CJ AEGIS, on Feb 20 2006, 08:56 AM, said:
they are effectively old liberals who got fed up by what they perceived as the hypocrisy of the left. Their goal was to challenge the left by being different from them but not be traditional small government low spending conservatives. Everything about the neocons and their behavior in power has something to do with their history of being from the left.
Rhea, on Feb 20 2006, 11:26 AM, said:
Call Me Robin, on Feb 20 2006, 06:55 AM, said:
<snippage> Because I wouldn't place Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rice, Rumsfeld, or Wolfowitz in that camp.
Me neither. All of the above list are either Texas conservatives or their friends and cronies. They are NOT liberals nor were they ever liberals. The people who voted for them are not liberals (although some moderates in both parties voted for Bush). I don't know where the myth arose that the neocons are disillusioned liberals, but it doesn't compute...
My theory is that somebody used the "disillusioned liberal" explanation once and it has been quoted endlessly all over the Internet until it has been taken for fact.
Spectacles, on Feb 20 2006, 03:40 PM, said:
That's true of some of the original neocons, like Wolfowitz, who, I think used to work on Dem. Scoop Jackson's staff...
I think, though, that there are some conservatives today, especially those who became politically aware during the last decade or so, who are actually neoconservatives--or who have a philosophy not far removed from that of the original neoconservatives.
They're like vampires, werewolves, zombees, and the Borg; identifying where the first ones came from, no matter how accurately, doesn't explain their spread since then, and most of the current ones are not the originals but later infestees.
It seems that most of the ones who've been "turned" in recent years were conservatives before. But it wasn't the "neocons" who turned them. It was that the liberals started attacking the "neocons" in just the same way that they'd already always been attacking real conservatives for years without any distinction between the two groups they were attacking, calling them both the same names, even including referring to "neocons" as "extreme conservatives", which verbally indicates that the difference between them is only a matter of magnitude, not of type. Many conservatives then made the mistake of either identifying with their fellow attackees as their own kind or letting their habit of defensive reactions and counters to such attacks become an unthinking reflex.
Rhea, on Feb 20 2006, 03:17 PM, said:
Lin731, on Feb 20 2006, 10:06 AM, said:
Neo Cons are disgruntled ex Liberals??? Who knew?
How (or more importantly WHY) would one go from one extreme to the other? I'm SO disappointed that liberal goals were not acheived that I'm gonna become the opposite of all I stood for? What purpose exactly would that serve????
That's exactly why the oft-quoted ex-liberal thing makes absolutely no sense at all.
What doesn't make sense at all is characterizing the "neocons" as being the opposite of liberals. They have differences, but also major similarities, more than they have in common with true conservatives.
Zwolf666, on Feb 20 2006, 04:33 PM, said:
I don't think neo-cons are or ever were liberals. They certainly do a lot of things that they've accused "liberals" of doing - expanding the government, creating deficits, meddling in personal lives, etc. - but I don't think they were ever actually liberals.
One who acts liberally is a liberal, whether one is called that by others or onesself or not. Those things you just named are liberal things to do, so one who does them is behaving liberally by doing them.
Zwolf666, on Feb 20 2006, 04:33 PM, said:
That's one thing that's causing a lot of internal strife in the Republican party at the moment - an inability to fit the two extremely-different approaches to conservativism into the same party. It's likely to cause even bigger schisms down the line.
What's united them so far has been a common enemy (in terms of American politics, not wars and terrorism; this situation predates 9.11.01). It's an effective unifier for a while, but when it's the only thing people have in common, it falls apart after a while.