• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who do neocons want?

Who do neocons want?

  • Trump

    Votes: 3 21.4%

  • Clinton

    Votes: 11 78.6%
  • Total voters
    14
I think Hillary is lot more hawkish than Trump.

My read on Trump is that our best weapon against China and Russia is ecomomic. And as far as the middle east goes, he doesn't see a lot of value in the USA getting involved. After all they share a continent with Russia and China and the Islamists will be more that happy to press against them than us. Both Russia and China deal with uprisings brutally. They don't have a lot of friends in the middle east, but they do have respect.

We have very little to gain there. We don't even speak out on behalf of Christians. So exactly what are we doing there?

What does Hillary have to say? What is her plan?
 
_Sal said:
so are you a neocon?

in my country we have three basic parties and at one time or another I have voted for all three...I am not partisan...I am fiscally right but I am socially left, I am middle for some things

I just really support whatever works for me at the time

partisanship seems ridiculous to me since it can never serve the individual but my country leans far far to the left of yours although some very right winged repubs said I was republican on some issues and I believe that is a Canadian "thing"...we are hard to define by American standards as many of us fit no mold

so help me out here...I am curious
Click to expand...

In American politics, we largely rely on social movements to influence the platforms of political parties rather what typically exists in a lot of western democracies. Neoconservatism was one of those movements, though predominantly an intellectual & policy wonk-dominated movement. It's so complicated that I should hesitate to associate neoconservatism with a "movement" since often the people associated with it were coming to similar, but sometimes different conclusions about the status of the intellectual, the education system, the welfare state, and foreign affairs, but nevertheless had no intentions of doing anything but influencing discreet aspects of social policy and intellectual affairs. You could have a socialist, a liberal, a centrist, and a growing conservative in the Republican Party be so labeled as a "neoconservative."

I'll give it my shot in a separate post. In my first few years here, I spent a lot of time trying to explain it, some with multiple pages-worth of explanations.
 
Fiddytree said:
In American politics, we largely rely on social movements to influence the platforms of political parties rather what typically exists in a lot of western democracies. Neoconservatism was one of those movements, though predominantly an intellectual & policy wonk-dominated movement. It's so complicated that I should hesitate to associate neoconservatism with a "movement" since often the people associated with it were coming to similar, but sometimes different conclusions about the status of the intellectual, the education system, the welfare state, and foreign affairs, but nevertheless had no intentions of doing anything but influencing discreet aspects of social policy and intellectual affairs. You could have a socialist, a liberal, a centrist, and a growing conservative in the Republican Party be so labeled as a "neoconservative."

I'll give it my shot in a separate post. In my first few years here, I spent a lot of time trying to explain it, some with multiple pages-worth of explanations.
Click to expand...

wow

so neocon = an extremely complex ideology

I think I fit already ;)
 
_Sal said:
and what is your definition of a trotskyist?
Click to expand...

In 1905, Trotsky formulated a theory that became known as the theory of Permanent Revolution. It is one of the defining characteristics of Trotskyism. Until 1905, Marxism only claimed that a revolution in a European capitalist society would lead to a socialist one. According to the original theory it was impossible for such to occur in more backward countries such as early 20th century Russia. Russia in 1905 was widely considered to have not yet established a capitalist society, but was instead largely feudal with a small, weak and almost powerless capitalist class.

The theory of Permanent Revolution addressed the question of how such feudal regimes were to be overthrown, and how socialism could be established given the lack of economic prerequisites. Trotsky argued that in Russia only the working class could overthrow feudalism and win the support of the peasantry. Furthermore, he argued that the Russian working class would not stop there. They would win its own revolution against the weak capitalist class, establish a workers' state in Russia, and appeal to the working class in the advanced capitalist countries around the world. As a result, the global working class would come to Russia's aid, and socialism could develop worldwide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism#Theory
 
Fiddytree said:
I'll give it my shot in a separate post. In my first few years here, I spent a lot of time trying to explain it, some with multiple pages-worth of explanations.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your effort.
Long story short.......are most neocons favorably disposed towards military interventionism?
Yes or no?
 
dimensionallava said:
In 1905, Trotsky formulated a theory that became known as the theory of Permanent Revolution. It is one of the defining characteristics of Trotskyism. Until 1905, Marxism only claimed that a revolution in a European capitalist society would lead to a socialist one. According to the original theory it was impossible for such to occur in more backward countries such as early 20th century Russia. Russia in 1905 was widely considered to have not yet established a capitalist society, but was instead largely feudal with a small, weak and almost powerless capitalist class.

The theory of Permanent Revolution addressed the question of how such feudal regimes were to be overthrown, and how socialism could be established given the lack of economic prerequisites. Trotsky argued that in Russia only the working class could overthrow feudalism and win the support of the peasantry. Furthermore, he argued that the Russian working class would not stop there. They would win its own revolution against the weak capitalist class, establish a workers' state in Russia, and appeal to the working class in the advanced capitalist countries around the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism#Theory
Click to expand...

