September 17, 2005

• Jesus fucking Christ these bastards make my blood boil.
• At one hour and ten minutes, your blood will boil dry. At some point, they're going to start with the alibi "Our policies didn't fail; Bush was just incompetent." As if the two didn't go hand in hand.
• We still have over 3 years of their shit to eat. At least it's a hot meal.
• Well, it's good to get the venom out, but I'd like to see the more right wing elements of mofi to watch this and give a response. fx8mulder, fes?
• You all my say and do whatever you like, but I have stated my political leanings, my feelings about Bush, Iraq, the economy, etc, ad infinitum enough times that everyone who cares to know pretty much understands my position on matters political. Feel free to exercise your ire in any way you see fit, but don't expect me to queue up every time for your asskicking pleasure. You immediately assume that because I have stated conservative viewpoints, that I am somehow part of whatever gaggle of bastards you feel compelled to link to and gnash your teeth about. Well, I am not, and with all due respect, I am just a bit sick of getting painted with whatever tar brush happens to be getting swung around this or that day, or called upon to respond to charges or defend some political point that may not even be my own - it's even more irritating when the matter I'm called to respond to is so obviously, from the summary and accompanying text, interested in nothing but inflaming the already well inflamed divisions in this polity, preaching to an already convinced choir, and spreading more hyperbole and bombast. Do I post items from redstate or LGF and demand "responses" from you all? Have I ever been anything but collegial and open-minded to those of you with viewpoints that differ from my own? Have I ever treated any of you as anything but individuals? So with all due respect, I am not going to waste an hour watching this "documentary," nor am I going to respond to or defend whatever might be contained within it. You all may say anything you like, but you'll have to do it without me, for I have neither the time nor the desire to engage in another session of Kick the Conservative, especially one with an hour's worth of homework to do beforehand.
• *pours Fes a stiff drink*
• Well, I was hoping for a reasoned argument from you Fes, but what you responded with is sadly enough, a boilerplate, angry, "fuck you". I value your POV and other monkeys with political views that differ from mine. Hey it's your life, but if you are "not going to waste an hour watching this "documentary," nor am I going to respond to or defend whatever might be contained within it." then I suppose we all might likewise disregard any links you might come up with. Chill out, don't be so pissy and respond when you don't have "an hour's worth of homework to do beforehand."
• Word, Fes.
• Fes, don't call it a "documentary" implying that you think it isn't, at the same time you say you're not going to waste your time watching it. For the record, it offers a fairly concise (if you think 70 mins can be concise) summary of the case against Bush and co. as seen from the left. It does not seem to descend into the excess and hyperbole of Michael Moore's offerings but instead asks probing questions about the motives and tactics of the neocons. It would be interesting,as noted above, if a reasonable conservative could offer a counter view (I know-not you Fes-do your homework) because I, and I suspect many others would be interested to know how the right defends itself against the filmaker's thesis. Pretty damning in my view, but I'm just a lefty who "hates America"
• Sorry,I forgot to close the /irony tag after my last sentence.
• 
• it looks like you can get a torrent here (do a search for "hijacking catastrophe") if you're like me and are not a big fan of realplayer. while you're there, you might want to check out "the power of nightmares". dunno how it compares to this one but it's pretty good.
• Fes, goetter, f8x: I'd think if you guys were truly conservatives, you'd be yelling and screaming with anger about Bush and the neo-cons, because conservative they ain't. Seen the deficit lately?
• Okay, I'm going to draw a line, and I want all lefties on one side and righties on the other. Then, uh, I want you all to yell at each other. You choose the topic. I'm partial to penguins, myself.
• I'm partial to pirates. Let's compromise. Pirate Penguins.
• You can mock if you want, but this is about facts. There's no denying the fact that Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz were among the founding members of the Project for the New American Century, which is all about establishing American empire. It's not unfair to suspect that the war in Iraq happened more because of that desire for American empire than out of any desire to thwart terrorism. It's a fact that Rumsfeld began planning to attack Iraq before September 11, 2001 was even over. All this made Bush's claims of Iraqi WMDs questionable at the time they were made, and it makes those claims more than fishy-smelling now, in light of the Downing Street memo: "...the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Failure to address these things, failure to ask questions down this path, means willfully burying your head in the sand. Watch the documentary, then tell me this is about silly liberals and silly conservatives.
• And my point that neo-conservatives are not conservative is a valid point, as the increasing number of conservative Republicans beginning to stand up to Bush makes clear. (Even if it is still just a trickle.)
• Also, Fes, goetter, f8x, if in fact you have spoken against neo-conservative imperialism, sweet. I know I've seen and noted such talk here on MoFi among those who are conservative. Please continue, because tempering these guys requires pressure from the right at least as much from the left. Rush and Hannity listeners will listen to others on the right in a way they'd never listen to pinkos like me and a lot of others here. Apologies if I lumped anyone where they didn't belong with my first comment in this thread.
• To get an idea what the paleoconservatives think about the neoconservatives, check out The American Conservative magazine archives. Here are a few select articles: The Anti-Conservatives, Heil to the Cheif, Flirting with Fascism, etc, etc. Yes, I subscribe to American Conservative mag but I also subscribe to Mother Jones magazine. It is my belief that one should get a broad spectrum of viewpoints not just the ones that he or she agrees with otherwise one risks becoming blind to the facts -- especially with the manipulations of the right-wing echo chamber or left-wing media (although, to be honest, I don't see a left-wing media as it seems to be an invention of the right.)
