Neocons in the Democratic Party

[madmusic]

Like Kennedy and Truman, Democratic neocons want to beef up the military and won't run from a fight.

By Jacob Heilbrunn, Jacob Heilbrunn, a former Times editorial writer, is writing a book on neoconservatism.
May 28, 2006


DON'T LOOK now, but neoconservatism is making a comeback — and not among the Republicans who have made it famous but in the Democratic Party.

A host of pundits and young national security experts associated with the party are calling for a return to the Cold War precepts of President Truman to wage a war against terror that New Republic Editor Peter Beinart, in the title of his provocative new book, calls "The Good Fight."

...


Where will all this lead? To an internecine Democratic war, of course. Just as Republicans are being riven by debates between realists and Bush administration idealists, so the Democratic Party is about to witness its own battle.

Just as the old neocons wanted to expel the McGovernites, so the new ones want to rid the party of the Moveon.org types and move it to the right. As Beinart puts it, "whatever its failings, the right at least knows that America's enemies need to be fought."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-heilbrunn28may28,0,6411415.story?coll=la-home-commentary

[sandnsea]

1. There are no Dem neocons

This is a dangerous game to play, equating the Cheney cabal to anybody in the Democratic Party, or even most of the Republican Party. They are a group unto themselves and always have been. That's been the whole point of trying to expose their true agenda, that they are a dangerous group unlike anything we've ever seen.

It's one thing to differentiate between hawkish and dovish Dems, but to pretend hawks and neocons are the same thing is to not even understand what a neocon is.

The writers are either intentionally misinforming the people, or stupid.

[jackbourassa]

3. Oh yes there are...

they're called the DLC. Read the article, it's about the PPI and Will Marshall.

[sandnsea]

4. No they are not

Not even remotely. There are no Democrats who believe we should spread democracy at gun point.

[jackbourassa]

6. READ THE ARTICLE!!!

The PPI and Will Marshall, are who???? They're DLC! They want to spread Democracy around the world - sounds a lot like...what, exactly?

[sandnsea]

8. At gun point???

NO they do not. I did read the article, it's bullshit.

And neocons could give a SHIT about democracy, the only thing they want to control is the power to enable commerce and it's the only thing they've ever wanted to control.

[MrBenchley]

27. Today's post from the "We hate Democrats" club....

This stuff has gotten old fast.....

[jackbourassa]

34. Get off your high horse Bench

These people, if given a chance, would destroy our party. If neocons are hated by Republicans, what success do you think they will have with Democrats? Lead our party right down the toilet, that's what. Because you'll notice that Vietnam and Korea didn't do much for our electoral chances!

Read the article!

Will Marshall is what??? DLC!

The PPI is what? A policy think tank for the DLC!

If you don't like it, take it up with them.

This may come as a shock to you, and all DLC apologists, but I, and most Democrats, didn't oppose the war so we could piss off Al From and Will Marshall. So if this is what we can expect from the Democrats, then count me out. Because I will oppose the war just as strongly with a Democrat in the White House as with a Republican.

Mr Benchley, you never waste a single opportunity to absolve these idiots - no matter what they say. So now, becoming neocons is what JFK and Truman had in mind, huh? Is there anything that you stand for? Is there anything that these people might say or do where you will draw a line in the sand and say, "this far and no further?" Or is carte blanche a strategy with you? Maybe the DLC are the real Democrat haters...there's a solution to that, you know. It's called becoming a republican.

[MrBenchley]

65. Fuck that noise....

"Lead our party right down the toilet"
Gee, it's the far left I see doing that.

[jackbourassa]

73. In your dreams pal

Not only have the DLC sold out on every conceivable issue, but they've done so while losing every election of the past 10 years. Not to mention having lost us the House and the Senate - TWICE (1994, 2002). Now theres a record to betray everything we believe in, huh?

Now I hear that the DLC are talking up Bloomberg as an independent candidate for 2008. These people are the biggest bunch of traitors the Democrats have ever produced. Hell bent on destroying the party.

We need to get rid of them...FAST!

[MrBenchley]

90. LOL! So how did that Kucinich juggernaut do?

"while losing every election of the past 10 years"
Fantasy is such a wonderful thing. Meanwhile, let's recall some of the far left's memorable victories recently--there was Deport 'em all Paul Hackett....flopped against a crazy woman, then flopped again and dropped out of the primary.

[Ken Burch]

92. The DLC has the blood of 2400 US troops and thousands of Iraqi civilians

On its hands.

