Posted on 10/10/2022 8:46:26 AM PDT by Nik Naym
Would someone please define "Neocon"?
I can't quite figure it out based on the usage of the word here on FR. From what I can tell it seems to be anyone who doesn't think Putin is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I know it can't be that.
Where did the term come from, and what exactly does it mean?
A bunch of supposedly “former liberals-leftists” who insinuated themselves into key policy making positions and public office in the Republican and even Democrat parties in recent decades.
Neocons are Fakeservatives
What is BTTT?
That’s the simplest and best definition.
These folks have ancestors that were persecuted by Russian Tsars helping to stoke their hatred of Putin.
I’m not one, but I generally prefer that terms be defined by the people who identify with the term rather than their opponents — for instance asking the blue-hair brigade to define “Christian” for us is a bad idea.
A ‘neo-con’ or ‘neoconservative’ was originally an anti-Soviet Democrat who favored interventionist policies. These persons (on the whole) left the Democrat party and joined the Republican party where they kept their leftish positions on social issues but adopted a low(er) tax fiscal position combined with eagerness to engage overseas.
For my own part, I find them a mass of contradictions — so that they don’t mind sending billions overseas for some war elsewhere, and simultaneously subvert any effort to defend our actual country here by promoting immigration of all sorts and tanking efforts to stop illegal entry.
One could perhaps see the point *if* efforts like Afghanistan or Iraq successfully turned the corner there and resulted in some sort of Mohammedan reformation, and prosperity there and cooperation with our goals, but it didn’t.
The only item of success (IMO) a neocon could claim would be USSR and that was more the Reagan doctrine of victory prevailing over the neocons who were happy to busy us building and expending weapons and soldiers in a myriad of pointless conflicts. In fact when NeoCon 1 (Bush Sr.) took the reins he promptly pooched the entire benefit of this victory, but we did get some great footage of pickup trucks escaping certain death.
Right there is your answer.
The “neocon” Never-Trumpers are people who want to transform the world, but are uncomfortable with the idea of “Making America Great”, and dislike the idea of promoting the safety, prosperity, and well being of American citizens over getting involved in global adventures.
They are people who dislike the idea of Americans being more important, to us, than non-Americans.
RINOs Gopes and neocons..oh my!
“ anyone who doesn’t think Putin is the greatest thing since sliced bread.”
Based on that straw man argument I’m guessing you are a neo-con, or at least you have been seduced by them.
Here’s a quick summary of what’s going on with the globalist neverTrump NeoCon idiots.
1) The Left hates Putin because he is an outspoken opponent of all their woke crap regarding transgenders, climate change, gun control, globalism, etc.. and he is an outspoken advocate of Russia First nationalism.
2) The Left hates Trump because he is an outspoken opponent of all their woke crap regarding transgenders, climate change, gun control, globalism, etc.. and he is an outspoken advocate of America First nationalism.
3) Because these two leaders share similar opinions of the Left’s woke crap, and both believe in putting their own nation’s interests first, the Left sees Putin and Trump as being identical - joined at the hip - when of course, that is utter nonsense.
4) Because these two leaders have on occasion actually expressed respect for their adversary’s common sense and patriotism - the Left saw this as an opportunity to demonize Trump as a traitor who cozies up to our enemies. The more the demonize Putin the more they can demonize Trump for supposedly cozying up to him.
5) Neo-cons are the morons who once identified as hawkish conservatives, but have now fallen for the Left’s woke crap and nonsensical Trump/Putin conspiracy theories.
Neos were more likely to give Gorby credit for tearing down the Berlin wall than Reagan?
Are you trying to be a hit and run poster?
Famous neocon Robert Kagan’s wikipedia page points out a common neocon position of favoring the use of US’s military to forcibly change the culture of other nations (”applying US moralism to the world stage”)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kagan
Andrew Bacevich referred to Kagan as “the chief neoconservative foreign-policy theorist” in reviewing Kagan’s book The Return of History and the End of Dreams.[24]
A profile in The Guardian described Kagan as being “uncomfortable” with the ‘neocon’ title, and stated that “he insists he is ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ in a distinctly American tradition”.[25]
In 2008, Kagan wrote an article titled “Neocon Nation: Neoconservatism, c. 1776” for World Affairs, describing the main components of American neoconservatism as a belief in the rectitude of applying US moralism to the world stage, support for the US to act alone, the promotion of American-style liberty and democracy in other countries, the belief in American hegemony,[26] the confidence in US military power, and a distrust of international institutions.[27] According to Kagan, his foreign-policy views are “deeply rooted in American history and widely shared by Americans”.[28]
Bacevich is one smart man, but he is also one angry man.
I would only add that the "neo" part was used to separate them from the fiscal or moral conservatives who supported GWB in 2000 and 2004.
They were social liberals who jumped on the GWB bandwagon because they saw him as a means to promote democracy at gunpoint; they were quite comfortable under Bill Clinton. (See, The Project for the New American Century.)
There's not much use for the term anymore under the current sock puppet in the White Hut; they're probably quite comfortable as Democrats again and they can dispense with the façade of being "conservative".
Purveyors of globohomo, neo-Jacobins, etc.
Thanks - that’s some good reading.
However, I think it’s impossible to define political labels - there are as many variants as there are people who adopt that label.
Also, there are all sorts of pejorative meanings for the opposition.
Ask a Leftist what a conservative is, and they will most likely describe a fascist.
I call myself a Constitutional Conservative, or a “Small Government Conservative”.
Self-described “Liberals” are far from liberal in my experience.
LOL
Before I read the comments, I’m going to say it’s people who like to think of themselves as conservatives but consider themselves superior to Donald Trump.
I believe it goes back to Reagan. He had a swath of liberal Democrats who felt Carter was a loser, and so they offered to align with him, and become Republicans, based on supposed concerns over national security, economic stuff, and other issues they claimed Carter and the dems lost them on.
In reality, they were mercenary New World Order types, along the lines of Bill Kristol, and the alliance was because otherwise they lost power over national influence, and the money which comes with that. By pretending to be conservatives, they could wield power, corrupt our side, and prevent the dangerous real conservatives from controlling the Republican party.
The thing with them is they were never real conservatives with morals (as their abandonment of Trump shows), and they were for sale, often to the Defense industry, so every time there is a war, they are arguing to get in there. They are kind of weak and pathetic specimens, so they may also get off on picturing the Chad football player getting blown up overseas.
Putin is an attractive leader to the extent he is supporting Christianity, morality, traditionalism, and patriotism in his country. A lot of conservatives see the Globohomo thing going on in the US, and prefer Putin to that.
And a lot of us who got into activism have run into the intel op which actually runs things in the US, and now lives next door to us, and follows us around, even hits us with weird microwave weapons stuff at night, and so America’s shine has come off some, given we realize we don’t actually elect our leaders, or have fourth Amendment freedoms, or a lot of other stuff they sell as part of America. If everybody understood how the system actually works, they would support anything other than the US.
In truth, with all I have seen, I now view it as almost comical people actually think the real powers, with fortunes which dwarf Elon Musk’s, out of the City of London, would ever just let plebes elect leaders who would represent our interests, and screw over all those shadow powers and elite bankers.
Also, the current Ukrainian government facilitated that pic of Hunter off his laptop with the group of little seven and eight year old Ukrainian girls on the couch he appeared set to rape, so obviously Putin seems preferable to that end as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.