Neo-Conservatism

[Californian Mod Haters]

Why do many people support an ideology that effects them (and their kin) in a negative way?

[RoI3]

Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America...

Stopped reading after that.

[Rhinoplastiasts]

Why do many people support an ideology that effects them (and their kin) in a negative way?

I don't know why. I've given up trying to understand why liberals act the way they do. You were referring to liberals weren't you?

[Melkor Unchained]

Define "So many."

I don't think neoconservatism is a major grassroots movement. Bush actually got elected in 2000 on more of a paleoconservative platform; he just went neo- after 9/11. I agree that it sucks, I just don't think it's an ideology held by very many outside of GOP party leadership, and even there it's starting to wane.

[Lacadaemon]

Eh? They are just a bunch of trots that decided that discovered religion and decided bombing people is fun. I doubt that there are actually that many real neo-conservatives out there. But it has become a bit of a pejorative term so it gets thrown around a lot.

For example: I don't think Dick Cheney could really be considered a neo-con. He's just greedy.

[Melkor Unchained]

Eh? They are just a bunch of trots that decided that discovered religion and decided bombing people is fun. I doubt that there are actually that many real neo-conservatives out there. But it has become a bit of a pejorative term so it gets thrown around a lot.

You win.

[Lhenkland]

Neo-Conservatism is the new name of "I support that USA occupy the lands which have petrol resources."

[Melkor Unchained]

Neo-Conservatism is the new name of "I support that USA occupy the lands which have petrol resources."

Eh, it's not really that simple. A lot of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals; technically we probably had a more politically credible reason to invade them than Iraq. Iraq had more to do with an apparent Bush family vendetta against Hussein, and the fact that Iraq was within shooting range of Israel. If the above were true, they'd be calling for invasions of Saudi Arabia, Canada, the UAE and Kuwait next. Even when they were still in power, the neocons seemed more interested in Iran and Syria more than anyone else. Saudi Arabia has about a quarter of the world's oil reserves, whereas Iran has only 10% and Syria has much less. I think the neocon agenda in the middle east has more to do with politics than with oil, which is why I roll my eyes when people launch in to the 'blood for oil' garbage.

[Muravyets]

Eh? They are just a bunch of trots that decided that discovered religion and decided bombing people is fun. I doubt that there are actually that many real neo-conservatives out there. But it has become a bit of a pejorative term so it gets thrown around a lot.

For example: I don't think Dick Cheney could really be considered a neo-con. He's just greedy.

Literally true. ^^ The neo-cons are a very small club whose ideas have been rattling around for a few decades, but they only had the influence they did recently because, for the first time, some of them got jobs in the actual White House cabinet. As soon as they were booted, their policies started getting dismantled because they were so incredibly bad there is very little resistance to changing them (except from that sad bastard, Cheney).

I'm not sure if Cheney would count as a neo-con or not. I agree that Cheney is mostly motivated by personal greed, but I'm not sure whether his personal world view is actually that different from the neo-cons. It may be. It could be instead that Cheney is in the same "ends justify the means" club as Kissinger, with the difference being that for Kissinger the end goal was moving pieces around the geopolitik gameboard while for Cheney the end goal is his own dividend returns. That makes Cheney the more dangerous of the two bastards, as his motivation is stronger. Money, after all, is the root of all evil, as they say. That's just my opinion. But the fact is that neither of them seem to give a rat's ass if the neo-cons live or die, now that they're done using them. Still, Cheney's refusal to shut up already is confusing. Does he really believe that shit? Or is he just desperately trying to save military contracts that have not paid off for him and his friends yet?

Also, I don't think any neo-con ever supported anything that was against his own interest. All of their "pure ideology", when applied in reality, seemed miraculously to support programs that delivered financial pay-offs for individual neo-cons. Not one of them has lost his money or his insurance or even a cushy job, no matter what fuck-up his name might be tied to.

Maybe the problem here is that neo-con =/= social conservative. The social conservatives are "ordinary folks" who may or may not be completely crazy, but who are typically just regular voters who routinely support political programs that harm them -- kill their jobs, raise their cost of living, destroy their communities, etc. -- for reasons which are not obvious. These are the people the book "What's Wrong With Kansas?" was about.

[Grays Harbor]

Neo-Conservatism is the new name of "I support that USA occupy the lands which have petrol resources."

Eh, it's not really that simple. A lot of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals; technically we probably had a more politically credible reason to invade them than Iraq. Iraq had more to do with an apparent Bush family vendetta against Hussein, and the fact that Iraq was within shooting range of Israel. If the above were true, they'd be calling for invasions of Saudi Arabia, Canada, the UAE and Kuwait next. Even when they were still in power, the neocons seemed more interested in Iran and Syria more than anyone else. Saudi Arabia has about a quarter of the world's oil reserves, whereas Iran has only 10% and Syria has much less. I think the neocon agenda in the middle east has more to do with politics than with oil, which is why I roll my eyes when people launch in to the 'blood for oil' garbage.

very true. I find it rather amusing myself. It just makes for such a snappy, if ill-informed, chant though, don't ya think? After all, why should we expect folk to actually think out a complicated situation when pigeon-holing it into simplistic terms is so much more fun.

[Lacadaemon]

I'm not sure if Cheney would count as a neo-con or not. I agree that Cheney is mostly motivated by personal greed, but I'm not sure whether his personal world view is actually that different from the neo-cons. It may be. It could be instead that Cheney is in the same "ends justify the means" club as Kissinger, with the difference being that for Kissinger the end goal was moving pieces around the geopolitik gameboard while for Cheney the end goal is his own dividend returns. That makes Cheney the more dangerous of the two bastards, as his motivation is stronger. Money, after all, is the root of all evil, as they say. That's just my opinion. But the fact is that neither of them seem to give a rat's ass if the neo-cons live or die, now that they're done using them. Still, Cheney's refusal to shut up already is confusing. Does he really believe that shit? Or is he just desperately trying to save military contracts that have not paid off for him and his friends yet?

I see Cheney's ideological split (to the extent Cheney believes in anything other than Halliburton) with the neo-cons as one of economics and the primacy of 'free' markets. Neo-cons are only weakly support what is considered 'right-wing' economic views and normally acknowledge that there is a place for large government social programs (albeit authoritarians ones in line with their new found interest telling everyone what to do all the time) and regulation of business to promote what they see as 'desirable' social policy. Cheney on the other hand is an old school robber baron; the government should intervene for the benefit of his portfolio, but other than that it should stay the hell out of business. Similarly, unless Halliburton is administering government social programs at a huge profit I'm pretty sure he thinks they are a waste of taxes and a bad idea. I'm sure had he been able he would have stopped the prescription drug benefit that the neo-cons in the Bush admin backed.

I also get the feeling that they split on their views of religion, which is important to the neo-cons. I really think Cheney is an atheist, or agnostic at least, and doesn't give a crap as long as it doesn't affect his portfolio.

As for him not shutting up I think it's to do with internal Republican party politics and his faction within it. He was eclipsed by Paulson in the last years of the Bush administration (Paulson is a far more able robber baron I guess), and I think this is about making sure his friends keep a place at the feasting table in the event the R's regain power. (Which they will b/c it's a two party system and that's how it rolls). I'm just speculating of course. Maybe he's finally gone mad. Anything is possible.

[Muravyets]

I'm not sure if Cheney would count as a neo-con or not. I agree that Cheney is mostly motivated by personal greed, but I'm not sure whether his personal world view is actually that different from the neo-cons. It may be. It could be instead that Cheney is in the same "ends justify the means" club as Kissinger, with the difference being that for Kissinger the end goal was moving pieces around the geopolitik gameboard while for Cheney the end goal is his own dividend returns. That makes Cheney the more dangerous of the two bastards, as his motivation is stronger. Money, after all, is the root of all evil, as they say. That's just my opinion. But the fact is that neither of them seem to give a rat's ass if the neo-cons live or die, now that they're done using them. Still, Cheney's refusal to shut up already is confusing. Does he really believe that shit? Or is he just desperately trying to save military contracts that have not paid off for him and his friends yet?

I see Cheney's ideological split (to the extent Cheney believes in anything other than Halliburton) with the neo-cons as one of economics and the primacy of 'free' markets. Neo-cons are only weakly support what is considered 'right-wing' economic views and normally acknowledge that there is a place for large government social programs (albeit authoritarians ones in line with their new found interest telling everyone what to do all the time) and regulation of business to promote what they see as 'desirable' social policy. Cheney on the other hand is an old school robber baron; the government should intervene for the benefit of his portfolio, but other than that it should stay the hell out of business. Similarly, unless Halliburton is administering government social programs at a huge profit I'm pretty sure he thinks they are a waste of taxes and a bad idea. I'm sure had he been able he would have stopped the prescription drug benefit that the neo-cons in the Bush admin backed.

I also get the feeling that they split on their views of religion, which is important to the neo-cons. I really think Cheney is an atheist, or agnostic at least, and doesn't give a crap as long as it doesn't affect his portfolio.

As for him not shutting up I think it's to do with internal Republican party politics and his faction within it. He was eclipsed by Paulson in the last years of the Bush administration (Paulson is a far more able robber baron I guess), and I think this is about making sure his friends keep a place at the feasting table in the event the R's regain power. (Which they will b/c it's a two party system and that's how it rolls). I'm just speculating of course. Maybe he's finally gone mad. Anything is possible.

That all makes sense.

As for whether he's finally gone totally crazy or not, feh. He can be crazy and still do and be all the rest of it as well.

[Northern Delmarva]

Why do many people support an ideology that effects them (and their kin) in a negative way?

What ideology DOESN'T affect people in a negative way?

[Bavin]

Why do many people support an ideology that effects them (and their kin) in a negative way?

What ideology DOESN'T affect people in a negative way?

Centrism.

[Jimanistan]

I'm personally hoping that neo-conservatism is fading from significance. It turned a projected multi-trillion dollar surplus (at the end of Clinton's term) to an even greater defecit. Just as well, adherants to that political philosophy also started an unjustifiable war, and gave the Invisible Hand of the market a... Free hand.

[Antilon]

Why do many people support an ideology that effects them (and their kin) in a negative way?

What ideology DOESN'T affect people in a negative way?

Centrism.

Lol, now you got the worst of both sides.

[Bavin]

Why do many people support an ideology that effects them (and their kin) in a negative way?

What ideology DOESN'T affect people in a negative way?

Centrism.

Lol, now you got the worst of both sides.

Dammit!

[Natapoc]

A neo-con is just a neo-liberal with greater imperialist ambitions then the rest of the neo-liberals.

[Tech-gnosis]

Why do many people support an ideology that effects them (and their kin) in a negative way?

What ideology DOESN'T affect people in a negative way?

Centrism.