Christian Science Monitor - a well-respected independent news source - had a feature article recently about Neo-Conservatism and their influence on modern American politics (see the link to the article below)

Neo-Conservatism 101

Some quotes from the article:



The questions for debate:

Do you believe that neo-conservatives alienating us from the rest of the world (not our enemies, who are already alienated, but our allies as well)?

Do you think that neo-conservatism could be "the straw that broke elephant's back" and could be the policy that could lead to potential collapse of United States as a superpower? (Historical analogies here would be British Empire, Roman Empire, etc.)

I think you're confusing the term neo-conservatism. In reality it doesn't have that much to do international relations. In fact, it has almost nothing to do with supernational interactions aside from fiscal policy. The problem is that many of the neoconservatives in power also subscribe to an IR (International Relations) school of thought. In that school Hegemony (U.S. or otherwise) is a pursuable goal.

The foreign policy ones-yes. I would say that this will happen as other problems compound. We're going to have millions of boomers retire and our social networks will be taxed to the hilt. Add to that the fact that millions are uninsured and that the areas of greatest job growth are in industries that have the least amount of coverage. Then add the billions of our foreing policy adventures, and you have the makings of a "guns & butter" economy that tries to do too much with too little. For a great book, check out Irving Kristol's NeoConservatism: Autobiography of an Idea. They have some good domestic issues, but these foreign policy folks are just over-extending us more than we should be.

No more than the FAR Left. Both are very extreme in their thinking. I would venture to say that MOST of the country is in the middle somewhere. Conservative on some issues and liberal on eithers. I know I am any way.

Agreed. The difference is that I don't see far left getting any power in any foreseeable future. Seriously, do you think Kucinich has a chance to win primaries ever ? Forget about general election. The last democratic president (Clinton) had a very centrist agenda. Neo-conservatives however have significant political influence right now (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.) and CSM writes that the president himself shifted to neo-conservative views, particularly after 9/11.

There is no doubt that most of Europe, at least, is not following us in this area. Nor would they, ever. (I live in Europe, and know European politics quite well.) This does not, in itself, mean that the present form of conservativism is a "danger" to the USA. If it is a danger, it is a danger in and of itself. If it is not, then the fact that it is alienating those who choose another path is irrelevent. Thus, the two questions are unrelated, it seems to me. Alienating those who resolutely choose a different path is not a danger.

That said, I do think that the present policies are alienating much of the rest of the world. Or, more precisely, accentuating that alienation. There is no doubt in my mind that Europe was alienated from America long before the current policies were put into place. Less than a week after the September 11th attacks, the French media were already presenting everything Bush said or did in a way that made him look as bad as possible. I heard blatant mistranslations of his speeches, street interviews that attempted to give the impression that about 90% of Americans were opposed to Bush (which was never true, and certainly wasn't true at that time) and so on. This was before the USA had even really reacted to 9/11.

As soon as the attack against Afghanistan started, there were massive anti-American demonstrations in Europe, led by the communist, socialist and green parties. Since those are the parties that have the most influence in most of Europe, it is obvious that the only way America could have avoided "alienating" Europe would be to avoid any kind of military reaction to the terrorist attacks, which would have been suicidal.

What I am saying is that the present policies are accentuating the fundamental difference in outlook between America and much of the rest of the world, but that I do not think that is a bad thing in itself. Even though I disagree with some aspects of the current policies, they are much better, in my opinion, than what Europe would want. So I really do not think we should listen too much to what Europe thinks on this issue. They have chosen a path that I disagree with thoroughly.

I wouldn't think of it so much as a danger as just another school of thought that needs to be taken seriously as part of the public debate.

The neocons who advocate that kind of foreign policy, mostly The Weekly Standand and PNAC bunch, are serious thoughtful people who make strong arguments that, if you disagree with them, deserve good counter-arguments. Well, the counter-arguments certainly exist and you people are well-informed and rhetorically capable, so make them instead of trying to villify and marginalize the neocons, which won't work anyway.

