I Used to be a Neocon

[Gorgo]

When will the rest of you neocons get honest with yourself and kick this habit?

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0527-25.htm

"Two years ago I was a neocon. I supported Bush’s war on Iraq and I called everyone who didn’t a liberal Kool-aid drinker. I voted for Bush in 2000 and I listened to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and just about any right-winger on the radio that I could get a four-word talking point from to use against liberals. I would say things such as "liberals won’t defend America," "shut up and sing," "freedom is on the march," and "you’re a great American." I supported the war at first because I bought into the lies and propaganda.
I no longer do. I’m a recovering neocon.

The fact is, the neocon movement is a lot like a cult."

[Chris the Chees]

What, in that case, occured which has altered your opinion on modern day politics?

[Gorgo]

I'm not sure of your question, but it sounds like you're confused by what I've written. I was quoting the article. I have never been a neocon, never understood why anyone would accept George Bush as a reasonable human being, never supported the 15-year war against the people of Iraq, never understood why anyone would accept people like David Horowitz or actualy neocons as reasonable human beings, etc....

[PatrickHenry]

Me, too, Gorgo. As much as we differ on other topics, I also can't figure the ditto heads. They are so brainwashed, I guess, that they don't see that their own freedom is on the gallows. I feel it must be attributed to the success of the system of indoctrination by public education, mass media, churches and their already mind-controlled acquaintances. Anyone who can think for themselves can see that the emperor has no clothes.

[Nono]

I'd say all indoctrination factors cited by Pat have had an effect. There may be an Angry-White-Men component as well.

[tinybear]

Who are the best known neo-cons in America these days?

[Nono]

Yeah, I smell a rhetorical question there. Will proceed on that assumption.
The reference was to "dittoheads", that great legion of American rednecks who couldn't debate their way out of a cucumber patch but know right enough when somebody articulates all that anger pent up inside them.

Them boys doan think, tiny, but they do vote.

[tinybear]

They must be in the minority though (aren't they?).

[Nono]

Quote by: tiny They must be in the minority though (aren't they?).

Big enough minority to swing an election, especially as the species tends to predominate in states with low population and correspondingly great influence in terms of senate seats and electoral college votes. (Not that I'm suggesting that Bush got more votes than Kerry, mind you. That's something we'll never know.)

[The Analog Kid]

When will the rest of you leftists break this mental illness?

Nightfall, Jan. 30. Eight-million Iraqi voters have finished risking their lives to endorse freedom and defy fascism. Three things happen in rapid succession. The right cheers. The left demurs. I walk away from a long-term intimate relationship. I'm separating not from a person but a cause: the political philosophy that for more than three decades has shaped my character and consciousness, my sense of self and community, even my sense of cosmos. I'm leaving the left -- more precisely, the American cultural left and what it has become during our time together. I choose this day for my departure because I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity with oppressed populations everywhere -- reciting all the ways Iraq's democratic experiment might yet implode.

This past January, my liberalism was in full throttle when I bid the cultural left goodbye to escape a new version of that oppressiveness. I departed with new clarity about the brilliance of liberal democracy and the value system it entails; the quest for freedom as an intrinsically human affair; and the dangers of demands for conformity and adherence to any point of view through silence, fear, or coercion. True, it took a while to see what was right before my eyes. A certain misplaced loyalty kept me from grasping that a view of individuals as morally capable of and responsible for making the principle decisions that shape their lives is decisively at odds with the contemporary left's entrance-level view of people as passive and helpless victims of powerful external forces, hence political wards who require the continuous shepherding of caretaker elites. Leftists who no longer speak of the duties of citizens, but only of the rights of clients, cannot be expected to grasp the importance (not least to our survival) of fostering in the Middle East the crucial developmental advances that gave rise to our own capacity for pluralism, self-reflection, and equality. A left averse to making common cause with competent, self- determining individuals -- people who guide their lives on the basis of received values, everyday moral understandings, traditional wisdom, and plain common sense -- is a faction that deserves the marginalization it has pursued with such tenacity for so many years. All of which is why I have come to believe, and gladly join with others who have discovered for themselves, that the single most important thing a genuinely liberal person can do now is walk away from the house the left has built. The renewal of any tradition that deserves the name "progressive" becomes more likely with each step in a better direction. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGUNCQHKJ1.DTL[/

[PatrickHenry]

Analog you don't have to be a lefty to hate the neocon. They are impoverishing everyone as they seek power. They are statists, just like the left are statists. You "conservatives" think you're opposed to the left...unknowingly you sing the same big government tune. The government is not the solution. It is the problem...

[The Analog Kid]

Patrick. I am not a neocon. One does not have to be a neocon to support some of the Bush administration policies.

Of course, can we all first establish and agree on what the correct definition of neocon is?

[PatrickHenry]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocons...ited_States%29

Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives may be characterized by an aggressive moralist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, and a greater acceptance of the welfare state.

Just a quote. Read the full article for a more in-depth understanding.
I hope you like Wikipedia. It is one of the least biased sources on the internet, IMHO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...oconservatives

[fedfem]

The neocons were originally liberal intellectuals. They are hardly conservative but know very well how to brainwash the religious, nationalist tendencies of the right.

