Now that the Neocons have outed themselves

...it's time for us to start capitalizing on the difference between Republicans and Neocons. We need to enlighten Republicans on the ground and in government who have been a little 'slow on the uptake'. They must be made to realize this administration is run by Neocons, not Republicans. Let them know Bush** sealed the pact with the Neocons with his inaugural speech.

The Difference

This is the main one: Republicans believe in an assertive but DEFENSIVE military posture, i.e. (loosely) we saber rattle but don't attack unless attacked. Neocons believe it's our mission to aggressively impose American democratic values on "rogue" states through covert or pre-emptive military action, regardless of domestic or international law. (Or, need I add, any notion of a country's right to self-determination.)

Republicans believe in a small federal government. Neocons aren't so concerned with this -- or any domestic issue, for that matter.

Republicans believe in fiscal responsibility. Neocons want to divert as much money as possible into military spending, and do...even at the expense of the nation's economic health.

Many Republicans are religious. Neocons, typically amoral, will FEIGN religiosity in order to steer and influence the masses.

Generally, Republicans uphold and revere the Constitution. Neocons feel constrained by the Constitution because it prohibits their desire for global hegemony; they feel entirely justified in circumventing it, and have done with impunity, as a means to their ends.

Republicans won't hesitate to answer a call to arms in defense of our grand Republic. Neocons won't stop war-mongering -- and sending everyone else's sons and daughters to fight their wars -- until the U.S. is a full-fledged and uncontested Empire. And then there's the little matter of maintaining supremacy....

Here's the most important thing to remember: Most Neocons are Republicans by convenience, not ideology. However, most Republicans are NOT Neocons. And THAT difference is what we should drive home now that Bush** has scared many in his own party with his 'FREEDOM' speech. It's what many of us have been warning them of all along. Now we have to make sure they know they aren't misunderstanding what they heard, and encourage TRUE Republicans to rise up and take back their party from these imperial thugs!

Anyone with me?

a bit late. but most are very stubborn, seems to be a party trait.

most New Yorkers who are republicans are so because they are anti-choice catholics and live in the suburbs, they are afraid of the democrats lack of control in the area (David dinkens era) of crime. they can be talked to sometimes. but they are very macho men, cops and fire fighters dont like to be wrong. the woman are easy. i convinced many before the election.

the men are just hard headed. its different throughout the country. even from NY to NJ. when i see woman in NJ cheering when a mother of a dead soldier gets arrested for protesting laura bush it makes me wonder what is actually going on in a state so close to my home. how sad and how narrow minded this disease of bigotry and hate is spread. how successful the neocon campaign has been in spreading it around the country.

But the biggest bout with nausea, will be them justifying the protection of the 12% from the 88% of the rest of us.

I was married to a service man for years and a lot of those men really liked the whole war business. Now with an army that you go into because you like it, it may be a force that likes war. It is just a thought. Out side the service you can hardly say their are not people who believe in force to make a point.

Yep, there are people who love going to war. There are also lots of kool-aid swillers who love watching OTHERS go to war. I hope for their sakes they're all rich kids whose daddies can keep them safe, 'cause otherwise the joke's going to be on them!

I despise the neocons, and find more in common with the good folks here at DU then I do with the bushbots over at F.R.

The only thing I don't agree with is calling the opposite of NeoCon a Republican.

This is the main one: PALEOCONSERVATIVES believe in an assertive but DEFENSIVE military posture, i.e. (loosely) we saber rattle but don't attack unless attacked. Neocons believe it's our mission to aggressively impose American democratic values on "rogue" states through covert or pre-emptive military action, regardless of domestic or international law. (Or, need I add, any notion of a country's right to self-determination.)

PALEOCONSERVATIVES believe in a small federal government. Neocons aren't so concerned with this -- or any domestic issue, for that matter.

PALEOCONSERVATIVES believe in fiscal responsibility. Neocons want to divert as much money as possible into military spending, and do...even at the expense of the nation's economic health.

Many PALEOCONSERVATIVES are religious. Neocons, typically amoral, will FEIGN religiosity in order to steer and influence the masses.

