The death of neoconservatism?
By on Feb 20th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
The death of neoconservatism?
Neoconservative academic Francis Fukuyama: “Neoconservatism, whatever its complex roots, has become indelibly associated with concepts like coercive regime change, unilateralism and American hegemony. What is needed now are new ideas, neither neoconservative nor realist, for how America is to relate to the rest of the world.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Hannity
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Liz Cheney
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Just curious [insert neo-conservative poster's name here] - which part of the average American’s life has GW improved since he’s been in office?
The loss of civil liberties?
The increased cost of gasoline and home heating costs while tax breaks are given to oil companies?
The increased cost of health care?
The number of outsourced high-paying jobs lost overseas replaced by lower paying ones here in the U.S.?
The lack of job growth (outside of the government jobs created by federal bureaucracy)?
The creation of the largest budget deficit ever?
The lack of proper equipment for soldiers on duty and cuts in veteran's benefits while GW screams "support the troops?"
The astronomically increasing national debt?
The extrememly mismanaged implementation of the changes in Medicare?
The lost of fathers, brothers, mothers, sisters, sons, and daughters in a war that wasn’t necessary?
The increased trade in heroin from Afghanistan since the US invaded and allowed opium to become that country’s #1 export?
The scandals that have led to a complete lack of trust in people’s congresspeople?
Really, [insert neo-conservative poster's name here]…. what’s gone right?
February 20th, 2006 at 1:35 pmSo, er, history isn't over?
February 20th, 2006 at 1:41 pmNow we know what "Compassionate Conservatism" is.
Torture
February 20th, 2006 at 1:48 pmSpying
Record Debt
Propaganda
Outsourcing Jobs and Port Security
Immoral War
Record Deficits
Increased Poverty
Big Government
Cutting Veterans benifits
Cutting Education funding
Stagnant and falling wages
Increased Terrorism
Political retribution
Millions losing Health Care
Higher Gas prices
Corruption
Cronyism
Incompetance
IDEA 4 ALL EARTH CITIZENS
.
A NEW WAY TO OPERATE PLANET EARTH...
NOW... TODAY... U KNOW... 4 the CHILDREN of OUR World
Ck it OUT at...
http://www.OneGlobalCommunity.com
Thank U, Another EC
ADD YOUR IDEAS...
What Is ( Seperate Governments ) Is Not Working
Never Has... Never Will !
February 20th, 2006 at 1:55 pm.
I am troubled by the claim that new ideas need not be "realist". Now perhaps this is a term of art and has a particular meaning within political science of which I am unaware (in which case please illuminate me but on the face of it a realistic world view as oppossed to a delusional one brought on by theocratic wishful thinking would seem to be exactly what is required. Ca anyone provide some insight into this portion of the quoatation?
February 20th, 2006 at 1:59 pmit's committing suicide, actually... it would be very zen of us to let it kill itself off... greed and zealotry have have weighed the consternative side down in the US and water is starting to rush in... it won't be afloat much longer... Bush's dictatorial power grab has turned off many ardent consternatives...
February 20th, 2006 at 1:59 pmIt occurs to me that I should proof read before posting rather than afterwards. Sorry for the typos in the earlier post. Still my original question stands.
February 20th, 2006 at 2:00 pmInstead of the "new ideas" for which Fukayama calls,
February 20th, 2006 at 2:00 pmhow about a return to the time-tested ideas for which brave American revolutionaries fought and died? I've got one: How about a nation run on the principle of the just consent of the governed in place of the present divine right of kings?
I'm curious as to why he says "neither neoconservatism nor realism". Why wouldn't we want realistic people with realistic policies running the country? Surely, if neo-conservatism, based mostly on ideals, has brought nothing but trouble to the US, then wouldn't the more realism be the better?
Wouldn't policies and practices based in reality, be preferable? The way neocons act, they think the reality is what they control and sell to the people. they believe they can do whatever they want, and if the results are bad and there is a backlash, it isn't their fault because their ideology is highly guarded. The problem is they simlpy haven't sold it to the stupid people hard enough.
February 20th, 2006 at 2:00 pm#1,
You forgot to add: Selling control of 6 major ports to Arab-Muslim people.
(Now I know there are good people of Arab-Muslim persuation. But how easy would it be for a few bad apples to get into the mix.)
February 20th, 2006 at 2:01 pmThe Neo-Con movement died the moment the administration co-opted their “moral superiority precepts†and implemented "Project for the New American Century" in Iraq. The death was ugly due to the Administration’s total lack of morality and using “Democracy through power projection†as a means to an end in Iraq. Once the pretense of ideals were abandoned for tapping the second largest oil reserve using utopian talking points, all credibility was lost. May the corpse be buried face down with the head pointing south.
February 20th, 2006 at 2:02 pmI am sending my condolences to IRI, Mighty Aphrodite, Gary, NED, BSR, Rightly so, Tracy, wwallace, Ace, et.al.
February 20th, 2006 at 2:07 pmGood one, For Truth.
February 20th, 2006 at 2:08 pmCharles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol and Richard Perle haven't gotten the message.
February 20th, 2006 at 2:16 pmMaybe by "not realist" he meant big dreamers? Though you always want the realists making sure the dreamers are not cooking up a nightmare.
February 20th, 2006 at 2:18 pm#8:
"How about a nation run on the principle of the just consent of the governed in place of the present divine right of kings?"
I really like it put that way. Very appropriate in today's political landscape.
February 20th, 2006 at 2:28 pmRE: I am troubled by the claim that new ideas need not be “realistâ€. Now perhaps this is a term of art and has a particular meaning within political science of which I am unaware (in which case please illuminate me but on the face of it a realistic world view as oppossed to a delusional one brought on by theocratic wishful thinking would seem to be exactly what is required. Ca anyone provide some insight into this portion of the quoatation?
He's referring to "realpolitik," which is foreign policy based solely on balance of power issues between nations instead of ideals (most closely associated with Kissenger). It's the opposite of a Wilsonian foreign policy. Fukayama is advocating a policy between the neoconservative "democratize or we'll shoot you" view, and a return to isolationism / realism, with the hope of projecting U.S. ideals while also recognizing the limitations of military force. It's a position that almost exactly mirrors the one that the Democratic party has adopted but can't seem to articulate (although Wesley Clark seems to do a decent job). Fukayama has been speaking out against the neocon vision of benevolent U.S. military power for some time now, and deserves a great deal of credit for this. Voices like this indicate how completely fractured conservatives are on foreign policy issues, and on the status quo neocon strategic approach. This is a tremendous opportunity for liberals to alter the strategy by advocating a competing vision.
This is might be hard to hear (and I'm sure that I'll get hit hard by some of you on this because it's such an emotional topic), but Iraq is not where Dems should compaign. Iraq is a tactic within a de facto strategy of pre-emptive war and U.S. military power projection. We should be arguing that although we wholeheartedly disagree with the tactical decision to invade Iraq, we really believe that a new strategic approach to post Cold War, post 9/11 foreign policy is required. Fukayama is presenting a window to make this case by helping to divide Republicans. Dems should be charging through this window. What a difference it would make if they actually had a voice that could achieve this.
February 20th, 2006 at 2:36 pmThe thing with me personally (and I would think most liberal thinkers) is that I don't hate conservatives or think all of their ideas are complete crap.
A couple of my friends are conservatives and we are able to have some serious debates that don't devolve into shouting matches. The key difference? They aren't neo-conservatives. They're true conservatives. They believe in smaller government, fiscal conservatism, less government intervention, restrained foreign policy, and separation of church and state.
Intelligent debate and conversation is a great thing. Buy neo-conservatives have thrown that approach out the window screaming about attacks on their religion and conservative way of life. Hey, neo-cons: we don't care how you live your life. Not one bit. Just stop sticking your nose into the way everyone else lives theirs. People don't need to believe what you do.
Why do neo-conservatives feel it's their responsibility to legislate their religious beliefs on others? If your religion states that abortion is a sin against your God, fine. Don't have an abortion. But if you think you can start taking your religious laws and turn them into secular laws, expect a fight. And don't think we're attacking your beliefs, we're merely defending ours.
Same thing goes with intelligent design, homosexuality, religion in public places, federal funding to religious groups, etc. When it comes to a government responsible for providing and protecting people of countless religious backgrounds, a single religion's beliefs shouldn't get two seconds consideration.
Religion is a private matter. Government is a public matter.
That's the largest difference I see with neo-conservatives and traditional conservatives. With neo-conservatives, religion and government seem to becoming more intertwined than is safe.
February 20th, 2006 at 2:42 pmFor Truth,
"ace" is wwallace.
February 20th, 2006 at 2:45 pm"We should be arguing that although we wholeheartedly disagree with the tactical decision to invade Iraq, we really believe that a new strategic approach to post Cold War, post 9/11 foreign policy is required. "
--James B
Hey, James, get your resume together for the 2006 mid-terms and send it off to a few politicians. The above is very well said.
And when you get hired, throw me a bone. I'm sick of my IT job.
February 20th, 2006 at 2:46 pmbobcat_grad,
Exactly.
I am amazed that you have to say that in the land of the free. But you do.
February 20th, 2006 at 2:48 pmA different perspective, if you will, on the phrase, "What is needed now are new ideas, neither neoconservative nor realist..."
The evolution of humankind, indeed the survival of the species depends on a cognitive leap beyond perceivable reality. This is called, for lack of a better term, "enlightenment." Imagine, if you will, what it might mean for you to achieve enlightenment, however you define it. Then imagine if humankind were to achieve that state.
This, then, is the ultimate "new idea" yet a very old one: A global civilization of enlightened beings working together in harmony for the good of all. If we survive long enough, we will reach that state.
February 20th, 2006 at 2:58 pmvery funny, fukayama!
February 20th, 2006 at 3:20 pm#1
"Loss of civil liberties?"
The U.S. government was looking at your e-mails and monitoring you telephone calls to and from over seas before 2001. Any evidence of spying on domestic calls made between Americans like Kennedy ordered of MLK?
"The increased cost of gasoline and home heating costs while tax breaks are given to oil companies?"
Demand is way up all over the world. Basic economics.
"The increased cost of health care?"
Increased dramatically in 1999.
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports/hccosts.pdf
"The number of outsourced high-paying jobs lost overseas replaced by lower paying ones here in the U.S.?"
That's a private business decision. Forcing countries like Japan and China to open their markets to U.S. products through ENFORCED trade laws is something that the government should use as leverage, NOT telling American companies who they can and cannot hire.
"The lack of job growth (outside of the government jobs created by federal bureaucracy)?"
Unemployment rate is a 4.7%, i.e. "full employment".
"The creation of the largest budget deficit ever?"
We as American's need to stop consuming soo much, especially when we are at war.
"The lack of proper equipment for soldiers on duty and cuts in veteran’s benefits while GW screams “support the troops?â€"
Kerry, said the same thing when he voted to leave those troops to twist in the wind. No excuse for either side.
