Bienenhalde wrote:Fahran wrote:Questers didn't give an ideological description. He gave one rooted in form and function. I think if we contemplate the direction of American interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan and attempts to impose a particular sort of moral code on the populations inhabitting those countries we'll have a pretty clear answer on the association of the Bushes with the so-called Universal Moral Authority. I still hate the name because it's cringe but I think I get the underlying point.
Even in terms of function, I think it is pretty clear that neo-cons like Bush had different methods or immediate goals from the progressive left.
Does it really matter?
At the end of the day, the result of that kind of foreign policy is usually the same:
-Some weak, diplomatically isolated country gets its government overthrown
-Foreign multinationals swoop in and pillage the local economy
-Ten years later, a massive civil war breaks out in the aforementioned country and the warhawks in Congress start blaming each other for the mess on partisan lines
The intentions and sentiments of neo-cons and neo-libs are utterly irrelevant. They're both rabid idealists who are incapable of looking at the world through a pragmatic lense, and this inevitably means that they produce massive fuck-ups every time they manage to worm their way into the White House.