Generally, PALEOCONSERVATIVES uphold and revere the Constitution. Neocons feel constrained by the Constitution because it prohibits their desire for global hegemony; they feel entirely justified in circumventing it, and have done with impunity, as a means to their ends.

PALEOCONSERVATIVES won't hesitate to answer a call to arms in defense of our grand Republic. Neocons won't stop war-mongering -- and sending everyone else's sons and daughters to fight their wars -- until the U.S. is a full-fledged and uncontested Empire. And then there's the little matter of maintaining supremacy....

Here's the most important thing to remember: Most Neocons are Republicans by convenience, not ideology. However, most Republicans are NOT Neocons. And THAT difference is what we should drive home now that Bush** has scared many in his own party with his 'FREEDOM' speech. It's what many of us have been warning them of all along. Now we have to make sure they know they aren't misunderstanding what they heard, and encourage TRUE PALEOCONSERVATIVES to rise up and take back their party from these imperial thugs!

I think we can agree that NEOCONS are our common enemy and once we get rid of them we can go back to our traditional arguments about the size and purpose of government, etc...

are ready.

In that regard, it is like Faith in God and also Love. You can't force such things upon someone else.

If you read this, I'd like to ask what your perspective is on Regulating Corporate Behavior.

Personally, I lean Libertarian when it comes to Social stuff.

When it comes to larger, multinational Corporations it's harder to justify the Federal Govt. not protecting private, individual citizens.

Having no built-in regulating mechanisms and a Federal Govt. that refuses to enforce laws governing them... larger corporations seem like out of control teenagers whose bad/anti-social behavior is a desperate cry for some discipline.

How would a PaleoCon. suggest we deal with CEO's who are unable to restrain themselves?

Respectfully, is there a rationale for putting CEO's in charge of Regulatory agencies?

I guess what I'm asking you is, do you think the current crowd controling our government has gone too far in giving free rein to Multinationals?

I too lean libertarian on most social issues. I think there is a role for government to rein in out of control CEO's and corporations. I think it's important that we remember what got us to where we are (free-market capitalism), but we cannot allow them to run roughshod over us.

Yes, the current crowd has gone too far, not just in giving free rein to multinationals, but too far in many other instances.

The primary role of government should be to protect the citizens. For all the talk about national security I see precious little being done besides trampling on our (the citizens) rights. If government fails at this most basic of purposes, I fail to see how it can justify its own existence. Controlling our borders being one of my favorite examples.

You may see controlling the borders as a way to "rein in multinationals" by cutting off their supply of cheap labor. I see it as a way to maintain the value of citizenship and rein in the social costs associated with illegal immigration. They probably are both good goals and they put us both firmly on the same side of the issue. That's why I think we can work together.

Hope that helps...

The Paleo label also roughly fits my set of political beliefs. The only thing I'd add is that Neocons have a sister movement in the Democratic Party, many of which are in the DLC. They are the Neoliberals and their political differences with Neocons rest only on the margins. In brief, Neoliberals are slightly less hawkish in foreign affairs and little more liberal in domestic affairs. Yet, both believe in open borders, mass immigration, preemptive wars, and job exporting trade deals (though Neoliberals place more emphasize on the UN in achieving their global ambitions than the Neocons do--again on the margins).

On the national level Joe Liberman would be exhibit A of Neoliberalism and--some here may not like to hear it--but the Clintons' political orientation would fall into this group as well. Notice how little Liberman disagreed with Shrub's reckless militarism, free trade policies and out of control deficit spending during his primary run last year. Most democrats correctly concluded that Joe was nothing more than Shrub-Lite.

Hopefully the Democratic Party will not let the neo-liberals do to them what the neocons have done to the Republican Party. Neoliberals already have significant influence in the leadership of the Democratic Party and like the Neocons are turning the party away from many of its noble historic core principles. Both Neos are the malignant disease in the 2 parties.

:thumbsup:

somewhat sane.

I am probably more libertarian than you in the "official," sense -- I so believe in the free market, but only coupled with the responsible consumer and discriminating laborer -- which we don't have in this society. I'm a libertarian socialist, a federalist, and I am pro-decentralized government, but I believe in the "just society," and in civil liberties, etc.

You're exactly right, though, to suggest that the opposite of neocon isn't "Republican," because, these days, the triumvirate of the corpo-fascists, the neocons and the theocons ARE the GOP, and YES it is appropriate to say that libertarianism and paleoconservatism are the opposite of neoconservatism -- but you can be a paleocon, and not a libertarian, at all -- like Pat Buchanan and several others, who basically ignore Hayek and Mises call to at least "tolerate" the libertines in the name of freedom, but have made up some kind of pseudo- fake-o libertarian society that means there's not a state, but "we'll run the rest of this show in a patriarchal, oppressive, religious regieme." It doesn't sound like you're that kind of paleocon or "libertarian."

At any rate, it is here -- the discussion between the libertarian left and the true libertarian right that is the key to ending the Neocon-DLC-Corpo-Fascist hold on this country -- and our psyches.

People are confused though, about whom they should align with, and even what specific political designations mean.

Anyway, welcome to DU.

I find it very rewarding to participate in a thread such as this. I've been kicked off FreeRepublic many times for not swallowing the kool-aid.

You are right, I am not overly religious. I am religious, but think that there is a definate line between church and state that should be respected.

I am an Austrian when it comes to economics, I enjoy the articles posted at LewRockwell.com and get an Austrian / Contrarian newsletter in my email.

It will take a grass roots movement to change things, in my opinion our two party system has become too entrenched, they are happy with the balance of power they now share and are in no hurry to "upset the apple cart." I know this isn't a popular opinion here on DU, but I see Republican and Democrat as two shades of gray. Different to be sure, but gray none the less.

I'm glad DU is here. People here are more open (usually) and more accepting to dissenting points of view. I'm glad that I'm allowed to post here and hope we can all work together in the future to take our country back and make it ours again, of the people, by the people, for the people.

Hey, I'll admit it, I thought Clinton was the worst president ever...

Until I got to sit through four years of W. :eyes:

are also anti-environmental regulation; who are pro free market, are also anti-labor; etc.

Where do your libertarians views find yourself with most Democrats?

>The only thing I don't agree with is calling the opposite of NeoCon a Republican.

I didn't identify Republicans as the opposite of Neocons. Neocons are just one faction within the Republican Party; Paleocons are another faction. Others include moderate conservatives, the Religious Right, fiscal conservatives and Libertarians. The comparison I drew was between Neocons and the rest.

(And calling them "Neocons" is imprecise -- there are Neocons and Neoliberals -- but their ideologies are so similar it's easier to refer to them all as "Neocons".)

As a liberal I'm no great fan of the paleoconservative viewpoint. I'm sure that goes both ways! ;) But you're absolutely correct: Neocons are our common enemy. Their ideology makes them the natural enemy of EVERY red-blooded American.

Neocons are modern-day snake oil salesmen. They're glib masters of disguise and deceit whose allegiance to this country is based entirely on how much they can swindle out of it...and it's no exaggeration to say they don't care if they leave America a broken, empty shell. They're well on the way to that already.

Paleocon, do you have any sense of how many others like yourself are prepared to work across party lines to confront this threat?

I get a sense that there are quite a lot of people that are feeling left behind by the Republican party.

I was really hoping that Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich could have gotten the nod as the Democratic nominee.

I would have thrown everything I had at supporting Dean or Kucinich. I'm not ashamed to say that I didn't vote in this past election. I couldn't see the point based on the choices we were given.

Having heard the presidents inaugural address makes me want to rethink that...

I sure am. I'm an Independent and swing both ways (polictically speaking). But I'm more purely a social democrat with some libertarian views. Kucinich or Dean were my first picks, too. I settled for Kerry mainly because he wasn't Bush**...but that's another discussion.

The inaugural speech is niggling at the back of a lot of Republican minds, I think. They've been given a hint of things to come. We just need to find ways to turn that niggle into a migraine...provided the Neocons don't beat us to it by starting WWIII.

