sidesplitter.
What drives so many Democrats crazy about Lieberman is not simply his support for the Iraq war. It's that he's unashamedly pro-American.
what drives so many people crazy about lieberman is not simply his support for israel. its that hes unashamedly anti-american.
There could be something to this. Do the neocons "love America" in the sense of loving the actual homeland, while the dems "love America" by loving the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? In other words, do the neocons love an actual place while the dems love a concept? This would explain why the neocons are happy to trade any of the concepts (free speech, no unreasonable search and seizure, etc...) for a little more real word safety (anything to protect the actual soil of the homeland) while the dems (or at least the real left) would accept a few attacks on the homeland (even on the scale of 9/11) rather than trade away the ideas of democracy.
Is this why the right thinks the left is "soft is terror"?
Okay, yeah, I know the neocons don't really "love the homeland", but work with me here. I've never thought of this before and even though it is a little stretched, I think there is something here.
except the neocons are always touting their idealism and superior morality. its just about power and money. thats all they worship. the rest is means to an end.
the dems were accused of being soft on communism too (by essentially the same cabal) and spent the 60s trying to prove they werent. didnt work out so well for them.
how do you think the iran hostage crisis would have played out had the neocons been in charge? i know if theres any truth to the october surprise we can assume that power at all costs is certainly a primary tenet.
Power, yes, but they think that's the "right thing" for America. As for money, self-deluding types like Cheney believe that if you do the right thing, money just naturally follows.
That was in response to "just about power and money." As for the hostage crisis--I thought the neocons were in charge! (Via back channel negotiations that undermined Carter.)
For the record, the October Surprise is what they thought Carter was going to pull--getting a hostage release on the eve of the election.
that sounds very good jim. something is there. but it needs to be expanded to include peleocons or plain-old cons. republicans can freely shift between neo and peleo positions and still retain their base under that big tent. where dems will always be in a position of having to defend everything including the evil liberties protected under the constitution. maybe we need to take them to the mat over the constitution. the love of country, constitution and BOR frame.
Simplistically though the neo-cons and their republican allies don't love or protect our soil - They refuse to force chemical companies in large urban areas to secure their gates from terrorists, they allow industry pollute the land and water etc. I don't think they're any less conceptual than the left.
as usual, poorly constructed thoughts by me. and i added money to power without the caveat you raised but i thought similarly.
btw, im a bit of a peleocon myself. cant stand the paleocons though.
theyll wrap themselves up in the constitution while they gut it. then say something like we need a stronger military to protect our way of life. theyre more concerned with perceptions of reality than reality itself.
those contradictions dave mentions should be what dems (nonrepubs) focus on. "this is what they do. we dont do that." but then wed have to stop doing that too. or offer a plan to reform.
Juan Cole has a good thought piece on the neocons and oil. He's now thinking the oil companies want to own it, after he'd been saying they didn't--you can't just buy it anywhere and refine it more.
The Paleocons were isolationist--that idea is untenable now if our military power and "way of life" are dependent on grabbing a big oil pot "until we develop some alternative energy solutions." (Cole adds that last thought--I doubt any cons are thinking that far ahead.)
For the past 110 years the Republican party has been about power. They are isolationists in the sense of "don't get involved with other peoples problems unless we have a dog in the fight."
The PNAC manifesto spells it all out. In addition to being the dominant superpower on the global stage, they want to have a monopoly on the use of force in each and every theater of interest, including the Persian Gulf.
Bible thumping, flag protecting, hyper patriotism, gay hating, Mexico fencing, terrorism fear mongering, etc., etc. are just tactics used to gain an electoral majority. It took the anglo-american oligarchy "conservatives" a long time, but over the last 25 years they've perfected a set sustainable domestic tactics. In the face of these tactics, the Democratic party is hapless.
back to peleocons. its particularly funny because one of the nike ads that ran during the world cup had pele as an ambasador of futbol being grilled by a congressional committee for something akin to treason without due cause.
As I understand Paleocon isolationism, it's that the country doesn't get into foreign wars--the wisdom of the founders. The staunchist Republicans fought against entering WWII.
not quite what i was saying but along the same lines. The real reason the Vietnam War divided and discredited Democrats and splintered the liberal consensus was because - let’s not be afraid to admit it -- Democrats started that war.
Paleocons had no trouble entering foreign wars that were imperialistic in nature -- especially against weak opponents. Entering a land war in Europe or Asia was a whole different matter.
One the Vietnam front, the ambassador to Vietnam was a republican. I think the Dems wanted to be able to blame someone else -- although that didn't work. Kinzer argues in Overthrow that the coup against Diem (initiated by the US, but not at the cabinet level) put the US in a position of greater responsibility in the outcome of the war -- they now had finger prints on the war. Also, arguably the US involvement which led to inevitable war started under Eisenhower. If the US had let Vietnam unify (as was the plan), Ho Chi Mihn would have won the election, and that would have been that.
|
- dave 8-06-2006 6:35 pm
what drives so many people crazy about lieberman is not simply his support for israel. its that hes unashamedly anti-american.
- dave 8-06-2006 6:44 pm
There could be something to this. Do the neocons "love America" in the sense of loving the actual homeland, while the dems "love America" by loving the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? In other words, do the neocons love an actual place while the dems love a concept? This would explain why the neocons are happy to trade any of the concepts (free speech, no unreasonable search and seizure, etc...) for a little more real word safety (anything to protect the actual soil of the homeland) while the dems (or at least the real left) would accept a few attacks on the homeland (even on the scale of 9/11) rather than trade away the ideas of democracy.
Is this why the right thinks the left is "soft is terror"?
- jim 8-06-2006 7:40 pm
Okay, yeah, I know the neocons don't really "love the homeland", but work with me here. I've never thought of this before and even though it is a little stretched, I think there is something here.
- jim 8-06-2006 7:45 pm
except the neocons are always touting their idealism and superior morality. its just about power and money. thats all they worship. the rest is means to an end.
- dave 8-06-2006 7:50 pm
the dems were accused of being soft on communism too (by essentially the same cabal) and spent the 60s trying to prove they werent. didnt work out so well for them.
how do you think the iran hostage crisis would have played out had the neocons been in charge? i know if theres any truth to the october surprise we can assume that power at all costs is certainly a primary tenet.
- dave 8-06-2006 8:12 pm
Power, yes, but they think that's the "right thing" for America. As for money, self-deluding types like Cheney believe that if you do the right thing, money just naturally follows.
- tom moody 8-06-2006 8:12 pm
That was in response to "just about power and money." As for the hostage crisis--I thought the neocons were in charge! (Via back channel negotiations that undermined Carter.)
- tom moody 8-06-2006 8:14 pm
For the record, the October Surprise is what they thought Carter was going to pull--getting a hostage release on the eve of the election.
- tom moody 8-06-2006 8:16 pm
that sounds very good jim. something is there. but it needs to be expanded to include peleocons or plain-old cons. republicans can freely shift between neo and peleo positions and still retain their base under that big tent. where dems will always be in a position of having to defend everything including the evil liberties protected under the constitution. maybe we need to take them to the mat over the constitution. the love of country, constitution and BOR frame.
- bill 8-06-2006 8:23 pm
Simplistically though the neo-cons and their republican allies don't love or protect our soil - They refuse to force chemical companies in large urban areas to secure their gates from terrorists, they allow industry pollute the land and water etc. I don't think they're any less conceptual than the left.
- steve 8-06-2006 8:44 pm
as usual, poorly constructed thoughts by me. and i added money to power without the caveat you raised but i thought similarly.
btw, im a bit of a peleocon myself. cant stand the paleocons though.
theyll wrap themselves up in the constitution while they gut it. then say something like we need a stronger military to protect our way of life. theyre more concerned with perceptions of reality than reality itself.
- dave 8-06-2006 9:04 pm
those contradictions dave mentions should be what dems (nonrepubs) focus on. "this is what they do. we dont do that." but then wed have to stop doing that too. or offer a plan to reform.
- bill 8-06-2006 9:14 pm
Juan Cole has a good thought piece on the neocons and oil. He's now thinking the oil companies want to own it, after he'd been saying they didn't--you can't just buy it anywhere and refine it more.
The Paleocons were isolationist--that idea is untenable now if our military power and "way of life" are dependent on grabbing a big oil pot "until we develop some alternative energy solutions." (Cole adds that last thought--I doubt any cons are thinking that far ahead.)
- tom moody 8-06-2006 9:33 pm
For the past 110 years the Republican party has been about power. They are isolationists in the sense of "don't get involved with other peoples problems unless we have a dog in the fight."
The PNAC manifesto spells it all out. In addition to being the dominant superpower on the global stage, they want to have a monopoly on the use of force in each and every theater of interest, including the Persian Gulf.
Bible thumping, flag protecting, hyper patriotism, gay hating, Mexico fencing, terrorism fear mongering, etc., etc. are just tactics used to gain an electoral majority. It took the anglo-american oligarchy "conservatives" a long time, but over the last 25 years they've perfected a set sustainable domestic tactics. In the face of these tactics, the Democratic party is hapless.
- mark 8-06-2006 9:53 pm
back to peleocons. its particularly funny because one of the nike ads that ran during the world cup had pele as an ambasador of futbol being grilled by a congressional committee for something akin to treason without due cause.
- dave 8-06-2006 9:55 pm
As I understand Paleocon isolationism, it's that the country doesn't get into foreign wars--the wisdom of the founders. The staunchist Republicans fought against entering WWII.
- tom moody 8-06-2006 10:03 pm
not quite what i was saying but along the same lines.
- dave 8-07-2006 9:58 am
Paleocons had no trouble entering foreign wars that were imperialistic in nature -- especially against weak opponents. Entering a land war in Europe or Asia was a whole different matter.
One the Vietnam front, the ambassador to Vietnam was a republican. I think the Dems wanted to be able to blame someone else -- although that didn't work. Kinzer argues in Overthrow that the coup against Diem (initiated by the US, but not at the cabinet level) put the US in a position of greater responsibility in the outcome of the war -- they now had finger prints on the war. Also, arguably the US involvement which led to inevitable war started under Eisenhower. If the US had let Vietnam unify (as was the plan), Ho Chi Mihn would have won the election, and that would have been that.
- mark 8-07-2006 10:12 am