Posted on 05/25/2007 10:13:26 AM PDT by Irontank
So-called "neo" conservatism has its roots in a Marxist view of the world. So it is not surprising that the neocons are trying to silence their most prominent conservative critic.
That would be Texas Rep. Ron Paul. He outraged the neocons during the Republican presidential debate last week by advocating that the GOP return to the traditional conservative stance of noninterventionism. Paul invoked the ghost of Robert Taft, the GOP Senate leader who fought entry into NATO. And he also pointed out that messing around in the Mideast creates risks here at home.
That prompted Rudy Giuliani to interrupt Paul and demand that he retract his remarks. Paul not only refused to bow to Il Duce, but after the debate, Paul told the TV audience that the self-appointed saint of 9/11 might consider reading the report of the 9/11 commission, which makes the same point in some detail.
....
I put in a call to Andy Napolitano, the Fox News legal analyst and my brother's old buddy at Notre Dame Law School. In addition to appearing on TV, Andy co-hosts a talk show called "Brian and the Judge" on Fox radio.
"Our calls have been going 10 to one in favor of Ron Paul," said Napolitano, a former Superior Court judge in New Jersey who supports Paul's libertarian views.
....
Clearly, the doctor had hit a nerve. The neocons are fond of arguing that we can't simply retreat into "fortress America," as they call it. But the impulse to do so is deeply ingrained in the American psyche. If you doubt that, look at the polls on immigration. The neocon in chief is an open-borders guy, but that view has no support in the base of the GOP.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
I see...just wondering how Paul Mulshine defines them? Probably the way the way they define themselves...but you can email him if you want to make sure
My article quotes in its entirety, a piece written by one of the chief gurus of the movement. Do you deny that Irving Kristol, father of William Kristol, well recognized as also being in the movement, has some credentials in that movement? If one cannot refer to how he defines his movement, what would you have one refer to?
If you are looking, just to bandy insults, be my guest. Take your best shot at my article, and I might just take the time to respond. I certainly will, if you make any points that deserve a response.
For others who want to judge for themselves, here is the link again: The Neocon Phenomenon. Of course, I am not speaking for the Paul campaign, only myself. I support Ron Paul, but have no authority to speak for him. He does a good enough job doing that for himself.
William Flax
That may often be the case...but when discussing the invasion of Iraq....it was most certainly people who could accurately be called neoconservative who had been writing about and advocating it since the mid-1990's...although I would agree with you that Mulsine is incorrect when he refers to GWB as a neocon.
“What’s a ‘neocon’?”
A word that Mick Jagger and a few other brainless jerks use to describe people they do not like and/or that disagree with them on the subject du-jour. It is a meaningless insult... thus an insult without meaning.
NO AMNESTY... SECURE THE BORDER!
LLS
What 'movement'? The movement to hide our heads in the sand and pretend what goes on in the rest of the world doesn't affect us? The movement to ignore what's going on around us and it will just go away?
I presume you meant to impress me by mentioning Bill Kristol's daddy. It didn't work.
As to your link, yes, everyone can decide for themselves. Still reads like the screed of a wacko to me.
Now, on you being a nut job: I didn't say that, but apparently the shoe fits - you put it on.
Bringing up Hitler means that one doesn't have a real argument and that one's just trying to force a conclusion. Using the word "neocon" is a lot different. The person who does is trying to categorize a group. He or she may not have found the right word, but it's not like they don't have an argument or are trying to force a conclusion that facts don't support.
Once, when neoconservative notions were only ideas, there were many self-described "neoconservatives." Now that those ideas have become policy and have consequences people are trying to back away from the label. That's their prerogative, but it's not true that people who still use the term have automatically lost the argument.
*snicker* You break it, you buy it? Sounds almost... neocon!
I don’t give a hoot about the origins...they can call themselves a bowel movement for all I care. I just said liberals and Ron Paul supporters “use it”, usually with venom dripping from their fangs. So anyone that uses that term in an article, especially in conjunction with praising of Ron Paul is not on my favorite reading list.
The Neocon movement does not advocate hiding heads in the sand; rather it advocates half-baked policies, served up by the intellectually underdone: The metaphoric "bull in a china closet" approach to policy. They do not advocate ignoring what is going on around us. They just tend to deal with it with a half-cocked mixture of hubris and hysteria. (For example, attempting to equate the threat from Al Qaeda with that from Soviet Russia, or Socialist Germany, or Imperial Japan; while suggesting that they have magic formulae for solving the current problem.)
But the fact that they are a bit hair-brained is not why Conservatives pay them much heed. It is the fact that they seek to reverse the American emphasis on personal freedom and limited Government at home, while violating established principles, not only of the sound foreign policy that worked, but of the long recognized Law of Nations. (Such as their embracing the idea of a revival of the Dean Rusk foreign policy from the 1960s--albeit without acknowledging Mr. Rusk--by seeking to promote a bogus view of American values, overseas.)
But enough of this silly exchange. Unless you have some particular point in my essay, that you actually want to discuss, rather than hurling airborne insults, you are simply wasting time and bandwith.
Forget the "Neocons," who may indeed fade away. Why don't you like Ron Paul? He is one of the few men in Washington, who is able to rationally defend where he stands on issues. You have not really seen him yet at best advantage, because the 60 and 30 second sound bites allowed in these "debates," really do not give anyone enough time to really develop a line of thought. I would really urge you to give him serious consideration.
you are simply wasting time and bandwith.
Obviously, I am. It's already been made clear to me that Ron Paul is not one I would ever support, so I won't waste our time any further.
Have a nice day.
Sort of like colonial England, right?
Don't be surprised when someone else's ideas about "managing the globe" include radical secularism, unfettered immigration, outright hostility to the underlying principles on which this nation was built, etc.
You must be kidding me.
These neo-cons couldn't give a sh!t about radical Islam, or any religion at all for that matter. That's why they've never seen any inconsistency in: 1) propping up a royal family in Saudi Arabia that has long been a major supporter of radical Islam; and 2) toppling the largely secular Ba'athist government in Iraq.
And proponents of both views are authoritarian statists of the worst stripe, fit only to be fishfood.
Well, technically, yes, isolation IS part of constitutional law, since there is no authority granted to FedGov to get us into these situations. That means, by default, our foreign policy, with respect to official governmental dealings, MUST be neutral at best. Remember, if specific authority for fedgov to act is NOT granted by the Constitution, IT DOES NOT EXIST. Much to the dismay of the activists and “neo cons” and liberals (all of whom, by the bye, who share the interesting characteristic of wanting to have their way with my life and property and have me foot the bill besides... no MATTER what the Supreme Law of the Land says). So you are as wrong as two left shoes... Not an unusual place for you to be, if I recall correctly... and I do.
I do understand our traditional foreign policy. I just don't believe it's been relevant since around 1917. Certainly not since 1941.
Yikes. I was using Poland as an example of a country that has never had an interventionist policy. It certainly didn't keep them safe from foreign attack.
Non-interventionism is no longer a relevant or effective strategy. The world is a lot smaller than it was prior to WWI or WWII.
Even if Wilson had nothing to do with Hitler, he still would have come about-- or someone else would have. We can band together with like-minded countries and fight the threat before it's global, or we can wait until we're the only ones left, and fight the entire planet by ourselves. It's pretty much as simple as that.
I do not-- at least not in the short term.
I believe you're taking a myopic view of the struggle against Jihadism, however. Certainly we have created a focal point for terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the process, however, we have shone the spotlight on governments that support terrorism as well as other dangerous endeavors (Libya?) The roaches are all coming out to play, running toward Iraq, and getting squashed in large numbers.
I think the Jihadist movement is stronger whenever we get involved. It gives them something concrete to hate for a time. Long term, however, I think it weakens them and shortens the lifespan of their movement.
We'll just have to agree to disagree, I guess.
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.