What is neo-conservatism?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Wycoff


That's absolutely wrong. Neoconservatism is anything but Realpolitik; it's actually the newest manifestation of Wilsonianism. Realpolitik does not allow for crusading, it's all about realistic evaluations of the strengths and weakness of world allies and enemies. Wilsonianism IS crusading; America has a mission, and that mission will be satisfied no matter what. I guarantee that Bismarck would not have got the U.S. bogged down in Iraq.

You ignore the influence of Strauss. In his twisted world what you say almost never matches your real reasons for action.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Ben Kenobi]How is what I quoted any different from President Bush? You might label them as reactionaries, but there are conservatives who agree that the US should not intervene in the affairs of other nations. Imran gets it.[/q]

Well, one thing I would say that it seems that the Bush administration almost WANTS some indemnities or material compensation. Indemnities from the ICC, material compensation in the spoils of war contracts. They've begruged France and Germany for not standing with them, but Wilson's statement points to the idea that we will cheerfully make those sacrifices and not grumble about those who choose not to follow.

You ignore the influence of Strauss.

He does so rightfully. The using of Strauss to tar the movement should be confined to the dustbin. Kristol mentions Strauss as a personal influence and Wolfawitz had 2 of his classes at UChicago.

I mean the distinctions between most neoconservatives and Strauss are numerous. One being religion. Strauss, an atheist, stressed organized religion to be a way to keep the masses satisfied so they won't question too much, while most neoconservatives are very religious people. I don't think they'd support someone who said their faith was simply "opiate for the masses" to put it that way.

Add to the fact that Strauss would be horrified by American dominence around the globe as akin to a world government that would become tyranny inevitably.

The annoying thing is how much of a crutch this has become for people who are against neoconservatives. They just parrot the lines that Strauss was everything and he said you should lie to people about your true intentions while governing (otherwise known as Plato's noble lie). Therefore neoconservatives really believe in [name something evil] but are hiding it, like Straus says .

Of course, if they were hiding their true purpose, why would people like Kristol said they liked Strauss and then in the same book articulate what their idea of neoconservatism was? Wouldn't that be a bit self-defeating if you didn't actually believe in what you said the principles of neoconservatism were?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MrFun
Liberalism has changed though. Before the realignment of the Democratic party during or after the Great Depression, the Democratic party was a white supremacist party.

Liberal in IR /= Liberal in US

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Liberal in IR /= Liberal in US

What do you mean by "IR" and if you reread Imran's thoughts that I quoted, he WAS talking about American politicians by pointing out that Democrats in first half of 20th century were imperialists.

[Imran Siddiqui]

International Relations.

And I have no idea what you are trying to say by "Imran's thoughts" as I don't think I ever said or insinutated Democrats were imperialists (unless you consider the culture wars to be imperialist).

[MrFun]

I would think that this would be along the lines of imperialism:

"Imposing US views on foriegners had always been a liberal (US) goal since Woodrow Wilson up until Reagan's time."

[Imran Siddiqui]

Then you have an incredibly broad view of 'imperialism'.

Frankly I don't think Coca-Cola or Hollywood (or, more apt, Radio Free Europe) are involved in US imperialism, but whatever floats your boat.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Originally posted by Ted Striker
... empty rhetoric backed by nothing ... Those buzzwords ... used ... so much ... they should just all get a record player and just play it over and over again.

Originally posted by Ted Striker
their extremism wasn't helpful

Originally posted by Ted Striker
their extremism is noted

Originally posted by Ted Striker
the same sick boat together

Originally posted by Ted Striker
the same sick ideaology.

Originally posted by Ted Striker
the same sick service of its goals

I bet you didn't even notice that you had become a "parady" of the very windmills you're tilting at...

I bet you thought that was actually clever.

There's actually substance to backup my descriptions.

Even though that substance is sick extremism.


Not my fault you're embarassed by these guys who have misled you.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


I bet you thought that was actually clever.

Perhaps because it was.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Then you have an incredibly broad view of 'imperialism'.

Frankly I don't think Coca-Cola or Hollywood (or, more apt, Radio Free Europe) are involved in US imperialism, but whatever floats your boat.

Cultural imperialism is different from imperialism that results in actual territorial conquest.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Perhaps because it was.

You think you're clever and I think I'm funny.

[Fake Boris]

Therefore neoconservatives really believe in [name something evil] but are hiding it, like Straus says .

Assuming this was targeted at my post, this simply isn't what I said.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by MrFun



Cultural imperialism is different from imperialism that results in actual territorial conquest.

Yes it is, cultural asimulation is a crime against humanity when effected by the use or implied threat of force, (http://www.preventgenocide.org/lemki...Rule1944-1.htm) as proposed by the internation jurist who crafted the genicide laws for Nuremburg.

People are cultural adaptive by their very nature, which is why jeans/slacks repalces kimonos, but no one was saying do it or you will find we will make life difficult for you if you dont.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MrFun



You think you're clever and I think I'm funny.

In reality I think Drake's comments clever, I'll refrain from comment on the Fun factor.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, one thing I would say that it seems that the Bush administration almost WANTS some indemnities or material compensation. Indemnities from the ICC, material compensation in the spoils of war contracts. They've begruged France and Germany for not standing with them, but Wilson's statement points to the idea that we will cheerfully make those sacrifices and not grumble about those who choose not to follow.

I don't know if that is comparable. When the US came in on the first world war, there were no substantial allies that were on the outside. In this one, the US had the same ideals of spreading democracy yet did not receive the same support. I would think Wilson would have responded the same way if Britain had criticised the entry of the US, and refused to assist in the defence of France.