Do we really want to give the neocons FOUR MORE YEARS?

Dr. Entropy has a good comment and I recommend you read it. I add that many of the more prominent Neos are former Trotskyites. Trotsky believed in the mission of world revolution. The Neos believe in the mission of the world democracy revolution. The Neos have done great harm to this country.

Lots of the Neos are also Jewish, and they have to answer to the charge that they fashioned their Middle East stances in order to aid Isreal. Politicians who level this charge at the Neos get painted with the Anti-Semitism label, but that is increasingly not working as the debate on Mid-East policy heats up and moves into facts not slogans.

The Neos and fundamentalist and dispensationalist Christians are close allies. The Neos are mostly atheists. They think they are using the Christians. The Christians think they are using the Neos. Both factions are heading for a bad fall.

I, unlike many of you judgmental ones that criticize without thinking, will give my reason for giving 5 of 5 for something i DON'T support (objective rating, how odd?). Neoconism, in it's inception, was a good ideology compared to the so-called neocons that, ironically, don't know what Leo Strauss taught. Neoconism (since it shouldn't be confused with conservatism) was an ideology that's roots lie in the works of many philosophers of the past including Plato. Neoconism was created because of the decay of any form of values and substance in life. It was around because of the direction towards nihilism (gentle or brutal nihilism) that this country was heading to. Many of the hippie leaders, without having any thing to look up to or anything to care about (since they were usually atheists), tried to find meaning for life, and a reason to live, by using drugs like LSD and having a view of nothingness (the drugs made them “feel a higher” power). This was the road that Strauss didn't want the world to go down. This is what Strauss was against.

One of the things i said earlier was that this ideology was influenced by Plato and here is an example: Strauss, like Plato, believed that leaders of the country (if they are good leaders) have the right to lie to the people if it is in their best interest. No, think about that a little since i know of your natural inclination to consider that proof that the ideology is bad. Though i don't support this, it is something that should have careful consideration because, since most all of you are conformists that eat up your “side's” propaganda, you won't see the reasoning. The reasoning is something like this: if the greatness of this country is promoted and the people support it and become nationalists, even if the greatness is fabricated to some degree, then the outcome will be the feeling of meaning to the lives of people that would be more inclined to become nihilists. Also the country would become greater since there is no reason to not care and give up, especially since the country is something that you would consider greater and more important than your epicurean attitude towards laziness. If our country was neoconic, there would be many good changes and life would have more of a meaning. Also, since we will aspire to greatness, the fabrication of true glory would no longer be necessary.

Neoconism's so-called followers are not true neocons, sadly. Neoconism is not for endless war but is for the uniting of people. The cold war escalation and the character assassination of Kissinger was a bad decision by followers but was only done because of the opportunity.

All i ask is that YOU be open minded and think about what you feel instead of the ideology that you have probably sold your soul to and blindly support. Your ideology probably calls for close mindedness, not directly, but for your need to feel accepted (look at this to understand your close mindedness nick2211.yage.net/chips.htm). I have not said all that there is to say so don't hold me accountable for this lack of content. I hope not to change your ideology but to make you think before your judge. Blindly following any ideology, even good, is just as evil ( if not more) as marching for Hitler while knowing full well what he stood for (history repeats itself). I have more enemies than ever now that i defended the undefendable.

The Neoconservative movement started as a well-intentioned response to the excesses of Liberalism in the 60s and 70s, and the take-over of the Democratic party by the 'New Left'. Mainly, they were just anti-Communist liberals who thought that McGovern was un-electable and Carter was a wimp (true on both counts). After the fall of the Soviet Union, the movement lost most of its members, and became something of a joke by the late 90s ('There are more neo-conservative magazines then there are neo-conservatives!'). A tiny group of remaining, 'hard-core' Neo-Conservatives (befriended by two influential, unemployed Republican bureaucrats) write a manifesto calling for the agressive use of American military power to re-shape the world, particularly the Middle-East. Who cares? Enter 9/11. The neoconservatives are ready, with a plan: first we liberate Iraq, then Syria, then Iran... While the neoconservatives really did believe in the danger of WMDs, and spreading democracy, freedom, etc..., it is now pretty clear that the two 'neo-conservatives' who actually directed foreign policy (Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld) didn't really care much at all about these things, were not really neo-conservatives or even followers of any ideology (unless 'powerhungryscumbagism' is an ideology) but just wanted to kick out Saddam, grab the oil fields, make a theatrical demonstration of American military power, and win several elections. Best to have a few (Jewish) scapegoats around to sacrifice to the mob, just in case things go bad. And they did. RIP, Neoconservatism.

I'm more of a Teddy Roosevelt guy than a Wilson guy. (There is a difference.) I definetly am not a lets ignore whats happening beyond our borders guy. I'm also with Barry Goldwater on foreign policy. You enter combat not to make a statement. You go to win and that victory is the statement. This faction seems to like making statements with its interventive foreign policy - and will tolerate a prolonged military action because it drives that statement home. I disagree. Military actions should be swift, well planned, and done with one goal in mind - victory. I also don't like this faction's comfort level with a big government. Big government = inefficient government. I say trim the fat and give it back to the individuals of society since they know better than anyone else what would be the best way to put the resources they develop to use. I do like the appreication of market forces though - I wish more people realized that these are not bogus creations written in textbooks. They are real. I also like the fact that this faction is down with making demands of the UN to actually do what it says instead of sitting back while it wastes good paper writing resolutions it doesn't act on. Hence the three - right in the middle - half good and half not so compatible with where I'd like to see my party, the GOP.

The neoconservative movment was born of the disenfranchised Wilsonian Democrats who migrated to the GOP when the Democratic Party became austerely committed to a highly individualistic sense of liberty devoid of obligation to the world in which we exist. It is marked by a strong sense of American goodness and might. That insists for the greater good America must transport democratic prinicples to the world. (This Wilsonianism has been augmented in the Bush Doctrine to include en jus bellum self defense paradigm) Domestically neocons, unlike traditional paleocons, take a favorable view of government. They believe the public virtues can be successfully promoted through an active federal government. For example if we were to address the problem of education and how to better educate our children the paleocon would argue that more public funds don't necessarily give us more educated children, and that education is best administered locally. (Reagan for instance attempted to dissolve the education department three times.) The liberal would argue that our current public education system is underfunded. The neocon would argue that because there is no market incentive in the system the the money is not being properly allocated to reach the desired result. They would then support a school voucher system that is more highly funded than the existing system. (Bush for instance to get pilot programs and NCLB functioning has almost doubled education funding in his 5 years as president) In the end conservatives agree on what the "ought" of politics should be and the means by which we meet "ought" becomes debatable. Such is the neocon-paleocon discussion.

Previously a label that was mostly used to demean a conservative, it now has become something akin to a "household name." Certainly many see the neoconservative foreign policy by President Bush and while I may at times disagree with the values held by this particular group I understand the logic and can find it respectable. Vulnerable to hordes of attacks (and protests...and rallies...and bumperstickers...and tounge-in-cheek reviews) but stands firm.

I really don't have much of a problem with the Neocons, except when they clash with rule of law in executing preemptive foreign policy. I think spreading Democracy is a worthy cause - as long as we understand that democracies can be as disastrous as any other form of government, under the wrong circumstances. However, neocon theory, as any other theory, requires competent execution - something that we have not seen with this particular administration.