Are you proud of HolyWarJoe for that?

Will there ever be a point when you think too many have died for no purpose?

[mod mom]

37. Blind allegiance is bad regardless of what party. Do you really believe

everyone who calls themselves a DEM represents the party values?

[jackbourassa]

40. Tell it mod mom...

I say, show me, don't tell me. You want to represent the Democrats, represent us and our values. If not, bug off and play Risk or something.

[TahitiNut]

47. Indeed. The "lesser of two evils" maxim is like chickens flocking to the

... farmer with the sharpest axe. It's f*cking suicidal!

[sandnsea]

54. How does that automatically make one a neocon??

It doesn't. I can disagree with both Kucinich and Lieberman on Iraq. It doesn't make Kucinich a communist or Lieberman a neocon. That's what the article attempts to do and it's complete bullshit. I don't understand why people don't see that when they fall for this lumping Democrats in with the worst of the Republicans, it only hurts us in the long run. It may feel good for a moment to take a dump on Joementum, but in a few months you'll be wondering why people went ahead and voted for the Republican since they're all the same anyway.

[MrBenchley]

66. Worth noting that the far left

is busy trying to lynch Lieberman, but can hardly be bothered to oppose Republicans such as Allen in Virginia, DeWaine in Ohio or Roskam in Illinois....

[Ken Burch]

93. No serious candidate is even running against Allen, so that's a moot point

And you're just wrong about Ohio, where progressives are working hard for Sherrod Brown.

[mod mom]

70. If you followed the thread that the comment was attached too, you

would see it was attached to a response that called it a "We hate Dems" Club. Anyone can call themselves a Dem, but actions speak loder than words. Will Marshall, one of the leaders of the DLC, who runs the thinktank PPI, has signed on with PNAC. I find it ridiculous that if someone questions someone who calls themselves a dem, regardless of their actions, there are some here who attack, yet it is okay to label republicans.

I have no problem calling some Dems out when their actions are contrary to their party affiliation. That in no way (at least rational way) implies hatred of Dems.

[MrBenchley]

64. And this sort of dreary horseshit from the left is tedious

[jackbourassa]

74. But oh so true

Oh, exalted one!

[MrBenchley]

91. Not even close to true....

But pompous as all get out....

[jackbourassa]

32. Rose colored glasses...

A beautiful thing!

[High Plains]

67. Are you kidding?

Neo-conservatism is much broader than "the Bush-Cheney cabal."

[cantstandbush]

97. Driving us to make a REAL THIRD PARTY!!! Hooray!!! n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

15. Joe Lieberman. n/t

[no_hypocrisy]

16. Pre-2005: Zell Miller n/t

[sandnsea]

18. Democracy at gun point

Please show me where he supports pre-emptive strikes for the sole purpose of "spreading democracy".

[Crunchy Frog]

22. He's sounded indistinguishable from a neocon to me

when pushing for and justifying the Iraq invasion.

Many neocons do not come right out and say that they support pre-emptive strikes for the purpose of "spreading democracy". A few who do say that outright actually claim to be Democrats (Tom Friedman).

Could you tell us exactly what Lieberman's ostensible reason for supporting pre-emptive war against Iraq was? I've had a difficult time pinpointing it myself, but many of the neocons overall appear to be rather shifty when it comes to stating their justifications.

[sandnsea]

35. He thinks he's fighting terrorists

He thinks by getting Saddam out of the ME, he got out a major financial contributor to ME terrorists who are attacking Israel and riling up the people. That's what he thinks, which has little to do with what the neocons are attempting to do. They couldn't care less about whether there's a terrorist attack here or there, as long as the US has supreme influence in the region to ensure the oil flows.

[Crunchy Frog]

49. Do you have a direct track to his mind

where you know what all his thoughts and motives are? I congratulate you on having such a skill.

[sandnsea]

50. Well, do you???

Where'd you get the direct track to his mind??

I made my opinions based on what he said, which I posted. Which is more than I can see for anybody else throwing around wild accusations.

[H2O Man]

20. Yep.

There is no serious argument to be made that Joe Lieberman is anything but a neoconservative.

[Crunchy Frog]

23. Thanks. I could use a little backup here

from someone who actually has some debating skills, which I'm sorely lacking in.:)

[H2O Man]

28. I do not think

that it takes debating skills to expose Joe Lieberman as being a neoconservative. I do know that no amount of debating skills can cover that simple truth up.

[sandnsea]

36. Except he's not

See #35. Lieberman thinks he's fighting terrorists, who are just irritants to neoconservatives, not their main purpose.

