What’s a “neo-con” to you?I offered my view on another blog and was rebutted with a wikipedia-based definition. Like so many political definitions, it doesn’t really matter what the text-book answer might be; it’s all a matter of perceptions. Here’s my definition from the other blog:
OK, maybe some of this is a bit harsh, but what’s your definition? Michael Previous: Political blogs you might like… -- Next: OPB; politically correct to a fault? Comment from CAcorn4: Based on my experience, a neocon is a liberal who became disillusioned with the Democratic Party after it started radicalizing in the 1960s. (Among the counterculture movements I cite: Students for a Democratic Society, the New Left Yippie movement, even Communist and Soviet sympathizers in our own academia. Three recent examples of the last part are Ward Churchill, Jay Bennish, and 9/11 Scholars for Truth.) I admit to being rather puzzled when you say that neocons support preemptive military action when President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton are still pursuing multilateral diplomacy with China, Japan, and South Korea… which may well render military action on OUR part unnecessary. As for coercive advancement of “neoconservative” values, this past summer, the Senate failed—by a 49-48 vote, if I remember correctly—to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one human man and one human woman and thus effectively banning homosexual marriage as well as polygamy, among other perceived forms of marriage. As I recall, Roe v. Wade is still in effect, which means abortions are “coercively” legal. (Personally, I would think abortion ought to be decided on a state-by-state basis.) Even more striking to me is that there are no constitutional amendments banning evolution or stem cell research, both adult AND embryonic. In short, given this track record, if neocons really wanted to push their agenda for America and the world—at least, their agenda as you perceive it—then I would judge that they have not had much success. Posted by CAcorn4 Oct 12, 04:50 PM # Comment from Michael Smith: Regarding President Bush, Rice, and Bolton still pursuing multilateral diplomacy. There’s only so much unilateral, preemptive military intervention to go around and this administration is the first ever to put preemptive doctrine into official policy. And just because the marriage definition failed by 49-48? That only shows that not all Republicans buy into the neo-con agenda. Unfortunately, 48 were willing to impose their will. Coercive abortion? Has anyone in government been forcing women to have abortions? Your argument that because the neo-cons haven’t achieved complete success, doesn’t mean they don’t have an agenda. It only says they don’t hold the majority. I hope they stay in the minority in the entirety of government. And I hope they wither within the Republican Party. Posted by Michael Smith Oct 12, 07:02 PM # |
Favorite Posts:
Other Blogs:Links:
Feeds - SFP updates for your homepage:Previous Posts: |
