NationStates Jolt Archive

What is it about the so common double standard? Why do so many American neo-conservatives favour bringing freedom to the people of Iraq and other places, but want to restrict it in America?

Because neocons are morons.

What is it about the so common double standard? Why do so many American neo-conservatives favour bringing freedom to the people of Iraq and other places, but want to restrict it in America?

That's a good question. You have to remember something that doesn't get much airplay since the rise of Rush Limbaugh.

Conservatism in America is NOT a monolith. There are single-issue conservatives (the Anti-Abortion people, the NRA folk, the Hawks, and the antitax people), multi-issue conservatives that still don't agree with the entire agenda, (Libertarian Conservatives on one hand, Christian or "Ku-Riss-chun" types on the other...)
Social Conservatives
Fiscal Conservatives (the Republicans who switched during the Clinton Era)
Those Suspicious of Government
Law-and-Order Conservatives

In fact, the only thing most of the groups that we term 'conservative' have in common, is an opposition to Socialism and a distrust of the Democrats.

The lattter is due to too many-times-burned.

On the whole, it's not a simple binary set the way it is portrayed in the Media, the Republican "Majority" in America could fall apart tomorrow, if not for the lockstep-American-leftism of the Democratic Party. The current brand of Republicanism is a coalition of smaller and less-powerful interests united against what amounts to a fairly monolithic and extremely influential American Left.

Conservatism in America is NOT a monolith.
I know, but I've seen way too many people who are pro-Iraq war because they want to "free the Iraqi people", but who think social liberalism is the work of the devil.

On the whole, it's not a simple binary set the way it is portrayed in the Media, the Republican "Majority" in America could fall apart tomorrow, if not for the lockstep-American-leftism of the Democratic Party. The current brand of Republicanism is a coalition of smaller and less-powerful interests united against what amounts to a fairly monolithic and extremely influential American Left.
Were you serious when you wrote this? Talk about small-mindedness! You tell us about the vast array of interests represented by the Republican party, tell us not to judge them as a monolith (of wealthy white people?), and then a paragraph later you describe the American "Left" as a monolith? You say this with a straight face! There are many, many interests involved in left-wing politics, probably more so than in those of the right, which is why the left often appears so divided*.

*By "the left" I'm thinking beyond just the Democratic Party.

Because neocons are morons.

No no no.

It is the people who believe the junk the neocons are saying who are morons.

I'm pretty sure neocons don't really believe all they are saying and are just playing dirty to gather as much power as possible for their little bloodless coup.

I know, but I've seen way too many people who are pro-Iraq war because they want to "free the Iraqi people", but who think social liberalism is the work of the devil.


Were you serious when you wrote this? Talk about small-mindedness! You tell us about the vast array of interests represented by the Republican party, tell us not to judge them as a monolith (of wealthy white people?), and then a paragraph later you describe the American "Left" as a monolith? You say this with a straight face! There are many, many interests involved in left-wing politics, probably more so than in those of the right, which is why the left often appears so divided*.

*By "the left" I'm thinking beyond just the Democratic Party.

Somewhat serious. You have to look long and hard to find an American Leftist that doesn't want European style gun-control (not swiss-style, but more France or Britain), Socialized Medicine (ala Canada, the UK, etc.), the main break-points seem to be what degree of socialism. Then, there's the whole media-hyped 'political Correctness' thing- PC does exist, and it's mostly driven from the left-side of the aisle. (though, to be fair, there's a whole mirror-image of it on the Right.)

The main difference in American left/right splits, is the concept of "Group Rights" vs. the Individual, and where that concept is applied.

There are Conservative Unionists, and Liberal Free-Traders, for instance. You're right about there being a number of subgroups in the American Left, however, unlike the Right, the Left seems to have a better 'central control' mechanism, and usually favours a single-point solution to all problems (Government) as opposed to distributed solutions (Private Sector).

thing is, the Democrats are the primary voice of the American Left, and the most moderate-and they've been driving their own moderates off since 1990. The mass-defection of Moderate and Conservative dems in 1994 should have been a wake-up call that the Party was losing touch with the voter base. Massive congressional and executive losses in the following years (we have more Republican Governors now than we've had since th 1920's), the loss of competitive edge in National Elections (GW didn't so much win in 2000 and 2004 as the Dems lost.) the Dem-sponsored mistreatment of Western non-california states (upwards of 80% of the land west of the Mississippi is held "In Trust" by Federal agencies, which has effectively crippled the economies of a large number of states), and the Left's desire to employ European solutions to American Problems (in the legal system, gun-control, healthcare, and Education) tends to narrow things down a bit.

