BLOWBACK: Calling people neocons creates more neocons than it destroys

[BarryDonegan]

REALTALK: Most conservatives who support one war or another are not at all neocons. They may not have a principled stance on war one way or the other, and they may make their decisions based on what they read about the specific conflict each time. We shouldn't continue to call people neocons just because they might have supported one of the wars in the past, because they may actually then begin taking ownership of the title and its real meaning.

If we continue to consider anyone who ever supported one of those wars to be some kind of bloodthirsty criminal with blood on their hands, then we will not gain the necessary credibility and public support to put an end to military adventurism for good.

Neoconservatism has a specific definition, and it applies to a very small, obscure wing of the Republican Party. Call Bill Kristol a neocon all day, but we shouldn't be applying that title to people who don't self describe themselves as such unless we want to create more of them. People tend to dig their heels in on something when they are challenged in that way.

[sorianofan]

No. They are slimebal;ls that hate their fellow man and only like welfare for white people and tax cuts for themselves.

[LibertyEagle]

No. They are slimebal;ls that hate their fellow man and only like welfare for white people and tax cuts for themselves.

What the OP said is correct and you are not helping Ron Paul with that kind of discourse.

[traviskicks]

I agree. using the term 'neocon' or other such names only makes us look foolish. Its best not to use inflamatory language and always be courteous. I recall during the 2008 elections during the 'mixing' of RP supporters and republicans who had been involved in their county and state parties for a long time, tensions developed sometimes due to overly animated and inflamatory RP supporters.

[Brett85]

REALTALK: Most conservatives who support one war or another are not at all neocons. They may not have a principled stance on war one way or the other, and they may make their decisions based on what they read about the specific conflict each time. We shouldn't continue to call people neocons just because they might have supported one of the wars in the past, because they may actually then begin taking ownership of the title and its real meaning.

If we continue to consider anyone who ever supported one of those wars to be some kind of bloodthirsty criminal with blood on their hands, then we will not gain the necessary credibility and public support to put an end to military adventurism for good.

Neoconservatism has a specific definition, and it applies to a very small, obscure wing of the Republican Party. Call Bill Kristol a neocon all day, but we shouldn't be applying that title to people who don't self describe themselves as such unless we want to create more of them. People tend to dig their heels in on something when they are challenged in that way.

+Rep. I agree completely.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Terms and definitions change over time. Why not defend the original label of liberal as vociferously as you are neoconservative?

In practice, a neoconservative is someone who believes that the United States is the world's superpower, and must police the world.

[Cabal]

So, instead of drawing the philosophical distinction of conservative vs. neo-con, we should associate them with true conservatism? How is that productive or beneficial?

Are we to pull punches because making such a distinction will drive these so-called non-neo-cons farther toward that label? Doesn't that imply they'd already be inclined to naturally sway that way anyhow? If so, how significant is any distinction we might make, truly?

Is it not also damaging to be associated under a blanket term that doesn't really apply. Look at what happened with the so-called Tea Party. No distinction was emphasized or drawn, and much of it is now just a part of the establishment, no?

[LibertyEagle]

So, instead of drawing the philosophical distinction of conservative vs. neo-con, we should associate them with true conservatism? How is that productive or beneficial?

Are we to pull punches because making such a distinction will drive these so-called non-neo-cons farther toward that label? Doesn't that imply they'd already be inclined to naturally sway that way anyhow? If so, how significant is any distinction we might make, truly?

At the very most, Republicans who agreed with our current foreign policy could only be accused of agreeing with neoconservative policy.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j061303.html

But, they do not understand what that means, so I fail to see how name-calling is going to win over the Republicans that we must win over, for Ron Paul to win the Republican nomination.

It seems to me that it would be a much better strategy to LISTEN to THEIR concerns and show them how our national defense would be much stronger, our economy much better and them, more safe, if we followed the Golden Rule (ie. non-interventionism). Of course, while maintaining a big stick, in case a country was ever stupid enough to attack us.

[Cabal]

At the very most, Republicans who agreed with our current foreign policy could only be accused of agreeing with neoconservative policy.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j061303.html

But, they do not understand what that means, so I fail to see how name-calling is going to win over the Republicans that we must win over, for Ron Paul to win the Republican nomination.

Is it really name-calling? I mean, we aren't calling them fascists, are we? I know that the liberty-minded do not agree with neo-conservative positions, but does this necessarily mean it is automatically a pejorative? Are the terms leftist and democrat also name-calling now?

I don't see how ignoring relevant and important distinctions is going to help the cause. Is that not one of our larger obstacles, to educate people about these very distinctions?

I agree that those who are not clearly neo-conservatives should not be classified as such, but beyond that... I guess I just don't see how this is a real issue. As long as we remain objective and thoughtful, we shouldn't be making the mistake of wrongly labeling anyone as this or that. Ron Paul, for instance, certainly has no problem highlighting how he stands for true conservatism where others do not.

[Agorism]

I think calling neocons neocons is fine.

[LibertyEagle]

I think calling neocons neocons is fine.

Yes, but that is not what you are doing. You are calling everyone who doesn't agree with a non-interventionist foreign policy, a neocon, and that is absolutely incorrect.

[LibertyEagle]

Is it really name-calling? I mean, we aren't calling them fascists, are we? I know that the liberty-minded do not agree with neo-conservative positions, but does this necessarily mean it is automatically a pejorative? Are the terms leftist and democrat also name-calling now?

I don't see how ignoring relevant and important distinctions is going to help the cause. Is that not one of our larger obstacles, to educate people about these very distinctions?

Yes, it is name-calling. How on earth do you think calling someone a name is going to win any points for Ron Paul? Do you understand that we need millions and millions of more people to vote for Ron Paul? How is it that you believe calling the well over 85% of Americans who currently believe that our military should have a presence overseas, neocons, is going to help win them over?

The first rule of the grassroots must be to do no harm to Ron Paul's chances of winning the Republican nomination.

[Cabal]

Yes, it is name-calling. How on earth do you think calling someone a name is going to win any points for Ron Paul? Do you understand that we need millions and millions of more people to vote for Ron Paul? How is it that you believe calling the well over 85% of Americans who currently believe that our military should have a presence overseas, neocons, is going to help win them over?

I don't recall making this assertion or suggestion at all.

I do think that drawing the distinction is important, because then we create an opportunity to explain this distinction, and elaborate on the message of liberty as it applies to foreign policy and non-interventionism.

[LibertyEagle]

I don't recall making this assertion or suggestion at all.

I do think that drawing the distinction is important, because then we create an opportunity to explain this distinction, and elaborate on the message of liberty as it applies to foreign policy and non-interventionism.

I don't see the benefit to labeling people. :confused:

It's easy to talk about interventionism vs. non-interventionism. Most Republicans, or at least the most reachable ones, are only for interventionism because they think it makes them more safe. Just like Michael Scheuer talks about the need to understand what motivates the terrorists, I think we need to understand why other Republicans are wanting our military involved in so many countries and wars. We need to listen far more and talk much less. Only then, will we know how to address their concerns and in the end, win them over.

[Cabal]

I don't see the benefit to labeling people. :confused:

It's easy to talk about interventionism vs. non-interventionism. Most Republicans, or at least the most reachable ones, are only for interventionism because they think it makes them more safe. Just like Michael Scheuer talks about the need to understand what motivates the terrorists, I think we need to understand why other Republicans are wanting our military involved in so many countries and wars. We need to listen far more and talk much less. Only then, will we know the best things to say to win them over.

Well, we live in a society of labels, no? But, in all honesty, it's not so much about labeling as it is about the aforementioned recognition of philosophical distinctions... at least to me.

I remember when I was younger, before I had ever heard about libertarianism, for instance... I had a discussion with someone and they 'labeled' me and my views as being libertarian, but I didn't know what that meant. So I grew curious and decided to investigate. Well this was a defining moment for me, which lead to a deeper understanding of libertarian philosophy to help further refine and define my political, moral, ethical, and philosophical views.

I'm glad I was labeled as such, whether the person doing the labeling was using it as a pejorative or not. If the same occurs to potential neo-cons, and they go do some investigation of their own, it's quite possible they may not like what they find, and begin contrasting neo-conservatism with conservatism to better understand the divide. It's not a guarantee, certainly, but it's quite possible, no?

Ignoring what distinguishes our values and views from others who do not really understand the message of liberty isn't a wise way forward, IMO.

I don't see how you believe we need to talk less though. Given our situation and what is unfolding before us day to day, we need to keep shouting the message of liberty at the top of our lungs. We've been quiet for too long, and look where it has gotten us. So no, I don't agree that we need to listen any longer... we've listened quite long enough. If you want to deliver truth, it cannot stay silent.

[NJames]

Tossing around labels is easy. But it's not an effective way of communicating with those who don't already agree with you. It is certainly worthless for communicating with someone who doesn't understand the label.

[LibertyEagle]

I don't see how you believe we need to talk less though.
Do you agree with Michael Scheuer and Ron Paul when they say that we need to understand the motivation of our enemies? If you do, why don't you understand that in order to address the concerns of fellow Republicans that we need to understand what their concerns are? That is why we need to listen more and talk less. This is how we bring them over to Ron Paul.


Given our situation and what is unfolding before us day to day, we need to keep shouting the message of liberty at the top of our lungs. We've been quiet for too long, and look where it has gotten us. So no, I don't agree that we need to listen any longer... we've listened quite long enough. If you want to deliver truth, it cannot stay silent.
We are trying to win an election. We are not cheerleaders at a football game. Shouting at people and calling them names does nothing to bring people over to Ron Paul. You are wanting to help Dr. Paul win the Republican nomination, aren't you?

[Cabal]

You assume I haven't bothered to ever listen to those who do not agree with my political philosophies. You assume wrong. I absolutely agree with Ron Paul and Michael Scheuer.

I was also not suggesting devolving into a shouting match. It was merely a dramatic exaggeration, I figured that much was apparent.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Do you agree with Michael Scheuer and Ron Paul when they say that we need to understand the motivation of our enemies? If you do, why don't you understand that in order to address the concerns of fellow Republicans that we need to understand what their concerns are? That is why we need to listen more and talk less. This is how we bring them over to Ron Paul.


We are trying to win an election. We are not cheerleaders at a football game. Shouting at people and calling them names does nothing to bring people over to Ron Paul. You are wanting to help Dr. Paul win the Republican nomination, aren't you?

To take this in another direction, if we're going to try to win the Republican nomination, we should support sanctions and bombing of Iran, wars around the world, banning gay marriage, full enforcement of the war on drugs...

Division of labor. If Cabal wants to bring people who dislike neocons into the Republican party, let them.

[speciallyblend]

damn neo-cons ,any polls on this or actual stats or is this just an opinion.

[LibertyEagle]

To take this in another direction, if we're going to try to win the Republican nomination, we should support sanctions and bombing of Iran, wars around the world, banning gay marriage, full enforcement of the war on drugs...

Division of labor. If Cabal wants to bring people who dislike neocons into the Republican party, let them.

This is a very bizarre post. lol

[LisaNY]

Should Ron stop calling people neocons too?

[afwjam]

Fuck the neocons.

[Karsten]

BLOWBACK: neocons bombing counties creates more terrorists than it destorys.

[Billay]

Jim Demint & Rand Paul get called neo-cons. Neither are just stop it. It's stupid and annoying.

[afwjam]

I think we all know who the neocons are and rand aint one. Santorum is.

[brushfire]

Seems to be a reoccurring thread...

Its true that name calling, regardless of its accuracy, or even how good it feels in the primal depths of the brain, does nothing win Ron support.. Has anyone come around to Ron Paul's message because they were called "Sheep" or "Neocon"... Ok, maybe 2 folks, but how about "A$$$$HOLE!!"?

IMO, we should leave the name calling to those who dont have facts on their side, and as a result have no other recourse but to fight with emotion. The facts and reason are on our side - there's no need for name calling.

[brushfire]

I think we all know who the neocons are and rand aint one. Santorum is.

Santorum is a frothy sonofabitch...

:P

[Peace&Freedom]

My suggestion is we need to counter the emotionalism that attends most of the pro-interventionist sentiment. In politics, reason seems to only go so far. It probably does getting Paul's message out no favors to keep pursuing a dispassionate path that simply HAS NOT WORKED to change, or even open most Republicans' minds on foreign policy issues. The context of that discussion, especially over the last full decade, has been one of "but they attacked us, so we have to strike back." So long as that is the framework, that goes never challenged, the pleasure and revenge of "getting back" at them will be emotionally overriding any talk about blowback. The reasonable cover argument may be over "safety," but the animating trigger keeping most people in the pro-war camp is, to repeat, pleasure and revenge.

So while most Republicans are not, rationally speaking, neocons, the frame of the debate has in fact made most of them attitudinally neocon, thus unreceptive to the non-interventionist message. This will not change with a polite relaying of the facts, as sweet reason has not worked so far. And please note, most pro-war folks do not shy at all from the "name calling" game and continue to go along with mislabelling the non-interventionist side as "isolationists." I had a message board exchange this very day with some RLC people who were using the term---and being proportedly familiar with pro-liberty concepts, they should clearly know the difference between the two. So what explains their mislabeling of our side, other than their being emotionally driven to it, or else using it in a deliberate rhetorical attempt to put us on the defensive?

At some point, we have to understand this is a propaganda or infowar, and will not be won over only with polite, bloodless dialogue of a debating society. If the pro-war side persists in mislabeling the essence of our position as "isolationist," we can at least choose to label the essence of their position accurately, as neocon (as Paul himself has previously done, in a speech on neocons he made on the floor of the House). That is not being negative, it is constructively countering the emotional side of the issue, instead of ignoring it and hoping for the best. It would be helping Paul to do this, thus engaging the whole problem with two hands, instead of with one hand tied behind his back.

[AuH20]

Jim Demint & Rand Paul get called neo-cons. Neither are just stop it. It's stupid and annoying.

You just summed up how this word has been horribly misused.

[Dary]

A rose (or in this case, a turd) is a rose (turd) by any other name.

[AuH20]

Neocon primer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism


Irving Kristol remarked that a neoconservative is a "liberal mugged by reality", one who became more conservative after seeing the results of liberal policies. Kristol also distinguished three specific aspects of neoconservatism from previous forms of conservatism: neo-conservatives had a forward-looking approach drawn from their liberal heritage, rather than the reactionary and dour approach of previous conservatives; they had a meliorative outlook, proposing alternate reforms rather than simply attacking social liberal reforms; they took philosophical ideas and ideologies very seriously.[53]

[realtonygoodwin]

+ rep to the OP

[speciallyblend]

bottom line if you support undeclared wars,might is right,nation building. Then i would say your a neo-con. If you support those policies, you are sleeping with a neo-con. If your f'in a neo-con .Then you are a neo-con! Change your policies if you do not want to be called a neo-con!!

[kuckfeynes]

There's nothing wrong with labels, we have a human need to categorize things. But what make a label a pejorative or not is completely dependent upon the context. And right now I do believe the context for "neocon" is more often than not inflammatory. So I would say I agree with OP, unless you are sophisticated enough to use it in a deliberately explanatory and non-inflammatory way.

[amy31416]

Probably not a good idea to call anyone any names when trying to persuade them, however, people really do need to know that neoconservatism comes from the darkest, bloodiest and most socialist stinking slimy crevices of the Trotskyist left. These putrid, brilliant but sub-human, parasitic sleazes oozed out of their slimy wet cracks and managed to almost entirely destroy ethical conservatism.

There is nothing that is beneath a genuine neocon, there are no ethics, there is no interest in conserving shit. They pretend to dislike all the things that conservatives dislike: abortion, welfare, fiscal liberalism, while being grossly guilty of all three. They just re-direct people to look at the "dirty, foreign Arabs" who must be extinguished because they're all evil savages, and if you don't think that they'll make us WASPy bastards (yes, I know we're far more diverse than that) out to be terrorists who must be destroyed, then you have a lot to learn. They will try to destroy anyone and anything that gets in their way--and it's all a big game to them...and right now we're challenging them, but they don't yet take us all that seriously.

Perfect time to take them out of the political realm and make sure they can't resurrect themselves. But just getting them out of the GOP won't end the problem, just shift it--they're all over the place in the democratic party as well. It's not like they're loyal to anything, much less a political party.

[AuH20]

Probably not a good idea to call anyone any names when trying to persuade them, however, people really do need to know that neoconservatism comes from the darkest, bloodiest and most socialist stinking slimy crevices of the Trotskyist left. These putrid, brilliant but sub-human, parasitic sleazes oozed out of their slimy wet cracks and managed to almost entirely destroy ethical conservatism.

There is nothing that is beneath a genuine neocon, there are no ethics, there is no interest in conserving shit. They pretend to dislike all the things that conservatives dislike: abortion, welfare, fiscal liberalism, while being grossly guilty of all three. They just re-direct people to look at the "dirty, foreign Arabs" who must be extinguished because they're all evil savages, and if you don't think that they'll make us WASPy bastards (yes, I know we're far more diverse than that) out to be terrorists who must be destroyed, then you have a lot to learn. They will try to destroy anyone and anything that gets in their way--and it's all a big game to them...and right now we're challenging them, but they don't yet take us all that seriously.

Perfect time to take them out of the political realm and make sure they can't resurrect themselves. But just getting them out of the GOP won't end the problem, just shift it--they're all over the place in the democratic party as well. It's not like they're loyal to anything, much less a political party.

Neocons are hyper-capitalistic locusts. If money is the root of all evil, neocons are the chief farmers.

[kuckfeynes]

Another big problem with using the term is that it perpetuates the idea that they are really conservative at all. Like people who call themselves "left-libertarians." The confusion created by that nomenclature gives them legitimacy. Just as a thought exercise, imagine what the heck a neo-liberal would be. More conservative? The connotation works to their favor.

[sorianofan]

What the OP said is correct and you are not helping Ron Paul with that kind of discourse.
I disagree. These people are putting their very souls at risk.

[amy31416]

I disagree. These people are putting their very souls at risk.

Good point. If you're a Christian, a genuine one, I can see that. Neocons carry out and promote murder, theft, deception and use people like trained dogs.

But I have no opinion on the best way to make people aware of what's going on.

[Brett85]

I've been called a "neo-con" repeatedly by people here, and I'm about as far away from being a neo-con as you can possibly get. I'm in favor of closing down all of our foreign military bases and bringing our troops home. But to some people here, you're a neo-con if you don't want to abolish the entire defense department. The truth is that a neo-conservative is somebody who wants to use our military to spread freedom and democracy around the world. Rick Santorum is the only candidate in the GOP race who currently meets that definition. The rest of the candidates other than Ron and perhaps Huntsman should simply be labeled "interventionists."

[realtonygoodwin]

Neocons:
John McCain
Lindsay Graham
Dick Cheney
Rick Santorum
Tim Pawlenty
Rudy Giuliani

Not neocon:
Rand Paul
Michele Bachmann
Sarah Palin
Jim DeMint

[BarryDonegan]

So, instead of drawing the philosophical distinction of conservative vs. neo-con, we should associate them with true conservatism? How is that productive or beneficial?

Are we to pull punches because making such a distinction will drive these so-called non-neo-cons farther toward that label? Doesn't that imply they'd already be inclined to naturally sway that way anyhow? If so, how significant is any distinction we might make, truly?

Is it not also damaging to be associated under a blanket term that doesn't really apply. Look at what happened with the so-called Tea Party. No distinction was emphasized or drawn, and much of it is now just a part of the establishment, no?

You want to win the argument technically, but I want to win the argument actually. You can't be popular if you ain't cool! And calling people names ain't cool. It is important to note also, that, when trying to win an argument, it is important to be correct. We tend to label people neocons just because they believe in a sometimes-interventionist foreign policy. Neoconservatism includes being for liberal economic issues and being in favor of a worldwide level of interventionism in keeping with Trotsky. When we start applying that to the generic congressmen who vote for a single war we are completely ignoring the definition of the term in a academic sense.

[gb13]

+ rep. Very solid point. Save that title for the most egregious offenders. We risk turning a huge amount of people off who could very well be converted if approached tactfully.

[Cabal]

You want to win the argument technically, but I want to win the argument actually.

What? I'm not trying to win anything. I'm having a discussion, not a contest. Perhaps I'm in the wrong place.

[CaptainAmerica]

Neo-conservative is what it is. This post is retarded.

[Eric21ND]

Fine. Wilsonian democrats then :p

[wongster41]

Ron Paul calls them Neo-conservative (Neo-cons) too /thread



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv19_DA1VGU

[Cap]

I think calling neocons neocons is fine. Yup, a spade is a spade and these assholes don't deserve to be called anything with respect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp98QGzmJcM&feature=player_detailpage#t=53s

[BarryDonegan]

What? I'm not trying to win anything. I'm having a discussion, not a contest. Perhaps I'm in the wrong place.

We are trying to win the Republican nomination and then the Presidency for Dr. Ron Paul so that he can deliver the freedom we so desire. By not calling people neocons and instead focusing on attracting, through positive outreach, people to the campaign, we are promoting that outcome. :)

There are precious few seconds left between now and the time voting begins on 2012. If a supporter has breath in his or her lungs to use to call someone a neocon, that same moment could be spent instead talking to a likely Republican voter about the amazing voting record of Dr. Paul. We can call people names and define terms during an offyear.

[Cabal]

We are trying to win the Republican nomination and then the Presidency for Dr. Ron Paul so that he can deliver the freedom we so desire. By not calling people neocons and instead focusing on attracting, through positive outreach, people to the campaign, we are promoting that outcome. :)

There are precious few seconds left between now and the time voting begins on 2012. If a supporter has breath in his or her lungs to use to call someone a neocon, that same moment could be spent instead talking to a likely Republican voter about the amazing voting record of Dr. Paul. We can call people names and define terms during an offyear.

And yet RP and his campaign take no issue with using that kind of terminology. Are you suggesting RP's message isn't positive? Seems pretty damn positive to me, hence all the support which literally flocks to him. One of the reasons RP is so beloved is because he speaks the absolute truth without pandering to anyone--yet you would suggest he disregard this, one of his most valuable, traits and assets? Thanks, but no thanks. If you don't want to use the terminology, that's fine--no one is going to force you to do that (liberty, remember). But don't get upset when others do use it, including Ron Paul and his campaign.

There are 14 months left between now and the election. I think we can spare a few moments to call out establishment neo-cons if necessary. And trying to sensationalize and be all dramatic about it doesn't help your argument, quite frankly.

[realtonygoodwin]

When you call everyone that supports some type of intervention a neocon, you are being a collectivist.

[Brian4Liberty]

Should Ron stop calling people neocons too?

Actually, when he used the term in his otherwise excellent video the other day, I thought it wasn't the best word to use.

[libertybrewcity]

REALTALK: Most conservatives who support one war or another are not at all neocons. They may not have a principled stance on war one way or the other, and they may make their decisions based on what they read about the specific conflict each time. We shouldn't continue to call people neocons just because they might have supported one of the wars in the past, because they may actually then begin taking ownership of the title and its real meaning.

If we continue to consider anyone who ever supported one of those wars to be some kind of bloodthirsty criminal with blood on their hands, then we will not gain the necessary credibility and public support to put an end to military adventurism for good.

Neoconservatism has a specific definition, and it applies to a very small, obscure wing of the Republican Party. Call Bill Kristol a neocon all day, but we shouldn't be applying that title to people who don't self describe themselves as such unless we want to create more of them. People tend to dig their heels in on something when they are challenged in that way.

I remember RP supporters started calling Republicans RINOs and that seemed to spread around quite well. No one embraced the name RINO as their own. I think it is good to give "neocon" a negative "meaning" psychologically. What do you think about when you hear "stay the course" and "global warming" (changed to climate change).

[Voluntary Man]

okay. personally, i know what the word means, and it's history, and i happen to know that the vast majority of people who do self-identify as neo-cons have no clue about either the meaning or history of the word. however, many people who buy into the neo-con ideology, simply call themselves "conservatives," which i find offensive.

a true neocon, regardless of what he calls himself, will never vote for Dr Paul; they will vote for Obama, first.

an education campaign needs to occur, to let people know what traditional conservatism is, and to alert America to the fact that NEO-conservatism is NOT conservatism. i agree that name-calling people you're trying to educate/convert is bad policy, but distinctions are part of the education/conversion process. a man converted in ignorance is susceptible to relapse. so, refer to neocons as n*o-conservatives or NOT-conservatives, if you like (just helps make my point, anyway).

PS - Here's a little educational tool, on the subject:

A "conservative" is a traditionalist, one who resists change. In the American political tradition, a "conservative" is one who clings to America' s founding principles, who recognizes them as grand ideals, worthy of preservation, reverence, and dedication - - even if , as MLK indicated, we have yet to actually faithfully apply those principles.

What, then, is a "neo-conservative"? Well, what 's a "new traditionalist"? If neo- cons were really conservatives, they would scarcely need to distinguish themselves from the genuine article by designating themselves as something "new (neo) ," would they?

Does anyone else remember New Coke? In the mid- eighties, Coca -Cola made a foolish marketing ploy, by copying Pepsi-Cola 's recipe, and rebranding itself as New Coke, in an effort to recapture it' s declining market share. The result was a disaster: almost overnight, Coca- Cola' s market share went into a dead drop.

Consumers didn 't want 2 virtually indistinguishable products disguised beneath 2 cleaverly designed labels. Coca-Cola quickly learned its lesson and immediately re-
released its original formula as Coca- Cola Classic, and allowed New Coke to fade into the sunset of forgotten marketing failures.

Now, imagine that, instead of being a Coca-Cola Company initiative, New Coke had been the result of a hostile corporate takeover by the Pepsi- cola Company. Imagine further that New Coke was never recalled, but was, instead, presented to consumers as if it had always been there, that it was the original and only formula, that there was no Coca- Cola Classic, and that anyone who said different was a kook or an impostor.