• stripe: Thanks muchly for the .torrent link, maybe I will get to see this after all!
• Thanks for those links Nomen Nescio. The Flirting with Fascism was especially enlightening. I might just have to get a subscription to The American Conservative.
• squidranch: glad to be of service. For the neoconservative point of view, try The American Spectator magazine. I never got a subscription to that one 'cause it hurts me to read it and I don't want to pay for something I'll spend most of my time chucking across the room, but the LGF crowd loves it.
• Also obliged to ye, Nomen Nescio, for the links.
• Doesn't hold a candle to power of nightmares - and a really misleading title. This doesn't detail the history of the neo cons in any penetrating detail. There is no mention of Leo Strauss (i stopped watching after about 45 min or so), and most of the documentary seems aimed at showing why the war in iraq is all wrong and based on lies.
• If I may, Fes and f8x and goetter and the rest of our teensy Republican minority (of which they comprise the vocal majority) are routinely greeted on the front page by the obligatory "Republican bastards!" post on the front page, but you notice they never seem to go looking for "OMG Ted Kennedy is teh suck" posts to open up for discussion. Now I recognize that this likely wasn't squid's purpose in making this FPP, that he honestly did want response from The Other Half, but as Fes said, this usually only serves to open the door to a game of poke-the-conservative-with-a-stick. So Fes or f8xy will make a coherent argument on why they believe what they do, why they vote the way they do (or perhaps deliver the occasional well-placed barb — that was a particularly good shot), and they're then subjected to such Noel Coward-esque pith as this or this. Even rocket88, who has been a vocal critic of the current administration and US politics in general, has received such treatment for espousing a view that falls anywhere traditionally considered east of center. Even when that doesn't happen, I've noticed that they're frequently talked to not as individuals with differing views, but as One of the Republicans, as if they all share the same viewpoint and all have the same shared beliefs. Given that Fes is a socially liberal athiest and f8x is, in many respects, his polar opposite...well, lumping them all together under the same heading really isn't that different from doing the same thing with, say, every American, or every woman who ever had an abortion. To do so is mind-blowingly absurd and I imagine it gets pretty damned old after awhile, particularly when one is under the gun in one's own personal life. Imagine the situation reversed. Imagine yourself constantly on the defensive in what claims to be an open community that embraces diversity, imagine the endless parade of anti-left posts (no matter how well-intentioned — last fall, anyone?). Imagine having to repeat and defend your views over and over and over and over again to the very same people, and tell me that you wouldn't, on occasion, get just a bit touchy from the weariness. And I haven't watched the video either, but given that the title is "Hijacking Catastrophe," I'm going to go waaaaaaaaaay out on a limb and suggest that maybe this is a neutral, objective documentary in the same way that Fox News is fair and balanced. That's not to say that it doesn't raise valid points, but I wonder very much if it's going to take us down a road we've traveled before. I hope to have the time to watch it, so I can judge for myself. Understand, squid, I'm not accusing you of ill will or malicious intent here, but I'm asking you to consider that Fes may not be all that out of line in his response.
• but you notice they never seem to go looking for "OMG Ted Kennedy is teh suck" posts to open up for discussion True, but it's not really apples and apples. The Bush administration has set itself squarely against half the citizenry and the majority of the rest of the world. That's fact. The Bush administration and its actions is a big topic, and it deserves discussion, and on an ongoing basis. Squid was not dissing anyone here. This was a good, interesting FPP. Whether and how conservatives or neo-cons here want to respond to it is their business. They may sometimes provoke immature reactions among some here -- hell, they may be immature themselves at times -- but for the most part they get respect from and give respect to other monkeys. Bottom line, to me: This topic is fair game. How could we not talk about this stuff?
• The video is actually not all that shrill. I know and can't stand lefty versions of Faux News and this aint one. And Fes has every right to respond or not respond. I wasn't demanding that he do so. I was just hoping for someone that has differing views from mine to give me their POV on the material. But please don't pretend that I am going to attack you for your views. I believe that from time to time I've even stuck up for the right wing and Christians on this website. Fuck, watch it or don't watch it, but don't throw a hissy fit because I wanted to start a conversation.
• I watched the video. Its primary objective seemed to be to present an argument that the real reason for going to war in Iraq was that the US wants to take over the world. It gave compelling evidence that some of those in the administration have long sought a foreign policy which would involve pre-emptive strikes against perceived threats. These people lived through the Cold War. They saw the damage that it created. It was difficult for the US to step in and properly resolve a conflict if the USSR was going to automatically jump in and support the other side. So these people in the administration want to avoid another Cold War scenario where another power is able to neutralize the good that the US can do in the world with its ability to militarily end conflicts. I think that they are looking long-term and trying to keep the US in a position to be able to more easily prevent true wars (the kind where millions of people die).
• What Fes said. I was gonna write up a post similar to mct's, only a lot less polite. And Fes has every right to respond or not respond. I wasn't demanding that he do so. Yeah, whatever. You said that if he didn't watch it, "we all might likewise disregard any links [he] might come up with."
