us be for freedom for others."
In academia, the term "neoconservative" refers more to journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and institutions affiliated with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and with Commentary and The Weekly Standard than to more traditional conservative policy think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation or periodicals such as Policy Review or National Review.[/q]
I don't look at neoconservative in the academic sense, for one. The Statement of Principles of PNAC makes a lot of references to a Reaganite policy, which could be seen as both neoconservative and paleoconservative (ideology is clear, but it was also in our interest to support anti-communist regimes, even if not democratic).
For example, I don't particularly consider Dan Quayle or Steve Forbes to be neoconservatives, but they've signed the PNAC Statement of Principles.
Further from wiki:
Rumsfeld was a big time realpolitik guy while in Ford's White House, for instance.
Yes, and if I considered PNAC to be a neoconservative be all and end all, then I'd consider this to have some merit.
I'll quote wiki:
[q=wikipedia]The meaning of the term has changed over time. It was possibly first used circa 1970 by socialist author and activist Michael Harrington to characterize former leftists who had moved significantly to the right – people he derided as "socialists for Nixon." The "neoconservatives" thus described in this original sense tended to remain supporters of the welfare state, but had distinguished themselves from others on the left by allying with the Nixon administration over foreign policy, especially in their anti-communism, their support for the Vietnam War, and strident opposition to the Soviet Union.
This support for the welfare state is not implied by the contemporary use of the term, which critics suggest implies support for an aggressive worldwide foreign policy, especially one supportive of unilateralism and less concerned with international consensus through organizations such as the United Nations. However, neoconservatives describe their shared view as a belief that national security is best attained by promoting freedom and democracy abroad through the support of pro-democracy movements, foreign aid and in certain cases military intervention. This is a departure from the classic conservative tendency to support friendly regimes in matters of trade and anti-communism even at the expense of undermining existing democratic systems. Author Paul Berman in his book Terror and Liberalism describes it as, "Freedom for others means safety for ourselves. Let us be for freedom for others."
In academia, the term "neoconservative" refers more to journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and institutions affiliated with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and with Commentary and The Weekly Standard than to more traditional conservative policy think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation or periodicals such as Policy Review or National Review.[/q]
I don't look at neoconservative in the academic sense, for one. The Statement of Principles of PNAC makes a lot of references to a Reaganite policy, which could be seen as both neoconservative and paleoconservative (ideology is clear, but it was also in our interest to support anti-communist regimes, even if not democratic).
For example, I don't particularly consider Dan Quayle or Steve Forbes to be neoconservatives, but they've signed the PNAC Statement of Principles.
Further from wiki:
Other critics have similarly argued the term has been rendered meaningless through excessive and inconsistent use. For example, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are often identified as leading "neocons" despite the fact that both men have ostensibly been life-long conservative Republicans (though Cheney has been vocally supportive of the ideas of Irving Kristol). Such critics thus largely reject the claim that there is a neoconservative movement separate from traditional American conservatism.
Rumsfeld was a big time realpolitik guy while in Ford's White House, for instance.
There is that same neoconsevative "speak" that is used.
It's always broad idealogy without ever referring to specifics. It's a sad attempt at the recreating the inspiring speeches Reagan gave but it is an obscene parady of itself because it is empty rhetoric backed by nothing.
Those buzzwords, "freedom," "cold blooded killers" are used by Rumsfeld and Cheney so much in their speeches they should just all get a record player and just play it over and over again.
Speaking of Reagan, there were these idiots in his administration, but as a recent article pointed out, they were demoted because he realized their extremism wasn't helpful. Bush PROMOTES these people.
Even if they don't fit your personal definition of the day, their extremism is noted, they're all in the same sick boat together.
There is no room for dissenters in this place. They are enveloped by the same sick ideaology.
Whether or not they fit the definition, they're all in the same sick service of its goals, which were defined by that PNAC document. And they have hijacked half of the country along the way.
The rest of us can see right through it and aren't going to put up with it.
Comment