They also know how to push the buttons on the left to keep them busy.

They are the experts at the carrot/stick method in use today. Irving Cristol--the original neocon--built a small but effective movement. Many of their policies employ the "ends justify the means" mentality. Most will succeed.

They are also the authors of much of the disinformation in the media today which has been so effective in keeping many of us busy chasing red herrings.

The biggest mistake they made so far is Iraq. Because these policymakers were rich enough in most cases to avoid Vietnam, their armchair view of war is skewed. They have slept with a few too many enemies in order to implement their plans and ignored the real intelligence analysts in leiu of those who held the neocon philosophy.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Analog you don't have to be a lefty to hate the neocon. They are impoverishing everyone as they seek power. They are statists, just like the left are statists. You "conservatives" think you're opposed to the left...unknowingly you sing the same big government tune. The government is not the solution. It is the problem...

Oh dear, libertarianism. The ideology of the 1950's, which died in the 1850's and had its corpse burned in 1929. Laissez faire does not work, end of story.

When will people move on from that tired, and obsolete failure?

But I drift off topic.

While I could articulate the flaws of libertarianism until the sun goes down, neo conservatism is even worse. It is the ideaology of the past, its very nature seaks to halt progress. Progress is of course inevitable, thus modern day conservatives are attempting the impossible. Notice despite all the whining of conservatives, nobody has actually undone the majority of the work done by the likes of FDR, etc.

[castille]

Leftists: Neocons are evil! Bla bla bla
Neocons: Leftists are evil! Bla bla bla

[Imudman]

Quote by: Gorgo When will the rest of you neocons get honest with yourself and kick this habit? http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0527-25.htm "Two years ago I was a neocon. I supported Bush’s war on Iraq and I called everyone who didn’t a liberal Kool-aid drinker. I voted for Bush in 2000 and I listened to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and just about any right-winger on the radio that I could get a four-word talking point from to use against liberals. I would say things such as "liberals won’t defend America," "shut up and sing," "freedom is on the march," and "you’re a great American." I supported the war at first because I bought into the lies and propaganda. I no longer do. I’m a recovering neocon. The fact is, the neocon movement is a lot like a cult."

Welcome back from the dark side...

[The Analog Kid]

Quote by: PatrickHenry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocons...ited_States%29 Just a quote. Read the full article for a more in-depth understanding. I hope you like Wikipedia. It is one of the least biased sources on the internet, IMHO. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...oconservatives

Thank You sir. I was pretty aware of most of this, Im just not so sure how many people were. It seems like leftists want to label anyone who voted for or agrees with some of Bush's policies as Neocons. I suppose that helps them keep their world nice and simple, just the way they like it.

Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives may be characterized by an aggressive moralist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, and a greater acceptance of the welfare state.

Honestly though, that sounds a lot like the Democrat party of 20-25 years ago.
I've always believed that both the Dems and Reps have moved leftward. This explains the shifts in voters going from Democrat to Republican. Democrats have just moved too far left for many people and their positions on many issues just do not reverberate with the mainstream. Hell, even Hillary Clinton came out last week and stated she does not support Gay marriage.
As much as I cannot stand that hag, she's not an idiot. She knows how mainstream America feels on marriage.
Yet, how many leftists on this board agree with her position? Will it stop them from voting for her?

When I read some turkey claiming Bush is an extreme right winger I laugh.
He's advanced the Democrat agenda in almost every category and has spent far more than Clinton did on domestic and entitlement programs.

As far as that definition above I agree with the first point, the rest I strongly disagree with.

[belverron]

Quote by: The Analog Kid Hell, even Hillary Clinton came out last week and stated she does not support Gay marriage. As much as I cannot stand that hag, she's not an idiot. She knows how mainstream America feels on marriage.

Stop capitalizing "gay." Stop capitalizing "gay." Stop capitalizing "gay." It only makes you appear ignorant.

More to the point, you think that the Republican Party is more in touch with the mainstream? The following quote describes the Republicans' platform in 2004. Jim Wallis is author of God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It.

Quote by: Jim Wallis ... Republicans wanted to restrict religion to a short list of hot-button social issues and obstruct its application to other matters that would threaten their own agenda.

It sounds to me only as if the Republican party is doing a better job of appealing to mainstream America. It mirrors the values of this "mainstream" no better than the Democratic Party. Just as a note, "other matters that would threaten their own agenda" refers to issues such as welfare and care for the environment.

Do we have a true mainstream today? The reason a forum like this can thrive is because of the rift between the parties. Are there enough people (a plurality?) in the middle to constitute a mainstream? How do we define this mainstream?

[Gorgo]

Quote by: The Analog Kid When will the rest of you leftists break this mental illness?

This article is filled with all the right buzzwords, like "Hate America" and "hates George Bush more than it loves freedom." As though caring about the principles that the USA is supposed to be fostering is hate, and the criminal attack on the people of Iraq has anything to do with anyone endorsing freedom and defying fascism. One can't read this and either lose brain cells or laugh.