[H2O Man]

52. So wrong

that no one will take that seriously. Joe is a lap dog for the neoconservatives in the Bush administration. He is not retarded, and is not under some sincere but mistaken impression that the war in Iraq has anything to do with the war on terrorism.

[sandnsea]

55. Are terrorists attacking Israelis??

Answer please.

[High Plains]

68. Palestinians are engaged in a war of national liberation.

[H2O Man]

72. You are either on

the wrong thread, or have some curious reason for asking such a question. It has nothing to do with this discussion. The conversation had been Joe Lieberman, who is nothing if not a member in good faith of the neoconservative movement. He fits that definition in every sense. Questions like the one you posed have no more to do with that topic than South Africa politics circa 1700 ad. I probably should not give you that opening. So don't talk about Joe and his South African policy circa 1700 ad, please.

No progressive democrat should support Lieberman, in my opinion. I don't consider him any different than Paul Wolfowitz.

[sandnsea]

75. I has to do with Joe Lieberman

And why he supported the war in Iraq and what he believes about Saddam funneling money to Israeli terrorists. He is NOT a neocon, he doesn't support colonizing Iraq in order to control the regions oil, he does not support a global rampage to remove regimes at gun point, one by one. It has EVERYTHING to do with this thread and a whole lot to do with why we can't win an election. People like him try to differentiate themselves from people like you, and consequently can't get a distinct message out between you and the neocons.

[mmonk]

94. Keep fooling yourself.

[shance]

2. Neocons are certainly alive and well within the Dem party, but NOT

due to any Kennedys. Wake up Dems. The Neo cons have been assassinating and harming the Dems and more specifically the Kennedys, for many lives and decades now.

We expect good leaders like JFK, RFK and MLK, and yet we have continued to allow the Neocons to kill and harm our best leaders. What do we expect if we don't fight for our leaders?

Apparently the Kennedys must pose a big threat to the Neocon dynasty because the Neocons are always after them, along with the Clintons, which I have less respect because they continue to enable and coddle their abusers. At least the Kennedys dont.

[sandnsea]

5. No there aren't

I have never heard a Democrat say democracy can be spread at gun point, not ever.

[Minstrel Boy]

26. Have you ever heard a Republican

say "democracy can be spread at gun point"? In so many words?

There is, absolutely, a broadly shared bipartisan consensus on America's imperial project. For many Democrats, the only difference is they will go about it "smarter."

[sandnsea]

39. Ahem, pre-emptive war in our National Security Strategy

It's right smack there.

Here's what Lieberman said about pre-emptive war - any Republican who has said the same isn't a neoconservative either.

"But I never viewed it as part of Bush's preemption policy. I opposed that policy. It was foolish to declare such a policy. It outraged both our enemies and our allies around the world."

[Ken Burch]

96. Does it MATTER that he opposed preemption, if he still backed the war?

Doesn't he share the responsibility for the slaughter and the torture just the same?
And, since he backs Bush's Iran policy as well, what difference does it make why, if the result is a nuclear war either way?

Seems to me that death is death.

[Tarheel_Dem]

7. You'll excuse me if I say......B.S.,

while i'll readily admit that there are some hawkish dems in our ranks, i don't believe for a minute that there are neocons (except maybe "joementum")as the article states; and if there are, they are certainly a miniscule minority.

[sandnsea]

9. I don't think so

Joe Lieberman would never start a war for the purpose of gaining control over regional resources, that's what neocons are about - no matter what bullshit cover stories they come up with.

Lieberman may be quite misguided on his hysteria over terrorists, but I suspect that's his allegiance to Israel more than any neocon bullshit.

[Orlandodem]

10. There is nothing wrong with Dems who are strong on

national defense and supportive of the spread of democracy. Applying things like the Helsinki Accords to the Middle East would be progressive.

Dems are the party of Muscular Multilateralism....the Grand Alliance of WWII and NATO are examples.

The day that we're seen as strong on defense is the day that Repugs can fold their tent and go home because they'll never win again.

[sweetheart]

12. Dems are just better imperialists

The neo-liberal claptrap of economic rot and free trade globalization is
worse, IMO, than the bush doctrine, as it avoids even the perception that
the empire is waging a war to destroy all but itself.

Republican lite imperialists are no value, and that mindset, likely will
take the house and the executive by 2008, and the destruction of the republic
will be but assured if they cannot deviate from neo-liberal militarist imperialism
and the prison lockdown of the planet.

A new cold war is called for to contain the beast as domestic politics will
continue to sell empire and pilliaging other nations with its suprlus until
somebody says "no".

[sandnsea]

19. That's not neoconservatism

Globalization is inevitable, how it gets done largely depends on whether citizens pull their heads out of their asses and demand that it be done in a manner that is equitable for everybody and doesn't destroy the environment in the process. The corporatists who are currently rampaging across the planet are classic Republicans. If we don't recognize the difference between them and Democrats who want to get it right, we'll continue to sink into deeper and deeper poverty.

But neoconservatism is on a whole other track. They're willing to militarily secure global power and global resources, and any altruistic notion of democracy is just a smoke screen to cover up their real agenda.

[sweetheart]

33. Globalization is not inevitable

Chalmer's johnson blows that myth to smithereens in chapter 10 of "sorrows of empire",
titled

"Whatever happened to globalization"

"Globalization's claims and political maneuvers
remain conceptually tied to a nineteenth century narrative of 'modernization' and 'civilization'
that represents Western Countries - particularly the US and UK - as the priviledged vanguard
of an evolutionary process that applies to al nations"

"There is no know case in which globalization has led to prosperity in any Third World country,
and none of the world's twenty-four reasonably developed capitalist nations, regardless of their
ideological explanations, got where they are by following any of the presecriptions contained
in the globlization doctrine. What globlization has produced, are not newly industrialized countries,
but 130 nonviable national economies or ungovernable chaotic entities. There is occasional
evidence that this result is precisely what the authors of globlization intended."

"Perhaps the most deceptive aspect of gobalization was its claim to embody fundamental
and inevitable technological developments rather than the conscious policies of angl-american
poltiical elites trying to advance the interests of their own countries at the expense of others."

'while disagreeing with marxists on the final goal of historical development, globalists
nonetheless share with their ideological opponents a fondness of terms as "irresistable",
"inevitable" and "irreversible"'

- sorrows of empire, pp 260 - 261

[madmusic]

42. World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred

At gun point or not...

World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability

From Publishers Weekly
A professor at Yale Law School, Chua eloquently fuses expert analysis with personal recollections to assert that globalization has created a volatile concoction of free markets and democracy that has incited economic devastation, ethnic hatred and genocidal violence throughout the developing world. Chua illustrates the disastrous consequences arising when an accumulation of wealth by "market dominant minorities" combines with an increase of political power by a disenfranchised majority. Chua refutes the "powerful assumption that markets and democracy go hand in hand" by citing specific examples of the turbulent conditions within countries such as Indonesia, Russia, Sierra Leone, Bolivia and in the Middle East. In Indonesia, Chua contends, market liberalization policies favoring wealthy Chinese elites instigated a vicious wave of anti-Chinese violence from the suppressed indigenous majority. Chua describes how "terrified Chinese shop owners huddled behind locked doors while screaming Muslim mobs smashed windows, looted shops and gang-raped over 150 women, almost all of them ethnic Chinese." Chua blames the West for promoting a version of capitalism and democracy that Westerners have never adopted themselves. Western capitalism wisely implemented redistributive mechanisms to offset potential ethnic hostilities, a practice that has not accompanied the political and economic transitions in the developing world. As a result, Chua explains, we will continue to witness violence and bloodshed within the developing nations struggling to adopt the free markets and democratic policies exported by the West. (On sale Dec. 24)
Copyright 2002 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal
Globalization is not good for developing countries, insists Yale law professor Chua. It aggravates ethnic tensions by creating a small but abundantly wealthy new class and it's stimulating a new wave of anti-Americanism.
Copyright 2002 Reed Business Information, Inc.

And...

Baghdad Year Zero: Pillaging Iraq in pursuit of a neocon utopia

It was only after I had been in Baghdad for a month that I found what I was looking for. I had traveled to Iraq a year after the war began, at the height of what should have been a construction boom, but after weeks of searching I had not seen a single piece of heavy machinery apart from tanks and humvees. Then I saw it: a construction crane. It was big and yellow and impressive, and when I caught a glimpse of it around a corner in a busy shopping district I thought that I was finally about to witness some of the reconstruction I had heard so much about. But as I got closer I noticed that the crane was not actually rebuilding anything—not one of the bombed-out government buildings that still lay in rubble all over the city, nor one of the many power lines that remained in twisted heaps even as the heat of summer was starting to bear down. No, the crane was hoisting a giant billboard to the top of a three-story building. SUNBULAH: HONEY 100% NATURAL, made in Saudi Arabia.

Seeing the sign, I couldn’t help but think about something Senator John McCain had said back in October. Iraq, he said, is “a huge pot of honey that’s attracting a lot of flies.” The flies McCain was referring to were the Halliburtons and Bechtels, as well as the venture capitalists who flocked to Iraq in the path cleared by Bradley Fighting Vehicles and laser-guided bombs. The honey that drew them was not just no-bid contracts and Iraq’s famed oil wealth but the myriad investment opportunities offered by a country that had just been cracked wide open after decades of being sealed off, first by the nationalist economic policies of Saddam Hussein, then by asphyxiating United Nations sanctions.

How could "liberal" become a bad word without some help from "liberals"?

[sandnsea]

43. Smashes to smithereens??

Where does he do that?

In fact, he says what I said. That if people, workers, don't start getting serious about the fact of globalization, they're going to sink deeper and deeper into poverty. Call it whatever you want, global trade has gone on forever and it isn't going to stop now. People keep fighting the process instead of for the regulations that will actually do them, and others on the planet, some good.

[rman]

61. Globalization is the result of deliberate actions by large corporations

by means of lobbying, publishing pro-globalization and pro-free trade pieces and by discrediting opponents.

Globalization, deregulation and privatization benefit the same small minority of rich and influential people who push for it, while it is to the disadvantage of the majority of people on earth. Low and middle wages are declining, workers rights and environmental protections are being weakened.

Global trade that benefits everyone instead of only a small minority is possible, but it doesn't make those who are in power as wealthy as they get in the corporatist system they are creating. That's why we're having this system of exploitation instead.

[sandnsea]

76. Which is why we better fight for our piece

Or sink deeper and deeper into poverty. Because you're not going to dismantle capitalism and corporations, not in a million years. And a corporatist-globalist, like Bill Gates or Bill Clinton, isn't necessarily a neocon.

[sweetheart]

79. its not about dismantling capitalism,

Just predatory capitalism, agreed. Just the only model on offer IS predatory capitalism,
and the book by Perkins "confessions of an economic hitman" explains this eloquently if
it is not yet apparent.

What you're really looking at is a global rebellion and a war of independence from the
Corporate states of america. The vast majority of the earths population is now on the
other side of that war, and they have, with india and china, just a matter of time for
delivery systems and whatnot technologies (pluss russia of course), to more than belly bump
with the big talk, economically, militarily and socially.

It'll probably come out as energy and trade skirmish wars, as aree already set up on the board from
the opening (chess analogy), as the peices are projecting power across central/east asia, and
a breaking of this power, in an orchestrated guerilla/economic effort surely is already in
the works. It will bankrupt the US to hold the position, just like it did Rome, and
the people of central asia know more about bankrupting empires than any people on earth,
in case the fool americanaa forgot who they picked a fight with. Uncle Ho is reincarnate
in every nation today, wishing the best from the evil empire as it goes down, and in eating
the forbidden fruit, anyone who embraces american predatory trade capitalism will weaken
as the empire diminishes--> see collapse of USSR. (dollar inflation, argentina come home)

Not an empire has survived the conquoring of the lands the US now occupies, and like the
mongolian empire, the neocon projecton will be a hightide water mark for just another empire
of colour in a history book of asian bankruptcies.

[sandnsea]

80. Which Democrats are not on board with

And which is why they try to create a trade process that is beneficial to everybody and is not imperialistic. There is a huge difference between creating a trade policy that is intended to exploit, the way the Republican corporatists do; and one that is intended to benefit the economy of another country, but ends up exploited by those same Republican corporatists when they get into office anyway. Countries were becoming freer and economically stronger under Clinton, that is all moving in the other direction again.

Some may try to say it's a hairs difference, but it's all the difference as can be seen between the Mariana Islands in the 90's and the Mariana Islands after reforms that Clinton pushed. It certainly isn't perfect, but it's a step towards a more equitable distribution of wealth. That is why it is so dangerous to pretend that anybody who supports capitalism, trade and democracy is a neocon; it destroys the opportunity to circumvent the real global disasters we are currently creating. There may come a day that the corporatists don't need the US for their growth, but we're not there yet and if the US collapses, the world collapses and that isn't good for anybody.

[sweetheart]

62. in the greater argument

I hope Mr. Chalmer's Johnson really does make the entire word "globalization" undressed
in a way that i don't frankly believe can be re-dressed as was. Surely there will be
global trade in future, but this container-ship free-petrol dystopia, not.

