Official universal symbol of the increasingly pop-eyed Beware-the-Evil-Spooky-Bad-Neocon-JOOOOOOOS brigade:
Posted on 05/25/2004 9:18:53 PM PDT by quidnunc
Americans working and living in Europe are often struck by the preoccupation in defense and security circles with the pernicious influence of "neoconservatives" on U.S. foreign policy. There is a pervasive sense that American foreign policy is being driven down a radically new path by a small band of ideologues who have virtually hijacked the policymaking process.
European defense and foreign policy elites are not the only ones who seem to believe that current U.S. foreign policy is something of an aberration; this view is found more broadly in European public opinion as well. In a 2003 Pew poll, approximately 75% of those surveyed in France and Germany said the current "problem with the U.S." was mainly President Bush, while only 21% said it had more to do with the United States in general. The end result is a dominant opinion in much of Europe that little will be repaired in the trans-Atlantic relationship until there is a new presidential administration in the United States, or at least a marked reduction in the influence of the small group of neoconservative extremists who surround Mr. Bush.
Although there are notable exceptions, many European commentators and much of the public are resorting to conspiratorial theories to explain the direction of U.S. foreign policy and somehow overlook the fact that American public opinion runs in favor of the president's handling of foreign affairs. Perhaps more important, however, they overlook the deep historical roots of the current direction of American foreign policy. It is not driven by a "neocon cabal." Rather, it is that certain individuals associated with the neoconservative label have been particularly articulate in expressing a set of policies that flow from two ideas that resonate deeply in American public opinion. The first is a belief that the United States has a responsibility to spread its vision of individual liberty. The second is that the primary and perhaps exclusive task of the federal government is to protect its citizens from external threats. Whatever the actual causes of U.S. action in any particular instance, those principles loom large in the public debate and shape how and when the United States becomes involved in other countries' affairs.
The first principle is often credited to Woodrow Wilson, but in some ways its roots stretch back into the 18th century. It is founded on the moral assertions that have been part of American political thought since the early days of the republic. Chief among them is the idea that individual liberty is a moral absolute and that a system of governance that enshrines individual liberty is morally and practically superior to all others. This is a very fundamental belief, deeply embedded in American political thought and public opinion. It is a principle, however, that does not necessarily have the same level of importance in modern European political systems, whose constitutions tend to place a greater emphasis on social harmony than on individual liberty.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Yep. Kerry won't change much I suspect if he gets in, beyond the cosmetics, when it comes to foreign policy. The imperatives are simply too compelling. That at least is my hope, although even the change in cosmetics will raise my blood pressure.
Anyone who unmasks them as less moral than they desperately want to appear to be.
At the top of the list are devout Jews and Christians (the worst offenders).
At must read bump
Kerry would change far more than "cosmetics"! Look at the people he'd has in his administration,as opposed to President Bush's team.
Objective realities tend to constrict the choices of the president, so I don't think so. Of course, Kerry could do a Clinton, and pretend it all isn't there, but that is no longer an option. Still, I think Kerry would be a risky scheme. And why take needless risk?
What happened?
Issues change, and what matters in the public square changes, and attitudes change. That is what makes politics so fascinating. So much, so often, is a moving target. Still, I have faith in the good sense of the American voter, by and large, and am comfortable with their judgment, usually. But then I tend to be an establishment type, except when I am not.
Did you happen to hear the news,tonight, about the UN "supervisors" in Africa,who are making little girls have sex with them,for the food that the Blue Helmets are supposed to be handing out to the straving?
Anyone who thinks that a Kerry presidency wouldn't be too bad,has blinkers on.What isn't an option,would be one for Kerry.
Given Kerry's Senate record and his personal views, I'd say that having him as President would be the final undoing of the USA. He'd finish the job the 'toons started.
Basically, he'd leave conservatives no other option than armed revolution to save the Republic. Thank God we'd have the military on our side as well as keep any other nation from intervening.
The nation that would emerge from the ashes of that civil war would be far stronger than the one we live in today.
Official universal symbol of the increasingly pop-eyed Beware-the-Evil-Spooky-Bad-Neocon-JOOOOOOOS brigade:
Baloney. The fundamental belief described here is hardly "deeply embedded in American political thought and public opinion." I'd love to see where in America the author finds such a thing.
This is why what is commonly called the "neo-conservative" political philosophy is really just a transparent fraud -- much of what is espoused by its modern proponents isn't very conservative at all.
A "big government conservative" is still a liberal, for all intents and purposes.
I doubt it. One positive aspect of a Kerry victory in November, though, would be that Republicans would go back and start acting like they did in 1994.
A Kerry/UN/Soros victory would mean the UN would be back in vogue.
Soros is campaigning for Kerry, and has said he wants to "burst the bubble of American supremacy".
Another Kerry supporter, Walter Cronkite made a speech to the UN saying, "we must strengthen the UN first, it is a step towards a world gov patterned by our own gov, to do that Americans will need to yield up some of our sovereignty".
The World Court, Kyoto, and god knows what else is in our future.
And do not think that Republicans will be strong under Kerry, the media drummed the 94 class out, and judging their performance during the last few months, I would say they are beholden to the NYT, and the NY elite media, more than they are to us.
Amen.
Goes for the LP bitter Loserdopians as well.
Awe...
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.