"The astronomically increasing national debt?"
During a war debt will go up, but American's need to stop buying things on credit.
"The extrememly mismanaged implementation of the changes in Medicare?"
Talk to Congress. Chalk another one up for the government's lame attempt to manage U.S. healthcare.
"The lost of fathers, brothers, mothers, sisters, sons, and daughters in a war that wasn’t necessary?"
Opinion.
"The increased trade in heroin from Afghanistan since the US invaded and allowed opium to become that country’s #1 export?"
It was #1 before the invasion. The Taliban were huge cynics and ruthless enforcers. Maybe the Europeans need to stop using the damn drug and demand would go down.
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2001%2F02%2F18%2Fwafg18.xml
"The scandals that have led to a complete lack of trust in people’s congresspeople?"
Media embellished scandals aren't what has led people to mistrust the ENTIRE U.S. govenment. Constant harping on the bad things that are happening and not reporting on the multitude of good things, tends to mislead people who aren't that informed in the first place.
February 20th, 2006 at 3:27 pmShorter Fukayama: We were wrong, but now is not the time for "realists" to gloat - the problems we created are too large . . HELP!
February 20th, 2006 at 3:30 pmShorter Tracy: Ditto.
February 20th, 2006 at 3:34 pmSure, our blind faith in a mentally challenged chimp and his wranglers and our slavish dedication to a fucked-up ideology ruined the nation and killed 10's of thousands needlessly, but, now is not time for the blame game.
What a dick.
-GSD
February 20th, 2006 at 3:37 pmThe evolution of humankind, indeed the survival of the species depends on a cognitive leap beyond perceivable reality. This is called, for lack of a better term, “enlightenment.†Imagine, if you will, what it might mean for you to achieve enlightenment, however you define it. Then imagine if humankind were to achieve that state.
This, then, is the ultimate “new idea†yet a very old one: A global civilization of enlightened beings working together in harmony for the good of all. If we survive long enough, we will reach that state.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As we see in Plato, Theatetus (sp?) He used one of the slaves to show that Knowledge is inherent. The Doubling of the Cube and the other Socratic methods were to bring that lost 'sense' back.
as you say enlightenment
February 20th, 2006 at 3:37 pmim gonna have to read up on this Fukayama before I reply =0+
February 20th, 2006 at 3:39 pmWhy does Fukayama think Condoleeza Rice will succeed in advancing democratic ideas through cooperative methods. Her leadership is very much in question not only within this administration (she's now charged with cleaning up in Iraq having taken over from Rumsfeld) but her own inability to foresee the outcome in Palestine. Who is she to consult with in advancing a more subtle policy of democratic opportunism (supporting and enhancing already existing groups in places like Iran,Pakistan or Egypt)Bush,Cheney,Rumsfeld,Bolton?
February 20th, 2006 at 3:42 pmWhere are these ideas to come from? The current administrtion shows no sign of backing off the underlying approach despite its obvious failure in Iraq.
Stay the course is a failed strategy and has led previous supporters to begin to speak out.
Good article and I hope it will be followed by more defectors public acknowledements. Don't look for this to commented on at the Corner.
The Smedley Butler Society has a 'new idea'--restricting US military forces to the defense of the country--and we need your (nonfinancial) support. Please sign our petition: http://www.warisaracket.htm
February 20th, 2006 at 3:42 pmMake that http://www.warisaracket.org.htm or click on my name.
February 20th, 2006 at 3:43 pmTracy in #24 blames Americans for the Republican policies.
“The creation of the largest budget deficit ever?â€
"We as American’s need to stop consuming soo much, especially when we are at war."
“The astronomically increasing national debt?â€
During a war debt will go up, but American’s need to stop buying things on credit.
My bad, not the ones who fund the budget.(rolls eyes)
February 20th, 2006 at 3:46 pmMe: “Loss of civil liberties?â€
You: The U.S. government was looking at your e-mails and monitoring you telephone calls to and from over seas before 2001. Any evidence of spying on domestic calls made between Americans like Kennedy ordered of MLK?
Yes they were monitoring. Within the confines of the law. GW decided that the law was to inconvienent to follow and ignored it.
Me: “The increased cost of gasoline and home heating costs while tax breaks are given to oil companies?â€
You: Demand is way up all over the world. Basic economics.
Basic economics explains the increased costs and prices. It does not explain why the administration has given (and intends to give) tax breaks or royalty free drilling rights to oil companies when their profits are record breaking. Big Oil is raking in money hand over fist at the expense of many people who are on a fixed income.
Me: “The increased cost of health care?â€
You: Increased dramatically in 1999.
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports/hccosts.pdf
It's gone up 36% since 2000. Washington Post
Me: “The number of outsourced high-paying jobs lost overseas replaced by lower paying ones here in the U.S.?â€
You: That’s a private business decision. Forcing countries like Japan and China to open their markets to U.S. products through ENFORCED trade laws is something that the government should use as leverage, NOT telling American companies who they can and cannot hire.
The reason that the private US business are shipping jobs overseas is because they are actually being given tax breaks by the Bush administration to do so.
Me: “The lack of job growth (outside of the government jobs created by federal bureaucracy)?
You: Unemployment rate is a 4.7%, i.e. “full employmentâ€.
Then someone needs to tell Bush to stop touting that his tax breaks have resulted in millions of new jobs and ask him where all the old jobs went.
Me: “The creation of the largest budget deficit ever?â€
You: We as American’s need to stop consuming soo much, especially when we are at war.
Wait. The FEDERAL budget is all American's responsibility? Really? Man, missed that meeting.
Me: “The lack of proper equipment for soldiers on duty and cuts in veteran’s benefits while GW screams “support the troops?â€â€
You: Kerry, said the same thing when he voted to leave those troops to twist in the wind. No excuse for either side.
I missed where Kerry said, "leave the troops twist in the wind." When was that? Oh, and the funding for the proper equipment for the soldiers and the cuts in the veteran's benefits... yea, that was by the Republican Congress with Bush's blessing. Not sure how you can blame the Democrats on that. They can't block squat right now.
Me: “The astronomically increasing national debt?â€
You: During a war debt will go up, but American’s need to stop buying things on credit.
I agree. Americans are credit happy. But that's not what the national debt is. The national debt is what we as a government owe American banks and/or other foreign countries/banks.
Me: “The extrememly mismanaged implementation of the changes in Medicare?â€
You: Talk to Congress. Chalk another one up for the government’s lame attempt to manage U.S. healthcare.
Was working much better when the Democrats wrote the Medicare code. People were at least getting life saving medications then instead of being told by a pharmacy that they can't have it because there's a problem with there new Medicare card that they signed up properly for on time.
Me: “The lost of fathers, brothers, mothers, sisters, sons, and daughters in a war that wasn’t necessary?â€
You: Opinion.
Which part? The over 2000 dead Americans? The 30,000 Iraqis? Or the fact the evidence used to go into Iraq was cooked up and cherry picked by the Administration?
Me: “The increased trade in heroin from Afghanistan since the US invaded and allowed opium to become that country’s #1 export?â€
You: It was #1 before the invasion. The Taliban were huge cynics and ruthless enforcers. Maybe the Europeans need to stop using the damn drug and demand would go down.
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/ news/ main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2001%2F02%2F18%2Fwafg18.xml
Not true. Poppy fields have gone virtually unchecked since we invaded. Oh, and you get bonus points for blaming the addicts. Because they have a lot of control over what they do now. It was bad for them for starting the to use the drug. But there's a reason that it's called an addiction.
Me: “The scandals that have led to a complete lack of trust in people’s congresspeople?â€
You: Media embellished scandals aren’t what has led people to mistrust the ENTIRE U.S. govenment. Constant harping on the bad things that are happening and not reporting on the multitude of good things, tends to mislead people who aren’t that informed in the first place.
Well, you did a great job of completely brushing aside the GOP scandals. Media reporting the scandals (half heartedly, by the way) is not 'embellishing' them. It's reporting news. Sorry if it's news you don't like to hear. Oh, and 'constant harping on the bad things that are happening' isn't harping. If lots and lots of bad stuff is happening, reporting on it isn't harping. It's reporting. Coservative news stations should try it for once.
February 20th, 2006 at 4:01 pmMany Thanks to James B. for answering my question in #5. His answer is in #17. Again thanks
February 20th, 2006 at 4:10 pmIt's beyond my knowledge and experience. I fully understad his turning away from the movement. I just don't understand where he wants to go, or how he thinks he/others is going to get there. Entanglement in a vacuum doesn't really allow for much thinking outside the box. Maybe that's a good thing. He is certainly in a different world though. One which I have grown far from just being a web whore. Fukuyama, ohh Fukuyama, ohhhhh fukuyama. My sorrow.
Horrible quote by the way. The whole article seems to explain a tad more. but the that tad more and other info takes me to where i started in this post.
February 20th, 2006 at 4:10 pmTracy,healthcare costs have been rising at rates in excess of GDP growth for quite a bit longer than just an increase in 1999. The excess cost factor has been a problem for a long time.
WhereGWB has gone wrong in this arena has been his inability to veto a piece of legislation as bad as the Prescription drug bill. That was as poor a piece of pandering for votes as was possible in the face of the acknowledged excess cost of Medicare.
Similarly, GWB's inability to veto a bill was shown in both the highway bill with its thousands of earmarks and the energy bill.
All three of these examples while put together by Congress,the administration bears responsibility.
That's without even mentioning the Iraqcle debacle where through sheer incompetence,Rumsfeld let down his own army. GWB has refused to fire him despite massive evidence of his inability to do his job.
February 20th, 2006 at 4:10 pmSee the 10/31/05 SIGIR report as well as the more recent one. Also read the State Dept. Weekly reports and see if you think this group has done a good job.
#17, James B. stated 'Iraq is a tactic within a de facto strategy of pre-emptive war and U.S. military power projection. We should be arguing that although we wholeheartedly disagree with the tactical decision to invade Iraq, we really believe that a new strategic approach to ........foreign policy is required.'
Writing from a foreign nation, I could not agree more, as long as the next de facto American foreign policy strategy avoids the centuries-old American culture of agression, intervention and militarism.
February 20th, 2006 at 4:12 pmTime for the Fukayama Shootdown;
while he is speaking somewhat against the Kissinger Realism Fukayama views Wilsonian Realsim as Viable.
alot of euphenisms in here. But even in this Short article of Fukuyama is Flawed WITH bad history.
not to blame mr fukayama but as I posted earlier he hasnt updated his history as new documents come to Light. To wit;
it is not an accident that many in the C.C.N.Y. group started out as Trotskyites. Leon Trotsky was, of course, himself a Communist, but his supporters came to understand better than most people the utter cynicism and brutality of the Stalinist regime. The anti-Communist left, in contrast to the traditional American right, sympathized with the social and economic aims of Communism, but in the course of the 1930's and 1940's came to realize that "real existing socialism" had become a monstrosity of unintended consequences that completely undermined the idealistic goals it espoused. While not all of the C.C.N.Y. thinkers became neoconservatives, the danger of good intentions carried to extremes was a theme that would underlie the life work of many members of this group.
