Quote:
Originally Posted by Zemco
Thus, the term Neo-Conservative was born around 1976 or so, at least that's about the first time you start seeing the term in heavy usage in print.
|
You're right. 1976 was around the low point in US military spending, part of the fallout from the Vietnam war. It was also a time when the Soviets were living up to their promise to catch up and surpass the US in all areas of weapons development. The alarm was sounded by a group of liberals who had access to intelligence on what the Soviets were up to. Because they were liberal on domestic policies, but hawks on national security, they were dubbed neo-conservatives. Most were democrats.
You are right that the media and some politicians toss the term neo-con around indiscriminately. Cheney, for example, is no neo-con. He's all con...that is, conservative republican. Same for Bush, Rumsfeld and other republicans hawks. The term has become a political slur because of Iraq. Anyone who opposes the war tags its supporters as a neo-con.
The majority of Americans are not well enough informed on the nuances of politics to grasp terms beyond liberal and conservative. And with our two-party system, all the political schools are subsumed into them unlike in some European countries that have upwards of 5-6 parties, each formed around
one or two basic issues--designer parties.
Quote:
|
Anyway, the Neo-Conservatives were born in Marxism and their philosophy and entire history is rooted in Marxism. Make no mistake about it: They are Marxists (or "leftists" as you prefer).
|
That doesn't square with the facts. Do you have any authoritative independent historical source to support that claim.
Quote:
|
There's definitely pump priming here and Podhoretz has written an article that employs nearly every type of fallacious argument one could possibly use. If I didn't know better, I'd say Podhoretz must have hired a medium to have the spirit of Josef Göbbels guide him.
|
Why? You're just repeating the quotes without giving us your reasons for calling them fallacious.