Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

H2O Man

(73,323 posts)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 08:48 AM Jun 2014

A 2016 Question

While the most pressing issue on DU:GD seems to be related to the Prude Pundit and bad words -- including the obsessive-repulsive need of some to sneak in words that are only intended to insult others, and reflect the inability of the user to communicate meaningfully to serious conversation -- I thought it would be fun to talk about something less important.

Older forum members will recall that a group known as the “neoconservatives” gained political power in the Bush-Cheney years. This group had been around for some time, but would have their greatest influence upon American foreign and domestic power from 2001 through 2008. By the end of the Cheney presidency, they were widely held in utter contempt.

Today, a mere six years later, these same neoconservatives are attempting to exploit the religious civil war in Iraq to promote their agenda. Briefly, the neoconservative agenda can be defined as being “liberal” on domestic policy, and hawks on foreign policy. In other words, while they enjoy the benefits of the stratified economic realities of the USA, they like to give lip service to “helping the most needy” in our nation. That is especially true if they get a write-off on their taxes if they make a charitable contribution to ease what they mistake for a conscience.

On foreign policy, they are hawks. They have shown an intense focus on the Middle East in particular, where they have two primary interests: one is supporting the military of a specific country; the other is insuring access to the natural resources of the US, that somehow ended up being placed in the Middle East. The neoconservatives are so interested in protecting US energy interests’ access to our oil there, that they will engage in “perception management” to arouse the anxieties, fears, and hatreds of the American public, and send other people’s sons and daughters to kill or die for access to our oil.

During the past week, the news media -- television in particular -- has featured the same gang of neoconservatives that ruled the Bush administration, advocating for a third military invasion of Iraq. Now, as funny as that may sound, it really isn’t funny at all. Admittedly, it lacks the long-term significance of a Rude Pundit sentence about Dick Cheney and his daughter, but it is still something to consider.

The neoconservatives definitely want to exploit the tragic events in Iraq, to promote the neoconservative agenda. And that includes both this year’s elections, and the upcoming 2016 presidential election.

Several times, during DU:GD discussions about the 2016 contest, if a forum participant voices concerns about Hillary Clinton, one of the responses is that those who do not support her candidacy will help elect a republican snake. For example, a Rand Paul. Now, while I think that this is a weak response, I am sure that we can all agree that Rand Paul should never, ever, be the President of the United States.

Yet, those very discussions raise another question, one I think is both interesting and important. If the 2016 contest is between Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul, who do you think the neoconservatives would favor?

48 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A 2016 Question (Original Post) H2O Man Jun 2014 OP
Hillary. nt alsame Jun 2014 #1
Thank you. H2O Man Jun 2014 #42
I don't think the Iraq war is religious in nature. Laelth Jun 2014 #2
Hillary. Neocons love war and Rand cannot be relied upon to wage war as often as they'd like. Scuba Jun 2014 #3
Hillary. Rand Paul has that crazy streak that makes him unreliable... ms liberty Jun 2014 #4
Honestly -- if Paul remains intellectually honest they would prefer Hillary Armstead Jun 2014 #5
Aside from the fact that I think any hypothetical match-up doesn't offer any SheilaT Jun 2014 #6
Great point. H2O Man Jun 2014 #11
I don't think that's true anymore.... Blanks Jun 2014 #13
You are absolutely right. SheilaT Jun 2014 #14
It looks like Obama raised a little bit more, but... Blanks Jun 2014 #20
Thank you. SheilaT Jun 2014 #36
I am not a neo-conserative by any means but having Rand Paul as a leader is not what the US needs. Thinkingabout Jun 2014 #7
Rand Paul isn't going to get anywhere... Blanks Jun 2014 #8
"they are hawks" ctsnowman Jun 2014 #9
I really don't see smallcat88 Jun 2014 #10
Don't be suprised it they try to steal this election padfun Jun 2014 #15
They're already trying to steal the elections smallcat88 Jun 2014 #16
Don't elect a Republican snake, elect a Democratic snake... EEO Jun 2014 #12
Rand Paul, because he serves Big Oil geek tragedy Jun 2014 #17
so we're going to assume that neoconservatives are sincere and not just spoilers bigtree Jun 2014 #18
Luckily, we don't H2O Man Jun 2014 #24
neocon philosophy exclusively favors republicans; promotes republican values bigtree Jun 2014 #28
Respectfully disagree. H2O Man Jun 2014 #30
neocons aren't progressives or liberals anymore are they? bigtree Jun 2014 #32
NeoCons would favor Hillary Clinton in a heartbeat. Obviously. 2banon Jun 2014 #19
An excellent post Water Man malaise Jun 2014 #21
Good question - TBF Jun 2014 #22
Hillary vs Rand is a neocon wetdream.... daleanime Jun 2014 #23
Respectfully disagree ...... H2O Man Jun 2014 #25
........ daleanime Jun 2014 #33
The leadership of the Neocons? JustAnotherGen Jun 2014 #26
True. H2O Man Jun 2014 #27
See I don't distinguish anymore JustAnotherGen Jun 2014 #29
Thanks. H2O Man Jun 2014 #40
What Captain Kirk said to Nomad. Octafish Jun 2014 #31
Thanks! H2O Man Jun 2014 #41
I don't think it makes a lot of difference. I'm sure there is a preference but it is mostly TheKentuckian Jun 2014 #34
Since your definition of 'neocon' seems to be 'people with power during the Bush admin muriel_volestrangler Jun 2014 #35
Interesting. H2O Man Jun 2014 #37
I was paraphrasing your OP muriel_volestrangler Jun 2014 #38
Sure. Glad to. H2O Man Jun 2014 #39
I don't make that assumption. I learned the hard way that they aren't all Republicans. Raksha Jun 2014 #45
I'm going to take a moment on this if I may - as they say in Congress, 'point of personal privilege' bigtree Jun 2014 #46
Very good. H2O Man Jun 2014 #47
never angry with you - our conversations debating differing opinions bigtree Jun 2014 #48
Speaking of Neo Cons... look at what I just found nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #43
Definitely Hillary. Rand Paul, for all his negatives, is an isolationist. Raksha Jun 2014 #44

