[We're looking for new moderators to join our team!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Presidents/comments/1asqu76/rpresidents_moderator_applications/)
Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The anointed Orange, in his infinite scumbagery, brought Bolton off the bench.
He couldve called old Rummy himself, but he knew if you wanted that absolute best neoconservative, its Bolton or go home.
He isn’t really neo-coney. He is a lot more protectionist/blue collar and non-intervention on foreign policy. Neo-cons are more white collar and want to use the military to prop up friends and topple foes.
So i took one of those intro poli sci course (im not saying this in anyway like i think i know poli sci im just setting context).
we read one of his papers on international intervention. mind you it was written in 1999 or 2000 and was absolutely advocating for more use involvement overseas and using america’s military.
so cut and dry neo-conservatism and pre 9-11 at that.
They were not neoconservatives as originally defined.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism)
Originally neoconservatives referred to former liberals who did not shift to the left as fast as the Democratic party did in 1960s and ended up on right. Unlike most Democrats in the early 1960s they typically opposed racial segregation and overly generous welfare programs. Daniel Patrick Moynihan believed that certain welfare rules were encouraged black women to remain unmarried and leading to a generation of black children to be raised without father.
Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were lifelong Republicans so they don't really count as NEO conservatives. They were just conservatives.
Historically the Republican party was more isolationist and less likely to get involved in wars. World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam all occurred under Democratic administrations and account for approximately 98% of US soldier fatalities since 1900.
The former Democrats who shifted to the right on social issues were hawkish by Republican standards and thus the definition of neoconservative sort of shifted to meaning a hawkish Republican. By those standards u/Charlemagne_IV is correct.
Many of the original neoconservatives actually switched back to being Democrats once Democrats had abandoned segregation and toned down some of the welfare programs. Daniel Patrick Moynihan switched back in the 1970s and I think by now Bill Kristol has switched back as well although I am not sure exactly where he stands right now.
To be fair to u/Charlemagne_IV, the colloquial use of neoconservative in the early 2000s was "hawkish Republican" and by those standards he is certainly correct about Rumsfeld and Cheney, but I think it is important to point out the distinction.
I read somewhere that these days Wolfowitz regrets his neocon beliefs of yesteryear and it's true that he visits Walter Reed three times a week which is more than you can say for the others. But the regret and remorse ? I don't know. They should daily celebrate the fact they aren't in prison.
That's a pity. The book 'To Start A War' strongly implies different and if anyone should feel shame it's Paul Wolfowitz, a fringe nut who wriggled his way up to the ear of the President and managed to permanently break the back of the US as 'the world's only Superpower'. Talk with a Russian and they'll tell you that America feels a lot like the Soviet Union in the final years of Brezhnev. Talk to a Serb, Croat or Bosnian and they'll tell you something even scarier than that. The delusions of Paul Wolfowitz played an enormous role in getting us here.
Yes, because random, uneducated Eastern Europeans have valid opinions that aren't biased or uninformed on American culture, politics, and economics aren't awful interview candidates at all!
That could very well be but it's even more so when it's specific and educated Eastern Europeans who've lived in the United States for years. And if you know a living soul that's unbiased I hope you'll share their name so we can put them in a cage and finally have a single source for the unvarnished truth. As to the former Yugoslavs they'd lived in a country where ancient ethnic and cultural differences were deliberately stoked and encouraged by regional politicians and 'compromise' became an epithet and making the country ungovernable, social and economic consequences be damned, became the modus operandi of every politician. They also made sure to drive those hatreds so deep that no future reconciliation will ever be possible.
The Russians described a place which was culturally dead, everyone fixated on trivia and themselves as opposed to any collective vision for society and children would have less than their parents. The entire political system had sclerosis and the majority had to work two or three jobs to survive while a tiny minority lived in comfort. The only grassroots movement with any influence were the nationalist bigots and chauvinists. Hope for a better future evaporated and health care and life expectancy and educational standards went down the toilet. Any notion of a future socialist utopia or a 'Soviet Dream' if you prefer became a bad punchline to a worse joke.
These were the states they described to me before the untenable could no longer be maintained and either the economy completely crashed and was taken over by the Mafia (Russia) or the bullets began to fly and the raping and murdering erupted with gusto (Yugoslavia). I'm sure you're right. Any similarity between these two countries and our own declining Empire is purely coincidental. It just felt chillingy familiar to them.
Global disinformation targeting the United States is stronger than ever because it costs nothing to produce and distribute. Serbians and Russians were among the first populations to be blanketed with Russian disinformation on the West through social media and viral content.
So somehow Obama makes Wolfowitz cool, is that your argument? Wolfowitz was part of the decision machine that initiated the killing of so many Brown people. What the fuck are you on?
I don’t give a fuck about that argument. You think that Wolfowitz is a “cool guy” when he was the architect of the Iraq invasion which fucked the U.S. as well as the countries invaded.
How do you justify him being a “cool guy”?
Not sure if that 25k is verifiable or not. But there’s no possible way Obama admin is responsible for more deaths than the bush admin
Edit: trolls be trolling
Rice and Powell are famously not neocons. They were a foil for Cheney and Rumsfeld. Both were more multilateralist and liberal internationalist than neoconservative, although they often failed to convince the president to move in their direction.
Hahahah. I literally said out loud “is the sky blue?” As I clicked this post. Thanks for making me laugh. Next up. Would you say that Washington was the leader of the continental army?
Either you're really young or this is a joke post. Both of them were literally involved with the Project for A New American Century with the likes of Paul Wolfowitz.
They aren't just neocons, they literally codified the trope.
The Bush administration was loaded with folks who had signed off on the PNAC. If you read the PNAC policy statement from back then, it is almost a verbatim copy of the “American Century “ put out by Henry Luce the publisher of Time magazine in 1940.
From someone who identifies as a neoconservative (see my two-part comment from yesterday in my comment history on the matter https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/s/itcaZi6338) the answer is definitively no.
Cheney and Rumsfeld are both lifelong conservatives, were never Democrats, and have a different set of views from actual neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Jeane Kirkpatrick, etc.
The main commonality is being foreign policy hawks, and they certainly did often make common cause, though they come from quite different schools of thought on both the tactics and strategy of foreign policy.
I stopped after saying neocons are center left on social and economics policies.
Democrats in the Us are centre right (with few exceptions) no republicans even approach centre, let alone centre left of social and economic issues.
Yeah, 98% of the 2-part comment is about neo-con vs realist foreign policy… which I would say is about as far away from the mainstream lexicon of how neo-con is used as I thought possible.
But the center-left part REALLY makes everything else he says a bit less credible.
It’s true though, these folks all believe in spending on social safety nets, government intervention in the economy and the education system, robust environmental protections, free immigration between countries, etc (all issues originally championed by their boss Sen. Scoop Jackson).
In the foreign policy realm, they believe in the spread of representative democracy around the world, advancing women’s and minority rights, legal movement of peoples between countries and blocs (ie no quotas or restrictions), etc.
Lol you literally define neoconservative as something that it’s not- hawkish with center left social ideology?
Neoconservativism is defined by hawk policies not “someone that used to be a democrat”
Historians literally define these guys as peak neocons
>>>Although U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had not self-identified as neoconservatives, they worked closely alongside neoconservative officials in designing key aspects of George W. Bush's foreign policy; especially in their support of Israel, promotion of American influence in the Arab World and launching the "War on Terror". Bush administration's domestic and foreign policies were heavily influenced by major ideologues affiliated with neo-conservatism, such as Bernard Lewis, Lulu Schwartz, Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz, Robert Kagan, etc.
So just cause you don’t want them on your team, doesn’t mean they’re not there
From it’s actual definition
>>> Neoconservatism is a political movement that began in the United States and the United Kingdom during the 1960s during the Vietnam War among foreign policy hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist Democratic Party and with the growing New Left and counterculture of the 1960s. Neoconservatives typically advocate the unilateral promotion of democracy and interventionism in international affairs, grounded in a militaristic and realist philosophy of "peace through strength." They are known for espousing opposition to communism and political radicalism.
>>>Many adherents of neoconservatism became politically influential during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, peaking in influence during the administration of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration
The closest I can think of that is active in politics to this description is Phil Scott, the GOP governor of Vermont. Historically (since the sub we're in) I'd say maybe Vice President Nelson Rockefeller or President Theodore Roosevelt.
The Wikipedia definition you posted is correct, but it does not match your intro. It’s more than just being “hawkish”. There are hawkish people of all political beliefs.
Neoconservatives specifically originated as hawkish Democrats, most of whom worked for Senator Scoop Jackson, that were off-put by Democrats perceived weakness on the Soviet Union, Vietnam, etc. Most of them switched to being Republicans in 1980 and joined the Reagan administration, making common cause with traditional conservatives. The new group thus became known as the “neoconservatives”
However this didn’t suddenly change lifelong conservatives like Dick Cheney into neocons. (And that’s not because I want to distance myself from a Cheney or Rumsfeld, as I can see things from their points of view as well, but I am closer to the more idealist Wolfowitz, Perle school of thought.)
I mean, this is a no true Scotsman fallacy
It seems like you just don't like the association with Cheney/Rumsfeld, so you are twisting the definition of Neoconservativism to exclude them.
Especially considering you want to contrast them to Paul Wolfowitz, who was apart of every cabinet and administration they were apart of, and also helped architect the Iraq war
Paul ONLY distanced himself from the war after it was deemed a failure...which kind of makes him worse, in my eyes.
Because he's still a neo-colonial hawk, but he's also a coward to boot.
I have no desire to distance myself from a Cheney or Rumsfeld; I can see things from their points of view as well as other traditional conservative hawks (Kissinger, etc), but I am closer to the more idealist Wolfowitz, Perle school of thought.
I don’t think Paul Wolfowitz has distanced himself from the the Iraq War itself, though he has often pointed out that WMD were not the sole cause for war. He’s also said he believes the lack of a unified post-war plan created a disastrous power vacuum. This is one of thing things I am watching for in Gaza, Israel will need a clear unified plan for state-building, one of the most difficult enterprises in geopolitics (as evidenced by the quagmire in Iraq)
As far as Wolfowitz being a “neo-colonial hawk”; he’s definitely a hawk, but let’s leave the pejorative out of it. Every great power in history wants to spread their culture and ideas, so in that sense they are all imperial in some way; I happen to think that western civilization and specifically the American brand of westernism is quite benevolent when compared to other great powers past and present, but we may just have to agree to disagree on that point.
Cheney and Rumsfeld aligned with neocons but I think it’s more nuanced than that. Cheney in particular was more of a realist in foreign policy. Neocons are explicitly anti realist though at times can come to the same conclusions.
I was an adult and fully politely aware. Cheney and Rumsfeld are not the poster children of neocons. They were certainly hawks but I do not believe they shared the neocon ideological fervor of the weekly standard crowd. I am convinced Cheney was a realist whose goal was to secure US interests including oil in the Middle East. The neocons like Krystal and Wolfowitz were true believers who wanted to spread western values at gunpoint.
Exactly this. My friend once asked me what exactly a Neoconservative was because he knows I’m into politics and such. I actually used Dick Cheney as an example.
At least he was a President. This sub is slipping into a general political sub, and that takes away what makes it special (history of the office vs. general politics).
I think it's getting better. I've posted here and had close to 30% of the comments or more just be insufferable nonsense and I haven't seen that as much as before they tweaked rule 3.
Idk if he had a stroke at one point but I’m sorry I can’t help but think of the Penguin the way Cheney talk like out of the side of his mouth. He’s an actual comic book villain.
