The Washington Post on Neo con myths
Excerpt
As the Bush administration winds down, neoconservatism has become the most feared and reviled intellectual movement in American history. The neoconservatives have become the subject of numerous myths, mostly spread by their numerous detractors. They're seen as dangerous heretics by livid liberals as well as by traditional conservatives such as William F. Buckley Jr. and Patrick Buchanan.
So "neocon" has become a handy term of condemnation, routinely deployed to try to silence liberal hawks such as Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut or right-wing interventionists such as former deputy secretary of defense Paul D. Wolfowitz and the former Pentagon official Richard N. Perle, who's been nicknamed the "Prince of Darkness." That moniker aside, the neocons insist that there's nothing sinister about them; they simply believed that after 9/11, the United States should use its power to spread democracy throughout the Arab world, just as it had done in Eastern Europe and Central America during the Cold War. Their critics aren't so sure -- and the misconceptions grow.
More.....
4 comments:
I think we'll see "neocon" become a term much like "fascist"... One thats used to smear someone, without really knowing what it is.
However, like fascism, neo-conservativism is a distinct ideology and, in my opinion anyway, a very dangerous one.
Did you take a listen to the podcast I referred you to?
Neocon is a liberal/leftist derogatory name for a "Jew" that doesn't toe the "progressive" line. It is able to be used in "polite" company (i.e. the Media) as a code word.
No I have not. I'll try and get to it this week.
In you mind Jason what is the distinction between conservatism/ neo conservatism and libertarianism?
Well, first, IMO, neo-cons are not Conservative at all.. They are merely liberals with different goals. They talk about traditionalism and such, but content of their views aside, they are indistinguishable from liberals in that they completely eschew the means to accomplish the ends they seek that would be a truly conservative approach.
Conservativism, on the other hand, I think is an identifiable ideology that shares much in common with libertarianism.... namely, support of civil society to create the necessary institutions for the prosperity and continuance of society, and a healthy distrust of those with power. I think the difference between neo-cons and cons, is rooted in what means they adopt.
As far as a difference between libs and cons, I could sum it up with an example... tax cuts... A con would support a tax cut because he recognizes (correctly) that it would promote increased economic activity, which would lead to more tax revenues for the State. A lib, on the other hand, says "taxation is theft, theft is wrong", and supports the tax cut on moral grounds.
Obviously, the exact similarities and differences is much more complex than this... but I'm trying to be brief here.
Post a Comment