The end of neo-conservatism

Paste.
The pause that refreshes.

 

This thread didn't take long to degenerate, but I'd ask Lyman a fairly simple question. If you've paid attention my posts -- no reason that you should, just pointing out that I've got something to back me up -- you know that I'm not one of the liberals on the board. But I am pragmatic, something that the typical neo-conservative does not appear to be.
OK, so the question: How is neo-conservativism different from socialism at its core?
The neo-cons have shown they have a particular worldview that is, at its core, based on a reasonable view of social justice -- that all people should have the opportunity to determine their futures.
The socialists have shown they have a worldview that is, at its core, based on a reasonable view of social justice -- that all people should have equal access to the planet's wealth.
Neither of these two worldviews works in practice. Greed, jealousy and longstanding animosity undermine both before they get off the ground. So why would you attack someone who points out the problems that have developed with neo-conservative practice?
OK, that's two questions.

 

This thread is further proof we need a politics flame board.

 

Speaking of smug, I quote from Olive's article, none of which the mentally challenged such as Tony and his buddy Lyman have probably even read:

The smug moral superiority of which Canadians are accused on occasions when they dissent from U.S. foreign policy has nothing on Americans' self-regard as upholders of supreme moral authority in the world. As President William McKinley explained, in justifying the occupation of the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico and other spoils of war captured from the Spanish at the dawn of the 20th century, "there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow men for whom Christ also died."

The question to debate is, what if Olive's right? Is this the end of the neo-cons? And if so, what happens next?

 

Off to The Hague for the lot of them.

 

I get nervous when I see statements like, "the end of _____". I'll never forget watching Crossfire in the early 90s -- before it became a pathetic joke -- and they had some conservative author who wrote that the Democratic party would never win another election, America had turned too far in the GOP's direction for the Dems to ever win again. I think he asserted that the Dems would become like the UK's Liberal Party, withering to the point of insignificance.

It was pure hubris at a time when conservatives thought they were infallible. NONE of these movements -- liberalism, conservatism or whatever flavor-of-the-month label you want to give them -- ever completely die, they wax and wane with the times.

It would take a monumental fuck-up to kill either of those philosophies, and as bad as Iraq is, it doesn't qualify. I'm talking nation-destroying, life-altering-for-everyone type shit. Bad as Bush is, we're not there ... yet.

 

Bubbler, no one's saying that conservatism is going to die. But this particularly virulent form --the neo-con --has run its course. And of course the conservatives will synthesize portions of this into a new conservative philosophy. Perhaps someone will actually come through with a "compassionate conservative" agenda.

But the "fuck you" approach to foreign policy--a hallmark of neo-con philosopy has been pretty much discredited--i.e. the proof is in the pudding.

And I think after this election (assuming the Dems take away substantial real estate) and if the Republicans are soundly beaten in 2008, yes, it will be the end of the neo-con era from a realpolitik point of view.