I know Lefties often have trouble granting the sincerity and good intentions of those they disagree with, but try it. Assume not that these are dangerous people, or evil people, or stupid lying people, but smart well-intentioned people who sincerely believe what they're saying and want the best for America and the world. Stipulate that much and take their theories apart in a friendly way, like you might with friends over beers in a late night college bull session. I'm sure you'll find that a much more productive approach if you can bring yourselves to do it.

I certainly don't have as much expertise on the European politics as you do (especially since you live there) but my impression was that our Afganistan response had a lukewarm support among the general population, and generally positive response among the european leaders. Iraq had the same negative reaction from both population/elected officials. Am I incorrect on that one? That was the impression that I got from the media.

I certainly don't think that neo-cons are "stupid lying bunch". I think they are very intelligent and thoughtful, and well-intentioned as well. But, as we know, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Karl Marx was very intelligent, and so was Robespierre.
Neo-cons use several postulates which they take as axioms, such as 1) United States, which has arguably the purest capitalist system, has the best working model of modern society, 2) Noble goals justify the means, 3) Anything threatening United States' interests is threatening world interests, 4) etc. Can we accept these as axioms? The person's view of neo-cons depends on whether the person accepts these postulates.
The question can be asked - what are the "American Values" that need to be promoted throughout the world, if necessary, by force?

I have to agree with Asyncritus here. I was over there for an extended period of time after Sept. 11th and during the Iraq war, and both times people generally gave you a negative response if you were American. People felt bad immediately after Sept. 11th, yet there was an underlying sense that we had it coming. A lot of this feeling comes from the fact that Europe has become a place that despises Israel. Recent polls have illustrated this. Jewish conspiracy theories are becoming more widespread there.

On a related note, I think much of the rankle over Neo-Conservatives in Europe is based on an underlying anti-Semitism. In many places, Neo-Conservative and Jew are interchangeable terms. I think this plays into their conspiracy theory mentality that many hold over there.

I am Jewish and I come from Russia where anti-Semitism is a big issue and a noticeable problem in certain layers of society. However, according to the article (List of Moscow's billionaires) 4 out of 6 richest men in Russia are Jewish. My parents both graduated from prestigious colleges and my wife's parents have university education as well. I have a theory that "restrictive anti-semitism" (where there was a quota for the number of Jews in the government, entertainment, educational circles, etc.), while being evil by definition, had a tremendous positive side-effect on russian Jews; in order to achieve anything thay had to work twice as hard as their russian co-workers, which, in the end, paid off handsomely for many of them. But that's a topic for another debate.
I can not say anything about the rest of Europe, but I go to Germany very often and my feeling is that they deal with any sparks of anti-semitism very swiftly. There was a story a year ago when one of the candidates during the election uttered some remark which was interpreted as anti-semitic by the media; his political career was dead in the matter of weeks.

Done that, got the teeshirt, still can't stand the neocons. Now that this way of thinking has been proven a bad way of thinking, don't think I'll waste my time pointing out the glaring falacies these people have. Hey, they can't even tell when things turn to crud! It's truly amazing and makes me wonder what dimension they live in; it's certainly not this one.



I don't believe this. I know it. There's a difference. Belief requires faith in an unprovable premise such as the existence of God. That neocon thinking has been an international messup is obvious to even the most casual of observers -- the American public.



No. It may be what leads to the Republican Party becoming a minor player in the future with a classic conservative party taking its place. Neocon thinking is so radically over the empire-building top, and so outlandishly naive when it comes to human nature, that it will probably turn off classic conservatives to its thinking forever.

Or the Republican party will clean house. One way or anther, neocon thinking is about to go the way of communism. It wasn't even a nice try! Shoot, its very first project (Iraq) has become a huge albatrose. And by gosh, our most casual of observers -- the American public -- is finally coming around to this rather nasty situation.

Can't build empire without a willing populace.

Do you believe that neo-conservatives alienating us from the rest of the world (not our enemies, who are already alienated, but our allies as well)?

