Sorry chief but I disagree with neocons and it for the policy alone. If you go back and check any of my posts on the subject you'll find a substantive listing of policies critiques. I am not alone in philosophically opposing neoconservatism. Some conservatives see noting conservative about the neo version.
> I laugh at the earnest writers who invoke the term "empire" with regard to the US.
The neoconservatives use the term quite a bit and glowingly I might add. Please do a search on FR for empire, imperialism, colonialism, etc. and then try it again on google. You might try with the National Review column by the editor Rich Lowery called The Colonial Consensus. Here's a little taste of neocon use of the term for starters -
"Max Boot, the features editor of The Wall Street Journal, has written a cogent and measured essay in the Oct. 15 issue of The Weekly Standard explaining that our problems abroad don't stem from too much American "imperialism," but too little. "
and another Boot -
Another name for ''`hard' Wilsonianism,'' he [Max Boot] points out, is liberal imperialism. After all, Wilson, who took over Veracruz, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic, was one of our most imperial presidents. Boot adds: ''I prefer the more forthright if also more controversial term American Empire - sort of like the way some gays embrace the `queer' label.''
>As for neocons, there is nothing "neo" about it. If you believe in the founding principles of the republic, and you are prepared to defend them, you are not "neo" anything.
I refer you to Irving Kristol as he defines neoconservatism in last week's Weekly Standard. It was posted on FR here and here You will find that he says neocons are all for the welfare state, they think activists presidents and centralized government is great, traditional conservative theorists are bunk. He also thinks strict national defense is for puny nations but great nations like the US are ideologically driven like the USSR and should spread their vision throughout the world. In summation what he believes in does not square well with anything the founding fathers held dear. I provided links, go see it in black and white for yourself.
>The US doesn't have an empire, and is not going to have an empire.
OK, lets call it neo-empire or neo- imperialism.
He got all giddy that the neo-con term came up again gave him a moment of relevancy. Did nothing to identify any of those identified as "neo-cons" today as actual "neo-cons."
Boot is an ideological chimp, and thinks he's flippant with words. All the other so-called "neo-cons" idenitifed I've seen are pretty much limited to issues about our self-sworn enemies, the Islamists, and how to deal with them.
Attacking Afghanistan, controlled by Al Qaeda, and finishing the 12 year war with Saddam does not make an "empire," whatever the modifier attached to it. In fact, the globalist economic agendas of the Republicrats is to work to lessen American economic power for the gains of multi-national companies.
Isolationalism is a valid position, I just don't see us as an "empire" in any meaningful sense. Some play with the word "hegemon", maybe that's better.
I didn't know I was picking an argument with you, but I will repeat that for most who use the term "neo" the intent is to shut down the argument by ad hominem without addressing the actual policy disagreement. If your policy dispute is with Kristol and Boot, then the term may have some validity. But I normally see it used to apply to anyone who favors the war against the Talibs and the Baathists, and who sympathise more with the Israelis than the Palestinians. If that is your position, then defend it and we will enjoy the exchange.
If I happen to agree with Boot or Kristol on some items, I probably also agree with you on some others. Labelling me a "u89er" would do little to advance an argument, nor does labelling me a neo, or a parrothead, or anything else.
Boot adds: ''I prefer the more forthright if also more controversial term American Empire - sort of like the way some gays embrace the `queer' label.''
I repeat what I said earlier. I laugh at writers who invoke the term "empire" with regard to the US. They use a term they half understand to describe something they don't at all understand. That includes Boot, and Buchanan, and every leftist writer I ever read.
I refer you to Irving Kristol... he says neocons are all for the welfare state
Again, if your target is Kristol, your comments and your use of the term "neo" is apt. But the term is normally used in shotgun fashion against everyone who favors confronting our enemies on their own turf, rather than on ours. If they wear an "R" next to their name, they probably do not favor the welfare state, so the term would be misapplied. Its only purpose, then, in this case would be to shut down discussion.
I recognize that there could be a legitimate utilitarian argument concerning whether or how or where we confront our enemies, and I would still recognize you as a fellow Republican, or a fellow conservative if you disagreed with me on those terms. You at least agree on the founding principles of the republic, and most probably agree that they are worth defending, differing with us on the how and where. I respect that position even if I disagree with it.
For the folks on the left, they don't even accept the founding principles, and they do not agree to defend them anywhere, not in Central Asia, not at the borders, not anywhere.
He also thinks... great nations like the US are ideologically driven... and should spread their vision throughout the world.
The US is ideologically driven. It is not an ethnic nation in the sense that France or Germany is, it is ideology that binds us. The fact that half the country no longer believes in the founding principles does not alter that fact, that it is the values closely held by the other half that hold us together. And as for whether or not we "should", the fact remains that we "do" spread our vision thoughout the world. Whether we should do so by design is fodder for discussion, but the fact is that we do, just by breathing, just by existing, just because that is the way we are. You are a revolutionary on the world stage without planning to be, without wanting to be, because your, our, values put the lie to the values that undergird most of the rest of the world. That makes us a magnet for trouble. Some of us err on the side of bold, some of us err on the side of prudence. Post 9/11, I vote for "bold".