I did not write the article, Ron Paul did. But why don't you try to refute the points instead of making absurd comments. Lets check off the things they have done. 1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual. - Unknown, but many of the neocons came from the far left. 2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so. - Check 3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends. - Check 4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hardball politics is a moral necessity. - Check 5. They express no opposition to the welfare state. - Check 6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it. - Check. See their writings in the Project for a New American Century. 7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive. - Unknown, but they have lied, and this is a Straussian belief. 8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit. - Check 9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it. - Unknown, but this is a Strausian belief. 10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised. - Check 11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem. - Many neocons were students of Strauss or his followers. 12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate. - Check 13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country. - Check 14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many. - Unknown 15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.) - Unknown, but their policies are very un-libertarian. 16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary. - Check 17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party. - Check
Why? Do you really want to read a biased list that accuses the Democrats of things like being weak against terror, wanting to raise taxes all the time, being out of touch culturally with most of America, etc.?
When you said you could easily make a biased list against Democrats, it seemed quite natural to me you were trying to defend neocon, which is to say the article from Republican congressman Ron Paul was unfair and unfounded. Never mind that Agent94 did a fact-check on the list which you ought to dispute, I would like to see how biased statements you can conjure up against Democrats.
And what would be the point of writing a biased list against Democrats? If that's what you want, then go look up Trader Jorge or bigtexxx's posts.
16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary. - Check I love how this one is phrased. So if you support the Patriot Act, then you endorse attacks on civil liberties? This is indicative of how stupid that list is.
I erased all the unknows, since they weren't supported. Out of the remaining ones, I'd like to see more evidence supoorting for 13, 16, and 17. Those just look like exaggerations. 16 is a joke, like I mentioned earlier. 2, 5, 8, 10 don't seem all that controversial to me. Since when is supporting a strong federal government such a horrible thing? Since when is "not expressing opposition to the welfare" a bad thing? Why would you want to be neutral in foreign affairs, don't you want to have a position, unlike Kerry? Don't most people from BOTH sides want to redraw the Middle East map in some way? 4 is confusing. Ends justifying the means is bad, but hardball politics has been part of this country since its inception. 3 is in the middle. Many Democrats voted for the preemptive Iraw war. 6 and 12 are the controversial onces. Neocons believe that America SHOULD act as more of a "progressive" empire, spreading democratic ideals to places like the Middle East. The way Iraq is going, so far the results are mixed.
Cute. Actually most Americans 'voted' for the war before they 'voted' against it. Back when we were presented with what we now know to be willfully manipulated intel -- manipulated in fact in order to provoke irrational fear -- most supported it. Now that the truth is clear, most oppose it. Not just Democrats -- Americans. Feel free to call the American people flip floppers. The reasons for the flip flop here are clear, supported and smart. After they realized they were swindled they revoked their support. Gosh, how wishy washy! Mr. Clutch: Somewhere in this thread or another someone asked why someone might have supported Bush before 9/11 and continue to support him now, when his two campaign platforms were diametrically opposed on so many counts. His chiding of nation building and his popular call back in 2000 for a "more humble" approach to foreign policy springs to mind as the most extreme, but there are others. I bring that up only to say how very, very funny I find this complicated dance GOP'ers have had to do to continue to support Bush -- abandoning long held, deeply held, core principles as the main steps. "Why oppose a 'strong' federal government?" Because 'strong' here is a synonym for big and powerful. Republicans, and Libertarians before them (Ron Paul is a L by the way and ran as one several times), have opposed strengthening federal government with every fiber of their being for a very long time. Big government too. Bush has proved to be the greatest champion of strong and big government in our modern history. His nearest rival for big gov't is FDR. His nearest rival for stronger (and more strong arm) government is nobody. There he stands alone. For that reason alone, even just ten years ago, his presidency would have been regarded as the greatest threat to Republican principles imaginable -- and an even greater threat to Libertarian principles. That is one of the main reasons Paul is speaking out. Paul's "bias" is the bias of his party the R's and it's ancestor (and his former party) the L's. He is not alone in feeling his party has been hijacked by neocons and fundamentalist crusaders. You asked for defense of points 13, 16 and 17. 13. Paul, like most Americans, does not believe the Iraq war was a defensive one or a necessary one. I believe that an expansion of a justifiable war outside the bounds of defense has also been explicitly argued by high profile neocons like Wolfowitz as well, but I don't have the quotes nor do I have the time to look for them, so I won't argue that. The basic point stands. 16. Ashcroft did explicitly argue (and others backed him up) that the protections offered under the Patriot Act might come with a price to some freedoms and rights to privacy. The difference between him and Paul (and a great many Americans) here is that Ashcroft regards certain of our rights to privacy or freedoms to be superficial while Paul regards each of our rights to be sacred and he further regards any threat to the smallest of those rights to be a slippery slope. But then, as David Cross once said of John Ashcroft, "He is the most Russian of them all." Lastly, the contention that the Patriot Act stands as a threat to civil liberties is hardly a laughable one. It might be arguable, but it is not the laughable, radical thing you suggest. It is a very serious and widely supported contention, by people on both sides of the aisle. 17. The Bush admin's unconditional support of Israel is well known and it isn't controversial. Clinton shared it, so I'm not sure what you're arguing here. I'm not educated enough here to speak to the Likud thing. Going back to the other points: 2. You question what is controversial here. Sitting in America plotting to redraw maps on another continent is pure imperialism. And it is the opposite of a "humble" foreign policy. 5. The welfare state thing is particularly controversial to traditional Republicans who feel abandoned by the neocon movement's ambivalence toward this core platform issue. It is even more controversial to a Libertarian like Paul, since they flatly oppose government funding of virtually anything but national defense. Welfare is anathema to them. That said, even D's aren't 'for' a welfare state. Even so, if you're not a true Libertarian, I'd concede this was the least controversial of Paul's points. I already spoke to 8. My head's still spinning that you, as a self identified conservative, don't see the controversy in that. 10. I'll give you and neocons a pass on this one as worded by Paul. The key tenet of Libertarian foreign policy is neutrality and a strict defensive only approach to warfare. Paul does again raise the specter of Bush 2000 vs. Bush 2004, but I'd agree in the abstract that 9/11 changed things sufficiently that we ought to be more active in foreign affairs even while I'd disagree in the specific with virtually every neocon take on that activism, particularly since every one of those takes exacerbates the provokation of our enemies and does nothing to thin their numbers.
actually, batman, you post deserves a longer, more thoughtful response, of which i promise to give. however, you still have not answered my request in another thread. may i assume you will?