I have been interested to see how the William Kristol's of the Neo-Con world have begun to turn on Rumsfeld. It is like they are trying to scapegoat him by suggesting that their philosophies were correct. They were just poorly implemented by Rummy.

Time for people to understand that it is the very ideology that is fatally (or course not for the neo-cons themselves) flawed. I have done what I can to steer republicans toward the Libertarians. I think they are far closer to traditional Repugs than these power crazed bastards are. Do what ever you can to rescue our confused friends. After all, they have been lied to as well!



http://www.seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/main.htm

neocons. I think we would do better to treat them one and the same.

As long as the right-wing conservative males of this country love this talk of war, they're neocons, in my book.

These "NeoCons" have managed to capture the right and are framing the debate. Not all of us (conservatives) agree with them or want to be associated with them.

Wouldn't "right-wing conservatives" and neo-cons be one and the same?

I am a "right wing conservative" that feels he has been abandoned by the supposedly "conservative" party (republicans).

I think there is a definate distinction. A previous poster referenced Ron Paul. He is a conservative that can in no way be labeled a neo-conservative.

I think we have more in common with each other than you or I have in common with NeoCons. For one thing I think that both you and I have the interests of America first in our hearts. We may differ on how things should be done, but when it is all said and done we are Americans first and would like to see America at the top again.

These NeoCons seem to have much loftier goals. Goals that involve re-shaping the world in the image they would like to see. I don't think that is a liberal or a conservative goal, that is something else entirely, something that there are no provisions for in the constitution and something that when exposed should be charged for what it is - treason.

support a Democratic president who is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-Affirmative Action, right? We certainly don't want moderate Republicans, much less conservative Republicans, who are disfranchised with neo-cons co-opting the purpose of the Democratic party, the way that the neo-cons are co-opting the Republican party.

Things are already unbearable for gays & minority groups, that there is very little difference between a moderate or a conservative who won't support their causes.

Republicans and/or conservatives who see the neocons for the radicals they are can help get these crackpots out of power.

Then, once Straussianism is in the dustbin of history where it belongs, we can go back to arguing over things like the appropriate role and size of government. In the meantime, though, we do not have that luxury.

common-sense to pro-choice & pro-gay positions, without really threatening the main tenets of those positions have been met with fierce resistance. The bottomline is that they are adamant that they will not compromise to the Centrist-Left. And if they don't compromise to the Centrist-Left, how will they receive right-wing conservatives? If these people are coming on board thinking that they can influence the next Democratic choice for president, is this something that DUers will receive well?

Hell, at first I was for Kucinch, then I was for Dean.

Shows how much pull I have!

I'm just wondering what appealed to the conservative in you about Kucinich.

We don't even have the luxury of arguing the appropriate role and size of government. We are too busy trying to stop the next rush to war.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I miss the days of simple political argument and discussion. There is no argument today, there is no discussion.

I know this is DU, and I know when push comes to shove that the membership here will vote Democrat. That only makes sense.

I'll vote Democrat too until we can get rid of this current "Straussian" gang. Then we can get back to arguing simpler issues, that while they are simpler have more meaning to us on a personal level.

The Libertarians are horrified by the massive expansion of government by the neo-cons, and by the trampling of civil liberties.

Ron Paul (R-TX), a former Libertarian candidate for President, has been quite vocal about this and the Libertarian party has published much in their magazines on the subject.

We might save a lot of research time and find some valuable resources in the Libertarian material.

Wish there were more like him in congress!

Would you mind sending a copy of this to her? She'll get it out on the airwaves! It's a start! Thanks for this post!

It implies that they are New-Conservative's. To me they are just plain CON'S as in swindle, coax, cajole in a confidence game.

the theocrats support the neocons whether they say so or not - they sure don't stand up to them.

I don't think the "republican" party exists. It's become a party of theocrats, fascists, Birchers. The so called "conservative" within the republican party is under a cult like mind control funk. This is not normal what has happened to them.

Our problem goes way beyond political debate, we have half a nation literally controlled by theocrats and fascists. They can make them think ANYTHING.

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special25/articles/0531goldwater2.html

Conservative pioneer became an outcast

In 1996, Barry Goldwater sat in his Paradise Valley home with Bob Dole and joked about his strange new standing as a GOP outsider.

''We're the new liberals of the Republican Party,'' Goldwater told Dole, who was then facing criticisms from hard-line conservatives in the presidential campaign.

''Can you imagine that?''

It was difficult to picture, but by the time he reached his mid-80s, Barry Goldwater had become something of an outcast in the political movement that he pioneered.

Though he continued his support of a strong national defense, Goldwater aggravated so many conservatives on other issues that some in Arizona once suggested stripping his name from party headquarters.

...lots more at link...
____

Though I hope this helps divide them, it isn't just the neocons who are the problem and I don't believe we will get back to normal debate if they are vanquished. The whole conservative movement has morphed into an un-American movement. They are enabling the destruction of country.

The Republican Party started its death spiral when they got in bed with Moon in the 80s. They have been dragging the nation and the world to hell. That's what today's "conservatives" do.

http://cellwhitman.blogspot.com/

This is the fight that soured our politics. Barry saw the fight but he LOST this fight.

http://quotes.telemanage.ca/quotes.nsf/quotes/ffcc042fbd8c52708525698100716fcc

Source: Congressional Record, September 16, 1981

"However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise.
There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.'

Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' "

I really doubt the religious right would have the power it does now without the Neocons first clearing the way for them by framing 9/11 as a Holy War. Hard as they tried to deny it (not very), that WAS the message and it got through. To both sides, unfortunately.

I've been thinking that the best way to stop Bush from blowing up the world is to get the non-nutty Republicans to speak up. Maybe an "alliance" between Dems and the GOP foreign policy "realists" is the only way to bring this lunacy to an end.

There are signs of a GOP split (see this LA Times article describing neocon/realist rift):
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&e=3&u=/latimests/bushpullsneoconsoutoftheshadows

Also, I think Bush's wacko Inaugural speech may have scared the living &%$#@ out of many people. Some media pundits and even Peggy Noonan have been speaking out:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1519184&mesg_id=1519184

Good Lord, I hope I'm not just imagining that people are finally starting to WAKE UP.

which is to point out that the republican party IS the neocons, that the tom delays of the world run the party, that since the tom delay's of the world run the part anerica is faced with a choice--living under laws and policies fashioned by the tom delays of the world or voting democratic.

If we can succesfully make that argument the split in the gop will happen on it's own.

GOP cohesion has enabled everything we are now suffering from. They all must pay for putting the country in this condition. Don't let any Republican escape responsibility for this mess...

:spank::puke::hurts::spank::puke::hurts::spank::puke::hurts::spank::puke::hurts::spank::puke::hurts::spank::puke::hurts:

I said in my post above that the GOP IS the neocon, corpo-fascist, theocrat faction. I still haven't quite figured out the exact alignment, but they far outnumber the moderates and the libertarians and paleocons in the leadership and control of the party. Pardon my french, but I think most of the constituents are just tres stupide, and have no clue about who/what is in charge of the GOP.

When I refer to Republicans in my initial post I mean constituents, not government officials. I don't give a damn about any GOP official who hasn't spoken out against the direction BushCo's taken this country. The lot of them can burn in Hell. That goes double for the Democrats in government who've done nothing to stop this charade.

It's the constituents, the real Republicans, who need to be woken up. They're not all bad people just because they've fallen for the lies. I'd rather wake them up and get them on our side than have to fight them along with the bonafide kool-aid addicts another four years. They CAN be made to see.

We need to become good at what the Neocons do so well: separate the wheat from the chaff. Appeal to Republicans by constantly asking if a permanent state of war, a record deficit, a disabled Constitution, and a dire economic outlook is their idea of conservativism. Is this really their idea of America at its best?

If we focussed on 1 thing The Constitution
I think we would be seen as having a solid
Message for a good cause .

My opposition to bush comes from a Deep
Love of the Constitution.

This is a great idea! How do we start such a movement? Anyone know any Constitutional lawyers or experts to ask for advice and opinion on whether this would even be effective?