Thread: WHO is sending this much cash to Democrats, and what do they hope to buy with it?

Originally Posted by Dwarven Pirate

From what side? To what side?

Generally, from the democratic to the republican side, or liberal to conservative, but only in geopolitics.

The above being from all the same paragraph, I consider he means that liberals left the republican party, since, as stated, the movement is a rejection of liberalism.

Not a rejection of liberalism in general, just liberal views re geopolitics.

Did you read the book by Dionne that this point is taken from? Who the hell is Dionne and why should I take his word for anything?

Nah, I don't know and don't care. I was around when the neo thing got started.

Neo- means New. It does not mean "splitting the difference". Should we worry over neo-nazis in Israel? Heck, aren't they liberal nazis? lol

Right; it means new, or a "new revival", but terms aren't always carefully crafted. (Liberal Nazis That's funny.)

Please tell me what you can find on this site that is is any way "liberal":

Welcome to the Project for the New American Century

Basically nothing, but these are all new guys who think like neo-cons but are second generation...they're just conservatives.

Individual liberty does not seem to be any goal of neoconservatism as far as I can tell. Perhaps if you are the autocratic head of some organization, they might decide you were worthy of liberty, but the common man? Please...

That's right. Individual liberty is really a non-partisan issue. In their geopolitcal view it was a the key element in stabalizing and democratizing certain countries. It permiates the first post-invasion Iraqi constitution.

I will give you that the roots of the thought movement were in socialism, but 50 years has taken its toll. What neoconservatism is today has little resemblance to its roots.

Actually, that's slightly off the mark. The roots of neo-conservatism weren't in socialism--let's make that liberal socialism--they were in conservative geopolitical thought. The socialism enters into it only because the people who became neo-conservatives had been liberal socialists or liberal democrats. They didn't ditch their domestic views as much as they rejected the democratic party's geopolitical views in favor of those of the conservative Republicans.

Believe me, I understand. With their support waning and history preparing for its scapegoats, it behooves conservatives to cast them out of the fold and at least attempt to identify them with "the other side".

That may be so, but these guys are pretty savvy about international affairs. We have to separate between their vision and how it is or was put into action. Good policy can suffer from bad management, bad intelligence and so forth. We need to understand the policy before we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Neoconservatives are not liberals, except to people like King Henry VIII or Louis XIV, or the most autocratic of americans. To paint the likes of Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz or Dick Cheney as Liberals is a priori ridiculous.

The original neo-cons remined liberals on most issues exept geopolitics, but of course their liberalism varied in degree from person to person. Wolfowitz is pro-choice. Perle is surprisingly liberal on domestic issues. Rumsfeld is not a neo-con...always was a republican. Cheney likewise.

Anyway...I am sure you'll agree that labels are not very precise or properly used in all cases. These days it serves to call a neo-con anyone in the administration who had anything to do with going into Iraq. But the fact remains it was originally used to label some liberals who came to favor a more proactive role for the US in global affairs with emphasis on projection of power. Many conservative republicans had held those view long before these liberals changed their geopolitical views--hence the label neo-con.

[QUOTE=Dwarven Pirate;404747]Individual liberty does not seem to be any goal of neoconservatism

as far as I can tell.

That's the problem, chief: you're WAY too close-minded about the subject to rationally evaluate just exactly WHAT a neo-conservative believes. To you, the term is a pejorative.

Perhaps if you are the autocratic head of some organization, they might decide you were worthy of liberty, but the common man? Please...

You simply don't understand the term, nor its un derpinning philosophy, and, hating neocons like you do, you'dnever impart anything but the basest motives to anything they may do.

Believe me, I understand.

I don't think you do, actually.

With their support waning and history preparing for its scapegoats, it behooves conservatives to cast them out of the fold and at least attempt to identify them with "the other side".

We'll see how it plays out. Another fault I find with your 'analysis' is your short-term perspective. We won't know for another ten to twenty years whether conservatism (and the 'neo' permutation) will have taken and held more ground than it currently occupies, and frankly, as a conservative, I'm bullish. Long-term trends favor my philosophy, and yours...well, friend, I think it's doomed to the ash-heap of history. Remember when conservatism died and was buried (at least in liberals' minds)? Goldwater supposedly closed down the conservative movement in '64 by getting shellacked by LBJ (who, as Democrats sometimes manage to do, scared and fooled enough voters into having a national hissy-fit, and they won through simple demogoguery and lies), and liberalism was on the make for the next fifteen years. (Don't cite Nixon as conservatism's victory: he wasn't one, and even though Republicans blew away their Democratic presidential nominees, the United States of America was functionally governed by Congressional Democrats, their idological cousins, the Rockefeller Republicans, and a one-man crime-wave in the Oval Office.)

And then REAGAN changed the map. Conservatism was BACK, and if Bush Sr. had only governed as a conservative, we'd have never had to endure Clinton.

And even with Clinton being a two-termer, conservatism has painted the map red. In the short term, we'll have the odd outlier event like the 2006 elections. But conservatism's base is growing; liberalism's base is shrinking.

Neoconservatives are not liberals, except to people like King Henry VIII or Louis XIV, or the most autocratic of americans. To paint the likes of Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz or Dick Cheney as Liberals is a priori ridiculous.

'Liberal' used to mean 'tolerant of others and their ideas'. It no longer means that in political terms. A modern 'liberal' is anything but: speech codes, lock-step thinking and political orthodoxy are all hallmarks of the Left.

When we speak in CLASSICAL terms, we're all Capital-L LIBERALS, as in: we live in the United States of America, the most liberal of the western democracies. So, in THAT sense - the REAL sense - YEAH, they ARE Liberals, and MUCH more so than the people that oppose them.

Such as yourself.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Generally, from the democratic to the republican side, or liberal to conservative, but only in geopolitics.




Not a rejection of liberalism in general, just liberal views re geopolitics.




Nah, I don't know and don't care. I was around when the neo thing got started.




Right; it means new, or a "new revival", but terms aren't always carefully crafted. (Liberal Nazis That's funny.)



Basically nothing, but these are all new guys who think like neo-cons but are second generation...they're just conservatives.




That's right. Individual liberty is really a non-partisan issue. In their geopolitcal view it was a the key element in stabalizing and democratizing certain countries. It permiates the first post-invasion Iraqi constitution.




Actually, that's slightly off the mark. The roots of neo-conservatism weren't in socialism--let's make that liberal socialism--they were in conservative geopolitical thought. The socialism enters into it only because the people who became neo-conservatives had been liberal socialists or liberal democrats. They didn't ditch their domestic views as much as they rejected the democratic party's geopolitical views in favor of those of the conservative Republicans.



That may be so, but these guys are pretty savvy about international affairs. We have to separate between their vision and how it is or was put into action. Good policy can suffer from bad management, bad intelligence and so forth. We need to understand the policy before we throw the baby out with the bathwater.



The original neo-cons remined liberals on most issues exept geopolitics, but of course their liberalism varied in degree from person to person. Wolfowitz is pro-choice. Perle is surprisingly liberal on domestic issues. Rumsfeld is not a neo-con...always was a republican. Cheney likewise.

Anyway...I am sure you'll agree that labels are not very precise or properly used in all cases. These days it serves to call a neo-con anyone in the administration who had anything to do with going into Iraq. But the fact remains it was originally used to label some liberals who came to favor a more proactive role for the US in global affairs with emphasis on projection of power. Many conservative republicans had held those view long before these liberals changed their geopolitical views--hence the label neo-con.

Beat me to it, man. (See my post, above.)

Another dam' good'un; you're on FIRE, bro.

Liberalism in the dustbin?

Hopefully the Conservatives will jump after them, and the 90% who have outgrown this outdated "us and them" Complex can have so peace - Liberalism and Conservatism both stand for barriers, who gives a feck if your a "Classical Liberal" or a "Neoconservative", your all people. perhaps it's time you just sat down, talked, and stopped blaming the other side for the woes of the world.

We'll ALL be better off for it.

Is it an over-simple arguement I'm using?

Sure it is, but I've read every post of this thread thus far and it's just a slagging match on who can maul the other side more, and who's doing more damage to the human race (the one that isn't doing as much is "the winner"), what simple word difference means and why you have drived such a wedge, making politics as boring as most believe it is anyway (with a bit of Latin thrown in for good measure ).

Wing Politics is divisive and needless, if the West ever falls to ruin, you can BOTH be sure your to blame.

Sorry if it sounds like a rant but this issue REALLY pisses me off.

Originally Posted by crooks

Wing Politics is divisive and needless,

What other kind of politics is there?

-dale

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Beat me to it, man. (See my post, above.)

Another dam' good'un; you're on FIRE, bro.

Thanks, sarge. You're setting the beat.

Saw it. You got the knack.

Originally Posted by dalem

What other kind of politics is there?

-dale

Politics where we can look at all views equally?

We're naturally tribal people, but when it splits a nation down the middle it's gone a bit too far.

Originally Posted by crooks

Politics where we can look at all views equally?

We're naturally tribal people, but when it splits a nation down the middle it's gone a bit too far.

So an Irishman admits it! The rest of us were quite aware of that anyway

Originally Posted by crooks

Politics where we can look at all views equally?

We're naturally tribal people, but when it splits a nation down the middle it's gone a bit too far.

The extremes have always existed and have always been at odds. And they compromise when appropriate. It's the way it works.

-dale

Originally Posted by glyn

So an Irishman admits it! The rest of us were quite aware of that anyway

What difference would nationality make?!

Originally Posted by dalem

The extremes have always existed and have always been at odds. And they compromise when appropriate. It's the way it works.

-dale

The Extremes have never been more "mainstream" than now - Compromise has been difficult for the last 20 years, as both of the silly clubs have been diverging, not uniting.

Originally Posted by crooks

The Extremes have never been more "mainstream" than now - Compromise has been difficult for the last 20 years, as both of the silly clubs have been diverging, not uniting.

Well, I can see why. I have no interest whatsoever in getting any closer to my adversary's position than I am right now, because they are wrong on virtually everything they believe, and to compromise with them or to meet somewhere in the middle is dangerous. Besides, I believe that government is most often the problem, not the solution, so if we end up gridlocked, all well and good. The Republic is safest when Congress is on recess, but if they spend their entire session getting nothing done, well, that's as good as a 'win' to me.

Democrats represent defeat, mis-rule and failure on virtually every single issue: economy, foreign policy, environment, even the great Constitutional questions of the day. Why would I have ANY interest in compromising with THAT?

I want my elected representatives to fight them with both fists, unceasingly. If I ever hear that they're seeking 'bipartisanship' with the enemy, in my mind it's the same thing as collaboration, and I'd stand them against a metaphorical wall with a metaphorical cigarette and a metaphorical blindfold, and have them metaphorically shot right in their political careers.

So, YEAH, I want to fight 'em, not make deals with 'em.