Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What the Heck Is a 'Neocon'?
Opinion Journal ^ | 12/30/2002 | Max Boot

Posted on 12/29/2002 9:10:29 PM PST by Pokey78

Edited on 04/23/2004 12:05:05 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad.

I have been called many names in my career--few of them printable--but the most mystifying has to be "neocon." I suppose I get labeled thus because I am associated, in a small way, with the Weekly Standard, which is known as a redoubt of "neoconservatism."


(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: maxboot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-199 next last
To: rmlew
If you interested in more readings on this issue, go to google and put in neo-conservative and Trotskyite, and you will learn more about the Trotskyite background of many prominent neo-cons. Unfortunately, a few of the links pulled up were unsavory to say the least, but there is some stuff from places like Lew Rockwell.com, etc.

My view is that any philosophy which is committed to "global democracy" and "global capitalism" is not that far removed from "global socialism".

By the way, I have noticed that your posts are not generally, excepting the issue of Israel, perhaps, of a neo-con bent. Why, then, do you defend the neo-cons, as you have done on several other threads?

161 posted on 12/31/2002 3:25:52 PM PST by Artois
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
NeoCons are about 75% of this forum outside of the Randians.
162 posted on 12/31/2002 3:27:03 PM PST by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
But they are not 75% of grass-root Republicans- not by a long shot.
163 posted on 12/31/2002 3:28:56 PM PST by Artois
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Artois
No indeed...they are interlopers wishing to turn us into Conservative bland.
164 posted on 12/31/2002 4:30:32 PM PST by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Mark Bahner
I care about The Law. You do not. That is the primary difference between us.

Better watch out, Mark -- your halo will choke you. Self-righteousness, one of the seven deadly FReeper sins. ROFL!

Take another hit -- your writing is improving.

165 posted on 01/01/2003 4:03:07 AM PST by Cincinatus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

Comment #166 Removed by Moderator

To: Cincinatus; x
It's funny seeing you contrast Sobran with Buckley. Apparently you are unaware of the degree to which Sobran was a part of National Review.
167 posted on 01/01/2003 10:04:11 PM PST by Pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Artois
If you interested in more readings on this issue, go to google and put in neo-conservative and Trotskyite, and you will learn more about the Trotskyite background of many prominent neo-cons. Unfortunately, a few of the links pulled up were unsavory to say the least, but there is some stuff from places like Lew Rockwell.com, etc.

I am very well aware that many older neo-cons were communists, mostly aligned with Trotskyite groups.
That mans nothing by itself. Richard Weaver, author of Ideas have Consequences was a communist in his youth. Many conservatives were. The issue is that you are labeling all neocons as Trotskyites.

My view is that any philosophy which is committed to "global democracy" and "global capitalism" is not that far removed from "global socialism".

Their universalist asparations are troubling. However, they support semi-limited government, private property, and less regultion. That isn't socialist.

By the way, I have noticed that your posts are not generally, excepting the issue of Israel, perhaps, of a neo-con bent.

I support Israel for a number of reasons. We are in a Clash of civilizations with the Mohammedins. Israel is an outpost. My solution in Israel is for a population transfer. It is one that would make neocons cringe.
You don't have to be a neocon to support Israel. I would argue that many paleos hate Israel only because most neocons love it.
Frankly, Israel can be used as a great tool to teach neocons and Chrsitian Zionists about the virtues of racialist realities.

Why, then, do you defend the neo-cons, as you have done on several other threads?

I hit both neocons and paleo-cons when I think they are wrong.
I am trying to get each side to see the others arguements.

168 posted on 01/01/2003 11:30:34 PM PST by rmlew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
Are you calling Sobran, a Holocaust revisionist, the authentic conservative?
169 posted on 01/01/2003 11:33:17 PM PST by rmlew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
It's funny seeing you contrast Sobran with Buckley

It's positively hilarious, considering that I didn't mention Sobran.

170 posted on 01/02/2003 2:02:35 AM PST by Cincinatus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

Comment #171 Removed by Moderator

Comment #172 Removed by Moderator

To: rmlew
Excellent work!

The fact is, what many of the paleo-cons are insisting on is, at the present time, hardly distinguishable from appeasement. We're in a war, and the only option we have is victory.
173 posted on 01/02/2003 5:42:12 AM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Thanks for the edification.
174 posted on 01/02/2003 10:28:46 AM PST by k2blader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
"We're in a war,..."

No we're not. We're merely once again in a situation where a president is violating the Constitution.

The only "wars" recognized by the Constitution follow Congressional Declarations of War. Congress has not yet declared war on anyone (see U.S. Congressional Declaration of War in WWII for a proper example). Therefore, we are not at war.