The last 2 paragraphs of that chapter:


"As the United States devotes ever more of its manufacturing assets to the arms trade,
it becomes ever more dependent on imports for th e non-military products that its citizens
no longer manufacture but need in order to maintain their customary lifestyles. With a record
trade deficit... and close to negligible savings rate, Americans may end up owing foriegners
as much as ... trillion(s) in the next few years alone. As the economic analyist William
Greider concludes, "instead of facing this darkening prospect, Bush and team regularly
dismiss the worldviews of these creditor nations and lecture them condescendingly on our
superior qualities. Any profligate debtor who insults his banker is unwise, to put it mildly...
American leadership has... become increasingly delusional - I mean that literally - and blind
to the adverse balance of power accumulating against it.

Our government seems not to grasp the relationship between its military unilateralism and the
collateral dmage it is doing to international commerce, an activity that depends on mutually
beneficial relationships among individuals, businesses, and countries to function well. If
foreign creditors conclude that the US is no longer a defender of international law, they may lose
interest in investing in such a country. Our version of unilateralist military imperialism
undercust interntaional institutions, causes trade to dry up, distorts the availability of finance,
and is environmentally dangerous. While the globalization of the 1990s was premised on cheating
the poor and defenseless and on destroying the only physical environment we will ever have, its
replacement by American militarism and imperialism is likely to usher in something much worse
for developed, developing and underdeveloped nations alike."


Smithereens. There is no going back. It is incumbent upon us to posit an offering that is
not a return to (see above). Thus far, the DLC corporatists are driven by a return to
the prosperitiy of clintonism as a kneejerk hope... but such a move would be a total failure
in light of the last years.

[acmejack]

17. "Muscular Multilateralism" now that is good

From the New Dem Reader?

[Orlandodem]

78. I don't remember where I found that phrase but it stuck

and it should stick with every Dem here. It really ought to become part of the mainstream lexicon when discussing Dem core values.

[Lasher]

11. The original neocons

The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world.

Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans.

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html

However, it seems unlikely that significant numbers of today's neocons would be present in the Democratic party. They are all about world conquest, no matter the consequences, and that dog just don't hunt with most Democrats. They have been trying, somewhat successfully, to wrest control of the Republican party from the conservatives.

[H2O Man]

14. Good post.

The neoconservative movement's beginning can actually be traced to the Six Day War in the Middle East. It create a significant shift in the support for the civil rights movement in the United States, which is documented very well in Taylor Branch's "At Canaan's Edge: America in the King Years 1965-68" (pages 615-625). It was at this time that anti-poverty activist Michael Harrington coined the word "neoconservative."

When people attempt to apply the word to Truman or JFK, they expose their ignorance of what the word means, its history, or its correct usage.

[HamdenRice]

31. Thanks Lasher and H2O -- most DUers don't really know what neocon means

We really need more precision when we talk about neocons and other groupings. As you both point out, the neo-con movement is a pretty specific grouping. Many DUers use the word neocon to mean simply bad Republican.

Both the 1967 middle east war and the civil disorder, bussing and urban riots of 1967-68 created the neo con movement among not just Jewish, but what we might call "white ethnic" (especially Catholic) northern intellectuals many of whom had been first Trotskyites, then Democrats and moved into the Republican party of the 1980s.

You are also correct to point out that a Democratic Senator's office was like neo-con central in the 1970s to early 1980s -- namely the office of Henry "Scoop" Jackson, where Richard Pearle, prince of darkness, got his start.

Truman and Kennedy were not neocons. That kind of position was called "cold war liberal." They had progressive domestic social agendas while being strong on Soviet containment. The neocons do not have progressive social agendas.

The DLC is more appropriately called "neo-liberal," not "neo-conservative."

[wtmusic]

58. Scoop Jackson was a middle-of-the-road, pro-labor Democrat

on domestic issues and an early champion of environmental causes. If it wasn't for that nasty need for conquest...

"Neoconservatism" is largely defined by foreign policy ideology.

[HamdenRice]

86. Scoop Jackson was a strange case

I was thinking about just your point. I think Jackson's office was kind of the incubator of the neo-conservative movement, but Jackson himself was not a neocon. He was pro-labor, pro-environment and middle of the road on social issues.

But he was wildly pro-Israel, and the neo-cons like Pearle, took over the foreign policy apparatus of his office.

BTW, in interviews, Pearle claims to still be a registered Democrat.

[sandnsea]

41. And when Lieberman is lumped in

It perverts the definition of neo-conservative even more. He's not, he doesn't support the neoconservative move to pre-emptive war as a tool to spread democracy. Without that, you haven't got a modern day neoconservative.

"But I never viewed it as part of Bush's preemption policy. I opposed that policy. It was foolish to declare such a policy. It outraged both our enemies and our allies around the world."

[H2O Man]

71. I think that

it must be very difficult to try to stick up for neocon Joe Lieberman. As I said on another post on this thread, no one could do a convincing job of it. Thanks for proving that.

[sandnsea]

77. Because you say so

I always presumed you were a better debater than that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. delete

[madmusic]

44. Thanks, Lasher, for finding that.

Saved me a Google. But I don't think it takes a significant number. All it takes is an organized and cohesive number.

[Lasher]

51. PNAC 101 - Rise of the Neocons

Here is an excellent resource from the DU Research Forum

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=358&topic_id=701&mesg_id=701

Thanks to LunaC for the contribution there. It provides a pretty good timeline starting in June 1997.

Your point about an organized and cohesive number of neocons is well taken. But still, I highly doubt any neocon intrusion into the Democratic party for two reasons: One, they have found a home in the Republican party, where their ongoing takeover from the conservatives continues to corrupt the values for which that party once stood.

And the second reason is, I personally believe these fascists would just not be able to get any traction in the Democratic party. After all, we Democrats are, arguably, the party of peace. This is one of the most important reasons I have been a Democrat all my life.

If you were to accuse me of wishful thinking on this point you might be right - but maybe not. Regardless, it is my thinking on the subject at this time.

[madmusic]

63. accuse me of wishful thinking, too

Excellent research, and thanks.

Another way to put this might be "Do any Democrats think moveon.org (and by extension, DUers) are taking the party in the wrong direction?

My answer would be, Of course some disagree with the populist views of there and here. Then the question would be, what direction would they want to go that is different than the populist views expressed here and at moveon.org?

There are a lot of disagreements here as there must be throughout the party.

Though I don't think the original article depicts a reality of "the sky if falling down," though it is worthy of debate. Some must want to go that direction.

Or put another way, is there a cohesive direction the Dems want to go that is as strong and focused as the neocon's? If so, what is it? If not (which is what I think) how do we focus? Knowing that we do not want to focus on a new neocon movement may be a good start, but that hardly puts us in a solid direction. Republicans can too easily say we don't have a real, solid plan. Anti-BushCo isn't good enough.

[Lasher]

89. I hit the 'Fascism anyone' link at the bottom of your message.

It is quite good. That is another label that we sometimes use here without clearly understanding its meaning.

[Red Knight]

56. Wolfowitz was one of those liberals

Read "The Assasians Gate". Great stuff.

[wtmusic]

57. Follow the pro-Israel and military-industrial money

and it doesn't matter in which party you end up.

[Selatius]

13. Neocons are tools. Corporatists use them to further their goals

As someone else said, many neocons left the Democratic party after the 1960s. They wanted a fight with the USSR, and they were tired of social liberalism. Apparently they were much happier antagonizing the USSR than trying to find a peaceful solution to the Cold War.

Neocons truly believe in American exceptionalism and the spreading of democracy. They wouldn't know they were being attacked by the people they're supposedly trying to save if they were blown up by an IED. They believe their own bullshit no matter how detached from reality their ideology may be, and the corporatists are more than happy to throw them money because it means war profits and an opportunity to exploit new resources and people.

Neocons are ideologues. Corporatists are the realists and the real force behind them and this nation.

[madmusic]

48. That's why we need lobby reform.

This, more than anything, could turn things around the most. Little by little, the Constitution gets sold out.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. AKA - NeoLibs. Same pigs with different lipstick.

Imperialists all dressed up in pseudo-liberal garb spouting pseudo-liberal ideals.

[opihimoimoi]

25. They're Everywhere...they're everywhere...step on them, use the hose

Get the Raid...

[annabanana]

29. k&r. . . . . n/t

[rman]

30. I don't understand the Kennedy reference

Is the article saying Kennedy (JFK i presume) was some sort of neocon because he wouldn't run from a fight? If that fight was Vietnam, fact is JFK did want to pull out.

[wtmusic]

59. JFK/Truman weren't neocons

there is revisionism or ignorance at work here.

[rman]

60. I figured as much

One of them neocons who has already jumped ship, now pretending not to be a neocon. But still working for the cause, if only by spreading misinformation.
Paranoid? Maybe, but it's the sort of thing they do.

[Jason9612]

38. Kennedy and Truman were Democratic Neocons? GIVE ME A BREAK!

Good lord.

[madmusic]

45. Agreed. I don't think they were either.

They adhered to the deeply seated American value of "in self defense only" and didn't go looking for fights unless there was a direct threat.

BushCo tried to play on this policy when he said Iraq had WMDs and they may attack us with them. Whole different story.

Either way, at gun point or not, the forced spread of democracy/capitalism is bad business.

[bridgit]

46. 'the neocons' proper, the ones we care least for, re-defined what...

conservatism was even thought to be; re-gifted it, and handed it back as hubris, hegemony, and empire building. there is little doubt these are different times, i am all for being what used to be conservative as my greater hope is that traditional conservatism does, or is at least able to co-exist, with progressive thought once the debate is made reasonable...did that make sense :shrug:

[stepnw1f]

53. Truman and Kennedy

I can't even take you seriously....

[Odin2005]

69. Neo-Con is the most abused word on DU.

Neo-Cons are basically Trotskyist-influenced Neo-Liberals who beleive in a lassez-faire capitalist and democratic "End of History." They, along with the Theo-Cons, are the suckers who are unintentionally doing the will of the Corpratists.

Cheney is a Corporatist, not a Neo-Con. He just uses the Neo-Cons like Rummy and Wolfowitz to promote the Corpratist agenda.

[Lasher]

83. Cheney signed the 6/3/97 PNAC Statement of Principles

Every person who signed that statement of principles is a neocon.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

It was he who pushed us into the invasion of Iraq, which was a dream come true for the neocons. And you can rest assured, despite the mess that he and Chimpy have created in Iraq, that he would love to launch an invasion of Iran right now.

You are right about Elmer Cheney being a Corporatist, but he is also a neocon. The two terms are not mutually exclusive.

[Odin2005]

87. He's only PRETENDING to be a Neo-Con

Real Neo-Cons actually beleive thier own BS, Cheney is just in it for the money and power.

[Lasher]

88. I say to-may-toe, you say to-mah- toe

I get your point, but I'm still going to consider Darth Cheney a neocon. The fine distinction you make is a complication in the definition of exactly what a neocon is, and as you can see from reading this thread we are already having trouble using the label.

It's kind of like watching people coming out of a Baptist church. I say, "Those are all Baptists." You say, "There's Mortimer Snerd coming out with them and I know he's no real Baptist." I guess both of us could be right. I'm just a simple guy, and I like to keep things simple if it is practical.

[rman]

84. Used to be Trotskyist; they are all over the political spectrum,

choosing sides with whoever suits their fancy.

[LunaC]

81. Ab-so-fuckin-lutely!

The DLC and PNAC share the same origin!

In the 1970s the neo-conservatives in the Democratic Party grouped themselves into the Coalition for a Democratic Majority (CDM) to bring the Democratic Party "back to the center". The CDM's two leading lights in Congress were the Democratic Senators Henry "Scoop" Jackson and Patrick Moynihan. It was these two Senators' offices that spawned the Leo Straussian PNACers behind today’s no-exit Iraq War. The CDM was succeeded in the 1990s by the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and Jackson remains the model for the DLC crowd today.

PNAC and the DLC are cut from the same cloth so it's really not about Repugs vs Dems but Hawks vs Doves. Remember this the next time you cast a vote for a candidate.

Scoop Jackson's protégés shaping Bush's foreign policy (Requires free registration)
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=jackson12m&date=20040112&query=Scoop+Jackson%27s+prot%E9g%E9s+shaping+Bush%27s+foreign+policy

Snippet from article if opposed to registration:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/15/201851/101

Will the Real "New Democrats" Please Stand Up?
http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/winter2001/hayward.html

[madmusic]

82. Do we agree though, that for example

Going into Afghanistan to get bin Laden is not the same thing. BushCo had the country united on that front, but instituted a neocon slight of hand by invading Iraq and got us in the mess we are in.

So Dem Doves does not mean terrorists or anyone else can slap us around and blow up our buildings.

We do agree on that, right?

[rucky]

85. "Liberal Hawks"

wow. Newspeak is in full swing. Thanks, Holy Joe, you miserable prick. Not like the word "liberal" has carried any value for years, but using it in your neocon doctrine is insulting to people who identify liberalism with peace (and with themselves).

[mmonk]

95. There are in fact democratic party neocons

or neoliberal, whatever you want to call them. The movement BEGAN in the democratic party. Ignore it at our own peril.