~~~~~~~~~
A; Trotsky wasnt Really Trotsky he was actually named Bronstein. That in itself CHANGES what mr Fukayama says Drastically.
B; Douglas Feiths (OSP) father was also one of the of the Likud Party and as we see he used cherrypicked intelligence to Bring War to AMERICA to further the Israeli Agenda. This is NOT the way to go about getting support for your Cause.
mr fukayama leaves out the ISRAELI AIPAC Franklin Spy Ring and the connections to the RAND group he mentions. mr fukayama is a neo-con thru and thru.
At least he realizes that Neo-Conism is dead. Now Would someone tell the War mongers in the White House?
February 20th, 2006 at 4:13 pm39 - Your anti-semitism is thinly veiled. And is your keyboard missing the punctuation keys?
February 20th, 2006 at 4:32 pmFor more on the bankruptcy of neo-conservative foreign policy, see:
February 20th, 2006 at 4:35 pm"The Myth of the Bush Doctrine."
Its not Anti-Semitic at all
its saying that I DONT like anyone that Lies to promote their agenda. Besides that there are Jewish members in my family and they also agree that AIPAC didnt do a good thing here.
The Parts about the LIKUD was copied from fukayamas Article. please read that before trying to stick your ANTI-SEMITIC titles upon me Thanks =)
February 20th, 2006 at 4:37 pm#1 bobcat
February 20th, 2006 at 4:38 pmNice rhetorical questioning that goes right to the point.
yes it is missing punctuation keys howd you know..
actually im just not into typing correctly, it gives the typo teachers POLEECE sumthin to do with their time as you have thusly shown us. Thanks again for Caring morgan =)
February 20th, 2006 at 4:40 pmcommon sense
n. Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge.
Yeah I know the Neo cons haven't a clue...
February 20th, 2006 at 4:48 pmre: #22
I used to think we would head toward a more enlightened state when I was younger -- measured progress in civil rights, womens' rights, gay rights, custody of the environment and the fact that we didn't vaporize ourselves during the Cold War seemed to point in that direction. Then Reagan caught me off guard. Now Bush, and I'm not so sure anymore.
Assume for a moment that you are at level 5 of a 10 point scale representing enlightenment. That's great, but there are a lot of people in this country and throughout the world at 0.5. I often wonder if the 5's didn't get too far ahead of the 0.5s, and what we're seeing is a rejection by them of the enlightened states you see as desirable.
Gay marriage is a good example. It's a no brainer to me and perhaps to you; nothing about legalizing gay unions would threaten my marriage, but obviously, a lot of people feel differently. From a political perspective, how far ahead of the mainstream should a party go -- or can it go -- before losing support.
Just some thoughts...
February 20th, 2006 at 4:53 pm"“The lack of job growth (outside of the government jobs created by federal bureaucracy)?â€
Unemployment rate is a 4.7%, i.e. “full employmentâ€. Tracy the Blithering fool"
Unemployment rate is completely unrelated to actual employment you idiot. The rate is determined by the number of people who are still eligible for unemployment benefits, not those who are jobless. This calculation changed during Reagan so rightwingers at the time could provide baseless claims that unemployment was going down as people fell off the rolls.
The real 'jobless' rate is much higher than the number you cite. The fact you can't tell the difference between jobless and 'government unemployment' would tell a rational person that you're out of your league discussing economic issues. But my guess is that in classic 'Rube' fashion you never let that stop you.
February 20th, 2006 at 5:10 pm40 morgan ...disagreeing with 1) Isreal 2) Zionists 3) Jews does not make you anti-semitic. Stop crying about how everyone is out to get the Jews. That is total BS. anti-semitism is racism. Unless someone starts calling Jews devil monkeys or something you just need to take that anti-semitism crap and stuff it.
February 20th, 2006 at 5:12 pmSomebody help me here--what was the title of that Presidential Daily Briefing of August 6, 2001 again? Oh, that's right--it was called "bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the U.S.". And what did president feces-for-brains do between August 6 and September 11?
And why is bin Laden no longer making video appearances during his "BOOGA BOOGA!" addresses to the U.S. population (addresses that seem strangely well-timed to coincide with crises being experienced by the Bush adminstration?)? Could it be that the original bin Laden no longer exists and was replaced by a "tubby" stand in--and too many people realized that the "Fatty bin Laden" on the last video wasn't the real one?
http://tinyurl.com/qy4r6
February 20th, 2006 at 5:26 pmKudos Gerald =)
Now back to the Fukayama bit. In order to help other get an Idea of what Fukayama is about, the Hegelian Dialectic came to mind.
~~snip~~
In fact, Fukayama closely follows a Hegelian teleological perspective that tends to view the course of human history as both self-actional and self-perfecting. Stated briefly, this view posits that human affairs proceed in two separate realms, the "real" (material) and the "ideal," which interact in complex ways to shape the direction of history. The crucial question for Fukayama is: which "realm" is dominant?
Marx, for example, subscribed to a similarly dualistic view, but asserted the primacy of the material realm over that of the ideal (it often is said that he "stood Hegel on his head"). Fukayama, on the other hand, returns to the earlier "pure" Hegelian notion that the "ideal" is the dominant force and that "Consciousness is cause and not effect, and can develop autonomously from the material world; hence the real subtext underlying the apparent jumble of current events is the history of ideology."
