| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/4 |
| 2004/3/19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12748 Activity:moderate |
3/19 Proof that we are morally superior to the neocons.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/03/19_neocon.html
\_ Couldn't you have just pointed to http://kpfa.org and gotten it out of
the way?
\_ I'm still waiting for a definition of "neocon". Other than "ooh,
they're scaaaary."
\_ I have posted this many times. Did you not see it, or
do you disagree with the Christian Science Monitor
defintion?
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html
\_ Hadn't seen it. I must have been too slow and missed it
before motd purging. However, how is this different from just
plain conservative (at least the "what they believe") part?
Also, how does this definition of 'neocon' imply the
http://democraticunderground.com link's assertion that neocons have
"utter disdain for any and all governmental social
initiatives"?
\_ I'm not sure if they call themselves neoconservatives, but
here is a statement of principles by the guys who everyone
*else* calls neocons:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
I would define neocon as someone who agrees with this set
of principles.
\_ "the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to
"override strategic considerations" -- Does that mean that
when Bush guts regulations neocons think it is bad (just
kidding)
\_ "neocon = jewish."
\_ I guess it's trying to distinguish this group of republicans who
call themselves conservatives but whose policies don't match
more traditional conservative principles, as e.g. Pat Buchanan.
\_ Pat Buchanan is NOT a traditional conservative. He is a
flaming moron. It's like calling Trotsky a traditional
liberal.
\_ Your frustration is understandable but the comparison is
inapt. Buchanan would probably be satisfied with the term
"traditional conservative". If Trotsky (or Stalin) heard
you call him a "traditional liberal" he would have been at
best...displeased. He would probably have tried to have you
shot.
\_ Inept. Actually their feelings on the matter are
irrelevant. Both are poor choices to represent the
mainstream of the respective movements.
\_ I prefer Trotsky to Stalin. Anyway, Stalin is neither
a liberal nor a real communist, actually. |
| 4/4 |
|
| www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/03/19_neocon.html Key to the neocons utter disdain for any and all governmental social initiatives is the absolutist terms in which they have defined success, terms under which no other public or private program in the history of mankind could be ruled a success. We have allowed them to describe all social initiatives as failures based upon the single fact that the problems addressed by those programs continue to exist. We hold no other program to this standard for the simple reason that it is foolishness to do so. They say that the War on Poverty was an abject failure because the poor still exist, as though the millions of lives made better, the multitudes of children better fed and better housed and better educated made zero impact on their lives. They say that we have thrown millions at these problems to no effect - the poor are still there. We have thrown trillions at the military over recent decades, and there is still war and rumors of war, strife all over the globe. Is the military thus a failure which should be defunded and thrown upon the ash heap of history? We have thrown trillions at healthcare, building hundreds of hospitals and clinics, treating millions of patients. Should we redirect all these monies, since healthcare clearly does not permanently solve the problem of illness? This is the neoconservative standard by which they judge all social programs. Just as the dollars spent on healthcare made millions of lives better, longer, richer, and more fulfilling, so did the dollars spent on social programs. The fact that people still fall into poverty, like the fact that people still fall ill is a constant of human existence. But it is a continuing need, just as defense spending and healthcare spending are expected to continue. We cannot fill every hungry childs belly just as we cannot cure every sick child or prevent every crime or every war - but we maintain our vigilance on all these fronts as a civilized and sane society. Every time you hear or read a neoconservative decrying social programs with a dismissive sniff as an experiment which has obviously failed, bring this up. Demonstrate the falseness of the premise so as to lay this relentless attack upon the decency of our society to rest. The beloved market being sold as a panacea for all of our problems by the neocons is absolute snake oil, as morally and intellectually bankrupt a notion as has ever taken root in western thought. The market does a magnificent job of maximizing profits and selecting products and manufacturers, but it can and should be expected to do nothing more. It cannot maximize human virtues or provide social justice - it is simply the wrong tool for the job. A shovel is a wonderful tool for digging a trench, but it cannot and should not be expected to be useful in painting a house. All of this is simple common sense, but the relentless attack of the neoconservatives whose assumptions are never challenged or debated in the press have allowed this false assumption to take deep root in our national political system of beliefs. Let us step back, examine the obvious truth, and plunge re-energized into this important fight. Let us take back the debate on honest terms as we struggle to take back our democracy. And the neocons would gladly and smugly watch them die in the ditch. Only we liberals stand between our fellow man and the imposition of a truly vicious neofascist system of government. We are the boy with his finger in the dike, holding back a flood of hatred, callousness and greed that threaten to swamp the nation we so love. It is time to recognize the importance of what we do, and time to mobilize to fix the dike. Throw off the implicit hatred of social Darwinism and proudly take up the charge laid upon us by every major religion on earth: we are our brothers keeper. We will be judged by our treatment of the least among us, and it is our duty and our privilege to take up this burden. A rising tide does lift all boats, but drowns those shackled in the tidal flats by the chains of poverty. It is the common-sense goal of liberalism to ensure that everyone at least has a boat, that everyone has the basic necessities to have a chance to make it. I, for one, am proud to uphold the only truly compassionate political philosophy. |
| www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action. Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. Believing that authoritarianism and theocracy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the Middle East, neocons advocate the democratic transformation of the region, starting with Iraq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily hampered by multilateral institutions, which they do not trust to effectively neutralize threats to global security. The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world. Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. What is the difference between a neoconservative and a conservative? Liberals first applied the "neo" prefix to their comrades who broke ranks to become more conservative in the 1960s and 70s. The defectors remained more liberal on some domestic policy issues. But foreign policy stands have always defined neoconservatism. Where other conservatives favored dtente and containment of the Soviet Union, neocons pushed direct confrontation, which became their raison d'etre during the 1970s and 80s. Today, both conservatives and neocons favor a robust US military. But most conservatives express greater reservations about military intervention and so-called nation building. The post 9/11-campaigns against regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate that the neocons are not afraid to force regime change and reshape hostile states in the American image. Neocons believe the US must do to whatever it takes to end state-supported terrorism. For most, this means an aggressive push for democracy in the Middle East. Even after 9/11, many other conservatives, particularly in the isolationist wing, view this as an overzealous dream with nightmarish consequences. Finding a kindred spirit in President Reagan, neocons greatly influenced US foreign policy in the 1980s. But in the 1990s, neocon cries failed to spur much action. Outside of Reaganite think tanks and Israel's right-wing Likud Party, their calls for regime change in Iraq were deemed provocative and extremist by the political mainstream. With a few notable exceptions, such as President Bill Clinton's decision to launch isolated strikes at suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, their talk of preemptive military action was largely dismissed as overkill. Despite being muted by a president who called for restraint and humility in foreign affairs, neocons used the 1990s to hone their message and craft their blueprint for American power. Their forward thinking and long-time ties to Republican circles helped many neocons win key posts in the Bush administration. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 moved much of the Bush administration closer than ever to neoconservative foreign policy. Only days after 9/11, one of the top neoconservative think tanks in Washington, the Project for a New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Bush calling for regime change in Iraq. Before long, Bush, who campaigned in 2000 against nation building and excessive military intervention overseas, also began calling for regime change in Iraq. Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong US leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants. Any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively, not "appeased" or merely contained. The US military would be reconfigured around the world to allow for greater flexibility and quicker deployment to hot spots in the Middle East, as well as Central and Southeast Asia. The US would spend more on defense, particularly for high-tech, precision weaponry that could be used in preemptive strikes. It would work through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations when possible, but must never be constrained from acting in its best interests whenever necessary. |
| www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership. As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests? We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead. We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership. Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences: we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future; Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. |
| kpfa.org Today at 1:30 pm Making Contact Working Democracy: Participatory Movements in Latin America As many Latin American countries are moving away from longstanding dictatorships, they still face the challenges of poverty. Structural adjustments imposed by the International Monetary Fund and increased privatization of resources characterize the region's economic policies. In response, peace and social justice groups challenge these policies by implementing the concepts of worker solidarity, sovereignty, and civic participation. On this edition of Making Contact, we take a look at workers movements in Argentina and Bolivia. We also investigate how residents of Montreal are using a citizen-based model of democracy from Porto Alegre, Brazil. |
| democraticunderground.com -> www.democraticunderground.com/ The Ballad of Lynndie England May 13, 2004 Once upon a time the king came down to the village and told the villagers that there was a monster living across the sea. The king said that an army had to be assembled, to bring across the sea to kill the monster. May 13, 2004 Conservatives, clearly an important pillar of Bush support if he is to still have a chance of winning in November, seem to be going rather wobbly on the old boy. I'm talking about real conservatives here, not the Hannitys, Limbaughs and other ersatz armchair faux "conservatives" who wouldn't know real conservatism if it came up and bit them on their Goldwaters. Accountability Lapses May 12, 2004 If what really mattered to the people running this prison was getting information that would be of some use to their comrades in the field, wouldn't it have been more useful to update the change sheets regularly so they knew who was in what cell than it was to wire up some random prisoner's genitals and stand him on a box with a bag over his head? |