The divide really is east-west, with the former Confederate states thrown in to confuse things.

In the East, and on the West Coast, government is percieved as a mechanism of solution, while in the midwest, southwest, and rocky-mountain states, it's seen as a source of problems and/or obstacles.

The split in perception has a lot to do with how common-people interact with Government in each place.
It's reasonable for folks in Pennsylvania to see the Federal Government as a source of help, a means to solve problems, because for them, it has been (at least, in the short term.) Not so in Utah, Colorado, Nevada, or other states in that region, where Federal action has closed off sources of income, destroyed whole economies, and resulted in long-term unemployment or service-industry poverty.

The joke "It should be as easy to get Welfare, as it is to get a Building Permit" comes from the western states, and the frustration of people there who don't want to live as dependents-of-the-government's-Generousity... but have little choice in the matter.

When you look at the Election map, you can see the trend pretty clearly-states that benefit most from Federal programmes tend to vote Dem, while states that have been traditionally treated by the feds as what amounts to "Game Preserves" tend to vote GOP.

Isn't the word neoconservative sort of hypocritical in itself seeing as conservative calls for the status quo, when new conservatism calls for new authoritarian changes???? :confused:

And there are some people who's lives cannot be summed up in one word or part of any group at all. Maybe it's not a problem with the people you calling hypocritical, it's the words you are using for them lock them up into this predictable sphere of that word Neo-Conservative. The only word that can be summed up for one person is his name.

You have to look long and hard to find an American Leftist that doesn't want European style gun-control (not swiss-style, but more France or Britain), Socialized Medicine (ala Canada, the UK, etc.), the main break-points seem to be what degree of socialism. Then, there's the whole media-hyped 'political Correctness' thing- PC does exist, and it's mostly driven from the left-side of the aisle. (though, to be fair, there's a whole mirror-image of it on the Right.)


You got one right here. I believe in a free market controlled by the government only when needed to topple monopolies and trusts, I feel people should have the right to own any gun they want as long as its registered (though I do think the second amendment gives this right only to organized militias, I think it should be changed to include everyone), etc.

What is it about the so common double standard? Why do so many American neo-conservatives favour bringing freedom to the people of Iraq and other places, but want to restrict it in America?
Isn't it a double standard for the people who aren't conservatives to label and generalize and put us into neat categories when they themselves don't like being labeled as "liberals" and generalized as "socialist weenies" and put into neat categories like "Clinton Democrat" or "Deaniac"?

Come off it, please.

What is it about the so common double standard? Why do so many American neo-conservatives favour bringing freedom to the people of Iraq and other places, but want to restrict it in America?

Freedom is a limited resource. If we want to give it to Iraq, then that means that there's less here. We had an over abundance of it in the 60's, that's why we had to send some to Vietnam. We had been accumulating freedom since the end of WWII when we made Germany hand over all its freedom as part of the peace treaty. Most of Eastern Europe then sold off its freedom, most of which we acquired.

During the 80's Regan made unprecidented progress in sending our excess freedom overseas. The importance if this endeavor was made clear during Carter's reign of the disco era. A time of unprecidented freedom in America. Reagan sold a large part of our freedom surplus to Iran, and dropped several planeloads of it on the Hondurans and Guatemalans. Bush senior continued the trend by sending the remains of our excess freedom to Nicaragua. Not since Nixon's historic delivery of freedom to "Red" China had so much excess freedom been shared with the rest of the world.

Then the Clinton regime began. Determined to undo the progress of the last two Republican administrations he began to accumulate all the freedom that Regan and Bush Sr. had worked so hard to disperse. He recaptured the freedom that we had given to Panama, and shackled them with ownership of the canal. He raided the freedom stores of Sarajevo, and Iraq. The excess freedom in the country left its mark in the form of our declining moral standards. He even invented a sex act called the "blowjob" during this time, and it is a phenomenon that we are still trying to erase from our school system.

Now it has fallen to Bush Jr. to send our excess freedom abroad. An effort he undertakes tirelessly. It was unfortunate that such concentrated freedom crashlanded in Fallujia, but that freedom is begining to spread as it seeks its equilibrium.

This has been the difficulty in bringing more freedom to Afghanistan. If we were to import enough freedom for the whole nation right to the capital then it would be destroyed leaving no place from which to govern the rest of that nation which will become more cohesive once enough freedom has been allowed to diffuse into the desert.

What is it about the so common double standard? Why do so many American neo-conservatives favour bringing freedom to the people of Iraq and other places, but want to restrict it in America?

Not a double standard because these neo-cons don't want to bring any freedoms to Iraq that they don't also want America to have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_%28United_States%29

Because neocons are morons.
Thanks RB. Really.

No, what people misunderstand is that neocons do not want to limit freedoms at home. The majority of us support civil unions, but not gay marriage. And we support a social change for a more moral culture, but are not going to use government to do that. Ah, and we do not view abortion or drugs as freedom.

What is it about the so common double standard? Why do so many American neo-conservatives favour bringing freedom to the people of Iraq and other places, but want to restrict it in America?
Many years ago, before there were effective insecticides, there were small bugs called "nits" that would take up residence in clothing, or so I'm told. Apparently hardy little buggers, they had to be picked out by hand. They were, however, very, very small, so it took a long time and was, in the opinion of many people, hardly worth the effort it took to "pick nits." After a period of time, the phrase became a "saying," as catchy phrases are prone to do. The term "nit-picking" came to mean making much of virtuallly nothing.

This question falls into that category.

What is it about the so common double standard? Why do so many American neo-conservatives favour bringing freedom to the people of Iraq and other places, but want to restrict it in America?
Because for some people it's not worth helping if they don't get to shoot somebody.

When you look at the Election map, you can see the trend pretty clearly-states that benefit most from Federal programmes tend to vote Dem, while states that have been traditionally treated by the feds as what amounts to "Game Preserves" tend to vote GOP.
I've snipped out most of your essay but I can resond simply.

Republicans aren't interested in reducing the governments role. Has government spending reduced in the past 10 years of Republican dominance?

Democrats have moved right, not left. In the 1960s and 70s the Democrats were much more left wing than they are now. Many more socialist laws were in place back then. The Demos moved right to follow Reagan and Clinton.

The statement I quoted above contains inaccuracies. The Northeastern States pay the most in federal taxes, while the States in the South have always been the biggest recipients of federal subsidies.


But this is not the topic of the thread.

Isn't the word neoconservative sort of hypocritical in itself seeing as conservative calls for the status quo, when new conservatism calls for new authoritarian changes???? :confused:
I know, it's a terrible misonomer.

Come off it, please.
Are you denying that most socially conservative Americans here are in favour of the Iraq war?

It's a fact, it's not offensive. I know that you are in favour of the Iraq war, but not socially conservative. But the fact is that you a minority. I can even point to Bush himself as an example. He's socially conservative, beloved by the religious right, and in favour of global regime change, apparently for the purpose of freedom.

Ah, and we do not view abortion or drugs as freedom.
The freedom to abort and the freedom to take drugs are, objectively, freedoms. Just because you don't like them, it does not mean that they are not freedoms.

he term "nit-picking" came to mean making much of virtuallly nothing.

This question falls into that category.
Well, this is an internet message board; what do you expect!? :)

I know that you are in favour of the Iraq war, but not socially conservative. But the fact is that you a minority. I can even point to Bush himself as an example. He's socially conservative, beloved by the religious right, and in favour of global regime change, apparently for the purpose of freedom.


From the US perspective and definition of the terms:

Why is it that the "typical" conservative wants to restrict personal freedom in the form of obscenity laws and anti-abortion laws but wants to give the freedom of concealed carry and ownership of firearms? Why does he favor the death penalty if he is so pro-life?

Why is it that the "typical" liberal has no problem with killing a fetus, but won't tolerate the execution of a murderer? Why is it that he wants to restrict our personal freedom to carry firearms?

Each side has ridiculous contradictions, especially over time. And both sides in the US have been responsible for engaging in major war on the crudest of pretexts.

The Democrats have their Tonkin Gulf, and now the Republicans have the Iraq War.

I try not to be contradictory. I'm pro-choice, pro-gun, pro-death penalty, pro-free speech, pro-war, and against the war on drugs. I believe that a true conservative would limit the power of government, and limit the role that government plays in your personal life - giving you the maximum amount of freedom that is practical. It should be legal to kill when necessary - when you need an abortion, when you are defending yourself, and when someone commits a heinous crime. The government should not only engage in war when it is in the national interest, but it should engage in assassination and hunting of people who advocate its forcible overthrow - whether those people are in the US or in other countries.

I try not to be contradictory. I'm pro-choice, pro-gun, pro-death penalty, pro-free speech, pro-war, and against the war on drugs. I believe that a true conservative would limit the power of government, and limit the role that government plays in your personal life - giving you the maximum amount of freedom that is practical. It should be legal to kill when necessary - when you need an abortion, when you are defending yourself, and when someone commits a heinous crime. The government should not only engage in war when it is in the national interest, but it should engage in assassination and hunting of people who advocate its forcible overthrow - whether those people are in the US or in other countries.

Ding! Ding! Ding!...We have a winner.......

The scam has been perpetrated on the populace through the careful manipulation of words and policies....most of these neocon policies are 180 degrees opposed to true 'conservative' ideals......

Somewhat serious. You have to look long and hard to find an American Leftist that doesn't want European style gun-control (not swiss-style, but more France or Britain), Socialized Medicine (ala Canada, the UK, etc.), the main break-points seem to be what degree of socialism. Then, there's the whole media-hyped 'political Correctness' thing- PC does exist, and it's mostly driven from the left-side of the aisle. (though, to be fair, there's a whole mirror-image of it on the Right.)

The main difference in American left/right splits, is the concept of "Group Rights" vs. the Individual, and where that concept is applied.

There are Conservative Unionists, and Liberal Free-Traders, for instance. You're right about there being a number of subgroups in the American Left, however, unlike the Right, the Left seems to have a better 'central control' mechanism, and usually favours a single-point solution to all problems (Government) as opposed to distributed solutions (Private Sector).

thing is, the Democrats are the primary voice of the American Left, and the most moderate-and they've been driving their own moderates off since 1990. The mass-defection of Moderate and Conservative dems in 1994 should have been a wake-up call that the Party was losing touch with the voter base. Massive congressional and executive losses in the following years (we have more Republican Governors now than we've had since th 1920's), the loss of competitive edge in National Elections (GW didn't so much win in 2000 and 2004 as the Dems lost.) the Dem-sponsored mistreatment of Western non-california states (upwards of 80% of the land west of the Mississippi is held "In Trust" by Federal agencies, which has effectively crippled the economies of a large number of states), and the Left's desire to employ European solutions to American Problems (in the legal system, gun-control, healthcare, and Education) tends to narrow things down a bit.

The divide really is east-west, with the former Confederate states thrown in to confuse things.

In the East, and on the West Coast, government is percieved as a mechanism of solution, while in the midwest, southwest, and rocky-mountain states, it's seen as a source of problems and/or obstacles.

The split in perception has a lot to do with how common-people interact with Government in each place.
It's reasonable for folks in Pennsylvania to see the Federal Government as a source of help, a means to solve problems, because for them, it has been (at least, in the short term.) Not so in Utah, Colorado, Nevada, or other states in that region, where Federal action has closed off sources of income, destroyed whole economies, and resulted in long-term unemployment or service-industry poverty.

The joke "It should be as easy to get Welfare, as it is to get a Building Permit" comes from the western states, and the frustration of people there who don't want to live as dependents-of-the-government's-Generousity... but have little choice in the matter.

When you look at the Election map, you can see the trend pretty clearly-states that benefit most from Federal programmes tend to vote Dem, while states that have been traditionally treated by the feds as what amounts to "Game Preserves" tend to vote GOP.
You're wrong on at least a couple of points.

I'm a pro-gun liberal. Howard Dean was also not a gun grabber. There's more of us than you think.

Red states actually get more federal money than they pay back in taxes. Blue states pay more out in taxes than they get back. Therefore the final point in your post is dead wrong.

You're wrong on at least a couple of points.

I'm a pro-gun liberal. Howard Dean was also not a gun grabber. There's more of us than you think.


You're just in the minority of the Democratic Party, and people who think like you aren't generally running for office. John Kerry most definitely is a gun grabber, and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (not to mention Ted Kennedy, Charles Schumer, and Dianne Feinstein) are all hardcore gun grabbers.

I think they intentionally gave Dean the job of DNC so that he could fail and they could trash him. He's already lost most of the major funding sources - I bet they let this go on for a few months, and then they fire him.