Skip to comments.Confessions of a Neocon
Posted on 01/13/2012 7:47:07 AM PST by Billlknowles
The first time one of Ron Paul's supporters called me a Neocon I was insulted and hacked off which was exactly the response the name caller was looking for. However since then, the more times I have been called that the more enamored to it I have become. Yes....I admit it...I am a Neocon. Thank you for labeling me as such, all you napalm spreading Paul-ites who are the self-proclaimed "Defenders of the Faith", "Proclaimers of the Truth" and "The Founding Fathers Favorites". Your name calling has finally produced something meaningful.
The American Heritage Dictionary's definition of neoconservativism is "an intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s" and Wordnet 3.0 defines it as "an approach to politics or theology that represents a return to a traditional point of view (in contrast to more liberal or radical schools of thought of the 1960s)". Guilty on both charges.
(Excerpt) Read more at wearepolitics.com ...
Ping for later
This is the conclusion I have come to regarding the use of the word “neocon”: When “neocons” are spoken of in a derogatory or critical way, it is very often a “tell” regarding the criticizer. The criticizer is either an anit-semite, “anti-Zionist”, anti-Israel, or is repeating a mantra spoken by someone who is at least one of those things. It’s another permutation of “The Jews are controlling everything” myth.
I would be prouder to be called a paleocon myself. I would have voted for Barry Goldwater given the chance.
When I hear neocon I think of Karl Rove and Bush 43. I think of compassionate conservatism and nation building. I think of “big-government” conservatism. I think of “path to citizenship.” No thank you.
I prefer constitutional conservatism.
Here's why, and I could be wrong: Neocons, at least as far as what I know of them, seem to stand for big government initiatives and increased government powers when it suits their purposes. Now, you can be "against" big government and still be a-okay with the Jews, can you not?
Like a poster downthread, when I hear neocon, rightly or wrongly, I think of Rove, GWB, and compassionate conservatism. And that reeks to me of Big Government, just of a different flavor than that of the progressives. I don't believe big we can Big Government our way out of our current problems, no matter what its flavor.
I've never met a Neocon. I'm not even sure such cattle exist. But whenever I hear someone apply the label to a conservative, I iimmediately know that the person applying the label is a liberal or an anarchist.
the reason I believe “anti-Semite/anti-Israel/etc” is the right label is that when examples are given of “Neocons”, they are almost always Jews; Kristol, Krauthammer, Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz - and (apart from Kristol sometimes) they usually MOST OFTEN comment or are involved with FOREIGN affairs. In fact I cannot think of a name COMMONLY identified as a Neocon that is NOT a Jew. Rove and GWB are not the names commonly used when referring specifically to Neocons other than to note that Rove and GWB were heavily influenced by the Neocons (there’s the Jews running everything behind the scenes again)
The thing is the Paulites throw the term around against any one, and I mean anyone that does not embrace the pacifistic nihilism of Ron Paul. Many of them even call William Buckley a neocon. Hell, by their rules of measurement, Winston Churchill was a warmongering neocon.
I love that Ron Paul hearkens back to a Jeffersonian America. I love Jefferson and think he was proved right against the Alexander Hamilton types of his day that big government is the ultimate danger. With that said, Jefferson was an American Exceptionalist. He was NOT a knee jerk blame American firster like Ron Paul is. The whole reason he objected to foreign entanglements was he believed such arrangements would do damage to American republicanism. He really didn't give a flying rat's you know what about what it did to other nations.
Jefferson did NOT just engage pirates (terrorists) in transit but took those rogue states who supported them to task. This is why he sent the marines to North Africa.
Now as for policing the world, the idea that there is some consensus among any conservative faction is ridiculous. There are some who do believe we should spread democracy and that we can do so. Frankly I am not one of them. I have more of an Ayn Rand bent which is if they mess with us, let all hell rain down, but then leave them to sort their own affairs. Perhaps there is a small segment that does have this belief, but they would comprise only a small percentage of conservative belief, I would reckon.
There’s no such thing as a “neocon”. That’s just something the paleocons made up.
Paulites have always had a very selective reading of US history. The read it like a Chinese menu pick out the parts they like to buttress whatever crackpot claims they wish to make. People need to remember for most of the US’s early history Great Britain's Imperial policy and US foreign policy were mostly compatible, so we got the benefit of the Royal Navy. Freedom of the seas (the right to trade our goods anywhere we could sail a ship!)and minimal foreign intervention in the New World were UK Imperial policies which we benefited from. If we had had the naval forces early I guarantee we would have flexed our muscles more. Look at Perry's expedition, we had finally reached a point where we could project power to promote and protect American trade & lives, so we told Late Shogunate Japan open your ports and trade, don't kill shipwrecked sailors or we shell your ports. Also did that to Korea in the late 1860s.
Actually after about the 1840s GB was a huge free trading nation. Lowered its tariiffs, the very opposite of its economic behavior in the 18th century.
Very true. The great liberal (when that was a good thing) tradition.
“The criticizer is either an anit-semite, anti-Zionist, anti-Israel, or is repeating a mantra spoken by someone who is at least one of those things. Its another permutation of The Jews are controlling everything”
That’s not the way I’ve seen it used (though I won’t deny that some may have that in mind). When I see the term, it is usually referring to someone who is in favor of heavy miliary use, particularly with American occupation and “nation building”, but who is not particularly a small government person. Often these types will point to someone like FDR as someone they admire. I think a lot of neocons (or pseudocons) were formerly Dims who could not abide the Dims antiwar positions and so joined the Republicans, but who are pretty comfortable with big gooberment.
The thing I dislike about Ron Paul the most is that he acts as if he’s the only one that can interpret the constitution. He throws out stuff and claims its unconstitutional and was doing it again last night.
Talking about declaring war and how we did it unconstitutionally. Well Dr. Paul, can you please share with me where in the constitution that it says you have to have a declaration of war to go to war? It says Congress has the power to declare war. It does not tell Congress how they may declare war.
Then he made an off the cuff remark concerning tort reform. He claimed that the federal government has no business in dealing with tort reform. Then he said that the federal government getting involved with tort reform was unconstitutional. Oh really? Where in the constitution does it discuss the federal government’s role in tort reform? As Rick Santorum rightly pointed out, when some clown in New York wants to sue a gun manufacturer in Illinois because their product worked properly, how is that a state issue? That is certainly an issue in which the federal government should get involved. To settle disputes between the states. Completely within the spirit of the constitution in Article 1 Section 10. Which can be summed up that no state can screw over any other state.