~~paste~~
A google search of hegel or hegelian should help those get a better sense of the political ideologies being discussed here.
February 20th, 2006 at 5:43 pmSo hegelian is in effect managed conflicts?
Such as the Neo-cons when they say we create our own reality?
wasnt their someone here that used to talk about synthesis alot?
~~~~
~snip~
What we think we see is often an illusion intentionally presented, like the conjuror who would have you to believe he holds an orange in his right hand, when it is actually in his left hand. Citizens of the world, whether their sympathies are left-wing or right-wing, monarchist or republican, have been used as pawns in their game of Hegelian psychology by the hidden hand that rules.
In reality, the orange is in neither left nor right hand. The Hegelian dialectic process is the notion that conflict creates history. (See brain2.htm "Brainwash").
From this axiom it follows that controlled conflict can create a predetermined history. For example when the Trilateral Commission discusses 'managed conflict', as it does extensively in its literature, it implies the managed use of conflict for long run predetermined ends - not for the mere random exercise of manipulative control to solve a problem.
The dialectic takes this Trilateral 'managed conflict' process one step further. In Hegelian terms, an existing force (the thesis) generates a counterforce (the antithesis). Conflict between the two forces results in the forming of a synthesis. Then the process starts all over again: Thesis vs. antithesis results in synthesis.
It's like two companies with undisclosed common stockholding submitting competitive tenders for a project on a site for which their stockholder has different plans altogether. Whatever the outcome, the stockholder is in beneficial control.
~paste~
I see senor!
February 20th, 2006 at 5:53 pmThe BLS measures total unemployment by including in the surveys marginally attached workers i e those who have not looked for work but are available. The unemployment rate including those workers would be about 1% higher than the stated unemployment rate.
February 20th, 2006 at 5:55 pmwhether their sympathies are left-wing or right-wing, Christian, Muslim Israeli, monarchist or republican, have been used as pawns in their game of Hegelian psychology by the hidden hand that rules.
"if they knew what we were up to they would lynch us" -George H.W. Bush
(saw that posted here somewhere on TP)
February 20th, 2006 at 5:57 pmTJM you are quite knowledgable on economic stuff
February 20th, 2006 at 5:58 pmMind if I ask your Profession?
DON'T FORGET UNENDING DEFICITS AS ANOTHER NEOCON LEGACY...OR IS THAT JUST A REPUBLICAN ONE?
February 20th, 2006 at 6:19 pmActually, though, I tend to agree with the Realist school of foreign policy. And, if Bush had followed proponents of that school--such as his dad's former aides Scowcroft, Baker and Powell--he never would have committed an act as foolish as the Iraq war.
February 20th, 2006 at 6:24 pmmr ho I've been a banker for the last 25 years but have a BA in Econ.
February 20th, 2006 at 6:24 pmWhat about the objectives of Neoconservatism, the security of Israel and cooperation with petro monarchies? Regardless of the dynamics is he saying the objectives are the still the same?
February 20th, 2006 at 6:55 pmAye I thought you might be something of that nature, you are well informed Sir =)
February 20th, 2006 at 6:57 pmI think personally folks are confusing the current GOP with the neoconservatives. Read what john miller has to say about the possibility of replacing the VP. Certainly foreign policy is an issue of concern but I think the complaints that most people on this thread are griping about relate to just Conservatism in general and the failure of the GOP to initiate and hold a coherent model of their basic tenents, smaller govt. states rights. The foreign policy agenda of the Neoconservatives has just found a lab with which to run it's plan. http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller.asp
February 20th, 2006 at 7:08 pmWhat about the objectives of Neoconservatism, the security of Israel and cooperation with petro monarchies? Regardless of the dynamics is he saying the objectives are the still the same?
The Objective of Neo-Conservatism...
good Question. It certainly wasnt what they Said it would be. Smaller Govt etc...What Good has come out of the Bush Admin for the Public in General? Hardly anything I can think of.
What did we get alot of? Partisanship, Class Divison, Homophobia, Judicial Federalism,,loss of some Basic Rights thru the Patriot Act, terrorist attacks, Scare Tactics and crisis management and the pork barrel pigs and their corrupt counterparts get to feed off the public trough of taxpayer dough.
So we got Chaos
From Chaos comes Order or the Desired objective.
Iraq War. The OIL people are protected by Iraq war? Yes?
and the Security of Israel is about the Same? I think so.
And the US Dollar will be backed by Iraqi OIL.
Sounds like a WIN WIN for Corporate Pigs, Corrupt politicos, Lobbyists, special interest groups, War profiteers and a Losing proposition for the ones that PAID for all of that.
The Taxpayer
February 20th, 2006 at 7:20 pmWonder if they will let us protest at the funeral of Neoconservatism?
February 20th, 2006 at 7:20 pmJust saw Paul Hackett on Chris Matthews - he looked so weak. Now he is trashing Sherrord Brown.
Sen. Mike DeWine looks in good shape to be re-elected now.
February 20th, 2006 at 7:24 pmI think personally folks are confusing the current GOP with the neoconservatives
Bush has been buddy buddy with Rove a long time. Rove was once one of those College Republicans as Abramoff and Norquist. Bush like using the Term Compassionate Conservative as I recall. Rove even worked for Sr. at one point.
But your right Fly-Man many people do confuse the Neo-Cons with the Conservatives in the Public Sense.
As far as the Neo-Cons and the Republicans in Congress..Hell they Knew what was going on and who was who. They are as neo-con as the neo-cons and every bit as dubious
Condi as President? Naw she was tight with Wolfowitz and all the other Neo-Cons. Not to mention Standing in front of Millions with her 'Mushroom Cloud' speech.
Bushco has pretty much Zapped any poltical chance of that in my opinion.
By Bush getting Rid of Cheney changes nothing as to what has already transpired.
Ennyhoo thats my Take
February 20th, 2006 at 7:32 pmMr. Ho I think the entity known as the Neoconservatives has to be acknowledged strictly in the terms of a very specific outlook/vision/plan relating to just Foreign policy. All the other circumstances associated with it's implementation are accesory, whether unintended or not.
February 20th, 2006 at 7:35 pmWonder if they will let us protest at the funeral of Neoconservatism?
Comment by Hardy Haberman — February 20, 2006 @ 7:20
only if Bush labels it a FREE SPEECH zone
February 20th, 2006 at 7:36 pmMr. Ho I think the entity known as the Neoconservatives has to be acknowledged strictly in the terms of a very specific outlook/vision/plan relating to just Foreign policy. All the other circumstances associated with it’s implementation are accesory, whether unintended or not.
From what I have read thru the Russian papers here last visit didnt go WELL at all.
Her performance on Foreign Policy has seems quite Dismal thus far.
I have no Idea what Bushs course was is? Nor his foreign policy. Perhaps you have a better Idea of Bushs 'course' may really be?
February 20th, 2006 at 7:40 pmIm interested to hear.
#46, the enlightenment I am refering to is a personal one first and foremost. Civil enlightenment will follow.
The masses are controlled by fear. One who is on a path to enlightenment has faced his/her fears and is no longer controlled by them.
The masses are still trying to purchase immortality, even if vicariously by supporting a heirarchy system in which very few control vast amounts of wealth. Wealth is a substitute for immortality because with wealth food and necessities can be purchased and stored for one's self and one's heirs in perpetuity. By ensuring one's genes will survive, one purchases immortality.
With enlightenment comes the realization that heirarchies are needless. Wealth is needless. The purchase of immortality is an illusion. You cannot purchase what you already have. Humankind is in denial: denial of its own mortality, and its own immortality; denial of its dualistic nature of existance.
Unfortunately, most major religions have been perverted to maintain this state of denial. Do not, therefore, look to religious dogma to find enlightenment. Look within.
February 20th, 2006 at 7:45 pmMr. Ho, really 2 things come to mind as far as The President's foreign policy come to mind as curveballs to them; 1) the notion that spreading democracy was going to deliver a balance to our side of thinking. Sure the palestinians got to vote freely and guess what they believe hamas should be in charge. So what do we do, we ask for help from whom/ Saudi arabia and Egypt, 2 countries which are NOT democratic in any sense of the word. 2) The notion that Cold War strategies for thinking, smart bombs and a ready for liberation populace were going to be slam dunks and be effectively applied to any middle eastern conquest.
February 20th, 2006 at 7:51 pmhttp://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/daalder/20040926.htm
I just read this on Bush Policy for a Starting point of Foreign Policy thunk Fly Man
February 20th, 2006 at 7:52 pmThanks Mr. Ho, Ive gotta run, Daddy duty, i'll catch up with you in a bit. Later. Thanks again
February 20th, 2006 at 7:57 pmOk I see what your saying Fly..
February 20th, 2006 at 8:02 pmLater
Ryan Neat is correct about unemployment numbers, the percentage is based on people who are eligible or apply for unemployment, how could this be reflective of the actual number of people who are out of a job? I have never expected to collect unemployment, and have quit, been fired, or layed off before.
February 20th, 2006 at 8:17 pm"Gore is a liar" sounds like ruppart or wwallace.
February 20th, 2006 at 8:19 pmFor truth: go to http://www.bls.gov.
Click on the National Employment (it's on the upper right of the page) then go to general overview and then the Employment Situation Summary.
You'll find a 26 page release describing the statisics for January 06. It includes data on the size of the work force as a per cent of the total population and lots of other statistics.
On p.3 you'll see that the BLS counts 1.6 million people in 1/06 as "marginally attached" ;not counted as unemployed because they had not looked for work in the last 4 weeks.
There are 150 million in the work force,an additional 1.6 million marginally attached would raise the official unemployment rate a little more than 1%.
February 20th, 2006 at 8:57 pmGore is a Liar is a troll.
A sad, talking-point-reciting, incapable of thinking for himself, troll.
Go exercise the ability to reason your neo-conservative God gave you to exercise the free speech the founding fathers granted you.
PS - I believe in God, just not the one the Neo-Cons keep pointing to as the basis for their views on social policies. Stop the hate posts before they start, please.
February 20th, 2006 at 8:59 pm#63 I don't know what HardBall you were watching but from my house dewine is washed up and trashed. Hackett was just being his own person out spoken and honest something you republicans need to take a lesson in how to be honest,truthful,procountry,anti foreign governments taking over our ports and military equipment transfers, You republicans could also learn to have real honest to god people to people compassion, you republicans deserve to been under a ruler like Bandarbush. There's plenty of thug give ameria away to the highest bidder blogs so don't let the door hit your ass going out! Bam-Crash- gutter time for Neo cons..
February 20th, 2006 at 10:01 pmWe were taught in college that the most necessary ingredient for democracy was literacy. Theory being, if you cannot read a ballot and read published discussions of issues, your vote is not meaningful. In many islamic nations (but not Iraq), the literacy rate is low and Akbar is concerned only about where he is going to get his next meal. A Pakistani doctor I know says that democracy will never work over there. The only thing thing that has ever worked in those societies is despotism. He says to pray for a benevolent despot.
I believe Fukuyama was one of the original signators on the PNAC's original position statement )along with Cheney, Rumsfield, Libby, Wolfowitz, Perle, J. Bush, Abrams etc). I believe he is one of the intellectual founders of the neo-con movement. It sounds as if he is at least giving a nod to Buchannan's "Where the Right Went Wrong". His criticism of the Bush policy failures is significant and may foreshadow the crumbling of the movement.
February 20th, 2006 at 10:08 pmBobcat_grad,
Your post at #18 is spot on. The neocons should harken to Jefferson: "Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one."
No need to legislate that, in my opinion.
February 20th, 2006 at 11:24 pmas ive stated i aint no expert but it seems to me, that there was nothing realpolitik about the invasion of iraq and i suppose all that has followed. Whats funny is that why the bush mentioned isolationists in his speech, why mary m mentioned parrallel worlds in her mtp rant, why she also supposed(in the same rant) "what the american people want", that rummy after coming back from africa has a new plan for propaganda, that fukuyama has a big piece in the times talking about neoconservatives and voices a plea for not "neoconservative or realist" ideas. Some might say Bush aint neocon but he is now! They have demonstrated however neither conservatism or realpolitik. They have demonstrated ability to deplete funds and exploit the most ideological. What is fukuyama talking about?
February 20th, 2006 at 11:36 pmThe MASONIC MOTTO : ORDO AB CHAO or "Order out of Chaos"
(back of one dollar Bill Masonic pyramid the words on it means New World Order basically)
Yet Democracy is based on Platos republic (in effect) and Marxist Capital system. What was it that Marx Said?
The bureaucracy is a circle from which one cannot escape. Its hierarchy is a hierarchy of knowledge. The top entrusts the understanding of detail to the lower levels, whilst the lower levels credit the top with understanding of the general, and so all are mutually deceived.
--Karl Marx
Karl Marx said he wasnt Marxist and he wasnt Kidding.
His last name was actually Levy
No wonder Fukayama says he Needs 'New Ideas' because hes just rehashing the same very Old Hegelian Marxist Masonic Script.
sarcasm on/
What a Lovely Scenario!
More Coffee!! =)
February 21st, 2006 at 1:04 amMonday :: Feb 20, 2006
Zogby: Bush Approval Rating Among Conservatives Down To 61%
Zogby’s latest poll, out today, shows Bush at 40% approval. But the real news in the poll is that Zogby is seeing slippage in Bush’s base.
February 21st, 2006 at 2:30 amPerhaps I have not seen it, but it seems no one has bothered to clarify the meaning of 'realist' in the above quote. Commentators have been misinterpreting it as 'realistic,' which has nothing to do with it. Realist and realism are terms used in political science to refer to theories that are based on a couple of core assumptions. Primarily these: (1) that the world consists of sovereign nation states and their recognized governments, (2) that everyone in the world is trying to maximize wealth and/or power and/or security (depending on which sub-category of realism we are talking about), and (3) that the international system is anarchic, that is, there is no power above that of the nation state and the relations between these are not built upon any particular structure or organization.
I hope this clarifies things somewhat.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:09 amI've always contended that the "Con" in "Neo-Con" does NOT stand for Conservative!
February 21st, 2006 at 10:24 amThe "Con" in "Neo-Con" stands for Conspire and/or Connive.
They are nothing more than a bunch of crooks looting the Federal Reserve.
Just curious [insert neo-conservative poster’s name here] - which part of the average American’s life has GW improved since he’s been in office?
Comment by bobcat_grad #1
bobcat,
Your bulleted comments are proof positive that conservatives/neoconservatives are traitors...
They hate America, and are bound and determined to destroy it...
These are your neighbors, family members, and friends...
...but you must choose btwn suborning their treason...
...or saving our country...
February 21st, 2006 at 11:34 am#I’ve always contended that the “Con†in “Neo-Con†does NOT stand for Conservative!
The “Con†in “Neo-Con†stands for Conspire and/or Connive.
They are nothing more than a bunch of crooks looting the Federal Reserve.
Comment by Horus45 — February 21, 2006 @ 10:24 am
Lets break it Down...
Con is with as in Con Queso (with Cheese)
Serve. To serve Serf perhaps Slave
Slave-ative or Ownership Society
Ergo
Neo-Con comes to be
With New Slaves
February 21st, 2006 at 12:11 pmSo now that you have destroyed our reputation around the world, apppointed the necessary people to the supreme court to swing the votes toward your conservative agenda, created record deficits, now, you decide its time to move onto other things and lay waste elsewhere while broadening your influence. All with the feeling that however complex the neocon roots, you have all been somewhat mislabled during this administration or that people have gotten your agenda all wrong. neocons should take responsibility for problems created in their own image.
February 21st, 2006 at 3:52 pm[...] hat tip: Think Progress [...]
February 21st, 2006 at 9:08 pmWe cannot answer all the Questions of Time Space nor Life itself. We do not know.
We cannot say with Certainty what 'Reality' is. Thats why Fukuyama, Bloom and others are considered Philosophists.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:16 pmGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 26th, 2008 at 2:20 amdeath in custody
Didn't realise there was this type of information out there
April 6th, 2008 at 8:13 amMargherita
After surfing the web for hours, its really nice to someone with a brain about things i'm intested in. Thanks for the intellectual inter....your get the idea.
April 7th, 2008 at 6:21 am