Username: Password:
Welcome! Please Sign In or Register

Ideology

For the hard core politics junkie, there are few subjects as fascinating and passionate as political ideology. In this section, you can rate and review different aspects (and perceived aspects) of political ideologies related to US Politics as well as political ideologies from around the world and throughout history.

Top Members Lists


Recent Happenings

2 days ago

that was then, this is now. our nation has changed for the good. the founding fathers reflected the thoughts of the day. we have changed. they were not gods and they were all men-no women, no blacks or hispanic.
votes 0 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

21 days ago

votes 2 Helpful / 2 Funny / 2 Agree / 1 Disagree

22 days ago

Who put the con in Neocon?

Follow the money.

Perpetual war is extremely profitable for the military industrial complex, its investors, and those in its employ.
votes 0 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

24 days ago

Hell, I'm just pleased to see they believe in the existence of the prehistoric era.

(sorry, couldn't resist)
votes 2 Helpful / 2 Funny / 2 Agree / 0 Disagree

24 days ago

Neo-Conservative foreign policy is a curious mixture of Wilsonian idealism and American nationalism. The result is a foreign policy that is nation-building in a crusading, morally superior manner. They believed that Iraq was the "fulcrum" of the Middle East. Overthrowing Saddam Hussein would lead to democratic revolutions in Iran and other Middle Eastern nations like Syria, the Gulf States and even Egypt and Libya.

Turns out that this concept didn't have a whole lot of support in the Middle East, especially considering that many over there considered America's influence in the region to be overbearing. All revolutions need widespread public support, and support for America isn't exactly strong in the region, even with Obama in power.

These people didn't really have a whole lot of political support in Washington until after 9/11. They reached the peak of their power right before the Iraq War. They fell out of favor within the Bush Administration after the 2004 election, when their rosy scenario's failed to pan out. While their pundits like Bill Kristol and Charles Krusthammer have some influence in editorial circles, they generally lack the political power they had during Bush's first term.

What's so stunning about neo-conservative foreign policy is how blind they were to the consequences of war, and their brutish view of power politics. They used the soft language of morality and natural law to promote perpetual war in the Middle East. The quixotic aspect of their foreign policy is that such a strategy of constant warfare is costly, both in human lives and money. It cannot be sustained, both from an economic and political standpoint, as we all found out.
votes 1 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

24 days ago

After 9/11, it was the American people that wanted revenge. Supporting and arming a rag tag Northern Alliance to fight the Taliban or Al-Qaeda or whoever by proxy would not have been what the people had in mind, and to suggest the U.S attack Saudi Arabia is laughable.

Afghanistan (the enemy because they hosted the responsible party, and refused to cooperate with us) was the only logical target. The U.S should have declared war with the intention of obliterating (not democratizing) them, but we were more interested in winning hearts and minds.
votes 1 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

24 days ago

Follow the money.

Perhaps some ignorami actually buy this specious argument, but it's far more likely to be a pathetically weak neocon or neolib justification for selfishly boosting the value of one's investments in the miltary industrial complex.

Sure, constitutional democracy is generally preferable to totalitarianism, but you can't force freedom on people who worship authority here at home, let alone in some even more primitive authoritarian culture.

votes 2 Helpful / 1 Funny / 1 Agree / 0 Disagree

24 days ago

They are very strong supporters of Israel, to the point where they believe that America's interests in the region are synonymous with Israel's interests.

Israel is indeed a natural ally of the United States in the region, as it is one of the few Westernized parliamentary republics in the region. We should support them and given them aid when necessary. But we shouldn't accept that all of their actions are correct and moral all the time. Witness the atrocities that occurred in Gaza earlier this year. Here is a pocket of Palestine, completely separated from the outside world, with almost 75% unemployment and no functional economy, that was completely bombed by Israeli rockets. One of most miserable corners of the world became even moreso. Yet our government turns a blind eye to this.

In many cases, Israel's interests aren't the United States's interests. Indeed, we have supported Israel many times, when it would have been smarter to back the Arabs for various reasons. From the inception of Israel in 1948 through the Yom Kippur War to today, many times, we give Israel the benefit of a doubt and back them. While I do understand that we need to support a nascent pluralistic society in the region, it cannot be done without conditions either.

My point is that we need to be fair in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. We should mediate only when its helpful, but we shouldn't blatantly take sides in a conflict where we don't have much at stake.
votes 1 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

24 days ago

These guys completely bastardized the concept of natural law to support the idea of perpetual war and importing "democracy" to other nations.

Regime change in natural law occurs through the consent of the governed, it doesn't happen by an external power imposing it BY FORCE on a subject nation! That's against the spirit of liberty and the principles of natural law.

Everyone does have a right to liberty, but that outcome can only come about by the will of the people.

What's strange is how neo-conservatives twist language around to muddle or confuse a certain situation. America was attacked on 9/11 by a group of radicals Wahhabi's from Saudi Arabia, yet we use that as a front to engage in long lasting wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, two nations which never attacked us and will never be a threat to the United States. Yet we engaged in these battles all under the banner of battling "Islamofacism", another nebulous political concept that is an extreme oversimplification of reality. But now that Obama and the neo-liberals are in power, the narrative has shifted: the same wars are being fought (and escalated) under the broader rubric of fighting terrorism. The concept of fighting "Islamofacism" is no longer the raison de etre of these conflict. Same war, new justification? Is it just me, or is this nuts?

Never mind that we've managed, since Obama took office, to spread the war into Pakistan, effectively displacing over 2 million people in the process. We're stirring up a hornets nest in Pakistan, a nuclear power we simply cannot afford to destabilize.

But its all for good, because we're fighting these wars to bring democracy to the world. Never mind that America is a republic, not a democracy. Nor is democracy ideal, as it tends to lead to tyranny after it becomes unmanageable. Say that you're for pluralism or for federated republics, but not democracy.

Meanwhile we go around the Middle East, overthrowing governments and establishing weak puppet regimes that barely hold the legitimacy of the people. How you can justify that with natural law is beyond me, frankly.

I don't see how this is a sustainable strategy in the long term, nor do I see how it benefits the American people to fight wars that only cause the country to incur more debts than we can afford to handle, given the present circumstances.
votes 5 Helpful / 0 Funny / 3 Agree / 0 Disagree

24 days ago

If there's one thing I can't abide about neo-conservatism it the hopelessly quixotic approach to policy.
votes 0 Helpful / 3 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

View Next Subject: Miscellaneous Politics

Top Ideology Reviewers