And that resulted in the State Capitalist USSR, one of the most conservative regimes in modern history.

:coffeepap
 
I find it hilarious that anyone in his right mind would bring Trump to an attempt of a meaningful discussion of ideology and credo.

That aside, I view neoconservatism as an amalgam of aggressive and self-aggrandizing corporatism and a modern conception of Manifest Destiny drenched in Judaeo-Christian ideology. Whoever embodies these values is the prophet of neocons. It's the reason why they revere Reagan and view Bush as his rightful successor.
 
Gaztopian said:
I find it hilarious that anyone in his right mind would bring Trump to an attempt of a meaningful discussion of ideology and credo.

That aside, I view neoconservatism as an amalgam of aggressive and self-aggrandizing corporatism and a modern conception of Manifest Destiny drenched in Judaeo-Christian ideology. Whoever embodies these values is the prophet of neocons. It's the reason why they revere Reagan and view Bush as his rightful successor.
Click to expand...

And Corporatism is essentially Fascist-lite.
 
dimensionallava said:
damn neocons
Click to expand...

A conspiracy theory I've entertained is that the USSR and USA/NATO were working together throughout the Cold War (bar periodic dips in relations such as the U-2 shoot-down), and most of it was a massive publicity stunt engineered by the elites of both nations/blocs to pit their respective nations against one another with the notion of healthy competition. I also think it is a bit odd that Britain would relinquish the crown jewel of their Empire knowing full-well the power-vacuum it would cause with regard to the USSR-USA/NATO (friendly) rivalry.

In this respect, the Cold War was like a massive geopolitical experiment.

The feeling we share toward neocons is definitely mutual, by the way.
 
Last edited:
Gaztopian said:
[...]

I view neoconservatism as an amalgam of aggressive and self-aggrandizing corporatism and a modern conception of Manifest Destiny drenched in Judaeo-Christian ideology.

[...]
Click to expand...
I like this. :thumbs:
 
99percenter said:
Trump- doesn't support iraq and called neoconservative hero Bush a liar, failure and blamed him for 9-11(a pivotal event in neocon history). He does seem more hawkish then clinton though.

Clinton. Voted for iraq. I think she also supported libya and syria.

Who you got neocons?
Click to expand...

Except that Trump was actually for Iraq before he was against it....so it kinda blows that theory.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
A conspiracy theory I've entertained is that the USSR and USA were working together throughout the Cold War (bar periodic dips in relations such as the U-2 shoot-down), and most of it was a massive publicity stunt engineered by the elites of both nations to pit their respective nations against one another with the notion of healthy competition. I also think it is a bit odd that Britain would relinquish the crown jewel of their Empire knowing full-well the power-vacuum it would cause with regard to the USSR-USA (friendly) rivalry.

The feeling we share toward neocons is definitely mutual, by the way.
Click to expand...

thats actually closer to reality than you might think
 
dimensionallava said:
thats actually closer to reality than you might think
Click to expand...

I presume you are familiar with Operation Paperclip, then? :) If not, I strongly recommend you familiarize, I think it has a lot to do with America's growing authoritarianism, neocons and tilt to the right (besides the Cold War itself)...
 
dimensionallava said:
In 1905, Trotsky formulated a theory that became known as the theory of Permanent Revolution. It is one of the defining characteristics of Trotskyism. Until 1905, Marxism only claimed that a revolution in a European capitalist society would lead to a socialist one. According to the original theory it was impossible for such to occur in more backward countries such as early 20th century Russia. Russia in 1905 was widely considered to have not yet established a capitalist society, but was instead largely feudal with a small, weak and almost powerless capitalist class.

The theory of Permanent Revolution addressed the question of how such feudal regimes were to be overthrown, and how socialism could be established given the lack of economic prerequisites. Trotsky argued that in Russia only the working class could overthrow feudalism and win the support of the peasantry. Furthermore, he argued that the Russian working class would not stop there. They would win its own revolution against the weak capitalist class, establish a workers' state in Russia, and appeal to the working class in the advanced capitalist countries around the world. As a result, the global working class would come to Russia's aid, and socialism could develop worldwide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism#Theory
Click to expand...

thank you!
 
disneydude said:
Except that Trump was actually for Iraq before he was against it....so it kinda blows that theory.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Point is neocons have a tough choice. It's not like years before where mccain and romney were definitely their guys.
 
Neoconservatism, as modern Americans know it, largely started in the mid-1960s thanks to a convergence of several intellectual, social, and political phenomenons: the rise of the student-dominated New Left and the counterculture, the surge of government-led planning to expand the prospects of minorities and those impoverished, social forms and norms challenged at the base levels of society, distrust of liberals in being fervently anti-communist, and the division caused by the Vietnam War.

Much like American society as a whole, "neoconservatives," were grappling with these enormous changes in American society. And like much of American society, they came to varying conclusions. In 1968, for example, one could say that the country moved from the political Left to the political center-right in reaction to the extravagances of the Democratic Party and its coalitions, but what makes neoconservatism unique is that it was neither cultivated by politicians nor the grassroots, but by a very loose grouping of intellectuals, Presidential and congressional staffers, and policy wonks in and out of government.

For one reason or the other, to one degree or the other, these individuals fell out of either the liberal or Left-wing consensus and embraced heterodox opinions. Nathan Glazer, for instance, famously argued in "The Limits of Social Policy" that the sense of optimism in the academic and policy wonk in being able to ameliorate human misery so famous during his time with the Kennedy administration had begun to erode by the mid-to-late 1960s. However, many others, like Daniel Patrick Moynihan (a brief protege of Glazer), claimed that they hadn't so much as changed as the Democratic Party around them was changing. Both are true. The Great Society programs, sometimes despite their best intentions, had arguably harmed the very people they were supposed to help. Welfare dependency rose, as did illegitimacy, and efforts to mobilize the poor against their government with government funds failed to inspire confidence in legislators to keep funding such ventures.

In foreign affairs, the Vietnam split ranks between the Johnson administration backers and its left-wing critics. A number of stridently anti-communist liberals like Senator Henry 'Scoop' Jackson, his staffers, and supporters (including Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and many others) felt that the liberal crack up over this war was unjustified, that the struggle against international communism was needed-included in Vietnam. These Scoop Jackson Democrats, often stuck between defending America's interests in right-wing authoritarian regimes while attacking Soviet totalitarianism and its lack of respect for human rights, laid the foundation to what most people understand as neoconservatism today.

Intellectually, neoconservatives also had a strong interest in fighting the beginnings of the student Left of the 1960s. Nathan Glazer, Daniel Bell, and others were faculty at Berkely, Columbia University, and so on at the birth of the movement. In Berkeley, largely affluent white students fought for what they considered "free speech on the campus," while soon-to-be neoconservatives saw disproportionate action to grievances toward campus policy and a fundamental misunderstanding of the mission of the university. When university students tried to shut down campus activity for one cause or another (usually in defense of despotic left-wing regimes or to fight against faculty were doing research for the U.S. Military, or to stop university building developments), these intellectuals recoiled in horror. A number of them were Jews who grew up in the Depression, who had been locked out of the university during restrictive ethnic faculty quotas, and couldn't understand why a group of students living in relative unknown prosperity felt the need to rebel and shut down the place of learning and debate.

Though I could spend ages going into these things of the early period, suffice it to say the cultural and political upheavals matched with the perceived failures of government action and lack of defense of the free world against communism lead a number of academics, intellectuals, policy wonks, and staffers to feel both alienated from the Democratic Party and the recently-molded "new conservative" movement of the 1940s and 1950s which held steadfast to pre-Rooseveltian small government and (sometimes) antagonistic attitudes toward racial minorities receiving their civil rights.
 
In 1972, Irving Kristol, Gertrude Himmelfarb (Kristol's wife), and a number of other similarly-minded advocates put out a full page article in the New York Times saying that they were "Democrats for Nixon." Some "neoconservatives" jumped to the Republican Party earlier, some jumped at 1972, others 1980, and others still, much later or never. Nevertheless, if one were to try to find ideological consistency among those called "neoconservatives" (it was Michael Harrington of the Democratic Socialist journal"Dissent" who used it in a pejorative manner and tagged specific people with the label), it would be difficult. Nathan Glazer and Daniel Patrick Moynihan was more or less in the Democratic Party center (Moynihan would work with the Nion administration, however), Daniel Bell "a liberal in politics, a socialist in economics, and a conservative in culture," while Irving Kristol was more stridently with the Republican Party.

Part 2 coming.
 
Last edited:
Gaztopian said:
I find it hilarious that anyone in his right mind would bring Trump to an attempt of a meaningful discussion of ideology and credo.

That aside, I view neoconservatism as an amalgam of aggressive and self-aggrandizing corporatism and a modern conception of Manifest Destiny drenched in Judaeo-Christian ideology. Whoever embodies these values is the prophet of neocons. It's the reason why they revere Reagan and view Bush as his rightful successor.
Click to expand...

They are the reason we had a revolution in the first place.

Gettin about time for another one.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
A conspiracy theory I've entertained is that the USSR and USA/NATO were working together throughout the Cold War (bar periodic dips in relations such as the U-2 shoot-down), and most of it was a massive publicity stunt engineered by the elites of both nations/blocs to pit their respective nations against one another with the notion of healthy competition. I also think it is a bit odd that Britain would relinquish the crown jewel of their Empire knowing full-well the power-vacuum it would cause with regard to the USSR-USA/NATO (friendly) rivalry.

In this respect, the Cold War was like a massive geopolitical experiment.

The feeling we share toward neocons is definitely mutual, by the way.
Click to expand...

You mean India? How exactly was Britain going to keep it? India was gaining independence, one way or another, and the Brits couldn't have stopped them on the heels of WW2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom