NationStates Jolt Archive

I have think lately, and in particular about some thing I have heard said in interviews and the like, that since the Mid-Terms and the rise in Democratic power in the US, that the influence of the neoconservatives in particular of the President is declining.

I mean we have seen the resigning of Rumsfield, who was a big influence on the matter. But we also saw the resignation of John Bolton, the former US Ambassador to the UN, who himself was politically allied to Cheney and Cheney to the neocons. This is in particular refering to US foreign policy and the 'Never negotiate!' policy that the neocons pushed so hard, which itself goes all the way back to the Cold War.

Bolton recently criticised the US deal with the DPRK concerning nuclear facilities and the fuel oil, saying his plan was to force the collapse of the DPRK by starving it off all aid and trade, and policy that the President has rejected in favor of this. I have also heard that Secretary Rice is a driving force in this shift, and that she herself has got the Presidents ear so to speak on using diplomacy and negotiation with their 'enemies' a big break with the neocons hard line stance.

Comments please.

The decline of neoconservatism cannot come soon enough. I hope its decline leads ultimately to its well-deserved death.

It may be declining, but I think that neoconservatism is here to stay, IMO.

The official neo-con website does not seem to have been updated for well over a year.

Long live true conservatism!

Fuck the neocons--they've never been a majority anyway. I want the theocons to fall from power.

Too early to tell.

I think it'd be dangerous to discount the ideology so soon. A rest of a decade or so might be just what it needs before it can come back with force after everyone's forgotten about Iraq. Virilant ideas die hard. Look at Christianity. :gundge:

They're definitely losing political power at the moment, which is mainly due to the fact that the practical application of their ideology has failed so miserably in Iraq.

But the ideology is not dead. The idea that we're the good guys, having to fight the bad guys to make the whole world good and perfect and really nice is too seductive to just disappear.

Yeah I kinda got inspired to this thread by a documentary program I watched recently on SBS here in Australia, it was called 'Power of Nightmares' and tracked the rise of both Neoconservatism and Radical Islam, and how they both gained their power through fear. Very interesting stuff.

Some people will always need dualistic worldviews to feel better about themselves. The old blame game (Us-Them) is a constant of human history. If the neocons are indeed on the decline (which I feel is an outcome that couldn't come any sooner), it will not prevent political dualism from adopting a new form -- I think it is a much too important undercurrent of traditional nationstate's identity to ever disappear completely, not until we abolish traditional nationstates.

Yeah I kinda got inspired to this thread by a documentary program I watched recently on SBS here in Australia, it was called 'Power of Nightmares' and tracked the rise of both Neoconservatism and Radical Islam, and how they both gained their power through fear. Very interesting stuff.

I've heard of that. Definitely sounds worth seeing.

I think that simplistic dualism as you put it of good vs evil is quite ignorant of the realities of world politics and the inevitably contradictions in foreign policy. I feel I must agree with Kissinger when I say that notions of good and evil played up by the neocons are silly and irrelevant, all that matters is making the world a safer place.

Yeah I kinda got inspired to this thread by a documentary program I watched recently on SBS here in Australia, it was called 'Power of Nightmares' and tracked the rise of both Neoconservatism and Radical Islam, and how they both gained their power through fear. Very interesting stuff.

Indeed. Props to the BBC for putting out such an alternative take on the events and motives leading to the "War on Terror".

I think that simplistic dualism as you put it of good vs evil is quite ignorant of the realities of world politics and the inevitably contradictions in foreign policy. I feel I must agree with Kissinger when I say that notions of good and evil played up by the neocons are silly and irrelevant, all that matters is making the world a safer place.

Safer at what cost? Submission?

Realism is important in foreign policy, and the neo-cons may have gone overboard in more way than one, but that's no excuse to not confront threats.

And let's not forget Kissinger's role in the Vietnam War. His diplomacy didn't exactly bring victory.

Fuck the neocons--they've never been a majority anyway. I want the theocons to fall from power.

Aye. Nothing worse than a bunch of theocrats legislating their morality down my throat. Fuck you, assholes, I don't ascribe to your religion and I don't want laws made based on your morals, or anyone else's for that matter.

Safer at what cost? Submission?

Realism is important in foreign policy, and the neo-cons may have gone overboard in more way than one, but that's no excuse to not confront threats.

And let's not forget Kissinger's role in the Vietnam War. His diplomacy didn't exactly bring victory.

Remember that Neoconservatism is a post-WWII ideology that came about as opposition to the liberalism that came about after the war. In that vein America was under little threat after the death of Stalin, who's successors wanted to negotiate with the US. The neocons fabicated 'evidence' to the CIA in order to try and 'prove' the USSR were arming themselves, which was all untrue. After the USSR collapsed they took the credit, which was also untrue.

I am all for confronting threats, but only when that threat exists. Terrorism has the power to kill, but it doesn't threaten civilisation or our way of life.

Aye. Nothing worse than a bunch of theocrats legislating their morality down my throat. Fuck you, assholes, I don't ascribe to your religion and I don't want laws made based on your morals, or anyone else's for that matter.

The interesting thing is, all neocons aren't necessarily christian theocrats: in fact, some of the most influential neoconservative intellectuals are jewish -- that's not to say that I ascribe to any conspiracy theory regarding that particular nationality, however. What I mean to say is that, usually, neocons recognize the role of religion in good domestic policy, as a way to instill a sense of shared moral framework to the citizens of a nation, not necessarily as absolute truth in itself. It is my understanding that neocons consider religion as a means rather than an end. I could be wrong though: I read somewhere that there are a number of fundamentalist, pro-apocalypse lobbies in Washington.

Remember that Neoconservatism is a post-WWII ideology that came about as opposition to the liberalism that came about after the war. In that vein America was under little threat after the death of Stalin, who's successors wanted to negotiate with the US. The neocons fabicated 'evidence' to the CIA in order to try and 'prove' the USSR were arming themselves, which was all untrue. After the USSR collapsed they took the credit, which was also untrue.

I am all for confronting threats, but only when that threat exists. Terrorism has the power to kill, but it doesn't threaten civilisation or our way of life.

Well, you do know that the Soviets had nuclear weapons(acquired with the help of espionage) not long after the USA had them. And that they orchestrated the communist invasion of South Korea, and that they were attempting to subjugate Europe.

There was a major arms race in the 1950s. Thousands of nukes were built, on both sides. So yes, the USSR was indeed arming itself.

And let's not forget the placing of Intercontinental Ballistic Missillies(capable of reaching Seattle) in Cuba by the Soviets before they were chased out by JFK, who incidentally, was a neo-con. So by any measure, the USSR was a threat, and it was a major threat.

I think your definition of Neo-conservatism is somewhat simplistic. It's not just a mindless us-against-them mindset. A real neo-con believes that democracy and capitalism are desired by most human beings, and these things need to be spread, sometimes by force. The merits of this are worth examining, but once again, it's more complicated than you make it out to be.

Well Neoconservatism itself, as in the theories of Strauss, is a very cynical ideology that doesn't really believe it's rhetoric. The idea of Strauss was to use ultraconservative religion and a moral guideline in society to create a stable society. This and the idea that America was a unique country destined to do battle with the forces of evil in the world would as Strauss said give the people meaning and purpose in life, which individualist liberalism after the war failed to do.

So in that vein God might as well not exist at all for Neoconservatives, and morality might as well be relative, all that mattered that people thought that they weren't. But obviously many people started to believe their own rhetoric, and this was essential for their evangelical support.

So Neoconservatim is very cynical and realistic in idealogy, but the practical application of it's false rhetoric was disasterous results (eg. Iraq).

The interesting thing is, all neocons aren't necessarily christian theocrats: in fact, some of the most influential neoconservative intellectuals are jewish -- that's not to say that I ascribe to any conspiracy theory regarding that particular nationality, however. What I mean to say is that, usually, neocons recognize the role of religion in good domestic policy, as a way to instill a sense of shared moral framework to the citizens of a nation, not necessarily as absolute truth in itself. It is my understanding that neocons consider religion as a means rather than an end. I could be wrong though: I read somewhere that there are a number of fundamentalist, pro-apocalypse lobbies in Washington.

Yes for the most part your right about the proper Staussian necon ideology, I think though that many people started to believe the ultra-religious rhetoric themselves and use it or otherwise in policy. As in my last post.

The interesting thing is, all neocons aren't necessarily christian theocrats: in fact, some of the most influential neoconservative intellectuals are jewish -- that's not to say that I ascribe to any conspiracy theory regarding that particular nationality, however. What I mean to say is that, usually, neocons recognize the role of religion in good domestic policy, as a way to instill a sense of shared moral framework to the citizens of a nation, not necessarily as absolute truth in itself. It is my understanding that neocons consider religion as a means rather than an end. I could be wrong though: I read somewhere that there are a number of fundamentalist, pro-apocalypse lobbies in Washington.

Oh, I know that. I wasn't speaking of the neocons so much as, to quote Nazz, the theocons, that is, theocrats espousing American conservative political viewpoints and whatnot.

I think your definition of Neo-conservatism is somewhat simplistic. It's not just a mindless us-against-them mindset. A real neo-con believes that democracy and capitalism are desired by most human beings, and these things need to be spread, sometimes by force. The merits of this are worth examining, but once again, it's more complicated than you make it out to be.

Us: democracy and capitalism (Good)

Them: the opposite of Us (Evil) -- to be transformed/invaded by Us to ensure Their compliance with Our standards.

Now, how does a foreign policy based on the subjection of a negative value by its positive value (the spread of democracy and capitalism against their absence - its negative value) not constitute a simplistic, binary worldview.

Us: democracy and capitalism (Good)

Them: the opposite of Us (Evil) -- to be transformed/invaded by Us to ensure Their compliance with Our standards.

Now, how does a foreign policy based on the subjection of a negative value by its positive value (the spread of democracy and capitalism against their absence - its negative value) not constitute a simplistic, binary worldview.

Because nations that don't have the things we have (democracy and capitalism) are seen as oppressed. The people in those nations are seen as majorities oppressed by minorities.

I do concede that it is hard to defend a theory one does not subscribe to, so if you really want to learn about neoconservatism, I suggest examining a neo-con website, instead of expecting me to provide all the answers.

'Bout damn time.
Neocons give the real Republicans a bad name.

I don't see how one can consider democracy and capitalism, understood as the "American system", to be an immanent Good to be exported. It is not an infallible system adapted to any ecological or cultural condition, far from it. Apparently, it isn't even sustainable in a small part of the world.

For example, imagine the India-China basin duly americanized, with most of the population indulging in the unregulated consuming of resources that is our hallmark, with billions more SUV and whatnot. The current ecological crisis pale in comparison.

Our lifestyle isn't sustainable on a global scale. It even seems probable that, barring some unforeseen technological advances, our own lifestyle will degrade in the upcoming decades.

I don't see how one can consider democracy and capitalism, understood as the "American system", to be an immanent Good to be exported. It is not an infallible system adapted to any ecological or cultural condition, far from it. Apparently, it isn't even sustainable in a small part of the world.

For example, imagine the India-China basin duly americanized, with most of the population indulging in the unregulated consuming of resources that is our hallmark, with billions more SUV and whatnot. The current ecological crisis pale in comparison.

Our lifestyle isn't sustainable on a global scale. It even seems probable that, barring some unforeseen technological advances, our own lifestyle will degrade in the upcoming decades.

Exactly, and it will only get worst with China's development.

Because nations that don't have the things we have (democracy and capitalism) are seen as oppressed. The people in those nations are seen as majorities oppressed by minorities.

I do concede that it is hard to defend a theory one does not subscribe to, so if you really want to learn about neoconservatism, I suggest examining a neo-con website, instead of expecting me to provide all the answers.

You appeared as though you were, at least, sympathetic to their ideals.

What I challenged in your post is your supposition that their ideology is more complex than the Good/Evil dualism that I (and others) proposed earlier. On second thought, I think you're right, inasmuch as this dualism is also (like religion) a means to an end, that is, American hegemony. It is really simple. The PNAC papers said as much. The whole "democracy, capitalism and freedom" rhetoric is useful only as long as the US are recognized as being more effective than others at defending it -- against Them.

Safer at what cost? Submission?
In part, yes, submission is necessary to secure safety and frankly that's how it has always been and likely always will be. Just because someone feels like kicking you in the head, doesnt mean they ought not submit to the law requiring they dont. I think that's fine, do you have some issue with it?

Realism is important in foreign policy, and the neo-cons may have gone overboard in more way than one, but that's no excuse to not confront threats.
Yes, realism is important, hence the reason why the current US neo-con leadership has been and is such a failure. The fact that threats ought not be confronted does not excuse exaggerating them, making them up, or utilising them to scaremonger and whip up and then manipulate hysteria and aggression to further your own agenda.

And let's not forget Kissinger's role in the Vietnam War. His diplomacy didn't exactly bring victory.
Let's not forget the role of the loosing side in every single war that ever occured, fighting didnt exactly bring them victory...

Some people will always need dualistic worldviews to feel better about themselves. The old blame game (Us-Them) is a constant of human history. If the neocons are indeed on the decline (which I feel is an outcome that couldn't come any sooner), it will not prevent political dualism from adopting a new form -- I think it is a much too important undercurrent of traditional nationstate's identity to ever disappear completely, not until we abolish traditional nationstates.

Well said. *bows*
It's that happy fairy tale we tend to employ through our whole lives, or at least are forced to take sides on ... the kind of philosophies that can keep a man/woman fueled in place of food, even until the brain starves.

Let's not forget the role of the loosing side in every single war that ever occured, fighting didnt exactly bring them victory...

Ka-pow.

To paraphrase what Gandhi is supposed to have said when asked his opinion of Western Civilization, I think it would be a very good idea for neoconservatism to decline.

To paraphrase what Gandhi is supposed to have said when asked his opinion of Western Civilization, I think it would be a very good idea for neoconservatism to decline. No, Gandhi said "I think it would be a good idea".

Please tell me you're not saying that about neoconservatism!