Of course, in the above described scenario, neo-conservatism is New Coke , paleo-conservatism (or just plain "conservatism") is Coca -Cola Classic, and Pepsi is marxism (my apologies to Pepsi; it' s just an allegory).

There you have it: Levin, Limbaugh , Hannity, O'Reilly, and most of the Republican field are marxism' s false opposition -- which is why they all hate Ron Paul, marxism' s only genuine opponent among the 2012 crop of presidential contenders .



Or, try this:

You want it in plain english?

Neocons are fake conservatives. There is nothing of the golden rule about neocons (the good sisters taught me that).

Neocons only believe in two things: 1) bombs for their enemies abroad 2) and batons for their enemies at home. That may sound awfully macho, to you, but, as someone who grew up during the Cold War, it sounds indistinguishable from Stalin's Soviet Union, Hitler's Germany, or Mao's China.

Foreign militarism with a domestic police state may be sexy to some, but it isn't freedom; it isn't what the founders envisioned for America; and it's, therefore, NOT conservative (maybe that's conservative in Russia).

American conservatism is about conserving the principles of liberty and limited government, left to us by the authors of our founding documents. It isn't about misguided party loyalties or worshiping the military-industrial complex.

America is only "exceptional" to the degree that we honor our heritage and strive to live the ideals that formed our nation. The American ideals are that governments derive their powers from the people (not the other way around), that people derive their rights from God (not from governments), that the only just purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people, and that a people displeased with the performance of their government retain the right to alter or abolish it (hence the 2nd amendment).

The father of our country wished our foreign policy to be one of friendship and trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none (a wish he expressed in his farewell address).

The neocon concept of American exceptionalism is a smug sense of entitlement, seen by America's friends and foes, alike, as a type of collective sociopathic narcissism. I share that opinion.

Is that plain enough for you?



If you want it lighter:

HOW TO TELL A NEO-CON FROM A CONSERVATIVE

A neocon's favorite founder is usually Alexander Hamilton ... sometimes John Adams.

A conservative's favorite founder is usually Thomas Jefferson ... sometimes George Washington, Patrick Henry, James Madison, or George Mason.

A neocon's favorite president is usually Lincoln or the progressive Teddy Roosevelt (although, Wilson and FDR do make them moist ... too bad they were Democrats) ... sometimes John Adams.

A conservative's favorite president is usually Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson.

A conservative usually recognizes the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights as the one which best safeguards American liberty.

Neocons consider the Patriot Act the best amendment to the Bill of Rights.

Neocons believe income taxes should be "fairer and lower."

Conservatives recognize the IRS as a marxist scheme that should be abolished.

Neocons worship DEA agents as "national heroes."

Conservatives worship God, the Creator of the plants the DEA wages war against. [Conservatives don't feel the neurotic compulsion to demonstrate their disapproval of their neighbors' regrettable choices by locking them is cages]

Neocons believe that people should be allowed to fail ... unless those "people" are multinational corporations.

Conservatives believe that people should receive private help, when they need it, but that no business is so big that it must be insulated from its poor decisions by the stolen wealth of tax victims.


I agree. using the term 'neocon' or other such names only makes us look foolish. Its best not to use inflamatory language and always be courteous. I recall during the 2008 elections during the 'mixing' of RP supporters and republicans who had been involved in their county and state parties for a long time, tensions developed sometimes due to overly animated and inflamatory RP supporters.

[Voluntary Man]

If you run into a subscriber to neocon doctrine, who genuinely believes that neoconservatism is the same thing as traditional conservatism, send him here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html

[excellent speech by Ron Paul on the meaning and history of neoconservatism]

...or here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/neo-cons-arch.html

[a treasure trove of information on neoconservatism vs real conservatism]

You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free!

[Voluntary Man]

He could've called them "international political rapists," i suppose.



Actually, when he used the term in his otherwise excellent video the other day, I thought it wasn't the best word to use.


When you call everyone that supports some type of intervention a neocon, you are being a collectivist.

[Brett85]

People who support intervention overseas should be criticized, but the correct term for most of them is "interventionists." The term neo-conservative has a very narrow meaning that probably applies to only 10% of Republicans.

[Anti Federalist]

I have nothing more to add.



Ron Paul - We've been Neo-Conned

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html

(snip)

More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:

They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
They accept the notion that the ends justify the means — that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
They express no opposition to the welfare state.
They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists).
They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

(If we were to take that metric alone as a qualification of a neo-con, then it would be 85 perecnt or so of the GOP - AF)

[pacelli]

Well, they hijacked the Tea Party from the real Tea Party folks... why can't we hijack the term Neocon from the actual neocons? Ya know, say you're a neocon and give it an entirely different meaning.

[ronpaulitician]

A neocon is just a future ex-neocon.

Signed,

Ex neo-con.

[speciallyblend]

When you call everyone that supports some type of intervention a neocon, you are being a collectivist.

if you support a neo-con . then that pretty much puts you in bed with a neocon. which makes you a neo-con!! I call that correct!!

if your a guy and in your bed with a guy you love that makes you what?
If your a woman and in bed with a woman you love that makes you what?
If your a neo-con and you support a neo-con(in bed with them) then your a what?

the truth is a bitch is all i can say!!

[Voluntary Man]

A neocon is just a future ex-neocon.

Signed,

Ex neo-con.

that's my favorite kind! ;^)

[realtonygoodwin]

if you support a neo-con . then that pretty much puts you in bed with a neocon. which makes you a neo-con!! I call that correct!!

if your a guy and in your bed with a guy you love that makes you what?
If your a woman and in bed with a woman you love that makes you what?
If your a neo-con and you support a neo-con(in bed with them) then your a what?

the truth is a bitch is all i can say!!

Most of your posts make very little sense to me, including this one. No offense.

[speciallyblend]

Most of your posts make very little sense to me, including this one. No offense.

it is very simple sorry you can't figure it out!! woooshhhhhhh i won't bother explaining it went over your head literally!!

answer the 3 questions and you have your answers 1+1=2 no offense

[realtonygoodwin]

Well, things like spelling and basic grammar may help you get your thoughts across more effectively. :)

[Czolgosz]

*Didn't read through the entire thread, so it may have already been mentioned

If you label people w/ names or use the political buzzword du jour you may be using trigger words which cause a visceral reaction. As an example, you'll note that people who dislike Ron Paul's foreign policy all use the same or similar words to describe it, "isolationist." This isn't happenstance.

These sheeple (ha, the irony) are subject to hypnosis via repetition through their sources of media.

So using labels and the buzzwords; avoid them.

[speciallyblend]

Well, things like spelling and basic grammar may help you get your thoughts across more effectively. :)

i am not here to please you grammar nazi. it is a post not a term paper if you want to correct something go ahead ! it still saYS WHAT IT SAYS. FEEL FREE TO STICK A STICK WHERE THE SUN DON;T SHINE!! , grmamar nazis can suck my____!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i will make sure to make as many typos and scrw my post up more just for your nazi self.

[realtonygoodwin]

It's not about pleasing me, it's about clearly articulating your thoughts so others can understand. Not sure why you feel the need to be hostile and call me a Nazi...

[Brian4Liberty]

A neocon is just a future ex-neocon.

Signed,

Ex neo-con.

There is a case to be made that just being brainwashed with a few neo-conservative opinions does not really make one a true neo-conservative.

[speciallyblend]

It's not about pleasing me, it's about clearly articulating your thoughts so others can understand. Not sure why you feel the need to be hostile and call me a Nazi...

becuase if u anccwer the 3 ? i asked in the pust, u would have ur ancwer.

I will continue to call them neo-cons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!

ps i said "grammer nazzi" if you truly cannot answer the 3 ? i asked. Then i have to shakey heady .

[realtonygoodwin]

Never mind, I was just trying to help you out. Keep doing whatever it is that you are doing.

[heavenlyboy34]

becuase if u anccwer the 3 ? i asked in the pust, u would have ur ancwer.

I will continue to call them neo-cons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!

ps i said "grammer nazzi" if you truly cannot answer the 3 ? i asked. Then i have to shakey heady .
Sheesh! Talk about over-reacting! LoLz :)

[TulsaRevolution]

A neocon is a liberal who deliberately fools conservative minded individuals into intertwining their liberal global empire ideas into conservative policy. The people who are fooled by them are not neocons, they are just misguided conservatives. Calling the neocons isn't just counterproductive, it is incorrect.

Your average soccer mom or truck driver is not a sinister globalist liberal trying to fool people and poison ideologies.

A wise man explains what a neoconservative is:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbQ9vAJjH6c