3 Quotes which Represent 3 isms (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

What do you see in each of these 3 quotes? I would suggest that it is 3 separate faces of the same tyranny. I would also suggest that all 3 quotes represent ideologies which are ultimately detrimental to the concept of freedom - Namely Nazism, Communism, and Neoconism. In short, propaganda is not the truth, or those who made the 3 quotes would not call it propaganda, and would not represent propaganda as something to be desired. All 3 persons who made the quotes can be regarded as very dangerous and disingenuous people.

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
-- George Bush, May 24, 2005.

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on
a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people
don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."
--Hermann Goering, April 18, 1946

"Future history resolves itself, in their eyes, into the propaganda and the practical carrying out of their social plans."
--Karl Marx, from the Communist Manifesto

So, how do we know the truth when we see it? By its results, of course. Just like the Bible, which tells us that you can know the difference between good and evil by the fruits that are produced, you can also tell if a particular ideology is good or not so good by its own fruits.

We have seen the fruits of the Bush administration. I rest my case.

 

[Connecticutter]

What are you trying to say? Are you claiming that Bush is like Hitler and Stalin or what?

Also - how can you say Bush's quote represents a philosophy? It was just an observation he was making.

What "fruits" of the Bush administration? A democratic Iraq?

 

[cnredd]

I rest my case.

God, I hope so...I expect no further responses....

 

[V.I. Lenin]

You talk of propaganda, yet you quote the Bible.


Irony, it's the best kind of humor.

 

[Martyr_Machine]

Neoconism isnt a word.
Making things up does wonders for your credibility:roll:

Besides, neo-conservatism is an exclusively foreign policy oriented ideology. It has absolutely nothing to do with domestic affairs.

..by the way. Nazism is not technically an ideology, it refers exclusively to the actions of the German National Socialist party. You mean fascism, not nazism.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Neoconism isnt a word.
Making things up does wonders for your credibility

I've made up several words. Only two have come close to catching on yet- pop-con and not-lie. A not-lie is a "technically correct" sub-set of negative pregnants. Pop-cons are folks whose idea of conservatism is dependent upon support for the invasion of Iraq and/or support for GWB.

Besides, neo-conservatism is an exclusively foreign policy oriented ideology. It has absolutely nothing to do with domestic affairs.

"Absolutely nothing" is hyperbolic. It may be less inaccurate to say that in theory those of the neocon persuasion are likely to make domestic policy subserviant to the foreign policy. However, in practice, it's not so easy for the two sets of policy to be separated when what's holding them together is the positions of power and the neocons in them. To no small degree the execution of neocon foreign policy has been subject to various and arguably inappropriate domestic drivers.
Domestic policy is important not in a theoretical sense to neo-conservatism, but in the practical sense in that it is attention to dom pol that allows them to retain power.

 

[Connecticutter]

I like the pop-con word, but I'd confuse it too much with popcorn :roll: .

Anyway, I know I'm not a pop-con, because I believe that there are many different dissenting groups within conservatism. Actually, it seems like the most interesting debates are those that are occuring between conservates.

Now I've heard many different definitions of neo-conservative. Some say that its an agressive foreign policy with a liberal domestic policy. Others say that its a modernized version of "social conservatism." Still others will contend that its an attempt to use American power to spread the liberal ideas of freedom and democracy around the world. So we're still not clear on this word.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Now I've heard many different definitions of neo-conservative. Some say that its an agressive foreign policy with a liberal domestic policy. Others say that its a modernized version of "social conservatism." Still others will contend that its an attempt to use American power to spread the liberal ideas of freedom and democracy around the world. So we're still not clear on this word.

I consider them liberal entryists. Some of them are former communists and Trotskyites.

I'll provide some words from the horses' mouths (what else?):



From the Godfather of NeoConservatism:

The Neoconservative Persuasion

From the August 25, 2003 issue: What it was, and what it is.
by Irving Kristol

...the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.

...an attitude toward public finance that is far less risk averse than is the case among more traditional conservatives.

Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state... seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his "The Man Versus the State," was a historical eccentricity. People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today's America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not.

The upshot is a quite unexpected alliance between neocons, who include a fair proportion of secular intellectuals, and religious traditionalists.
Because religious conservatism is so feeble in Europe, the neoconservative potential there is correspondingly weak.

And large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns. Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal.
No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.

Irving Kristol is author of "Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea."
​

And from William Kristol

"If we have to make common cause with the more hawkish liberals and fight the conservatives, that is fine with me... If you read the last few issues of the Weekly Standard, it has much more in common with liberal hawks than traditional conservatives."
​

From Benador Associates:

What the Heck Is a Neocon?
by Max Boot
Wall Street Journal

The original neocons were a band of liberal intellectuals who rebelled against the Democratic Party's leftward drift on defense issues in the 1970s. At first the neocons clustered around Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Democrat, but then they aligned themselves with Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, who promised to confront Soviet expansionism.

So is "neoconservatism" worthless as a political label? Not entirely. In social policy, it stands for a broad sympathy with a traditionalist agenda and a rejection of extreme libertarianism.

