Posted on 08/06/2010 9:44:57 AM PDT by US Navy Vet
Last September, the don of neconservatism was put to rest. Irving Kristol's funeral represented, to some, the end of not only the man but also his ideas.
The obituary for neoconservatism proved premature, however. A younger generation of neocons, and aligned hawks, wrote President Obama that same month. "We congratulate you on the [wartime] leadership" the letter read. They urged the president to ignore antiwar pressure. It was the most public statement of support–albeit qualified–for what was now Obama's war.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Palin is supporting Obama? Or hawkishness? Or cut prices on crack, which this guy seems to have been filling his whole goody jar with?
Things have gone all to h*ll since they stopped locking up the loonies.
Define neocon. Then, I can comment.
ne·o·con·ser·va·tism also ne·o-con·ser·va·tism (n-kn-sûrv-tzm)
n.
An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s: “The neo-conservatism of the 1980s is a replay of the New Conservatism of the 1950s, which was itself a replay of the New Era philosophy of the 1920s” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)
neo·con·serva·tive adj. & n.
Apparently, you are not aware of ths. See Saint Sarah (along with a who's who of neocons) expess her "appreciation" for Obama's Afghan policy here.
Neither is this article. It's a mosh of ill-defined terms, bizarre statements, logical inconsistencies, etc. What was the point?
Obama has become neoconservatism’s ironic champion. In 2008, Obama’s election was considered the repudiation of neoconservatism. Today, the most vocal camp of support within the political establishment–perhaps the only enthusiastic camp of support–comes from Kristol's intellectual kin.
Really? Seriously? Goofy stuff, that.
All presidents should listen to all views. While Obama's foreign policy is based on a coalition of realists and liberal interventionists, he has listened to the neocons,
When Obama finally released his National Security Strategy he retained preemption as part of that strategy.
But, the neocons say that the US is the world power and Obama says the US is a world power,
The author makes a big deal about how Obama's views and the neocons views coincide on Afghanistan but it is really how Obama's views are the realist's views.
Ignore what the neocons are saying, listen to what Bob Gates, Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft, etc are saying.
Obama's view may coincide with the neocons views of afghanistan, but there is a major difference between Obama and the neocons over Iran, START, and the Polish-Czech missle shield.
OTOH, Obama's views coincides with the realist's views on Afghanistan, Iran, START, and the Polish Czech missle shield.
So you could say that Obama's foreign policy is a continuation of the Bush foreign policy, but that would be a continuation of the GHW Bush foreign policy.
“Unlike most schools of conservative thought, neoconservatives tend to be secular though some believe, as Strauss did, in religion but not god. They think it’s good for the masses and promotes morality.” Wiki
This is not me and I don’t believe this is most of the members of F.R. I refuse to allow my enemies to define me.
I am not a neocon. Any movement that had its starts with socialists and New York Intellectuals ain’t for me.
I’ve always heard it being used a pejorative. I’m a Ronald Reagan republican who draws much inspiration from Rush.
mmmm.....mmmmm.....mmmmm!
Oh goody, I found another nut. Or is that acorn?
Enterprise left you behind, did it?
Palin put an end to it after Todd started to get jealous over the hanky panky rumors
I think I fell down a rabbit hole ;).
Actually it is the "palaeocons" who believe in religion rather than in G-d. Their support of religion is based on two things: 1)social utility (the usefulness of religion as a conservative force in society) and 2)their radical relativism bordering on henotheism; ie, each of the world's cultures is sustained by its own tradition. Therefore there is no "one true religion" and any claimant to such a title is seen as radical, revolutionary, and disruptive.
History is full of such people: Charles Maurras, Benito Mussolini (after he came to power; before this he was radically iconoclastic), the Southern Agrarians (who also seem to share Obama's energy policy), and basically anyone who invokes "race" or "civilization" or "culture" or "the West" (or any other direction, for that matter) as rather than the Objectively True universal G-d as the norm.
Interestingly enough, third world national liberationism is merely palaeoconservatism for the "historically oppressed."
Oh noes! The Israelis have fluoridated her drinking water!
Strange joke there. What the heck is your point?
Neo cons have not problem sacrificing Christians on the altar of making money for their corporate buddies.
Of course Obummer would approve.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.