I'm not sure, because I'm not sure who these 'neo cons' are. Initially I thought the 'neo cons' were defined by what I read on the PNAC site, but as time passed I learned there were many more of them than just those signatories on that site.

Later I learned from 60 minutes that 'neo-con' equalled Jewish, which came as a surprise to me, but then later again I learned that this was apparently a misconception spread about by 'Europeans' and 'lefties'.

If however the 'neo cons' are those I believe they are, then yes they are alienating America from the rest of the world and this is due to one simple thing. Their arrogance.


Do you think that neo-conservatism could be "the straw that broke elephant's back" and could be the policy that could lead to potential collapse of United States as a superpower? (Historical analogies here would be British Empire, Roman Empire, etc.)

If by 'neo-con' you mean the same people who put their names on the PNAC site, and who seem to be the big gang of hard core nationalists behind GW Bush, then not only would I say these people could be leading the USA to a potential collapse of its 'super power' status, but that its already happening right now. Empires don't just suddenly collapse from one day to the next after all. Their decline is marked by a long process of various events, many of which do not appear to have any great significance except in hindsight.


Irwin



Is this thread about 'neo cons' or about European anti semitism?

Perhaps the two things are not so far apart as I thought since this thread sway has apparently been tolerated.. ?

It seems to me, that a divide has occurred between Europe and America, and this I attribute two things. The first is the fact that America lies so far to the right of Europe that even a liberal conservative in Europe is considered a 'leftie' in America.

The second is the American mind set which I refer to as 'American conservative' since I'm not sure what else to call it. I guess this might be the same as 'neo con' but is it?

'American conservatives' are those people like Irwin and Asyncritus who when asked about the danger posed by Neo conservatives in America, respond by immediately shifting the blame to talk about European anti semitism. It seems to me that there is a type of person in the USA today (and perhaps there always was?) who simply refuses to accept responsibility or the blame for any thing at all. Even when it is clearly the result of heir own actions, they continue to use denial, refusal and even out right lies to shift attention away from themselves.

So, for as long as this mentality persists, and if these people are indeed those referred to as 'neo cons' then yes, they many very well be the straw that breaks/ broke the camels back.

Moif-

I merely mentioned the anti-Semitism because it does have something to do with the hatred against the neo-con movement. Not everyone, of course, but I think it does have some effect within some segments. These segments are not exclusively the left either. For example, Pat Buchanan has been one of the leading voices against the neo-con movement. He is certainly not left wing, yet I think he shares one trait with some who overtly despise the neo-cons and that is a tendency to make statements that many people would term anti-Semitic.

I think in the end, I agree that this has more to do with the fundamental difference Americans and Europeans see the world. I think this difference has been exaggerated after Sept 11th. I think it also has a lot to do with Israel. Europe sees the Jewish State as largely illegitimate and, as the French said, "That EDITED TO REMOVE ATTEMPT TO BYPASS PROFANITY FILTER little country." Americans, although not always agreeing with everything they do, largely support Israel. And this support is not just from American Jews and Conservative Christians. Many, many people here now sympathize with what the people Israel have to deal with on a daily basis. Many Europeans, on the other hand, see the neo-cons as a "Jewish cabal", all in it for Israel. Do you not deny that this feeling is fairly common?

Irwin

You may find this hard to believe, but the majority of Europeans if asked would most likely admit to having no idea who the 'neo cons' are. And they certainly wouldn't talk about Israel if such a question were put to them.

The majority of Europeans dislike the Bush government, because GW Bush is seen as the sort of dangerous 'cowboy' who starts wars first then asks questions later. And yes, it started before 11 Sept. It started when we were first introduced to GW Bush in the last election campaign.




This is an erroneous statement that reveals your ignorance. Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that it was France which gave Israel its nuclear capablity?

... not the United States. Had it been up to the American charity alone, I doubt Israel would still exist today, regardless of how many Americans support Israel.

I base this opinion on this article;

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/farr.htm