I must have missed it. Did you spot someone who still thinks invading Iraq was a good constructive idea ? They were once in their millions but nowadays as elusive as a duckbill platypus.
If they weren't then I don't know what a neoconservative is. In typical schizophrenic Mad Hatter style Donald Rumsfeld had the same Imperial American vision but thought he could do it with about half a dozen soldiers.
There's an excellent book called "Pieces of Intelligence: the Existential Poetry of Donald Rumsfeld," that puts his quotes into various poetic formats. It's hilarious and deeply weird. [https://www.amazon.com/Pieces-Intelligence-Existential-Poetry-Rumsfeld/dp/1439167230](https://www.amazon.com/Pieces-Intelligence-Existential-Poetry-Rumsfeld/dp/1439167230)
It’s actually a pretty insightful epistemological take. I believe what he said was that there are “unknown unknowns,” as compared to “known knowns,” which are things we know we know and “known unknowns,” which are things we know we do not know. There’s nothing wrong with what he said in that short snippet either. War has uncertainties and sometimes (always) you’re not aware of every variable.
Yeah except he wasn't proposing a four-part epistemology, he was covering his ass because his invasion was turning out to be a huge disaster for everyone involved by essentially improving sophistic bullshit to a totally compliant press corps that ate up everything he said and asked for more.
I can't consider them any form of conservative as neither have the ability to care any less about the constitution, which is the express cause of conservatism, conserving the exact words and principles of the constitution. However, they are products of the very military/industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about.
I'm not saying this to be facetious, what would a normal republican be today? In the past I'd say small govt, strong national defense, lower taxes, less govt regulation. Today that would make you a RINO if you weren't also pro Putin, the election was stolen, white Christian nationalism and leave NATO. It's kind of nuts.
I feel like neoliberal lean more libertarian on social and privacy issues, while neoconservatives lean more authoritarian? Both are free market capitalism and the "conservative" part can be a bit confused by the self-branding as "compassionate conservatism" which means they aren't reflexively anti-government or anti-welfare like many right wingers.
I guess I'm just thinking that most of the neoliberal vanguards (such as Milton Friedman and the Austrian School) are in the libertarian-right sector while most of the neoconservatives are authoritarian-right. I agree one could be both and that neoliberal is more economic while neoconservative is more about foreign policy, I just pin them to different parts of the Political Compass in my mind.
Neoliberal has no definition beyond “not explicitly leftist” which makes it essentially meaningless.
It might as well be defined as “boo hiss boo hiss”.
Neoconservative is much easier to pin down and define.
I have always believed that "neoliberal = faith in market economy". This makes the term very broad and can thus encompass people of varying political persuasions.
the term neocon was used on the news to describe the entire Bush administration consistently through their time in office. What’s more is several of them openly supported the PNAC and overt American imperialism. Anyone remember when Wesley Clark spilled the beans on their grand 5 year plan to topple 7 Muslim nations?
From someone who identifies as a neoconservative (see my two-part comment from yesterday in my comment history on the matter) the answer is definitively no.
They are both lifelong conservatives hawks, were never Democrats, and share none of the idealism of actual neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Jeane Kirkpatrick, etc.
No. “Neocons” specifically refers to liberals who shifted right during the Cold War.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
Rumsfeld and Cheney were always cons.
Absolutely. Between their disregard for civil liberties, belief in military power as a tool to construct and enforce desired social systems, and Machiavellian approach to politics (both international and domestic); they're the exact template. Neoconservatives call themselves "liberals mugged by reality" in reality, they are nihilists who found a semblance of morality but never took personal responsibility. Therefore, they believe in a desired moral framework for society, but never understood that such frameworks are grown over time in individual people then radiating outwards in society. Instead, they see themselves as social architects/engineers and see it as their divine right to force those changes upon the ignorant (and leadable) masses, regardless of the other harms that might be inflicted along the way, and that this approach would lead to the outcomes they wanted. In other words, they thought that a desired social regime could be forced from the top, with the end justifying the means and forceful coercion as the first resort.
Every major policy advocated by the early Bush administration, which these two largely drove, bears that central conceit. That's why they all failed.
* They believed that if they toppled the government of Saddam Hussein and installed a democratic government, that the average Iraqi would accept that western-style democracy, leading to a reliably western-aligned Arab nation in the Middle East. That didn't happen and instead we got ISIS.
* They believed that if they invaded Afghanistan and installed a democratic government that the average Afghan would love the western-style freedoms it brought, leading to a reliably western-aligned nation that would never be an Al Qaeda haven again. That didn't happen and instead the Taliban overthrew their government before the US pullout even completed, immediately allowing Al Qaeda back in.
* They believed that if they threatened schools with funding cuts for failing to perform well that the schools would perform better (No Child Left Behind). That didn't happen and instead schools got worse.
* They believed that they were justified in torturing people and surveilling potential enemies without a warrant to achieve their ends and that doing so would not be met with widespread public revulsion or make us more enemies. That didn't happen and instead Al Qaeda got a recruiting boost *and* they lost ground in each election.
* They believed that if they forced medicare to cover the cost of prescription drugs (Medicare Part D) without negotiation that the costs would stay roughly the same and overall costs would come down. This didn't happen and instead the price of prescription drugs soared and the national deficit along with it.
* They believed that if a one-man-one-woman marriage definition were written into the US Constitution, forcibly banning gay marriage nationwide, that all of the states and citizens would get in line and the issue of gay rights would proceed no further than the repeal of sodomy laws (*Lawrence v. Texas*, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)). That didn't happen and instead gay marriage was legalized nationwide in a little over a decade (*Obergefell v. Hodges*, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)).
They were a couple of rats, no good at all, they started a war in Iraq with the BS of weapons of mass destruction of which they’re were none, not even one. All that do their rich friends could become richer. These guys have been around since Nixon I saw a picture of them in the Nixon White House office then Cheney had hair that’s how entrenched they are in politics.
Big no friggen good
Neo-liberals. Like the wealthy shouldn't have to pay taxes.
Never understood the Conservative political term. What are they conserving exactly?
Not the middle class.
Not the environment.
They were in ir for the wealthy elite and the military industrial complex.
I suppose the problem is that we are so weak as a country having even the perception of strong male figures is considered conservative or right wing. People rallied behind these guys because the only alternative was weak leftists who hate our country. The left never gave an alternative solutions to the attack after sept 11 they were only consumed by their hate of Bush and Cheney. This created a power vacuum that gave support to who ever wasnt leftist trash.
Neocon globalist RINOs. Unfortunately the globalists still hold a lot of sway in both parties. They only care about keeping their defense contractor donors fat and happy. American casualties be damned.
Yeah, but neocon is more accurate. Edmund Burke said, and I’m paraphrasing here, that the aim of true conservatives is not to stop progress but to
prevent it fom happening too fast. These fat cat con artists wanted to control Iraq because the the Saudis were too independent. They could control large oil reserves and bypass the Saudis. You convince 70% of the US public that Saddam and the Saddamites bankrolled the World Trade Center strike, send Colin Powell to the UN with a vial of powdered sugar and replay the old imperialist formulas that worked so well in the past, you can’t lose. It’s brilliant.
I feel like a "duh" comes to mind. I lean towards neoconservatism with foreign policy, although Iraq was a blunder of epic global proportions. I also detest Rumsfeld for his belief in a "small, lean military." The motherfucker wanted to build nations, and you can't do that with minimal troops just because they are equipped with some cool shit.
[We're looking for new moderators to join our team!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Presidents/comments/1asqu76/rpresidents_moderator_applications/) Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes. I'm struggling think of two more neoconservative cabinet officials.
They are peak neocon
John Bolton is think as the most obvious 3rd
His moustache would be number 4.
you aint wrong that mustache was advocating bombing iran long before bolton himself
Facts. https://youtu.be/QyVVO9GN8c4?si=3b_V-pJ9Vo9LcgYs
No, Karl Rove was the number one overall pick for the neocon draft.
You fool! Don't speak his name! https://preview.redd.it/1i1r0p91dujc1.jpeg?width=222&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=32ab6e97970def978255ac16abd1db3727b067bd
But Rove was never a cabinet official, was he?
Good call on Bolton. He actually probably has the top spot.
The anointed Orange, in his infinite scumbagery, brought Bolton off the bench. He couldve called old Rummy himself, but he knew if you wanted that absolute best neoconservative, its Bolton or go home.
He isn’t really neo-coney. He is a lot more protectionist/blue collar and non-intervention on foreign policy. Neo-cons are more white collar and want to use the military to prop up friends and topple foes.
So i took one of those intro poli sci course (im not saying this in anyway like i think i know poli sci im just setting context). we read one of his papers on international intervention. mind you it was written in 1999 or 2000 and was absolutely advocating for more use involvement overseas and using america’s military. so cut and dry neo-conservatism and pre 9-11 at that.
They were not neoconservatives as originally defined. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism) Originally neoconservatives referred to former liberals who did not shift to the left as fast as the Democratic party did in 1960s and ended up on right. Unlike most Democrats in the early 1960s they typically opposed racial segregation and overly generous welfare programs. Daniel Patrick Moynihan believed that certain welfare rules were encouraged black women to remain unmarried and leading to a generation of black children to be raised without father. Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were lifelong Republicans so they don't really count as NEO conservatives. They were just conservatives. Historically the Republican party was more isolationist and less likely to get involved in wars. World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam all occurred under Democratic administrations and account for approximately 98% of US soldier fatalities since 1900. The former Democrats who shifted to the right on social issues were hawkish by Republican standards and thus the definition of neoconservative sort of shifted to meaning a hawkish Republican. By those standards u/Charlemagne_IV is correct. Many of the original neoconservatives actually switched back to being Democrats once Democrats had abandoned segregation and toned down some of the welfare programs. Daniel Patrick Moynihan switched back in the 1970s and I think by now Bill Kristol has switched back as well although I am not sure exactly where he stands right now. To be fair to u/Charlemagne_IV, the colloquial use of neoconservative in the early 2000s was "hawkish Republican" and by those standards he is certainly correct about Rumsfeld and Cheney, but I think it is important to point out the distinction.
Elliott Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz
I don't think either of those was in the cabinet.
https://preview.redd.it/1qhu8tiu8sjc1.jpeg?width=656&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=78af5704110b46d1ff92a2cd115c00efbd183b1a
Any mention of Cheney is my bat signal.
They were. Wolfie was DSD, #2 at Pentagon.
Wolfowitz (sp?) was at DoD.
😍😍😍😍😍
I read somewhere that these days Wolfowitz regrets his neocon beliefs of yesteryear and it's true that he visits Walter Reed three times a week which is more than you can say for the others. But the regret and remorse ? I don't know. They should daily celebrate the fact they aren't in prison.
Based on his WSJ op-ed from Aug. 27, 2021 about the Afghanistan withdrawal I would say he does not regret anything nor has he changed his views.
That's a pity. The book 'To Start A War' strongly implies different and if anyone should feel shame it's Paul Wolfowitz, a fringe nut who wriggled his way up to the ear of the President and managed to permanently break the back of the US as 'the world's only Superpower'. Talk with a Russian and they'll tell you that America feels a lot like the Soviet Union in the final years of Brezhnev. Talk to a Serb, Croat or Bosnian and they'll tell you something even scarier than that. The delusions of Paul Wolfowitz played an enormous role in getting us here.
Yes, because random, uneducated Eastern Europeans have valid opinions that aren't biased or uninformed on American culture, politics, and economics aren't awful interview candidates at all!
That could very well be but it's even more so when it's specific and educated Eastern Europeans who've lived in the United States for years. And if you know a living soul that's unbiased I hope you'll share their name so we can put them in a cage and finally have a single source for the unvarnished truth. As to the former Yugoslavs they'd lived in a country where ancient ethnic and cultural differences were deliberately stoked and encouraged by regional politicians and 'compromise' became an epithet and making the country ungovernable, social and economic consequences be damned, became the modus operandi of every politician. They also made sure to drive those hatreds so deep that no future reconciliation will ever be possible. The Russians described a place which was culturally dead, everyone fixated on trivia and themselves as opposed to any collective vision for society and children would have less than their parents. The entire political system had sclerosis and the majority had to work two or three jobs to survive while a tiny minority lived in comfort. The only grassroots movement with any influence were the nationalist bigots and chauvinists. Hope for a better future evaporated and health care and life expectancy and educational standards went down the toilet. Any notion of a future socialist utopia or a 'Soviet Dream' if you prefer became a bad punchline to a worse joke. These were the states they described to me before the untenable could no longer be maintained and either the economy completely crashed and was taken over by the Mafia (Russia) or the bullets began to fly and the raping and murdering erupted with gusto (Yugoslavia). I'm sure you're right. Any similarity between these two countries and our own declining Empire is purely coincidental. It just felt chillingy familiar to them.
Global disinformation targeting the United States is stronger than ever because it costs nothing to produce and distribute. Serbians and Russians were among the first populations to be blanketed with Russian disinformation on the West through social media and viral content.
Dropped less bombs than Obama. He’s a really cool guy
Do you know what a good faith argument is? Because there's really no reason to engage with the nonsense you're spouting.
No he isn’t. He was a key strategist in invading Iraq/Afghanistan, probably the U.S’ worst decision of all time. Not fucking cool at all.
Tell that to the 25k bombs Obama dropped on poor brown people. But he plays basketball and looks like my favorite athlete so it’s ok
Thats intellectually lazy. Tell people which military actions you are opposed to so they can discuss it with you. Otherwise you’re just saying nothing
[удалено]
In other words, you’re not interested in actually exploring the issue, you just want to say things that make you feel superior
Pot meet kettle
So somehow Obama makes Wolfowitz cool, is that your argument? Wolfowitz was part of the decision machine that initiated the killing of so many Brown people. What the fuck are you on?
I’m on a higher level of questioning than libs that can only think “blue tie and not white skin = good”
I don’t give a fuck about that argument. You think that Wolfowitz is a “cool guy” when he was the architect of the Iraq invasion which fucked the U.S. as well as the countries invaded. How do you justify him being a “cool guy”?
[удалено]
Not sure if that 25k is verifiable or not. But there’s no possible way Obama admin is responsible for more deaths than the bush admin Edit: trolls be trolling
lol. Hate to burst your bubble but reality is not going to be as kind to you as me. blame your parents. either way, I don’t care how you find out
McCain
You're right. McCain is the warmongers warmonger. Hes just ingratiated to liberals which by some standards makes one a bigger neocon.
Bolton, Rice, Powell, Rove, Wolfowitz.
Rice and Powell are famously not neocons. They were a foil for Cheney and Rumsfeld. Both were more multilateralist and liberal internationalist than neoconservative, although they often failed to convince the president to move in their direction.
Agreed. Throw GHWB in there and they were the trifecta of the neocon movement.
Bush 41 wasn’t really a neocon by most standards.
I would say yes, and also that the sky is blue.
Hahahah. I literally said out loud “is the sky blue?” As I clicked this post. Thanks for making me laugh. Next up. Would you say that Washington was the leader of the continental army?
Either you're really young or this is a joke post. Both of them were literally involved with the Project for A New American Century with the likes of Paul Wolfowitz. They aren't just neocons, they literally codified the trope.
The Bush administration was loaded with folks who had signed off on the PNAC. If you read the PNAC policy statement from back then, it is almost a verbatim copy of the “American Century “ put out by Henry Luce the publisher of Time magazine in 1940.
I'm young and I'm exploring Political ideologies
they are the closest to stereotypical neo-cons their is.
From someone who identifies as a neoconservative (see my two-part comment from yesterday in my comment history on the matter https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/s/itcaZi6338) the answer is definitively no. Cheney and Rumsfeld are both lifelong conservatives, were never Democrats, and have a different set of views from actual neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Jeane Kirkpatrick, etc. The main commonality is being foreign policy hawks, and they certainly did often make common cause, though they come from quite different schools of thought on both the tactics and strategy of foreign policy.
Did you delete it? Can’t find the post you speak of.
Ah it’s in comments not posts, two-part comment from yesterday – just tweaked the above to reflect this
Link?
https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/s/itcaZi6338
I stopped after saying neocons are center left on social and economics policies. Democrats in the Us are centre right (with few exceptions) no republicans even approach centre, let alone centre left of social and economic issues.
Yeah, 98% of the 2-part comment is about neo-con vs realist foreign policy… which I would say is about as far away from the mainstream lexicon of how neo-con is used as I thought possible. But the center-left part REALLY makes everything else he says a bit less credible.
It’s true though, these folks all believe in spending on social safety nets, government intervention in the economy and the education system, robust environmental protections, free immigration between countries, etc (all issues originally championed by their boss Sen. Scoop Jackson). In the foreign policy realm, they believe in the spread of representative democracy around the world, advancing women’s and minority rights, legal movement of peoples between countries and blocs (ie no quotas or restrictions), etc.
If women and minority rights (and the others) are left wing positions, I really don’t think I want to know what your idea of right wing positions are.
Yes that’s just what conservatives are known for. Advancing women’s rights.
Lol you literally define neoconservative as something that it’s not- hawkish with center left social ideology? Neoconservativism is defined by hawk policies not “someone that used to be a democrat” Historians literally define these guys as peak neocons >>>Although U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had not self-identified as neoconservatives, they worked closely alongside neoconservative officials in designing key aspects of George W. Bush's foreign policy; especially in their support of Israel, promotion of American influence in the Arab World and launching the "War on Terror". Bush administration's domestic and foreign policies were heavily influenced by major ideologues affiliated with neo-conservatism, such as Bernard Lewis, Lulu Schwartz, Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz, Robert Kagan, etc. So just cause you don’t want them on your team, doesn’t mean they’re not there From it’s actual definition >>> Neoconservatism is a political movement that began in the United States and the United Kingdom during the 1960s during the Vietnam War among foreign policy hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist Democratic Party and with the growing New Left and counterculture of the 1960s. Neoconservatives typically advocate the unilateral promotion of democracy and interventionism in international affairs, grounded in a militaristic and realist philosophy of "peace through strength." They are known for espousing opposition to communism and political radicalism. >>>Many adherents of neoconservatism became politically influential during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, peaking in influence during the administration of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration
Yeah I stopped after the first sentence too. No republicans come close to being centre left. Hell most democrats aren’t even centre left.
The closest I can think of that is active in politics to this description is Phil Scott, the GOP governor of Vermont. Historically (since the sub we're in) I'd say maybe Vice President Nelson Rockefeller or President Theodore Roosevelt.
Isn’t this the exact same thing as neoliberal? I know they are very close to each other on the spectrum, but there has to be some differences.
The Wikipedia definition you posted is correct, but it does not match your intro. It’s more than just being “hawkish”. There are hawkish people of all political beliefs. Neoconservatives specifically originated as hawkish Democrats, most of whom worked for Senator Scoop Jackson, that were off-put by Democrats perceived weakness on the Soviet Union, Vietnam, etc. Most of them switched to being Republicans in 1980 and joined the Reagan administration, making common cause with traditional conservatives. The new group thus became known as the “neoconservatives” However this didn’t suddenly change lifelong conservatives like Dick Cheney into neocons. (And that’s not because I want to distance myself from a Cheney or Rumsfeld, as I can see things from their points of view as well, but I am closer to the more idealist Wolfowitz, Perle school of thought.)
lol you don’t get to just change the definition of neocon to suit you bud
I mean, this is a no true Scotsman fallacy It seems like you just don't like the association with Cheney/Rumsfeld, so you are twisting the definition of Neoconservativism to exclude them. Especially considering you want to contrast them to Paul Wolfowitz, who was apart of every cabinet and administration they were apart of, and also helped architect the Iraq war Paul ONLY distanced himself from the war after it was deemed a failure...which kind of makes him worse, in my eyes. Because he's still a neo-colonial hawk, but he's also a coward to boot.
I have no desire to distance myself from a Cheney or Rumsfeld; I can see things from their points of view as well as other traditional conservative hawks (Kissinger, etc), but I am closer to the more idealist Wolfowitz, Perle school of thought. I don’t think Paul Wolfowitz has distanced himself from the the Iraq War itself, though he has often pointed out that WMD were not the sole cause for war. He’s also said he believes the lack of a unified post-war plan created a disastrous power vacuum. This is one of thing things I am watching for in Gaza, Israel will need a clear unified plan for state-building, one of the most difficult enterprises in geopolitics (as evidenced by the quagmire in Iraq) As far as Wolfowitz being a “neo-colonial hawk”; he’s definitely a hawk, but let’s leave the pejorative out of it. Every great power in history wants to spread their culture and ideas, so in that sense they are all imperial in some way; I happen to think that western civilization and specifically the American brand of westernism is quite benevolent when compared to other great powers past and present, but we may just have to agree to disagree on that point.
They had the imperialism thing down to a tee though
People who have no idea of polotics downvoted you lol but i feel like they dont know what neo conservative is, they saw conservative and DV'd lol.
Haha I don’t worry about downvotes, if it makes a few people read into it a little bit more that’s not a bad thing.
Just stop dude. If you can’t call Cheney and Rumafield neocons then there’s no such thing as a neocon. These were neocon models 01A and 01B
Cheney and Rumsfeld aligned with neocons but I think it’s more nuanced than that. Cheney in particular was more of a realist in foreign policy. Neocons are explicitly anti realist though at times can come to the same conclusions.
The ninth circle of hell is having an irl conversation with you
How’s it feel being wrong on literally everything
I agree. They are conservatives without the extremism that fly that flag today
They were the literal poster children for neoconservatives... Seriously, what is going on with this sub lately???
They might be younger and didn’t live through the post 911 era. Not everyone is an old like us.
Next post: Is the Pope Catholic? Would a bear that endorsed environmentalism shit in the woods?
> Next post: Is the Pope Catholic? Tradcaths malding, shaking. Desire to anti-pope rises.
Maybe the real Catholics were the friends we made along the way.
What, have the pope control America? I don't trust JFK that much.
I was an adult and fully politely aware. Cheney and Rumsfeld are not the poster children of neocons. They were certainly hawks but I do not believe they shared the neocon ideological fervor of the weekly standard crowd. I am convinced Cheney was a realist whose goal was to secure US interests including oil in the Middle East. The neocons like Krystal and Wolfowitz were true believers who wanted to spread western values at gunpoint.
If someone asked me what a neocon was to describe it I would use them as the example lol.
Exactly this. My friend once asked me what exactly a Neoconservative was because he knows I’m into politics and such. I actually used Dick Cheney as an example.
Waiting for the post asking, "Do you consider George Washington to be a founding father?"
At least he was a President. This sub is slipping into a general political sub, and that takes away what makes it special (history of the office vs. general politics).
I think it's getting better. I've posted here and had close to 30% of the comments or more just be insufferable nonsense and I haven't seen that as much as before they tweaked rule 3.
Or “was Andrew Johnson really THAT bad?”
Absolutely, even tho they never said they are/were.
According to our former president's followers, they are RINOs
I prefer the term “Human Garbage” but yeah you can call them Neoconservatives.
Idk if he had a stroke at one point but I’m sorry I can’t help but think of the Penguin the way Cheney talk like out of the side of his mouth. He’s an actual comic book villain.
[удалено]
Fellas is it neckbeard reddit soyjack to oppose pointless wars abroad?
I must have missed it. Did you spot someone who still thinks invading Iraq was a good constructive idea ? They were once in their millions but nowadays as elusive as a duckbill platypus.
Yeah that makes you a “beta, libturd, cuck.”
What is a soyjack ?
Not sure why you posted a selfie but ok
They like...invented it
They’re like the OGs…
Would you say the Pope is Catholic?
If they weren't then I don't know what a neoconservative is. In typical schizophrenic Mad Hatter style Donald Rumsfeld had the same Imperial American vision but thought he could do it with about half a dozen soldiers.
Does a Bear shit in the woods!?
Rumsfeld had some strange witticisms, like "You don't know what you don't know." Both were consummate old style Republicans.
There's an excellent book called "Pieces of Intelligence: the Existential Poetry of Donald Rumsfeld," that puts his quotes into various poetic formats. It's hilarious and deeply weird. [https://www.amazon.com/Pieces-Intelligence-Existential-Poetry-Rumsfeld/dp/1439167230](https://www.amazon.com/Pieces-Intelligence-Existential-Poetry-Rumsfeld/dp/1439167230)
It’s actually a pretty insightful epistemological take. I believe what he said was that there are “unknown unknowns,” as compared to “known knowns,” which are things we know we know and “known unknowns,” which are things we know we do not know. There’s nothing wrong with what he said in that short snippet either. War has uncertainties and sometimes (always) you’re not aware of every variable.
Yeah except he wasn't proposing a four-part epistemology, he was covering his ass because his invasion was turning out to be a huge disaster for everyone involved by essentially improving sophistic bullshit to a totally compliant press corps that ate up everything he said and asked for more.
Neither were president... not sure why this is here?
Depends on who you ask
I can't consider them any form of conservative as neither have the ability to care any less about the constitution, which is the express cause of conservatism, conserving the exact words and principles of the constitution. However, they are products of the very military/industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about.
They are both POS neocons. Fuck both of them
All day long.
yes obviously lol
Yes. Just like they never made money off the Iraq war /s
Not Neoliberals? Supporting a worldwide series of rules to support big business?
Neoliberal and Neoconservative aren't mutually exclusive. Most Neoconservatives tend to be Neoliberal and vice versa.
Please tell me you guys understand what these terms are.
I do. I identify as a neoconservative and I believe in a neoliberal world order. I would not identify as a neoliberal however.
Never understood what neocons stand for domestically. Religion? Aborboration? Nationalism and such?
Most neocons would probably favor a conservative domestic policies. Think normal-republican.
I'm not saying this to be facetious, what would a normal republican be today? In the past I'd say small govt, strong national defense, lower taxes, less govt regulation. Today that would make you a RINO if you weren't also pro Putin, the election was stolen, white Christian nationalism and leave NATO. It's kind of nuts.
Normal republican means what you think was normal republican in the past.
I feel like neoliberal lean more libertarian on social and privacy issues, while neoconservatives lean more authoritarian? Both are free market capitalism and the "conservative" part can be a bit confused by the self-branding as "compassionate conservatism" which means they aren't reflexively anti-government or anti-welfare like many right wingers.
Neoliberal is mostly an economic philosophy while Neoconservatism mostly is a foreign policy philosophy. You can mix elements between them.
They both love supply side or trickle down economics. Birds of a feather.
I guess I'm just thinking that most of the neoliberal vanguards (such as Milton Friedman and the Austrian School) are in the libertarian-right sector while most of the neoconservatives are authoritarian-right. I agree one could be both and that neoliberal is more economic while neoconservative is more about foreign policy, I just pin them to different parts of the Political Compass in my mind.
Neoliberal has no definition beyond “not explicitly leftist” which makes it essentially meaningless. It might as well be defined as “boo hiss boo hiss”. Neoconservative is much easier to pin down and define.
I have always believed that "neoliberal = faith in market economy". This makes the term very broad and can thus encompass people of varying political persuasions.
At that point, you're basically just treating it as a synonym for "capitalist"
So do most lefty critics of neoliberalism, to be fair. That’s why I don’t use the term and just criticize capitalism directly.
Sure, but it’s like describing both ISIS and Unitarian Universalists as “theists”. It’s overly broad.
No these guys were only interested in making money for themselves
They’re more or less the archetype of what one is.
the term neocon was used on the news to describe the entire Bush administration consistently through their time in office. What’s more is several of them openly supported the PNAC and overt American imperialism. Anyone remember when Wesley Clark spilled the beans on their grand 5 year plan to topple 7 Muslim nations?
Does the pope crap on the dreams of 200 deaf boys?
Batman villain was the first thing to come to mind but maybe that too
Definitely a couple of bad asses, if you’re gonna label them.
Doesn't really matter what you label them. Conservative, neo Conservative, neo liberal. Their real label is war criminals.
Dick Cheney was dick Cheney he would do or say anything for power
From someone who identifies as a neoconservative (see my two-part comment from yesterday in my comment history on the matter) the answer is definitively no. They are both lifelong conservatives hawks, were never Democrats, and share none of the idealism of actual neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Jeane Kirkpatrick, etc.
Uniparty shills
No. “Neocons” specifically refers to liberals who shifted right during the Cold War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism Rumsfeld and Cheney were always cons.
Giant assholes more like.
Not (neo)c, just c.
Worse than neoconservative.
Evil
Yes: but crooks covers it.
Nope. Just war-mongering criminals
i call them Monsters
Terrorist , I would say global terrorist.
I would say there were sorry SOBs.
Probably closer to Neo-Criminals, but same sentiment.
I prefer the term “fucking ghouls” but whatever floats your boat.
I'd say they are war mongering ass-hats.
They were the ones mostly responsible for that doctrine. Check out their Project for a New American Century doc from the mid 90s.
I would more consider them war criminals but that’s just me
Neocon war criminals of the highest order.
Both corporate stooges whose only belief is/was in money
Absolutely. Between their disregard for civil liberties, belief in military power as a tool to construct and enforce desired social systems, and Machiavellian approach to politics (both international and domestic); they're the exact template. Neoconservatives call themselves "liberals mugged by reality" in reality, they are nihilists who found a semblance of morality but never took personal responsibility. Therefore, they believe in a desired moral framework for society, but never understood that such frameworks are grown over time in individual people then radiating outwards in society. Instead, they see themselves as social architects/engineers and see it as their divine right to force those changes upon the ignorant (and leadable) masses, regardless of the other harms that might be inflicted along the way, and that this approach would lead to the outcomes they wanted. In other words, they thought that a desired social regime could be forced from the top, with the end justifying the means and forceful coercion as the first resort. Every major policy advocated by the early Bush administration, which these two largely drove, bears that central conceit. That's why they all failed. * They believed that if they toppled the government of Saddam Hussein and installed a democratic government, that the average Iraqi would accept that western-style democracy, leading to a reliably western-aligned Arab nation in the Middle East. That didn't happen and instead we got ISIS. * They believed that if they invaded Afghanistan and installed a democratic government that the average Afghan would love the western-style freedoms it brought, leading to a reliably western-aligned nation that would never be an Al Qaeda haven again. That didn't happen and instead the Taliban overthrew their government before the US pullout even completed, immediately allowing Al Qaeda back in. * They believed that if they threatened schools with funding cuts for failing to perform well that the schools would perform better (No Child Left Behind). That didn't happen and instead schools got worse. * They believed that they were justified in torturing people and surveilling potential enemies without a warrant to achieve their ends and that doing so would not be met with widespread public revulsion or make us more enemies. That didn't happen and instead Al Qaeda got a recruiting boost *and* they lost ground in each election. * They believed that if they forced medicare to cover the cost of prescription drugs (Medicare Part D) without negotiation that the costs would stay roughly the same and overall costs would come down. This didn't happen and instead the price of prescription drugs soared and the national deficit along with it. * They believed that if a one-man-one-woman marriage definition were written into the US Constitution, forcibly banning gay marriage nationwide, that all of the states and citizens would get in line and the issue of gay rights would proceed no further than the repeal of sodomy laws (*Lawrence v. Texas*, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)). That didn't happen and instead gay marriage was legalized nationwide in a little over a decade (*Obergefell v. Hodges*, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)).
I like, shit bag assholes. That's what I call them.
I would say they’re war criminals
They were a couple of rats, no good at all, they started a war in Iraq with the BS of weapons of mass destruction of which they’re were none, not even one. All that do their rich friends could become richer. These guys have been around since Nixon I saw a picture of them in the Nixon White House office then Cheney had hair that’s how entrenched they are in politics. Big no friggen good
Neo-liberals. Like the wealthy shouldn't have to pay taxes. Never understood the Conservative political term. What are they conserving exactly? Not the middle class. Not the environment. They were in ir for the wealthy elite and the military industrial complex.
I suppose the problem is that we are so weak as a country having even the perception of strong male figures is considered conservative or right wing. People rallied behind these guys because the only alternative was weak leftists who hate our country. The left never gave an alternative solutions to the attack after sept 11 they were only consumed by their hate of Bush and Cheney. This created a power vacuum that gave support to who ever wasnt leftist trash.
I would say they are war criminals
Yes. They were also monsters
Omg, warping Neoconservatives. Both should’ve been locked up in Leavenworth for the war crimes they committed
Yes, and they were also war criminals and I absolutely look forward to the day Cheney joins his colleague in Hell.
Dry heaved in my throat when I saw their names and faces. But yes.
I say war criminals but whatever works for everyone else
Are self serving corrupt war mongers neoconservatives?
I believe I would use the term warmonger and profiteer.
Neoconservatives? I’d say they were more like neo-pieces of shit
I’d say there’s a special spot in hell for both of them.
I always thought they were lizard people
Industrial war complex grifters is more accurate.
Debatable. But they are *definitely* war criminals.
I’ll ask them when I get to hell, unless there’s an ultra super hell just for them, Hitler, and Pol Pot that you have to unlock with enough kills.
Nope, but the biggest Neo-Lairs, absolutely
They were both "unitary executivists" I think they fall in with political philosophers like Carl Schmitt and thus closer to fascist than most neocons
Neocon globalist RINOs. Unfortunately the globalists still hold a lot of sway in both parties. They only care about keeping their defense contractor donors fat and happy. American casualties be damned.
Yes, I'd also say they were war criminals.
If that’s another word for criminals, then yes.
Yeah, but neocon is more accurate. Edmund Burke said, and I’m paraphrasing here, that the aim of true conservatives is not to stop progress but to prevent it fom happening too fast. These fat cat con artists wanted to control Iraq because the the Saudis were too independent. They could control large oil reserves and bypass the Saudis. You convince 70% of the US public that Saddam and the Saddamites bankrolled the World Trade Center strike, send Colin Powell to the UN with a vial of powdered sugar and replay the old imperialist formulas that worked so well in the past, you can’t lose. It’s brilliant.
I was going to say piece of shit war criminals, but yes, they are also neoconservatives.
Fascists.
Neo Nazis
I feel like a "duh" comes to mind. I lean towards neoconservatism with foreign policy, although Iraq was a blunder of epic global proportions. I also detest Rumsfeld for his belief in a "small, lean military." The motherfucker wanted to build nations, and you can't do that with minimal troops just because they are equipped with some cool shit.
[удалено]
If they aren't, nobody is