On economic matters, neocons...embrace a laissez-faire line, though they are not as troubled by the size of the welfare state as libertarians are.

But it is not really domestic policy that defines neoconservatism. This was a movement founded on foreign policy, and it is still here that neoconservatism carries the greatest meaning...

One group of conservatives believes that we should use armed force only to defend our vital national interests, narrowly defined. They believe that we should remove, or at least disarm, Saddam Hussein, but not occupy Iraq for any substantial period afterward. The idea of bringing democracy to the Middle East they denounce as a mad, hubristic dream likely to backfire with tragic consequences. This view, which goes under the somewhat self-congratulatory moniker of "realism," is championed by foreign-policy mandarins like Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and James Baker III.

[Neocons] ...think, however, that "realism" presents far too crabbed a view of American power and responsibility.
​

 

[Connecticutter]

Okay, so I guess I'm not a neo-con for a few reasons. One is that I am against the growth of the state, and I believe that government should stay out of our lives as much as possible. As far as foriegn policy goes, I think I'm more of a realist, and I believe that national interest should be the largest factor.

I've also never been a communist, Trotskyite, or even a liberal.

If this is the definition of neo-conservatism, wouldn't it be more fair to say that president Bush agrees with some neoconservative ideas, but that he is not a pure neo-conservative himself?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

If this is the definition of neo-conservatism, wouldn't it be more fair to say that president Bush agrees with some neoconservative ideas, but that he is not a pure neo-conservative himself?

I certainly can see the sense of that. I sometimes make the distinction myself for clarity's sake.

However, I've seen the term used both ways- to describe the actual neocons who made their transition from seeking power w/in the Dem party to seeking power w/in the GOP; and, to describe those who more recently have come to the neocon persuasion. The latter group are not technically neo-cons, but the label ends up being aplied to them for convenience's sake, I suppose.

There is no exact codification of its usage. I think that a valid case can be made for either usage. I think that an author should be aware of the difference and strive to be consistent with the term's use within a particular piece as well as provide contextual clues as to how it's being used.

 

[danarhea]

I consider them liberal entryists. Some of them are former communists and Trotskyites.

I'll provide some words from the horses' mouths (what else?):



From the Godfather of NeoConservatism:


The Neoconservative Persuasion

From the August 25, 2003 issue: What it was, and what it is.
by Irving Kristol

...the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.

...an attitude toward public finance that is far less risk averse than is the case among more traditional conservatives.

Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state... seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his "The Man Versus the State," was a historical eccentricity. People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today's America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not.

The upshot is a quite unexpected alliance between neocons, who include a fair proportion of secular intellectuals, and religious traditionalists.
Because religious conservatism is so feeble in Europe, the neoconservative potential there is correspondingly weak.

And large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns. Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal.
No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.

Irving Kristol is author of "Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea."

​

And from William Kristol

"If we have to make common cause with the more hawkish liberals and fight the conservatives, that is fine with me... If you read the last few issues of the Weekly Standard, it has much more in common with liberal hawks than traditional conservatives."

​

From Benador Associates:

What the Heck Is a Neocon?
by Max Boot
Wall Street Journal

The original neocons were a band of liberal intellectuals who rebelled against the Democratic Party's leftward drift on defense issues in the 1970s. At first the neocons clustered around Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Democrat, but then they aligned themselves with Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, who promised to confront Soviet expansionism.

So is "neoconservatism" worthless as a political label? Not entirely. In social policy, it stands for a broad sympathy with a traditionalist agenda and a rejection of extreme libertarianism.

On economic matters, neocons...embrace a laissez-faire line, though they are not as troubled by the size of the welfare state as libertarians are.

But it is not really domestic policy that defines neoconservatism. This was a movement founded on foreign policy, and it is still here that neoconservatism carries the greatest meaning...

One group of conservatives believes that we should use armed force only to defend our vital national interests, narrowly defined. They believe that we should remove, or at least disarm, Saddam Hussein, but not occupy Iraq for any substantial period afterward. The idea of bringing democracy to the Middle East they denounce as a mad, hubristic dream likely to backfire with tragic consequences. This view, which goes under the somewhat self-congratulatory moniker of "realism," is championed by foreign-policy mandarins like Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and James Baker III.

[Neocons] ...think, however, that "realism" presents far too crabbed a view of American power and responsibility.

​

You are spot on with some of your quotes, especially the William Kristol one, which came from an article called "Going Back to Where They Came From" by Patrick Buchanan. In that article, William Kristol is also quoted as saying that, although he would vote for Bush over Kerry, he would vote for Kerry over Buchanan, or any other Conservative candidate. Why would he say that? Because Kristol is not Conservative, and neither is Bush. The biggest lie of Bush's presidency is when he says he is, but he has hoodwinked the average American for too long, and people are catching on.

Conservative, my ass!! The Neocons represent Liberalism on steroids, there is plenty of proof of it in their own words, and they are not ashamed to admit it.