Control Congress is a multi-partisan, issue-oriented political forum that brings together the Left, Right, and everyone in between.

11 Responses to “Why NEOCONS hate Ron Paul?”

1. Hugh says:

   December 20, 2007 at 9:45 pm

   AMEN!
2. Bill says:

   December 20, 2007 at 10:13 pm

   I’ll second that one. And although I definitely don’t want to “steal the thunder” of the Ron Paul campaign perhaps Barry Goldwater Jr. would be a good “independent” candidate should Ron Paul not get the Republican nomination.
3. bb says:

   December 21, 2007 at 1:40 pm

   Wiki — “Neoconservatism is the political philosophy that emerged in the United States from the rejection of social liberalism and the New Left counter-culture of the 1960s. It was formulated in the 1950s, achieved its first victory in Barry Goldwater’s nomination as the Republican presidential candidate in 1964, and coalesced in the 1970s.”

   Is Ron Paul a ‘neocon’?
4. JohnKonop says:

   December 21, 2007 at 1:50 pm

   Bart

   You are cherry picking facts again! This was from the same Wiki article!

   Criticism

   The term is frequently used pejoratively by self-described paleoconservatives, Democrats, and by libertarians of both left and right.

   Critics take issue with neoconservatives’ support for aggressive foreign policy; critics from the left especially take issue with what they characterize as unilateralism and lack of concern with international consensus through organizations such as the United Nations.[35][36][37] Neoconservatives respond by describing their shared view as a belief that national security is best attained by promoting freedom and democracy abroad through the support of pro-democracy movements, foreign aid and in certain cases military intervention. This is a departure from the traditional conservative tendency to support friendly regimes in matters of trade and anti-communism even at the expense of undermining existing democratic systems. Author Paul Berman in his book Terror and Liberalism describes it as, “Freedom for others means safety for ourselves. Let us be for freedom for others.”

   [edit] Jacobinism, Bolshevism
   The “traditional” conservative Claes G. Ryn has argued that neoconservatives are “a variety of neo-Jacobins.” Ryn maintains that true conservatives deny the existence of a universal political and economic philosophy and model that is suitable for all societies and cultures, and believe that a society’s institutions should be adjusted to suit its culture, while Neo-Jacobins

   are attached in the end to ahistorical, supranational principles that they believe should supplant the traditions of particular societies. The new Jacobins see themselves as on the side of right and fighting evil and are not prone to respecting or looking for common ground with countries that do not share their democratic preferences. (Ryn 2003: 387)

   Further examining the relationship between Neoconservatism and moral rhetoric, Ryn argues that

   Neo-Jacobinism regards America as founded on universal principles and assigns to the United States the role of supervising the remaking of the world. Its adherents have the intense dogmatic commitment of true believers and are highly prone to moralistic rhetoric. They demand, among other things, “moral clarity” in dealing with regimes that stand in the way of America’s universal purpose. They see themselves as champions of “virtue.” (p. 384).

   Thus, according to Ryn, neoconservatism is analogous to Bolshevism: in the same way that the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy established ways of life throughout the world to replace them with communism, the neoconservatives want to do the same, only imposing free-market capitalism and American-style liberal democracy instead of socialism.

   Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, had the following to say in a December, 2005 interview with the German weekly Der Spiegel: “They are not new conservatives. They’re Jacobins. Their predecessor is French Revolution leader Maximilien Robespierre.”[38]

   [edit] Conflict with libertarian conservatives
   There is also conflict between neoconservatives and libertarian conservatives. Libertarian conservatives are ideologically opposed to the expansiveness of federal government programs and regard neoconservative foreign policy ambitions with outspoken distrust. They view the neoconservative promotion of preemptive war as morally unjust, dangerous to the preservation of a free society, and against the principles of the Constitution.

   [edit] Friction with paleoconservatism
   Main article: Neoconservative – Paleoconservative Conflict
   Disputes over Israel and public policy contributed to a sharp conflict with “paleoconservatives,” starting in the 1980s. The movement’s name (”old conservative”) was taken as a rebuke to the “neo” side. The “paleocons” view the neoconservatives as “militarist social democrats” and interlopers who deviate from traditional conservatism agenda on issues as diverse as federalism, immigration, foreign policy, the welfare state, abortion, feminism and homosexuality. All of this leads to a debate over what counts as conservatism.[citation needed]

   The paleoconservatives argue that neoconservatives are an illegitimate addition to the conservative movement. Pat Buchanan calls neoconservatism “a globalist, interventionist, open borders ideology.”[39] The open rift is often traced back to a 1981 dispute over Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Mel Bradford, a Southerner, to run the National Endowment for the Humanities. Bradford withdrew after neoconservatives complained that he had criticized Abraham Lincoln; the paleoconservatives supported Bradford.
5. bb says:

   December 21, 2007 at 4:56 pm

   No John, I am exposing you and all the others who label anybody who disagrees with them a ‘neocon’.

   On another thread, you wrote that Pat Buchanan is a neocon. So let me get this straight — all of the following are neocons:

   - Ron Paul (endorsed by the son of the guy who is recognized for achieving the first victory of neoconservatism).
   - Pat Buchanan
   - Rudy Giuliani
   - Mitt Romney
   - John McCain
   - Bart Brannon
   - Sgt. Mac
   - Fred Thompson

   I’m still waiting for one of you ‘non-neocons’ (aka neomarxists) to explain how all of the above can be neocons.
6. JohnKonop says:

   December 21, 2007 at 4:57 pm

   Bart

   I never said Pat Buchanan is a NEOCON.
7. JohnKonop says:

   December 21, 2007 at 4:59 pm

   Also I never said Ron Paul is a NEOCON. Do you not understand the above article?
8. bb says:

   December 21, 2007 at 5:03 pm

   “NEOCONS like Buchanan” from another thread.

   By association, Paul must be a neocon. The son of the first neocon presidential nominee just endorsed him.

   Even w/o Buchanan and Paul, how can the rest all be neocons….still waiting.
9. JohnKonop says:

   December 21, 2007 at 5:08 pm

   Bart

   Buchanan has always been critic of NEOCONS!

   The artcle said they supported Goldwater. But it was clear that libertarian conservatives like Goldwater do not support NEOCONS! If you read or listen to the video you might get it!
10. bb says:

    December 22, 2007 at 10:29 am

    I get it just fine John…you and the rest of the dems cannot even keep up with who you want to criticize…damn labels get cloudy.
11. SgtMac says:

    December 24, 2007 at 4:19 pm

    Bart – LMAO! Nice one…

    Merry Christmas!

|