• Wingnut, the same argument was used in the building of the Soviet Empire. Russia took over satellite states to protect itself from devastation of another WWII. As a matter of fact , I think that the typical argument they did if for communism and it's ideal of world domination was simply a convenient excuse. They just didn't want to have millions of their citizens die in true wars (the kind where millions of people die). I don't know if world domination is such a good idea, except in Pinky and the Brain cartoons. It might just anger other nations enough to form an alliance against the US. I certainly wouldn't put it past the Europeans to break away from NATO should Cheney or another neo-con gets in office again.
• Take your marbles and go home Smo. Your mother's calling you.
• Noble long intentions or not, anything that is based on deception seems tainted from the start.
• It's a classic diversion. Oh poor me. I'm not going to engage in another session of kick the conservative. And surprise! Suddenly we're not talking about the issue anymore. Squid, you set the table for Fes by calling him out. It allowed him not to confront the issue itself but turn it "personal". You need to be more subtle.
• Spacediver, you found me out. I was deceptive. My "deception" was trying to "trap" monkeys into giving an informed opinion. How dare I.
• Spacediver's post was an obvious allusion to the Straussian endorsement of noble lies, foundational to the neoconservative project. Sounded like a comment about the philosophy itself, not you. But, you know, whatever.
• Well, since you know so much about Straussian philosophy Smo, then take a look at the video and tell us your opinion, rather than crying about how awful I am for asking for it. Fuck, I'm such an asshole for promoting free speech.
• I'm not saying you're awful for asking for opinions. I'm saying you (and not just you, even in this thread) erroneously group Fes and f8x into the same ideological camp based on their support for certain policies. In fact, from what I've read, they are much farther apart philosophically than you think they are. This is the result of a poisonous we-they/us-them political atmosphere especially acute in the US at these days that squeezes out argument and independent thought in favor of adherence to slogans and partisan politics. The Bush administration is guided by neoconservative ideology; Fes sympathizes with the Bush administration to a greater degree than most on MoFi; therefore, he is a neoconservative. But this is fallacious, wrong, and unfair. And while I'm at it, yes, it's unfair to call out both Fes and f8x to defend their respective views so often when no one else is forced to adhere to such a high standard. But that's not even my central point; middleclasstool made that one upthread. My point is this: Fes is not a neoconservative. He just isn't. I suspect some of his anger stems from being assumed as such. I am not a neoconservative either, by the way, although, like Fes, some of my views are conservative. But I was perhaps unfair to assume that you and others knew this and chose to ignore it. I apologize if it's the case that you simply weren't aware of it. But if that's the case, then you ought to be careful before you dismiss those with whom you disagree politically because they are more diverse than you think they are. One needn't be a neoconservative to support, for example, the war in Iraq. Read Andrew Sullivan for a while, who is not by any means a neoconservative -- or Josh Marshall's earlier stuff up to the war. Anyway, although I know a bit about Leo Strauss, the University of Chicago, and the neoconservative movement, I am not an expert. I don't feel compelled to download Real One (or spend the time) to watch the video, though. Sorry. Just, please, don't assume that all right wingers are alike.
• I never did assume that all right wingers are alike. Where and when did you come up with that? I am an economic moderate, social liberal and lean libertarian on several issues. I'm all over the political compass, so I too am hard to categorize. Nonetheless, I've heard opinions on this very topic from members that I originally listed that are quite different from mine. I just wanted to get other opinions. Your whinging about being “poor missunderstood conservatives” is a straw man argument. Stop being so fucking reactionary and either opine on this topic or not.
• Note To Everyone: I think people here are generally less antagonistic than their fear of others' antagonism leads them to be. Try and give others' intentions the benefit of the doubt, don't just decide you've got them figured out and they're wrong. Letting their "fuck yous" get under your skin just escalates the cycle of pissed-off-ness. First requirement of good debate is respect, folks. Obviously everyone has been bit a few times, but don't let that convince you these monkeys are all teeth. Yow nawt aww teef aww you, you fuzzy-wuzzy moonkeys!! Here this round's on me: ) ) ) ) I just finished downloading the torrent and I'll let anyone who cares know what I think about it tomorrow. Cheers!
• Personally, I'd like to express the opinion that the pirate penguins are the Best Evar. Nice job on the teeth!
• It is annoying when members of another religon show up in your church when you're trying to preach to the choir.
• Yeah, Squid, in the future, please make sure never to make FPPs that include opinions potentially counter to those of other monkeys.
• And Smo, it seems like most lefties in this thread have gone out of their way to acknowledge the distinction between neo-cons and other righties/Republicans/what-have-yous.
• I totally missed this thread, somehow. And since all relevant discussion seems to have been misplaced, I'm not going to comment. Also, where do you get the time to watch a 70 minute video on global neocon agendas? Don't you all have jobs? (Kidding!! Laugh, ha ha! Love ya!)
• I'm not going to comment What, then, is this thing I see before me?
• It's a non-comment comment. Seems f8xy has been taking notes from the neo-cons after all.
• What fish tick said.
• Can we stop picking on the minority now? I'd be feeling ganged up on too.
• This thread is hilarious.
• What's wrong with picking on squidranch?
• Yeah tracile, if anyone was being "ganged up on" I'd say it was me. But hey, I can hang. As our fearless leader said, "bring it on!"
• I'd like to clarify, as my comment seems to have provoked the shitstorm that followed. Squid, my comment was not intended to be directed at you specifically at all, not in the sense of challenging your reasons for posting this FPP. I firmly believe you wanted open discussion of the video, including dissenting views. If you go back and look at my comment, I hope you'll see that I tried like hell to stress that I didn't believe you bore any ill will or desire to troll the conservatives. The problems I addressed in that comment are something I've noticed sitewide, not with you specifically. My use of the second person was a bad choice, as I meant it to be plural and not singular, and I realize that didn't come through well at all. My purpose, in other words, wasn't to criticize you or this post, merely to try to put into context why our in-house dissenters occasionally get weary of political discussions here. Fes in particular is about the most calm and level-headed member this site has ever seen — I could count on one hand the number of times I've seen him upset, and have fingers left over — so I was just asking for a little slack to be thrown his way, that's all. In other words, no offense to you, squid, and sorry that I seem to have unintentionally begun the flinging of poo in your post.
• I seem to be having a bad week with this, as well. No less than three times I've tried with good intentions to address minor concerns of mine and started a crapalanche every damn time, most notably with my supervisor at work. Perhaps I should stop being so "helpful."
• No, your comment was good perspective, MCT.
• No MCT, I also would say that your comment was well thought and even handed. But let's make this clear. No one ever demanded a response, no one was lumping all right wingers together (although even naming someone with such a title does so) nor was I going to play "kick the conservative". It is a shame that the same folks whom I've read and respected their opinions have chosen to make this thread about being attacked, at best a straw man arugment that has nothing to do with original, quite valid, topic. Your silence speaks louder than words.
• *pout pout pout*
• 
• squidranch: I can't speak for fes or f8x, but as one of the non-lefty monkeys here, I suspect their non-response isn't because you would beat on them, but because other, more closed-minded monkeys would.
• I will speak for myself: upon reflection, I realize that my comment in this thread was unfair. To Squidranch's credit, I searched the Mofi archives in an effort to rebut him, and found nothing more damning than a call for liberals to vote rather than talk. So, I've offered to him personally, and I now offer to the rest of you, my sincere apologies. I was too quick to anger, vituperative, and ultimately whatever validity my response had was misdirected. I hope you may understand the impetus behind my post - certainly some do, and have said so (MCT has articulated far better than I the source of it) and that even at the time of its writing, I was not trying to attack him personally. In any event, by way of making things right, I will watch the film and post my thoughts on it tomorrow, if any care to hear them.
• . . . and there was peace in the valley. Nice work, monkeys.
• Let's all do it 'til we can't do it no more.
• ...it, MCT?
• This was an awesome thread, even if there was no debate of the issues raised by the documentary in the FPP. I'm serious. It was a good clearing of the air, and I hope it opens the way for some reasoned debate of political issues moving forward. And f8xy, I love ya too, babe.
• If you don't plan on purchasing the DVD, do check out the version stripe linked to (requires bittorrent to get) as the extras alone are worth the download.
• Good God, you people are far too democratic and reasonable towards each other. Stop with all this fluffy good-will and niceness! Stop it, I say!!
• Up your arse with a red-hot poker, Darshon! Feel better?
• Much.
• This is why I will only post on MetaFilter. You people seem to enjoy getting along. P'ha!
• *smiles at Fes, taps foot, looks at watch*
• I see ya there, I've got it about half written. Gimme a day, day and a half.
• In the interim, this may be of some interest to you. Quote: "And scientists now believe the males had either accidentally inseminated themselves during "violent" lovemaking sessions with females or been inseminated by other males after "bumping" into them in the dark depths of the ocean." And to think they told us in Health class that it didn't work that way.
• "But males get round their inferior size by being endowed with a particularly long penis, which means they can inject the female without having to get too close to her chomping beak. The male's sexual organ is actually a bit like a high-pressure fire hose and is normally nearly as long as his body - excluding legs and head." Heh-heh-heh...
• Wait, are we still talking about neocons? They sound scary.
• A conservative friend emailed me a joke today: Rumsfeld walks into Bush's office with his daily update from Iraq. He sits down and says: "I'm afraid that today in Baghdad 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed" Bush, looking dumbfounded, says "Wow, how many is a brazillion?"
• Nomen, that's hilarious!
• .
• Yea, dead soldiers are always really funny. What the fuck. .
• Give me a break...it's a funny joke.
• Oh come on Argh, it's a joke. Let's not be too politically correct. Gallows humor is how we humans deal with terrible situations.
• Hey I finally watched the film! I thought it was a pretty good overview of the left's view of the war, and it did a better job of explaining the neocons without slipping into the reductionism that bugged me a bit about The Power of Nightmares. It is (unfortunately?) rather geared towards the 2004 election, so there's a bit about Bush being AWOL and some other stuff that seems a bit ...irrelevant these days. Still thought I thought film was well done and informative. It doesn't try to present a 'balanced' view of anything, but the view it does present The film has an good cast of interviewees, including Chomsky, Wallerstein, Chalmers Johnson, and a host of retired military personel that give a more centrist critique of Bush than I would tend to, which lends credibility towards the whole endeavor. Anyway, as I was discussing with a friend today, I think the fact that Bush was elected at all to his second term points to much deeper societal issues than simply electing a better dude or pulling out of iraq is going to solve. I think I've linked to this before but here it is again, an article which I take to be a pretty good summary of the neocons' foreign policy position right now. Best I can tell, they're trying to make the best of iraq with respect to the american people and consolidate corporate power here at home. It is certainly hard to imagine invading any more countries in the near future. Domestically, however, anyone who thinks iraq or katrina has taken from the wind from Bush and the neocons' sails should read up on 'operation offset'.
• oops, I mean to link to this article. The whole series is worth reading though.
• I found both articles informative. Thanks stripe.
• *glances at watch one last time, begins nodding off*
• stripe, thanks for those links! I wasn't aware of Bring The Ruckus.
• *ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"
• Wake up damnit! There's a buncha neocons at the door and they're talking about "fryin us up some liberal calamari".
• Sorry. Ok, I have watched 40 minutes of 70 on this thing and, while my earlier ire may have been misplaced as to target? My suspicions regarding this "documentary" (and yes, I will continue to use quotes, because this is not a documentary) is exactly what I suspected it was - a diatribe, a polemic, and a fact-lite, outrage-heavy dab of choir preaching. How long did it take to equate the neo-conservatives with the Nazis? Just under two minutes. How many neo-conservatives were interviewed? 0. How many persons of staunch anti-Republican background but meh factuality or appropriateness werew quoted extensively? Lots (Norman Mailer - who as far as I know, has held no political office, nor appointed position, nor any sort of qualification to speak about this save for his credientials as a decidely anti-neo-conservative citizen, is quoted at least a half-dozen times in the 40 minutes I viewed. I like his books, but he's a crank). It paraded a litany of anti-conseravtives, disgruntled ex-employees, corkball guys from organizations you've never heard from, and other professional punch-pissers who made accusations not backed up by facts, who pandered with metaphors of such wild inappropriateness, and displayed a flagrant disregard for the complexities of current foreign policy as to make, to my opinion, their statements nearly devoid of actual substantive content. Nevertheless, while the document is in its entirety a polemic, I can look at and respond to some points. One, the Wolfowitz doctrine, which is described (once shorn of the dramatic Vader-esque music and whatnot) as advocating a military stance that advocates both pre-emption and unilateralism. Which are portrayed as being in service to a "new, American empire." This in erroneous for two reasons: one, it can't be new, since America has never actually had an empire, nor has it ever been an imperial nation and two, it misundertands the nature of what an "empire" is, to wit:
• An empire (also known technically, abstractly or disparagingly as an imperium, and with powers known among Romans as "imperium") comprises a set of regions locally ruled by governors, viceroys or client kings in the name of an emperor. By extension, one could classify as an empire any large, multi-ethnic state ruled from a single center. Like other states, an empire maintains its political structure at least partly by coercion. Land-based empires (such as Russia or Achaemenid Persia) tend to extend in a contiguous area; sea-borne empires, also known as thalassocracies (the Athenian and British empires provide examples), may feature looser structures and more scattered territories. Compare the concept of "empire" with that of a federation, where a large, multi-ethnic state — or even a realtively ethnically homogeneous one like Australia or a small area like Switzerland — relies on mutual agreement amongst its component political units. Also, one can compare physical empires with potentially more abstract or less formally structured hegemonies, which add cultural influences to their power repertory within their spheres of influence, and also compare empires with superpowers. The United States of America, widely categorized as a federation, offers another example. The North used coercion to keep the Union together during the American Civil War, which made this characterization more ambiguous in the minds of many. In the aftermath of the Cold War, the United States has emerged as an unrivaled superpower, and although the country has not engaged in formal territorial expansion since the acquisitions of Hawaii, of the Philippines and of the Virgin Islands, many suggest its powerful military and economic influences allow it to exert a sort of informal neo-imperial hegemony on much of the modern world.
• Sorry for the length, but as you can see, even despite the last sentence, the US' imperial "aims" are neither altogether imperial nor even remotely to the standard by which we typically use the term. America is simply not an imperial power. Aggressively capitalist? Guilty. Meddlesome? Indubitably. Flibbertygibbety over the long term? History says yes. But decidely not imperial. DC is not New Rome. Neo-cons, then. While the term itself has become tantamount to a pejorative, I contend that there is some about Neo-Conservativism which is laudable, to wit: more social welfare spending than paleoconservatives and libertarians prefer, emphasis on social equality for minorities, and the reduction of global trade restrictions (paleo's tend to be protectionist/isolationist) (from the wiki). The charge typically levelled against neo-conservatism, then, is based imo almost solely on foreign policy: the Wolfowitzian pre-emption and unilateralism.
• However one feels about the Wolofowitz Doctrine, there are other reasons that can be ascribed to it than the resurgence of an American empire which has never really existed. For one, we need to take the neo-cons in their context: the Cold War, and to a lesser extent, WWII. The neocons are cold warriors, virulent anti-communists, but what's more, they are cold warriors who were on the margins (at least philosophically) during the cold war - patriot bureaucrats for whom realpolitik, with accomodations to dicey foreign dictatorial types (Rumsfeld, with his connections to Nixon, and the famous Saddam photos from the 80s, is a neo-con johnnie-come-lately), was nigh on capitulation. In this, one sees idealism rather than pragmatism. Pre-emption and unilateralism can be seen, when taken in this context, as not entirely unexpected. Imagine, if you will, having grown up an idealistic philosophy based on WWII and the Cold War - you have seen, on one hand, the potential damage of a malificient tyrant; add to that a disturbing tendency amongst your political fellows (liberals being discounted as having historically always been capitulative in the face of foreign tyranny) to embrace and, ah, debrace foreign tyrants at the behest of political whim and expedience...? Add to that a sincere - and not entirely unfounded? - belief that American style democracy is the finest sort of political system to date AND that we, as benefactors of that democracy, must out of a sort of sense of noblesse oblige do its best to promote the introduction and growth of American-style democracy throughout the world?
• Combine those ideas - which I yet contend are not in and of themselves necessary bad things - and you have: unilateralism (who will help us to promote democracy, when there are many enemies to democracy and our own allies will capitulate to those enemies for the sake of expedience?), and pre-emption (military, primarily, in service to regime change and in defense of threat). The neo-cons are true believers - idealists, to the end - for whom pragmatism is betrayal, not so much to the cause of conservatism, but to the cause of America itself. Our allies are friendly but fey and, ultimately, cannot be trusted to do the right thing; our enemies are legion, subtle and venemous. And can we argue that the world doesn't *need* democracy? Respresensentive democracy and the rule of law is the bedrock of economic and social success. In any event, I disagree with enough of the neoconservative philosophy that any defense I pose would be half-hearted at best. However, I post this in service to the idea that simply demonizing the neo-conservative movement is not only unfair, but it detracts from the ability of their philosophical opposites to mount coherent arguments against their policies. This video does not aid the left's case against neoconservatism but, like all polemics, it inspires outrage amongst the converted, solidarity amongst the target, and dismissal amongst those who might otherwise be openminded.
• I apologize for not posting this sooner - about 12 hours after my last post here, I caught the damned flu and was down for four days straight. Hateful stuff. Do yourself a favor and get a flu shot.
• Yea that Mailer guy and his two Pulitzer Prizes and years of political activisim. How dare they use him. What does he know anyhow. I mean really, that book of his, Armies of the Night, nobody read that. He's a real nobody. "Add to that a sincere - and not entirely unfounded? - belief that American style democracy is the finest sort of political system to date AND that we, as benefactors of that democracy, must out of a sort of sense of noblesse oblige do its best to promote the introduction and growth of American-style democracy throughout the world?" Was. American style democracy was the finest sort of political system to date. Until it was hijacked by these bastards. Please see Ike's farewell speech about the military industrial complex. Eisenhower is spinning in his grave. This whole New American Century crap that Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld advocate is designed with the sole purpose to keep the military machine fed and the oligarchy in power. We are no longer a democracy but a thinly disguised oligarchy. As I read your explaination of the neocon mindset, I felt like you were a lawyer explaining to a judge the reasons why your client turned out so bad. "It wasn't his fault your honor, he had a real bad childhood." There is no - zero -none -nada justification for the way this group of wackjobs has stolen America. Turn on your tv. What do you see. The "New American Century" at it's finest? No. You see our children being blown up in a senseless and brutal war. The "noblesse oblige" of which you speak has cost us over 1900 dead and 30,000 wounded. We are living in a dark point of American history, courtesy of the neocons. God help us all.
• "The most effectual means of preventing the perversion of power into tyranny are to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes."
• Yea that Mailer guy and his two Pulitzer Prizes and years of political activisim. How dare they use him. What does he know anyhow. I mean really, that book of his, Armies of the Night, nobody read that. He's a real nobody. Conceeded. None of which, however, make him an expert on neo-conservatism, but instead a highly visible critic. Which was my point - the video doesn't bother with such frippery as trying to understand the neo-con philosophy or critiquing it in an sort of organized, intellectual manner - it trots out, among other even less things, the big loud anti-conservative guns from the very start, lets them fire unabated, and studiously avoids discussing the actual underpinnings of what makes a neo-conservative and why, perhaps, their worldview might be wrongheaded. Was. American style democracy was the finest sort of political system to date. Until it was hijacked by these bastards. Please see Ike's farewell speech about the military industrial complex. Eisenhower is spinning in his grave. I disagree. No one "hijacked" anything. The American electorate voted in someone who believes in neo-conservatism (I think - Bush isn't much of a neo-con either, nor much of a Republican in the traditional sense), and he purposefully put these men in positions of power, as per the standard method. When the time came to review that decision, the electorate voiced it's approval (barely, but still). Come 2008, the electorate will have the opportunity again to voice their approval or disapproval, and if it is the latter, then the neo-cons will be out. That easy transfer of power is one of the nice parts of American democracy.
• This whole New American Century crap that Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld advocate is designed with the sole purpose to keep the military machine fed and the oligarchy in power. We are no longer a democracy but a thinly disguised oligarchy. A valid opinion, certainly, but one with which I, again, disagree. As I read your explaination of the neocon mindset, I felt like you were a lawyer explaining to a judge the reasons why your client turned out so bad. "It wasn't his fault your honor, he had a real bad childhood." Perhaps. My intent was provide an insight into historical background and political environment from which the neo-cons descend. We search for meaning in the historical underpinnings and grievances of the Islamic world to understand the impetus to jihadist terror, ostensibly to aid in their defeat or disuasion - can we not extend the same courtesy to the neo-cons? There is no - zero -none -nada justification for the way this group of wackjobs has stolen America. I'm not sure what that means. America hasn't be stolen - I'm not sure it can be stolen. Every four years, each administration must make it's case to the American public. Now that public can be a manipulable mob of easily swayed knuckleheads sometimes, but it's not like we've had some sort of coup here. America trudges along regardless - perhaps, in spite of - each individual administration.
• Turn on your tv. What do you see. The "New American Century" at it's finest? No. You see our children being blown up in a senseless and brutal war. The "noblesse oblige" of which you speak has cost us over 1900 dead and 30,000 wounded. Indeed, and there is real intellectual meat for criticism of the neo-consevative philosophy there. And yet, historically speaking, the Iraq is hardly a war at all - compared (as we are wont to do) to Vietnam, we would have to continue in Iraq for another 60 years or so to sustain similar casualties at today's rates. War is always brutal, and often senseless - but as wars go, Iraq is tiny potatoes, generating far more wind than heat. What Iraq is indicative of is previous failures being badly remedied, wishful thinking replaced by planning, and militarism in service to rather sketchy ideals, none of which is all that laudable and most of which can be laid at the current stewards of the stately ship, neo-cons included. My reasons for my initial support for Iraq War, which I have stated on several occasions, deal with the defanging of state terorism over the long haul, and my belief that the administration had this goal in mind (despite the WMD debacle) when they set out; I do not now believe that is the case, although I stand by the original idea, posited by Stratfor, as a potetential justification. We are living in a dark point of American history, courtesy of the neocons. God help us all. I disagree on matter of degree on the first two and diametrically on the last. But again, it is a perfectly valid - even popular - opinion.
• That's "planning replaced by wishful thinking," about halfway up that last section. Sorry about that.
• You spelled terrorism wrong. Stupid conservatives, can't even spell terrorism.
• Fes, I want to answer you with someything more than a sentence or two but I'm packing up to drive,/i> to Dallas this afternoon. I'll get back to ya Tuesday
• Hooray for smallish bear! Congrats on winning Scripps Howard AND for offering such an insightful comment. You've certainly made my day. Fes, pretty decent analysis of the neocon agenda, and though I'd quibble on a few points, they are not nearly worth going over. I expect the anti-neocon response to your comments will be stunningly similiar to your description of the "documentary" itself.
• Well posted, Fes! I hope to get back here and quibble the "empire" thing with you soon. Also looking forward to the de-re-un-buttal from Argh too.
• I've always been confused by the label "neoconservative", since I've only heard it used by critics of conservatism in general. As I understand it, the term seems to be applied to those with the most hawkish and unilateralist foreign policy stance. These 'neocons' seem to want to take full advantage of the USA'a newfound status as the world's only superpower. Perhaps recognizing that this is a temporary position, they want to use it while they can to settle some longstanding scores. Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, Israel/Palestine, Taiwan, and other 'hot-spots' can now be dealt with in a way beneficial the the USA's long-term interests. There's nothing really new about their philosophy...what's new is the opportunity to act on it without the Soviets threatening to curtail them.
• I am impressed by the level of conversation here. I am sorry that I cannot add to it in any meaningful way. When my friends ask about my political leanings, I have (for about the last 10 years) replied, "Embarassed Republican".
• That's funny EarWax, because "Embarassed Republican" is an anagram of DESPICABLE BRA MANURES and EMBRACE ABSURD SPANIEL and also BEDPAN SABRE SIMULACRE.
• Solid, solid work, Fes. Thanks.
• You're still wrong, but thanks. :)
• Damn it, I still can't tell if it reads snarky. I'm being irony-free in my previous two comments.
• Hooray for smallish bear! Congrats on winning Scripps Howard AND for offering such an insightful comment. You've certainly made my day. So snarky! What's the matter, that third Tom Delay indictment got you down?
• Well played, Fes.
• Further to Argh's point about the undermining of one of the best of democratic systems, Crooked Timber reviews a new book called Off Center: The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy. Tt doesn't specifically address neo-conservativism but sets out a theory of how power is operating in new ways that circumvent older democratic processes, which seems relevant to the discussion here. I don't pretend to much knowledge of the ins and outs of US politcs over the last few decades but I do believe that vested interests have an inherent tendency to devote time and resources to subverting mechanisms designed to curtail their power. Most of the rest of us, busy with everyday life and far from the action, only notice when the situation is already far gone.
• I wish I could watch the orignal link, but my wireless network issues scare me off. So, are we sure we agree on what "neo-conservative" means:? I ask only because I had to be educated by other Monkeys in a thread which I can't find now. This Wikipedia article compares them to former liberals whose ideals move to the conservative quadrant over time. "Michael Lind, a self-described former neoconservative wrote that neoconservatism "originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ("Scoop") Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals.'" When the Cold War ended, "many 'paleoliberals' drifted back to the Democratic center... Today's neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists." Since I've typed and corrected this stuff several times, then had the connection go away, I'll let the rest of you decide wheter this has any interst.
• Interesting, I always took "neocon" to connote an evangelical Christian component.
• Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, Israel/Palestine, Taiwan, and other 'hot-spots' can now be dealt with in a way beneficial the the USA's long-term interests. There's nothing really new about their philosophy...what's new is the opportunity to act on it without the Soviets threatening to curtail them. I think there's a lot of truth to that. My impression was that, as idealists inside the Republican party, they were often frustrated by the willingness of those conservatives in power to abrogate the core precepts of conservatism, as they saw them, in service to cooperativity (read: capitulation). Now with power and, as the rocket observes, a lack of Soviet fetters (both economic and military), the neo-cons could easily see the last 5 years as a window of opportunity to get a few things done. Hence the speed with which they have operated, and the costs they are willing to incur.
• believe that vested interests have an inherent tendency to devote time and resources to subverting mechanisms designed to curtail their power. Most of the rest of us, busy with everyday life and far from the action, only notice when the situation is already far gone. An ancient truth - those who have power will always want more, and will seek to remove the blocks in their way to acquiring it. The problem is the willingness with which the members of congress are to be purchased. Part of it is the cost of campaign funding, which is a perennial money-hole, and the other is the vote-garnering aspect - organizations represent many votes, whereas you or I represent but one. If Phillip Morris' SMOKEPAC comes to Congressman Whatshisname and says, here's a bag of money and the assurance that we can deliver a couple thousand votes in your district? He's going to be far more receptive to that than to lone constituent Fes' email concerning second hand smoke issues or effluence from the tobacco plant greasing bluegills in Podunk Creek.
• The solution being that, ultimately, the congress is responsiblle to voter rather than the corporate lobbyist - corporations, theoretically, being unable to vote. Add to that the idea of the routine checks and balances - opposition parties, the executive veto, the Supreme Court challenge of constitutionality, and the press actively watchdogging. How these work in *practice* though, is another issue. path's right about neo-con historical context - the OG neos were Dems that grew more hawkish and overtly patriotic than their colleagues. but regarding religious context, my understanding is that the neo-cons are considered primarily Jewish, or at the very least highly pro-Israel, rather than fundamentalist Christian.
• Yes Fes, but I think that there currently is a meshing of fundy christians and zionist jews. For the kingdom of heaven to arive we need a jewish state in Israel/Palistine. They're kinda working hand in glove, at least for the time being.
• Do you think that the relationship is that millenial? The evangelical christians I know have no love for the Jews. I'd see it as, well, perhaps not quite as tight as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" as perhaps each sees the other as a convenient coattail to ride to their individual goals. In general, the Left Behind types seem to me, while devoted to the whole End Times ideal, to be smallish in number despite the popularity of their literature, etc.
• Yeah, the relationship between the Christian Right and the neocons (who are a different group, at least from what I've seen) seems to be driven/supported way more by overlap of political goals than overlap of ideologies.
• I don't disagree with you. I'm not saying we're gonna have Jews and Christians worshiping together, but they are working toward similar goals. While channel surfing I am constantly landing on Christian infomercials asking for money to support Jewish causes in Israel/Palestine.
• Yeah, but you live in la-la land ;)
• fuck off petebest ;)
• Things are heating up! The UK Times on the Decline and fall of the neocons, and Carter calls Bush the worst ever.
• "At some point, they're going to start with the alibi "Our policies didn't fail; Bush was just incompetent..." A seemingly prophetic statement from Wendell. Because now the Freepers are demanding impeachment (over the immigration issue, of course, because I think even they would balk at bitching about the prosecution of a war for which they were head cheerleaders). Apparently they are not gonna vote Dubya in for a third term, either, they're so angry. The problem with these people appears to be a particularly virulent and intense form of stupidity.
• The president can serve only 2 terms, so he's a lame duck at this point. That makes it so much easier for commentators to say what they wantd to long ago.
• I know the Prez can only serve two terms. And I'm not even an American. That's why I make the comment about the Freepers' intelligence. There is a person out there who thinks saying "I'm not going to vote for him again" is a pertinent comment in this context. This is magnificently stupid, and I sometimes think that stupid people shouldn't vote. But in the US, that would probably mean no one would.
• And I'm not even an American. What?!? A foreigner! Bomb him!
• Well, they could refuse to vote for a candidate he gives his stamp of approval to.
• Neocons Tried To Provoke War With China?
• Lawrence B. Wilkerson, the U.S. Army colonel who was Powell’s chief of staff through two administrations, said in little-noted remarks early last month that “neocons” in the top rungs of the administration quietly encouraged Taiwanese politicians to move toward a declaration of independence from mainland China — an act that the communist regime has repeatedly warned would provoke a military strike. The top U.S. diplomat in Taiwan at the time, Douglas Paal, backs up Wilkerson’s account, which is being hotly disputed by key former defense officials.
• Ship of fools: Johann Hari sets sail with America's swashbuckling neocons
• Neocons Down, Not Out