Posted on 06/23/2011 7:01:43 AM PDT by Hawk720
My father suggested to me recently that it might be helpful to better explain what the term neoconservative means. A lot of people dont know, he said. As usual, Dad was right. Though decades old, the mainstream use of the word neoconservative is relatively new. I mentally filed away my fathers suggestion agreeing that a laymans explanation of neoconservative might be helpful when the time was right. The time is rightas the American intervention in Libya has drawn a clearer line between neoconservatives and conventional Republicans than any event in recent memory.
The neocons believe American greatness is measured by our willingness to be a great powerthrough vast and virtually unlimited global military involvement. Other nations problems invariably become our own because history and fate have designated America the worlds top authority.
Critics say the US cannot afford to be the worlds policeman. Neoconservatives not only say that we can but we mustand that we will cease to be America if we dont. Writes Boston Globe neoconservative columnist Jeff Jacoby: Our world needs a policeman. And whether most Americans like it or not, only their indispensable nation is fit for the job. Neocon intellectual Max Boot says explicitly that the US should be the worlds policeman because we are the best policeman.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) heartily champions the neoconservative view. While virtually every other recognizably Tea Party congressman or senator opposes the Libyan intervention, Rubio believes the worlds top cop should be flashing its Sherriffs badge more forcefully in Libyaand everywhere else. New York Times columnist Ross Douthat explains:
Rubio is the great neoconservative hope, the champion of a foreign policy that boldly goes abroad in search of monsters to destroy
"
(Excerpt) Read more at amconmag.com ...
Neoconservatism is the belief it is our best interest in spreading democracy, or preferred form of government through force if need be. It is also what killed the Roman Empire as they spread themselves too thin trying to “Romanize” the barbarian world. I admit I fell for it under the Bush leadership (I followed his administration off a cliff), but now will oppose it going forward. The goal of war should be to defeat the enemy and/or take resources, not to build nations.
Neo-conservatives didn’t start out as conservatives.
They started out as Marxists, who then got disaffected by Stalinism.
So they basically oppose totalitarianism and have Messianic drive to spread American democracy everywhere.
Most of their policies have been utter disasters.
Americans need to stop worrying about what other people are doing and start taking care of this country.
We can’t even defend our own borders and ports.
We spend trillions on rebuilding countries who hate us, but won’t spend a nickel on the border or own people.
Neoconservatives have the cash for nation building abroad but none for our own people.
Yeah, that is brilliant.
Don’t you first need a Legal President to have a strong military?
Neoconservative = Interventionist . Anyone who disagrees with an Interventionist is an Isolationist. If that doesn’t shut you up, you will find there are worse names they can use to discredit you.
Hunter doesn’t actually know what neoconservatism is. He simply declares it to be a certain foreign policy. That’s bowdlerized garbage. Then again Hunter’s job at The American Dhimmi is to attack Neocons and try to get in bed with any leftist he can with his post-conservative shtick.
“A war mongering socialist?”
Ding-ding-ding. Winnar!
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.