P.S. The Founding Fathers would never be so foolish as to allow, under the Constitution, a never-ending war on an unnamed enemy.

175 posted on 01/03/2003 2:30:26 PM PST by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Mark Bahner; Congressman Billybob
Can you please show where in the Constitution the precise language for Congress to declare war is laid out?

It seems to me that Thomas Jefferson then was guilty of the same with regards to the resolution regarding the Barbary Pirates and authorizing the use of the U.S. Navy, something that Congressman Billybob has discussed in the past.
176 posted on 01/03/2003 2:39:34 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
"However, they support semi-limited government,..."

Considering that the federal government takes approximately 1/4 of this nation's income, and neo-conservative G.W. Bush's last budget proposed a whopping 9% increase in spending (i.e. much more than the <3% annual rate of inflation), I'd say neo-conservatives' version of "semi-limited" is about 5 times the size I support.

It's a shame neoconservatives don't support a federal government limited to the size authorized by the Constitution.
177 posted on 01/03/2003 2:40:23 PM PST by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Mark Bahner; hchutch
Article I, Section 8, clause 11, of the Constitution gives Congress these powers:

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and to make Rules on Capture on Land and Water;"

The precise words to use in doing this, or any other authorized actions of Congress, are not specified. (When the Framers wanted specific words used, they put those in the Constitution, i.e., specifying the exact oath of office that a President shall make.)

While Congress did not use the same language in declaring war on the Barbary Pirates, or declaring war on those responsible for terrorism, that it did in the World War I and II declarations, it did declare war. Concerning both the pirates and the terrorists, Congress gave the President full discretionary power to use the US military against both individuals AND NATIONS.

There are two reasons for mentioning Congress' authority given to President Jefferson against the Barabary Pirates. First, that was the only other declaration of war in American history that did not name one or more specific nations as the enemy. Second, the war powers given to President Bush now were almost identical to those given to President Jefferson, then.

On 19 September, 2002, I had an article published on UPI entitled, "Commentary: Are we at war?" That article lays out chapter and verse of why we are at war, NOW, and how the requirements of the Constitution have been fully met, NOW.

As for the specifics of your comments, a war exists from the time Congress declares it, to the time that Congress declares it to be ended. How long wars will take is obviously unknown. So, the Framers not being dummies, did not require that Congress declare when a war would end at the time they declared it to begin.

Also, your comment about "an unnamed enemy" is off base. In the Barbary Pirate War, we declared war against enemies who did not officially represent any recognized nation. We described them by their actions. And Congress authorized President Jefferson to pursue those enemies "across any national boundaries." Some of the Framers were alive and serving in Congress, when that war was declared. So your supposition that "the Framers would never be so foolish as to allow such a war" is clearly off base. Living Framers, serving in Congress, DID vote for that war.

It would be a simple matter for you to compare the Barbary Pirate declaration to the Terrorism declaration and see that there are no material differences between them. The problem with your analysis is you have your idea of what a "proper" declaration of war consists of. The Constitution does not require that your version is the only version.

Case closed.

To hchutch: Thanks for the ping. The argument that "we are not at war" keeps rearing its ugly head on these threads. It's important that someone who has read most of the declarations of war that Congress has ever passed, weigh in to drive a wooden stake into this idea, whenever it rises from its coffin to menace FreeRepublic, again.

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest column on UPI, "Incision Decision in the Senate" (Now up on UPI wire, and FR.)

As the politician formerly known as Al Gore has said, Buy my book, "to Restore Trust in America"

178 posted on 01/03/2003 3:55:40 PM PST by Congressman Billybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Mark Bahner
Considering that the federal government takes approximately 1/4 of this nation's income, and neo-conservative G.W. Bush's last budget proposed a whopping 9% increase in spending (i.e. much more than the <3% annual rate of inflation), I'd say neo-conservatives' version of "semi-limited" is about 5 times the size I support.

1. I have nothing against increasing spending in time of war FOR THE MILITARY.
2. Perhaps you have forgotten political realities, like the Democrat filibuster or teh existance of 5 liberal Republicans in the Senate. Bush has to give a compromise bill.
He wis willing to trade some additional spending on domestic matter for spending on military matters.

Politics is ugly. Ideologues refuse to see this.

It's a shame neoconservatives don't support a federal government limited to the size authorized by the Constitution.

Neither do many other types of conservatives.

179 posted on 01/03/2003 5:36:20 PM PST by rmlew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus
So you didn't. But since you hate everyone else of that group, I must have assumed it.
180 posted on 01/03/2003 10:37:55 PM PST by Pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-199 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson