« Middle East Conundrum: Where Are We Going? | Gettysburg's Blog | Los Angeles Times Is Beacon of Yellow Journalism »
Are We Sure John McCain Is A Neocon?
It goes without saying that the Obama camp must do its best to press the insinuation that four years of McCain is akin to "four more years of Bush."
I get that.
But what I cannot seem to grasp is the left's notion of what a "Neocon" really is. Being a Libertarian who happens to despise both McCain and Obama (at least as a potential Chief Executive), I find it ironic that many of the Democrats that I know (or read on this site and others) seem obsessed with the term "Neocon" and the faces which represent the word, i.e. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitcz, etc; but they seem to not know exactly WHAT Neocons are actually after. Money, for sure, but given their track record, it must be more than just personal profit.
Indeed, if you read most of the posts here, you would think they're nothing but a group of rogue criminals who simply take glee in smashing the sacred American institutions of government and law/order. While part of this may be true, surely they have an ultimate goal in mind at the end of the day, right?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't it become obvious that the true strategy of the Neocons has been to change things? More specifically to:
1. Use foreign policy and war as a diversion in an effort to clandestinely reform the domestic agenda.
2. By reform, I mean to siphon the ruling authority (power) out of Washington/Congress and into the Corporations of the private sector (where most of these "Neocons" will slink back to in January when Bush's term ends).
3. Hence, in the future, the government will be wholly dependent on the services rendered by the private sector to enact any and all of its laws and regulations. Oil companies and energy companies will thus have the ruling authority and will be in a position to set the Congressional agenda.
Isn't that what the Neocons are all about? Am I missing something?
If so, John McCain must be the most ill-fitting Neocon in the history of Neocons. Being a military man all of his life, he hasn't had much time for private enterprise. Indeed, he's been heavily scrutinized lately for being clueless as to the extent of his wife's enormous estate. Tell me, what Neocon wouldn't know every facet of his/her assets?
I'm certainly not saying John McCain would be any more attractive a candidate if he were just, say, a regular "old" Conservative instead of a Neocon. I'm just saying, what if?
I get that.
But what I cannot seem to grasp is the left's notion of what a "Neocon" really is. Being a Libertarian who happens to despise both McCain and Obama (at least as a potential Chief Executive), I find it ironic that many of the Democrats that I know (or read on this site and others) seem obsessed with the term "Neocon" and the faces which represent the word, i.e. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitcz, etc; but they seem to not know exactly WHAT Neocons are actually after. Money, for sure, but given their track record, it must be more than just personal profit.
Indeed, if you read most of the posts here, you would think they're nothing but a group of rogue criminals who simply take glee in smashing the sacred American institutions of government and law/order. While part of this may be true, surely they have an ultimate goal in mind at the end of the day, right?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't it become obvious that the true strategy of the Neocons has been to change things? More specifically to:
1. Use foreign policy and war as a diversion in an effort to clandestinely reform the domestic agenda.
2. By reform, I mean to siphon the ruling authority (power) out of Washington/Congress and into the Corporations of the private sector (where most of these "Neocons" will slink back to in January when Bush's term ends).
3. Hence, in the future, the government will be wholly dependent on the services rendered by the private sector to enact any and all of its laws and regulations. Oil companies and energy companies will thus have the ruling authority and will be in a position to set the Congressional agenda.
Isn't that what the Neocons are all about? Am I missing something?
If so, John McCain must be the most ill-fitting Neocon in the history of Neocons. Being a military man all of his life, he hasn't had much time for private enterprise. Indeed, he's been heavily scrutinized lately for being clueless as to the extent of his wife's enormous estate. Tell me, what Neocon wouldn't know every facet of his/her assets?
I'm certainly not saying John McCain would be any more attractive a candidate if he were just, say, a regular "old" Conservative instead of a Neocon. I'm just saying, what if?
Advertisement
Yes, I think you are. While I agree that the term neo-conservative is vastly over used (I prefer neo-fascist, myself.) Neo-cons aren't really all that interested in domestic or economic matters.
Theoretically, Neo-conservatives are a variety of neo-Wilsonians who seem to think that the military mite of the USA may be used to create democratic governments and institution in other nations. As Wilson put it: America was "chosen, and prominently chosen, to show the way to the nations of the world how they shall walk in the paths of liberty." It is the ideal of USA exceptionalism, or millennialism.
Wilson, himself, before the end of his presidency came to realize that efforts to project the Presbyterian ideal of a "covenant of grace" onto other nations was fruitless.
It was Irving Kristol, yes, the father of that unintentionally funny guy and Fox propagandist, Billy Kristol, who coined the label neo-conservative.
In reality those neo-cons who came of age rose to positions of influence in the USA federal government during the Reagan administration have been consistently wrong in their international calculations and have actually made the nation less secure. They were up to their necks in the Iran-Contra affair, shipping missiles to Iran, and every other foreign policy debacle since. They promoted the subjugation of Iraq beginning during the early days of the Clinton administration.
Their primary focus through all these years has been to eliminate any Middle Eastern military competition to Israel.
There is much to be learned on the subject through a web search. And while your looking, search the name of Leo Strauss, at whose knee, at the U of Chicago, the likes Wolfowitz and Allan Bloom knelt.
Shadia Drury has researched and extensively written about Strauss, who counseled that to keep the masses in line the "philosophers" of society must always present an enemy to the people and encourage religion amongst them.
Search also for the "Project for the New American Century".
Here's an really interesting profile of Wolfowitz from the Cornell Alumni Magazine a few years back.
September 11, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and I do not consider McCain a neo-con, nor do I consider Bush, Cheney, or Rove neo-cons.
McCain is simply a craven whore, who, in pursuing his presidential aspirations, has embraced the very folks who viciously smeared him and his family during the 2000 republican primary.
But, as Bush said, John, eh, eh, eh, it's only politics.
September 11, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chris:
Good stuff. The "parallel power dynamic" which I've been reading an awful lot about discusses the domestic aims of the Neoconservative movement. Namely, like I was getting at in my above post, it theorizes that the Federal Government may very well be on begging terms with influential private corporations (oil and energy conglomerates) in the not-so-distant future and that any and all Congressional action will get the proverbial Roman thumbs up or thumbs down not from the House or Senate, but from the various Boards of Directors of these companies.
Considering most of the GOP in Washington is already bankrolled by Big Oil, I don't see this prognostication as being much of a leap.
September 11, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the democrats an republicans are both beholden to the same benefactors. As I am fond of saying they are different wings of the same party. Biden carries water for the credit card industry and Dodd carries water for the banking industry, to cite only two examples.
One of the indicators of fascism is the melding of governmental and corporate interests.
September 11, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a "neo-con" but an old con stuck in refighting the Vietnam War.
Old cons hate that Vietnam was "lost" that Korea ended in a "draw" that we didn't definitively "win" Iraq I (the gulf war) and don't want to be blamed for losing another. The rhetoric is the same, the enemy is the same -- "them" -- and the methodology is the same.
When it comes to "old con politics" McCain is a true "artist." Yup, yup, I called him a con artist.
September 11, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, he is not a neo-con ....... but I think Sarah Palin is (as much as she's anything at that level) and would have no hesitation to become one if that's who has power to dole out.
My biggest concern is that whatever forces required McCain to give up the VP choices he wanted will have a lot of say in other decisions that get made if he becomes President. --------
Listen to the Republican convention. McCain was marching to a very different (and more palatable) drum than all of the other speakers that I saw. --- Don't really worry so much about his philosophy as about his temper and impulsiveness. That leaves a lot of room for other folks to gather enormous actual power.
September 11, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, he is not a neo-con ....... but I think Sarah Palin is (as much as she's anything at that level) or at least would have no hesitation to become one if that's who has power to dole out.
September 11, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink