#neoconservativism

[makaiside]

Part 2 of 3 - The Emerging Coherence in Progressive Social Consciousness

[erebusvincent]

[robert-e-kelly]

Iraq 10 Years Later (3): Why the Neocon Theory behind the War Failed

Here are part one and two of this post. The arguments below expand on my second recent JoongAng Daily op-ed on the Iraq war. My first post on the Iraq War asked if academic IR had any responsibility to slow the march to war. The second tried to formulate what the   neoconservative theory of the war was, because many of us, in retrospect of a conflict gone so badly, desperately want to un-remember…

View On WordPress

[progressivegraffiti]

It’s Time For Everyone — Left, Right and Center — To Admit They Were Lied To About Trump | Medium

Here’s a great editorial, sure to stir discussion. “Rogue” journalist Caitlin Johnstone says to stop the hyperbolic attacks on the Trump administration, and to tackle the real problem: Neoconservativism.

“…Let’s face it, liberals and leftists: you did not get the Hitler 2.0 you were promised. You didn’t get a bunch of goose-stepping brownshirts throwing Muslims into internment camps, killing…

View On WordPress

[popthirdworld]

Trump, Turnbull, neocons and neolibs

Trump is revealing a lot about America, specifically the cracks between the neoliberals and neoconservatives that make up the Republican Party.

Neolibs are those who want small government and big business.  Neocons are those who want traditional values: nuclear families, no gays, no immigrants, more 1950s, less 1960s+. Neolibs care about economics and neocons care about social values.

Why are they allies? First, both (or at least their leaders) tend to be the same demographic (straight white guys). Second, because if govt and all its services shrink (the neolib dream) people would have to rely more on traditional institutions again like family and church (the neocon dream). Third, and more cynically, neocons are useful to neolibs for they cloak how radical their agenda is. That is, neolibs want to kill govt, fling trade borders open, destroy local jobs, give huge power to rich businessmen - and since the 1980s have been extraordinarily successful at it. But, at least initially, these were unpopular ideas and certainly radical ideas. An alliance with neocons distracts from just how radical their agenda is - how can we be “radicals” if we support such traditional things as good ole family values and church? And what do the neocons get in return? All of the power and clout of the neolibs which is substantial (neoliberalism’s big backer is the 1%, for less govt, more business power is their dream) and also a claim to being modern and relevant. Simply put, neocons make neolibs look traditional and unthreatening and neolibs make neolibs look modern and relevant. Like Ginger making Fred seem sexier while Fred makes Ginger seem classier.

But Trump is showing how fragile this union is. Trump is promising neocons big government. He will build a massive wall, he is playing up how neolibs have hurt poor white Republicans with free trade, he is promising he will take care of them with generous welfare schemes. He will cut welfare and affirmative action, however, for all them blacks, latinos and gays though. He is promising neocons he’ll fight neolibs for them, and they are loving it. It turns out these neocon Republicans’ commitment to this whole ‘small govt’ thing was wafer thin.

We see similar tensions in Australia’s main right-wing party, the Liberal Party (though nowhere near as bad as the Republicans, don’t get me wrong). Turnbull (a rich financier worth $200m who has a lot of confidence that privatising and freeing the market is a good idea) represents the neolibs. Abbott/Bernardi (devout Catholic/anti-gay monarchists) represents the neocons. As we have seen with how the Abbott/Bernardi wing are rebelling against Turnbull, it seems the marriage between neocons and neolibs here is also getting rocky.

[the-funtime-autocrat]

Scott Walker is out of the 2016 Presidential Election.

Considering this is what he said regarding America’s foreign policy during each GOP debate:

“We need to bomb more countries and get involved in the affairs of every other nation on Earth.”

This is not that unexpected.   

Then again, as I noted in my parody article on Wednesday’s debate, that is the foreign policy/”diplomatic” opinion of every current Presidential candidate, Republican or Democrat.

Even Bernie Sanders is a confirmed war-hawk. Only Rand Paul shows any sign of a non-intervention foreign policy and that’s suggesting a lot.

My article on the GOP debate: http://doctorfilmcritic.tumblr.com/post/129291036716/a-look-at-the-september-16th-gop-debate-by-dr

[sam-keeper]

I have a potential heuristic for determining the difference between Neoliberals and Neoconservatives

If your nefarious schemes are foiled by Captain Planet, you're a neoliberal.

If they're foiled by Captain America, you're a neoconservative.

I like this heuristic because it emphasizes the cartoonish supervillainy aspect to the whole thing.

[karstaagskookykastle-blog]

Neo-Conservatives, maybe we'd listen to you if, instead of just throwing a fit about supposed violations of the First and Second Amendments, you also threw fits about even more overtly egregious violations of the Fourth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, Ninth Amendment, and Tenth Amendment.

And I know most of you are only aware of the first ten in the "sacred" Bill of Rights, but there are also violations of some of the others. And you are in fact behind some of those, like your "anti-fraud" assaults on the 15th and 26th Amendments.

But that's right. Those aren't "serious" amendments, because those aren't the original ten God handed down to George Washington on two stone tablets or whatever.

Of course, you don't seem to have a problem trying to add your OWN amendment to a sacred document. Like that whole "ew, gross, consensual same-sex relationships are nasty" amendment.

And let's keep in mind that your "righteous fury" at violations of the First Amendment only flares up when someone tells you you can't be racist at work, or use your command position in the military to "aggressively convert" people to your unique brand of Fundamentalist Christianity. And that last one is actually really ironic, since the First Amendment is the very one that says you're not allowed to promote religion in your capacity as a representative of the government.

That's also the amendment that says you can't stop Muslims from building mosques. Just so you know.

Also, the Second Amendment was written 300 years ago, so you have some pretty huge balls to claim that it gives you the right to own assault weapons that were only invented 60 years ago. According to this logic, you should be allowed to own anything and everything anyone classifies as an "arm." So will this eventually mean laser rifles? Hypno-guns? Mini black hole launchers?

I guess so. Because GOD knew those things would exist when he appeared to Thomas Jefferson in the form of a burning bush and declared his unequivocal support for white people with untreated mental disorders to openly carry semiautomatic rifles in public parks.