Your definition of "Neocon" - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

htperr6565 · #1 (**permalink**) 04-26-2007

Neo-con is a word that gets tossed around a lot. However, it seems that from most folks who use it, they don't demonstrate a real understanding of what they are talking about. So, i would like to hear a variety of ideas as to what 'neo-con' entails, including its origins.

ViolaLee · #2 (**permalink**) 04-26-2007

It's not a word that has different definitions. It's a group of people who are selfish and greedy and power-mad, who are destroying America. The neocons were part of the Reagan administration. Back then they called them "the crazies". They formed the group called PNAC, Project for a New American Century and focused on global domination.

Quote:

In 1997, "The Project for the New American Century (PNAC)" unveiled its agenda. It was quite simple: the U.S. should take over the world by military means during the 21st century.

The group may not have been well-known in 1997, but many of its charter members were: Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Elliot Abrams, Gary Bauer, Elliot Cohen and others.

Most were members of the Reagan administration at various levels. They were young conservative activists who helped write some of the diabolical policies of the Reagan years. Their power receded slightly under George Bush I and more under Bill Clinton. In fact, the Republican Party of the early 1990s evaded them and nicknamed them "The Crazies."

When George Bush II was appointed president of the U.S. in 2000, The Crazies came out of hiding. They were given the new moniker of "neoconservatives" or "neocons." Bush immediately began appointing them to positions in the new government. They were the same names, but with different titles. Rumsfeld was secretary of defense and Cheney was vice-president. Wolfowitz became Rumsfeld’s assistant. Elliot Abrams was given another title, but his duties were the same as under Reagan: keep a low profile but initiate and implement vile activities.

The chart accompanying this article shows the names and government positions of signers of the PNAC as well as excerpts from a letter they sent to Clinton in 1998 advising him to attack Iraq.

Despite the Republican election losses of 2006, The Crazies are still calling the shots, especially in foreign policy. They surround Bush and pump their ideology to him and he, in turn, passes it on to the public.

These people may be crazy, but they are not stupid. They have found and exploited the ethnocentric nerve that runs through many Americans. When the discussion about military intervention, or economic sanctions arises, most Americans accept the decision and allow the leaders to enact their vile policies.

4um: THE "CRAZIES" TAKE OVER (PNAC chart)

Scott Ritter, UN weapons inspecter describes them well:

Quote:

Raw Story: Okay, so now to Congress. They approved the war. I know we have discussed the post-9/11 reality and the pressure of not seeming unpatriotic.

Ritter: Yes, but they also approved the war because Congress had been locked into a corner by the NeoCons in 1998. Our policy in Iraq since 1991 has been regime change.

How many times did G H. W. Bush have to say “we will not remove sanctions until Saddam is removed from power?” Bill Clinton inherited this policy of regime change, but the Bush policy was not an active policy, it was a passive policy to strangle, as it were, Saddam. It was not our policy to take him out through military strength. Saddam, however, was able to out-maneuver this policy, he did not get weaker he got stronger. The NeoCons played on the political implications of this, to box the Clinton administration and Congress into a corner.

When you declare Saddam to be a threat with WMDs and then do nothing, you have a political problem. The NeoCons played on this. In 1998, the Heritage Foundation, Paul Wolfowitz and the American Enterprise Institute… basically drafted legislation became the Iraq liberation act. This is public law. So when people ask why did Congress vote for the current war in Iraq, it is simply that they had already voted for it in 1998, they were trapped by their own vote.

Raw Story: So your implication is that in our current foreign policy the NeoCons have set the tone via thinktanks or supposed thinktanks?

Ritter: Yes. Look at who funds the American Enterprise Institute, and the Heritage Foundation, and I think you’ll have your answer.

The American Heritage Leninist

Raw Story: What do you think these institutions are trying to achieve? I know the public claim is conservative values, but there is a some speculation regarding what appears more like Leninist, even Trotskyite values, especially given the current domestic government involvement and control or attempt at control of almost every facet of society, economy, family, etc. Even the term Leninist was used by the Heritage Foundation to describe their approach to Social Security during the 1980’s (read it here - PDF).

Ritter: A high level source, a NeoCon at that, within the system has said to me directly that “John’s Bolton job is to destroy the UN, Rice’s job is to destroy the State Department’s and replace it with a vehicle of facilitation for making the Pentagon’s national security policy.”

Raw Story: And what of Karen Hughes’ appointment?

Ritter: Hughes she is a salesperson; she will sell the policy. She is irrelevant. She is nothing. Her appointment means nothing. Rice has already capitulated to the Pentagon and the White House, and Hughes’ appointment is but a manifestation of that larger reality.

The NeoCons are parasites. They build nothing. They bring nothing. They don’t have a foundation. They don’t stand for business. They don’t stand for ideology. They use a host to facilitate and grow their own power. They are parasites that latch onto oil until is no longer convenient. They latch on to Democracy until it is no longer convenient.

Rice’s appointment to the State Department is simply to reshape it into a NeoCon vehicle.

Raw Story: Why the State Department? Why Rice?

Ritter: The State Department still has free thinkers in it. Rice is a dilettante. Anyone who was there during the Reagan era and her advising on Soviet policy knows how inept she is. She is not there because she is a brilliant Secretary of State.

The media has bought into this, because the NeoCons cleverly put a woman, an African American woman at that, into this position. So when Rice goes abroad, people do not look at the stupid things she says, they look at what she was wearing and such.

‘Godless people who want power, nothing more’

Raw Story: So you believe the NeoCons are elitist parasites?

Ritter: Yes, elitism is the perfect term.

Raw Story: Do you consider it localized or global elitism?

Ritter: The NeoCons believe in what they think is a noble truth, power of the few, the select few. These are godless people who want power, nothing more. They do not have a country or an allegiance, they have an agenda. These people might hold American passports, but they are not Americans because they do not believe in the Constitution. They believe in the power of the few, not a government for or by the people. They are a few and their agenda is global.

Raw Story: You suggest the Republican Party is simply an organizational host. Is there any vestige left of the host or has the entire party been devoured?

Ritter: The Republicans have been neutered by the NeoCons

Raw Story: Your concept of NeoCons seems confusing because, using your host/parasite paradigm, they cannot tell between the host and the parasite which invades it.

Ritter: I know people who have worked for George H. W. Bush, both when he was Vice President and President. Bush Sr. called the NeoCons the “crazies in the basement.” I think it is dangerous to confuse the two, because there are Americans who love their country and are conservatives who do not support what is going on. Until the host rejects the parasite, it is difficult to separate the two. Brent Scowcroft for example is not a NeoCon, yet people call him one. Scowcroft worked hard to reign in the “crazies in the basement,” as did Reagan.

Raw Story: Many have defined the NeoCon movement based on the highly intellectual, albeit warped, musings of Strauss and Bloom. Yet one could hardly call the current leadership intellectual or even capable of digesting this philosophy. Even NeoCon thinkers are jumping off the ship. Do you believe this is simply trickle-down Machiavellianism in much the same way that Communism trickled down as an aberration of its original intent?

Ritter: No plan survives initial contact with the enemy. The NeoCon ideology was always hypothetical in its pure application until now. What we are seeing today is what happens when theory (bad theory at that) makes contact with reality. You get chaos, through which the NeoCons are now trying to navigate.

Raw Story: Is Karl Rove a NeoCon?

Ritter: Karl Rove is not part of the neo-conservative master group; he is a host.

Raw Story: Then who is in steering the ship?

Ritter: An oligarchy of ‘public servant’ classes who are drawn from business, and serve naked economic interests. This is true whether you are Democrat or Republican.

Patriot Enactment

Raw Story: Several insiders have expressed concern over possible oil shortage riots. Would the Patriot Act be put to use, in your opinion, to address such riots?

Ritter: [The Patriot Act] is simply the NeoCons putting their judicial agenda in place by other means. It was a compilation of all of the conservative initiatives, not NeoCon initiatives, which the conservative Republicans have been pushing for, including a more conservative law enforcement element.

This is not unhealthy as long is it is done properly, through legislation, proper channels of debate and discourse. A lot of this had been submitted in the past, but was rejected. After 9/11 all of these initiatives were lumped together.

There are some things in the Patriot Act I agree with, but the Patriot Act requires a responsible society. The NeoCons they have no interest in a responsible society; they simply used the conservatives as a vehicle to push an agenda to assault the individual civil liberties.

As the Patriot Act is now, how it came about, is entirely un-American. It is extreme legislation that does nothing to address the issues it professes to, but moreover, it is as an existing law, un-American. What makes it un-American is that no one read it before they voted for it. So the process was un-American, and the motivation behind it was un-American. We cannot have a nation that is governed by fear. The patriot act is un-American simply because it exists.

Raw Story: So how do citizens address this situation since the very means of addressing it via Congress seem to have been closed off?

Ritter: Congress has ceased to function as a viable tool of government. What is needed is for leaders of honor to resign in protest.

Raw Story: I have had this conversation some in Congress and have asked about their thoughts on shutting down Congress and cleaning house. Their counter is that they are afraid to “leave the crazies in control.”

Ritter: They are already in control. If the people want to heal this country, the people have to purge the failing of this country. Vote them out, it might take two or three cycles, but it will happen and it will take time.

Everyone who voted for the war in Iraq should be voted out of office because it violated the violated article six of the Constitution. Everyone who voted for the Patriot Act needs to go because they did not represent the people by voting on legislation they did not read. They have to go, regardless of party. They have through their actions decided who stays and who goes.

The Raw Story | A rational voice » Exclusive: Former UN weapons inspector Ritter says NeoCons ‘godless parasites’ feeding on the Republican Party

drgoodtrips · #3 (**permalink**) 04-26-2007

To me, the term 'neocon' evokes images of people with generally socially conservative ideals (though they may be neutral), but who strongly believe in liberal global policies of paternalism and hegemony. They also tend to be in favor of security and large government instead of individual rights and civil liberties. I've come to think of the neocon as being the polar opposite, ideologically, of the libertarian.

ViolaLee · #4 (**permalink**) 04-26-2007

Ritter said "Until the host rejects the parasite, it is difficult to separate the two."

Until the Republican party rejects these neocons, they will be to blame for the destruction the neocons are causing.

ViolaLee · #5 (**permalink**) 04-26-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

To me, the term 'neocon' evokes images of people with generally socially conservative ideals (though they may be neutral), but who strongly believe in liberal global policies of paternalism and hegemony. They also tend to be in favor of security and large government instead of individual rights and civil liberties. I've come to think of the neocon as being the polar opposite, ideologically, of the libertarian.

You oughta do a little more research and find out what the neocons are really up to.

metalted · #6 (**permalink**) 04-26-2007

its the liberal/leftist equivelant of the boogie man.

ViolaLee · #7 (**permalink**) 04-26-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by metalted

its the liberal/leftist equivelant of the boogie man.

They certainly are evil.

Quote:

Ritter: The NeoCons believe in what they think is a noble truth, power of the few, the select few. These are godless people who want power, nothing more. They do not have a country or an allegiance, they have an agenda. These people might hold American passports, but they are not Americans because they do not believe in the Constitution. They believe in the power of the few, not a government for or by the people. They are a few and their agenda is global.

drgoodtrips · #8 (**permalink**) 04-26-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samantha

You oughta do a little more research and find out what the neocons are really up to.

You'll excuse me if I chuckle a little at your ironic condescension - I've not generally known you to be very thorough in your research of anything before flying off the handle with wild notions and emotional hyperbole.

Politically loaded words are intrinsically nebulous. Words like "fascist" and "neocon" are subjective in ways that words like "book" and "school" are not. In any functional attempt to define such words, you'll see caveats like "One school of thought is..." or "some scholars maintain..."

See that, I try to make information available where possible, rather than pissing on the figurative hydrant with backhanded insults in an attempt to demonstrate "top dog" status.

ViolaLee · #9 (**permalink**) 04-26-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

You'll excuse me if I chuckle a little at your ironic condescension - I've not generally known you to be very thorough in your research of anything before flying off the handle with wild notions and emotional hyperbole.

Politically loaded words are intrinsically nebulous. Words like "fascist" and "neocon" are subjective in ways that words like "book" and "school" are not. In any functional attempt to define such words, you'll see caveats like "One school of thought is..." or "some scholars maintain..."

See that, I try to make information available where possible, rather than pissing on the figurative hydrant with backhanded insults in an attempt to demonstrate "top dog" status.

I've read quite a lot about neocons and how they got started in the Reagan administration, I've read about PNAC and how they want to militarily dominate the world. I didn't mean to be condescending, but your answer was "in my opinion" sort of answer, when in fact there is an exact definition and an exact group of people that are named neocons, formally named "the Crazies". I take offense at your description of me. Yes I am outraged and angry at what the neocons are doing to our country. I am also outraged that you and other smart folks are not.

htperr6565 · #10 (**permalink**) 04-26-2007

question one: how do you know that the PNAC wants to dominate the world through outright military force?

quesiton two: who came up with the word?

Diuretic · #11 (**permalink**) 04-26-2007

I connect neo-conservatism with Leo Strauss and the people he taught at university. Strauss didn't like democracy. He was very much an elitist, in the Platonic sense. So, neo-cons don't believe in liberal democracy, they believe in rule by the elite.

I also connect neo-conservatism with the notion of lack of rooted principle in US politics. Many Democrats swarmed to the neo-cons when they surfaced. This facility for spot-changing is remarkable among US politicians, but perhaps that's best discussed elsewhere.

metalted · #12 (**permalink**) 04-26-2007

what i believe in foriegn policy wise would give me the label 'neo con' by some if not most liberals.. but i certainly dont believe in rule by elite or conquering the world... domination yes certainly.. by that i mean a continuation of the current order... america being top dog with a strong military.
i dont believe in killing everyone and nuking people.. or forcing people to become christians or anything like that.. neo con is such an empy phrase...

Nemo · #13 (**permalink**) 04-26-2007

Note: I wrote this previously on the discussion forums somewhere - which I saved - and, because the search function is turned off, I am reprinting it.
. . .

A true conservative is for limited government: “That government is best that governs least.” Under the Neoconservatives, there has been the greatest increase in the size of the federal government and expansion of its regulatory power in the history of the nation.

A true conservative is in favor of state rights and against the intrusion of the federal government into individual and private affairs. Contrary to this, the Neoconservatives are the first to go running to the federal courts the minute things don’t go their way; and it is they who have enacted legislation in the name of patriotism that represents the most invasive and pervasive intrusion upon our civil rights and individual liberties.

A true conservative is for a strong national defense as the first order of the federal government. The Neoconservatives, however, have actually proposed the most drastic reduction of the nation’s armed forces and dismantling of our military bases and installations since the end of the last world war, while wasting tax revenues on phony defense contracts. Indeed, their motto is: Military appropriations are spendable, military personnel are expendable.

A true conservative is for a balanced budget. Under the Neoconservatives, we have gone from surpluses to the largest deficits in our history. The greatest thing that America leads the world in now is the amount of the national debt. It will not be long before control of our national economy will be held by China.

A true conservative is for religious freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution under the Bill of Rights. The Neoconservatives, however, would turn the Constitution upside down and substitute religious dogma for our government of laws. “Jesus is Lord!” they shout. But whose religion will prevail, as history has shown, can only be determined by religious wars, followed by religious persecution. Our founding fathers, whose names the Neoconservatives now take in vain, sought to insure religious freedom through the separation of church and state.

A true conservative is against engaging in foreign entanglements. Our citizens should not be sacrificed on foreign shores but in defense of the nation from attack by our enemies. Nor do the arguments for globalization require that America be engaged in foreign wars. Yet the Neoconservatives have done just that. Worse, they are preemptive wars; wars that are being waged for the sake of private and not the national interests.

A true conservative would “conserve” our natural resources for all the people. The Neoconservative would “reform” conservation to mean exploitation of the nation’s resources for private business interests. Under the stewardship of the Neoconservatives, much of the great wealth of the nation has been squandered.

The Neoconservatives are not conservatives at all - they are exactly the opposite. They share none of the traditional conservative values they purport to represent, and practice none of its principles. They are, in truth, subversives who want to undermine the Constitution and destroy our democratic institutions. They try to hide behind morals and values they do not share. They have nothing to offer but vicious selfishness, rapacious greed and callous meanspiritedness.

emptypepsi · #14 (**permalink**) 04-26-2007

I don't know. I've sort of envisioned a Neo-con as being something along the lines of what goodtrips has described, yet for some reason always being mixed up for a conservative. However, I do not claim to 'know' everything about that a Neo-con is. That doesn't mean I'm any less outraged than anybody else at what goes on in their circles, but if you ask what the definition of a 'liberal' is or what a 'conservative' is to 10 different people of each persuasion, you'll get 10 different answers. Political philosophy is a bit more complex than "it's this, this, and this and that's final".

emptypepsi · #15 (**permalink**) 04-26-2007

Nemo has a nice, succint description up above.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode