I received several comments to this post expressing disagreement with my definition of a Neocon. I find it amusing that those on the political left throw the word Neocon around without having even an iota of a clue what one is. I know -- as does most of the country -- what a Liberal is and use it accordingly when describing those that subscribe to that once-proud tenet. That word to has been bastardized and forces one to clarify it with Paleo-Liberal as it applies to folks like Christopher Hitchens, who seems astounded at times what has happened to the ideology that he espoused. The Neo-Liberals are those who believe in the ideology of Kos, MyDD and others on the left side of the blogosphere who have changed the ideals through a perverse pretzel logic. They've taken the liberalism of Truman, FDR and Kennedy and made it the anti-American, anti-military and pro-despotic belief system we see represented by the aforementioned on a daily basis. To prove my point, read this vomit-inducing, puppy dog love letter written to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at DKos penned by a "lesbian Jew" who admits that the Iranian leadership would probably "have her killed" but hey, he's better than George W. Bush (in case Kos actually gets some sense and deletes it, it's available here).
Anyway, what is a Neocon? A Neocon is someone who once believed in liberalism and were in fact themselves Liberals. They saw what happened to the liberal movement and went to the right realizing that the liberal mindset they once believed was replaced by the anti's I described above. Neocon see theocracy and despotism and believe that American might and will should crush it. When homosexuals are stoned to death or raped women are sentenced to death by Shariah courts, the greatest country in the world should step in. We also believe that democracy is in fact paramount when it comes to social and religious freedom. Anyone who has read me on any type of regular basis knows that I am a centrist on many social issues. They further know that I am not an "Evangelical" or even a practicing Christian, although I am a Christian. For a great example of what Neoconservatism is not, here's a highly simplistic, inane description that was written by someone with less than a grammar school education.
Let's explode one or two myths about Neocon thinking, shall we?
First, several of the most rabid commenters are quick to link Neocons and conservative Christians. In fact, the word "Neocon" has been used by the political left as a synonym for "Jew" when even that is far off the mark as explained exquisitely here. Note that Neocons are not Christians or Jews but a mix of various religions or none at all. Neocons believe in freedom first and foremost for every living person and believe that force should be used if necessary. Neocons fought for freedom from the oppression of communism, totalitarianism and theocracy and continue to do so.
The next myth: Neocons forced the war in Iraq:
This, again, is highly simplistic. Yes, the so-called architects of the war include those who are Neocons; namely Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney. But to simply state that the evil Neocons forced the weak George W. Bush to attack is a view that lacks any credibility. Saddam had been in direct material breach of the ceasefire agreed to at the end of the first Gulf War. That war was never completed, only a cease-fire was implemented. Saddam joined with many well-known liberals to go around the terms of the cease-fire and earn millions for himself and many liberal politicians including Member of British Parliament George Galloway. Real action should have been taken by Bill Clinton, not just action to get the press off of the Lewinsky story for a news cycle or two. The rationale for war was there before Bush even was elected Governor of Texas.
Personally, I was a staunch anti-Communist and remain so to this day. Some say that Neoconservatism arose from the Whittaker Chambers/Alger Hiss hearings where it was proven that a high-ranking Democrat--Secretary of State Dean Acheson--and other leaders were not only supporters of Soviet spy Alger Hiss but supported him when it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was working in concert with our greatest enemy. Neocons may not always be proven right in their assumptions as has been evident in Iraq but our intentions are indeed right. You will not see Neocons backing brutal dictatorships or theocratic despots. Can the same be said for Neoliberalism?
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. "You will not see Neocons backing brutal dictatorships or theocratic despots." (Scott)
Interesting. Who backed Saddam in the 80's? (Is that Donald Rumsfeld I see shaking hands with Saddam!?)
"Neocons fought for freedom from the oppression of communism, totalitarianism and theocracy and continue to do so." (Scott)
Who saw fit to introduce 'crack' into the Black community of South Central Los Angeles and create a drug epidemic to finance so-called freedom fighters (Contra Rebels)? (See Oscar Danilo Blandon)
"Freedom of Information Act inquiries by the National Security Archive and other investigators unearthed a number of documents showing that White House officials, including Oliver North, knew about and supported using money raised via drug trafficking to fund the Contras."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras
NeoCons Scott. NeoCons.
vegastracon at 11:15PM on Sep 24th 2007
2. Neocons are the first to scream anti-everything that does not belong within the constraints of what they deem is the RIGHT way.
I find it particularly humorous when you try to apply necon to other religions when neocons are constantly ranting and raving that Christianity is THE ONLY religion of TRUE Americans. This is to try and counteract the way Muslims are treated by the masses of ignorant, racists that feel they have the claim to fame when determining the entire religious make-up of many religions. How Clinton was responsible for everything that Bush has carried on with.
Many neocons that feel they are true to their chosen faith of Christianity and it's true beliefs have more in common with Ahmadinejad than you will ever know.
I know one thing, neocon I'm not.........
rhodalee at 12:10AM on Sep 25th 2007
3. Hey, you forgot the part about posing as a Presbeterian, but actually being an occultist who worships a 30-foot tall owl in Sonoma every Summer,
wearing a hooded robe and listening to Walter Chronkite sing as the Pagan offering burns, and later that evening (after a few more Satanic verses) you negotiate your pipeline deal across Afganistan & Iran to the Caspian Oil Fields, all while the unknowing jarheads you suckered for $ 40 K are burning in 125 F heat dodging bullets from a rifle we arranged for an Arab steal from an unguared armoury after whom a fellow Neocon decided to hand
$ 30 K because we razed his house and killed his
4-year old... with a cruise missle..
They hate you for your freedom, Scott !!!!
Manfred at 7:57AM on Sep 25th 2007
4. Veg,
Take your Ritalin. You're mixing up conspiracy theories. Reagan was not a Neocon, either is Ollie North. Rumsfeld was sent by Reagan, he did not dictate policy as he was not in a position to do so. He was tasked with visiting the leader (dictator) of a nation at war with an even worse dictator.
Rhodalee, did you even click on a single link? Libs believe all the worlds wrongs are caused by Christians although there wasn't an Episcopalian or Catholic among the nineteen who attacked America now was there?
And lastly, my misguided friend Manny. That pipeline has really been flowing with oil, hasn't it? Yeah, it was all about oil. Your onto the great Neocon scheme. Your brilliance has exposed us.
Is this all you guys have? I'm disappointed in your attempts. I expected biting debate and instead got drug conspiracies and "Presbeterian" rants. Pretty lame guys but about the apex of your thought processes.
sswenviron at 8:59AM on Sep 25th 2007
5.
"At first the neoconservatives clustered around Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Democrat, but then they aligned themselves with Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, who promised to confront Soviet expansionism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative
"Take your Ritalin." (sswenviron)
Thanks. I couldn't figure out what I was suppose to do yesterday. I'll double-dose it today!
vegastracon at 10:51AM on Sep 25th 2007
6.
Scott, would you consider the following as being a (significant) part of NeoConservative policy?
(Circa 1992)
"There are three additional aspects to this objective: First, the U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role. An effective reconstitution capability is important here, since it implies that a potential rival could not hope to quickly or easily gain a predominant military position in the world."
http://work.colum.edu/%7Eamiller/wolfowitz1992.htm
vegastracon at 4:14PM on Sep 25th 2007
7. No Scott,
That's just a NeoCon who has had enough booze, hookers and fresh air in Monte Rio to make them forget William Krystol even exists.
Don't you think it is a laugh that the entire neoconservative "movement" was started buy a communist Jew. Gee, why is it that the Bushes clique makes money from the destruction of any people. New Yorkers and Mosulites?
I never said that this War was about oil. It is about the satanic delusion of fear which is the maple syrup to the pancakes of hate, murder, starvation and pestilence and a few $10s M from Taliban heroin production is just a nice perk.
This is not what our Christian faith teaches, Scott, so why do you think War is such a grand affair?
What is your emotional imbalance to side with these Satanists?
Was your mind control complete before or after the pugel stick to the head. A shit sandwhich, indeed, Gunny...
Manfred at 3:00AM on Sep 26th 2007
8. This is a very silly argument. The word Liberal encompasses a very wide range of attitudes and beliefs, many of them having to do with the practice of Christianity, many of them secular. To claim that Liberals all believe "the worlds wrongs are caused by Christians" is just plain wrong if not openly dishonest. Let's see: Martin Luther King, a devout Christian and a Liberal icon - to say nothing of the Rev. Jesse Jackson, and all the others of the Christian Leadership Council; the Berrigan brothers, both liberals and, my oh my, both devout Catholics. Then there is the Mary Knoll order of Sisters, very liberal, Dorothy Day, founder of the oh so very liberal Catholic Worker; an entire strain of very liberal evangelical Christians led by Jim Wallis of Sojourners Magazine, Tony Campolo and many, many others.
The debate between liberals and conservatives, or between liberals and NeoCons (arguably not conservatives), has never been between belief and non-belief, and is certainly not based on any hatred of Christianity as such. The fault lines have at times fallen along sectarian lines but the argument when it does involve religion has always concerned interpretation of belief. Liberal Christians, and even Liberal non-believers such as myself, have held to the lessons of Matthew 25 (often even they did not realize it), while the touchstone of right-wing Christians has been the verses that hold to being born again in Christ, while paying little or no attention to Christ's actual teachings. More Old Testament they. Try taking a tour of right-wing evangelical web sites and note how paltry are the references to Christ's teachings. They invoke his name sure, but the Sermon on the Mount, his teachings on the poor? Very little will you find. It's a different sort of Christianity, one based more on the personal experience of being saved in Christ's name.
To quote some woman you describe as a "lesbian Jew," no matter how misguided her affections for the President of Iran, and ascribe her beliefs as indicative of the entire spectrum of contemporary liberal thought is merely an attempt to pick a fight and has no basis in reality. All can play such a nonsensical game. Shall we claim the thoughts of David Duke as indicative of conservatives? What of that lunatic who blew up the Federal building in Oklahoma City? Shall we claim that since he was a right-wing Christian and arguably very conservative that he is indicative of the Republican Party, or conservative Christians? I hope to God not.
And as to to your charges concerning Saddam and his end run around the oil sanctions. You mention George Galloway, although he was officially cleared of all charges, but who else do you have in mind when you claim Saddam "joined with many well-known liberals"? Please name them, if you can. Nor, except for in the fevered imaginings of the extreme Zionist right, has the Left (another rather large and diverse grouping) used NeoCon as "a synonym for 'Jew.'" This propaganda has been used in an attempt to silence the left as anti-semitic and nothing more.
My problem with the handful of NeoCons I have seen in the Bush administration has to do with their clear contempt for basic American values, those enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They have little respect for the market place of ideas, free and open debate, and hew instead to the prerogatives of power, of might makes right. These people are not Conservatives in any sense I recognize, they are something else entirely and a very worrisome something else. Their beliefs have been shown to be so extreme they make Nixon and Goldwater look like liberals. Eisenhower is no doubt rolling in his grave.
I know of no liberal in my personal experience nor have I read any such who believes that George Bush was forced to attack Iraq by the NeoCons. Again, another boneheaded assertion. Everyone is aware that George was quite eager all along, as was many others in his administration.
You state, "You will not see Neocons backing brutal dictatorships or theocratic despots." The problem with the NeoCon foreign policy is that they put ideology before common sense and before a learned approach to a particular region. That is why their assumptions on Iraq and the Middle East in general were and are so cock-eyed. They acted on the belief that "installing democracy" (meaning in reality merely the trappings of democracy) as if it were a device for the living room was in of itself the cure for all ills. They ignored at our peril a number of far more powerful and overlapping forces, history, culture, and nationalism, and set the Middle East in flames. There were many liberal academics and commentators that warned of the very consequences we are dealing with today (and will be for many years to come). Their voices were ignored in the great blind rush to war, not just by NeoCons and Conservatives, but also by many nominally liberal politicians and the news media as well. It was what happens all too often: the rush to war, the flag waving, the all too powerful call of expediency, which affects not just those of any particular party or belief but all those who can't keep their heads and their courage when we most need them to. NeoCons may not support dictatorships and religious despots (damn few of any stripe do) but that is not nearly enough, one needs to know how to intelligently deal with rogues without setting off a series of devastating consequences, which the NeoCon philosophy has now done in Iraq and the ME. That is why we have Diplomats, why we appear to settle at times for half a loaf when it seems a travesty not to have the whole. Now I've gone on too long with this . . . Later.
Grif at 4:14AM on Sep 26th 2007
9. JEEZ a neocon is a conartist on the internet who makes false comments and false topics to incite a negative attitude and to spread rumor and malicious material on people.. just like gossip.. for the point of destroying people.. I think like anything else, one must consider the source of the material before taking it to heart.
Pam at 11:32AM on Sep 26th 2007
10. A neo con is a con artist on the internet presenting false information concepts and material and trying to pass it off as legitmate. Like anything else one must consider the source of information before taking it to heart. Theyre like bored gossip mongers with the intent to destroy people or events.
Pam at 11:34AM on Sep 26th 2007