Can the Neocons Jump to the Dems?

Can the Neocons Jump to the Dems?

By Ivan Eland
May 4, 2009

Neoconservatives used the Republican Party as a vehicle to promote and employ their policies of muscular nation-building overseas.

But like the parasite that eventually kills its host, the Republican Party’s virtual collapse, in large part because of the failed nation-building adventure in Iraq, has left neoconservatives discredited and facing policy extinction. Unfortunately, neoconservatism will probably live on by changing hosts.

<snip>

The neoconservatives started out as liberals and socialists in the Democratic Party. They were never really that conservative on economic policy, only belligerent in foreign and defense policies. And in those two latter policy areas, the Democratic Party is still dominated by their close cousins, the liberal Wilsonian interventionists.

Although the liberal Wilsonians — such as Hillary Clinton, Richard Holbrooke, and Madeleine Albright — are less unilateralist than the neoconservatives and are much more in love with international organizations, they share the neoconservatives’ passion for armed social work and nation-building.

Besides, when you’re deep in the wilderness and your horse is dying, you can’t be too concerned with pimples on your new steed.

The neoconservatives will probably eventually realize that the Republican Party is dying, and will seamlessly re-infest the Democratic mother ship to preserve themselves. And again, they will probably severely debilitate their host.

<more>

http://consortiumnews.com/2009/050409c.html

Repackaged.

this is how they think anyway - they'd get all the mailing lists and contact info, they'd try to influence votes and policy with larger coordinated numbers, and they'd browbeat the weaker Democrats who are used to not putting up a fight and being reasonable. It could cause pandemonium.

Their only problem is acting like they don't care about social issues - their faces will twitch heavily when trying to lie about it.

They couldn't contain themselves.

There are neos in both parties and they all need to be rooted out and booted out.

Notice how little actually changes on big matters when the parties switch majority/minority positions. Economic policy nearly identical, foreign policy nearly identical.

Politicians are walking appetites for your lifeblood, and it doesn't matter what party label they wear.

they need to be rooted out and exiled to someplace where they can do no harm.

:shrug:

I've never followed them to find out.

everywhere you find them.

Woodrow Wilson
FDR
Harry Truman
JFK
LBJ
RFK
Jimmy Carter
Bill Clinton
Al Gore.

Neocons won't break bread at that table.

"Jackson believed that evil should be confronted with power.<19> His support for civil rights and equality at home,<10> married to his opposition to détente,<19> his support for human rights<21> and democratic allies,<22> and his firm belief that the United States could be a force for good in the world<23> inspired a legion of loyal aides who went on to propound Jackson's philosophy as part of neoconservatism. In addition to Richard Perle, neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Charles Horner, and Douglas Feith were former Democratic aides to Jackson who, disillusioned with the Carter administration, supported Ronald Reagan and joined his administration in 1981, later becoming prominent foreign policy makers in the 21st-century Bush administration"...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Jackson#Influence_on_neoconservatism

There's only one table. They all eat there. The Big Boeing Buffet in Jackson's case.

Your list of (mostly) dead presidents, some assassinated, is evidence of what? Figure heads.

The war party always seems to win. Eisenhower warned us.

"Jackson believed that evil should be confronted with power.<19> His support for civil rights and equality at home,<10> married to his opposition to détente,<19> his support for human rights<21> and democratic allies,<22> and his firm belief that the United States could be a force for good in the world

That could have been written for Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, and yeah... Obama. I recall John Kerry raised eyebrows in the netroots with his call for "progressive internationalism," which was the DLC's rebranding of liberal internationalism (same doctrine, new name.)

Remember this?



Without rendering any judgment personally on the right or wrong of liberal internationalism, those who deny the dominance of the doctrine in Democratic circles are the ones out of step with the state and history of the Democratic party.

...we (the USA) have to really be all those good things at home before we can export them.

I agree that 'liberal internationalism' is the dominant doctrine of crooked legislators, influence peddlers & war profiteers in Democratic circles.

Let's get rid of these people. They're not 'the people'. That's what 'progressive' means to me.

The new, scary populism is here. There's lots of squealing about it.

If you ask the people if they want foreign involvements they'll say no. There's too much to do at home.

"The new scary populism" is the people wising up to the military-industrial-media-complex scam.

Recently I heard some party aparachik types on a cable chatter show speaking of democracy with contempt. It's the only thing that scares them.

If I saw a Neocon jumping me, I'd be willing to shoot ...

They would have no credibility in our party.

after all the democratic party needs more neoliberals...:sarcasm:

x( :puke:

host cause like Bush she is mostly empty. I could be wrong but I thought I'd read that he had been in contact with her.