Laelth

(32,017 posts)
2. I don't think the Iraq war is religious in nature.
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 09:38 AM
Jun 2014

Sure, the parties are divided along cultural lines, and each culture has its own favored religious attitudes, but what we're seeing in Iraq has more to do with democracy and self-determination than it does with religion.

We wanted citizens of the Middle East to want democracy. Well, now they do. We are getting precisely what we claimed we wanted. The problem is that democracy is not very good at protecting the interests of minorities. Who thought that the majority Shiites in Iraq would protect the interests of minority Sunnis and Kurds? Whomever thought that was a moron. We've been working on our own ability to protect minority interests in the United States since the Civil War. Have we even succeeded yet? How could we expect Iraq, a nation with no history of democratic rule and no practice with democracy, to succeed in protecting minority interests when we, ourselves, with hundreds of years of experience with democracy have failed?

Currently, we are rethinking the value of democracy in the Middle East, and for good reason. It may not work well there. That said, the genie may be out of the bottle, and there may be no going back. If so, I do not envy the President. None of his options look good.

As for the question posed by the OP, I am not terribly concerned about who the neo-cons would favor. Demographics say that the Democratic candidate will win, even if our candidate is Daffy Duck. He're what Daffy would say to the Republicans:



-Laelth

ms liberty

(8,478 posts)
4. Hillary. Rand Paul has that crazy streak that makes him unreliable...
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:00 AM
Jun 2014

And the neocons don't like that. They want either malleable figureheads or practical business partners. Thank you! I was craving a bit of substance after all the empty calories of the word wars!

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
5. Honestly -- if Paul remains intellectually honest they would prefer Hillary
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:06 AM
Jun 2014

If Paul remains true to the roots of his father's ideology, he would be a nightmare for the neo-cons.

He's kind of a snake-oil salesman, so he might decide to change his stripes to court their favor, but if he remains true to the philosophy he and his father claim to espouse, he wold be adamantly opposed to actions like reengaging in Iraq.

Hillary, on the otehr hand.....

 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
6. Aside from the fact that I think any hypothetical match-up doesn't offer any
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:26 AM
Jun 2014

useful way of looking at things, here's another aspect of your question: I know far too many people who call themselves fiscal conservatives and social moderates or liberals. It seems to me as though most of those, when they vote, come down on the side of voting for the more conservative over-all candidate. It's as if they somehow think the social policy will sort itself out just fine. Or that they don't understand (even some gay men I know who are this way) that a person's social attitudes are the true reflection of themselves.

So long as so many people in this country think that all taxes are bad, that the more you make the more you should keep, who do not understand the many social goods that taxes give us, people will vote for the fiscally "conservative" person even when it is totally against their own self interest.

So in my opinion what we may actually be facing in 2016 is not so much candidate A vs candidate B, but which candidate will promise to cut taxes the most, which candidate will be bolstered by wall-to-wall political ads by deep pockets (think the Koch brothers and Bain Capital) who will cleverly craft ads that will make Johnny Six-Pack believe once again that all teachers are evil, that unions are the reason good jobs went away, and so on.

What we here, and Democrats across this country need to be doing is educating the public at large about the real utility of unions, teachers, and taxes.

H2O Man

(73,323 posts)
11. Great point.
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:44 AM
Jun 2014

I think it also is important to think of how our tax dollars will be spent. I'm old enough to remember when LBJ wanted to create the Great Society. He wanted the nation to invest in an effort to end poverty in America. That had great potential. However, the war in Vietnam drained the nation's ability to make that investment. That war cost not only a large amount of money, but it took the lives of thousands of lives, and created a huge divide in our society. The war in Iraq also cost a heck of a lot of money, and maimed and killed thousands of Americans. (Both wars killed lots of "enemies," too, and perhaps more human beings that wanted only to live their lives in their own country.)

Blanks

(4,835 posts)
13. I don't think that's true anymore....
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:46 AM
Jun 2014

The "tax cutting candidate will always win" statement - in the Obama v Romney debates: Obama promised he'd raise taxes and he won.

Clinton promised in '92 that he'd raise taxes - he won. Even Jeb Bush (after the election) pointed out that republicans aren't beholden to Grover Norquist. I'm not sure a majority of Americans believe that raising taxes is inherently bad anymore.

"Deep Pockets always win" isn't true either based on not only the recent Cantor defeat, but the fact that Romney's campaign had more money than Obama's campaign.

 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
14. You are absolutely right.
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:56 AM
Jun 2014

Although I was under the impression that Obama really did have more money than Romney.

However, I want to affirm my essential point (and I'm glad you pointed out how wrong I was in certain recent elections) that we need to re-think how we think about who our candidate should be and how the entire 2016 campaign should be shaped. First of all, we need to wait until after the 2014 general election before we even begin to think about who should be our Presidential nominee two years down the road.

Second, we should think long and hard about the issues that matter the most to us, and those we want to make matter the most to the public at large, especially those who are all too willing to vote against their own self interest. Those voters who hate taxes, teachers, and unions for instance. We need to find ways to get them to understand what they should really be caring about and to vote, where possible, for those who will bring about more positive changes to those issues.

There are lots of other considerations, I'm sure, but at this point to simplify it to Hillary Clinton versus Rand Paul bypasses any genuine complexity and goes straight back to the socially progressive vs fiscally conservative meme that I so distrust.

Blanks

(4,835 posts)
20. It looks like Obama raised a little bit more, but...
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 11:45 AM
Jun 2014

Romney spent a little more. According to this link:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

It was pretty close (spending wise), and it was way too much money. Personally I liked the approach that Ross Perot had - he made a couple of 30 minute TV programs and talked about the issues that were important to him rather than 30 second spots. Clinton probably wouldn't have won had it not been for Perot. Perot also brought some issues to the table that the two established parties wouldn't have discussed.

There should be some effort to promote a tea party candidate (as a libertarian) to split the conservative vote - not just nationally but in tight local or state elections as well. After all the libertarian candidate is just a more radical republican. The democrats could promote a libertarian candidate that is pushing certain 'common sense' issues that draw in republicans which causes the republican candidate to lose.

That's just my two cents worth, but in these dark red states like Idaho and Kansas where voters are disgusted with both parties - that may be the quickest way to turn it blue. Run issue ads against the republican candidate that look like they're supporting the libertarian candidate.

With social media these days a lot of things can be promoted on the cheap and that's an avenue I'd like to see the democrats pursue by connecting with people. I get a lot of emails soliciting money. I know they need money, but I want to see them get more bang for the buck and I just don't believe the successful campaigns of the future are going to be run by the team with the most TV commercials. I think we need to be more clever than that - especially since it seems like fewer and fewer people are watching television.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
7. I am not a neo-conserative by any means but having Rand Paul as a leader is not what the US needs.
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:35 AM
Jun 2014

I followed the works of Ron Paul and in some of the decisions he has been making and I see a trend here. Just as dear old dad Rand will tack on earmarks to a bill he knows is going to pass and vote against the bill and proclaim "I never voted to increase spending".
He is on the wrong side of many things.

Blanks

(4,835 posts)
8. Rand Paul isn't going to get anywhere...
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:37 AM
Jun 2014

He's a republican senator. When was the last time a republican senator (with no other government experience) won the White House.

Think hard - I'm going back to Roosevelt in my mind and can think of none. There's a reason for that - Americans don't understand the legislative branch of the government. A legislators record is too easy to attack. Remember Kerry's response "I was for it before I was against it." This is why the republicans only successfully run governors for president. The conservative demographic will use terms like "pork" but they don't really understand a WHY their senator or representative would vote against the "freedom to farm bill" (just as an example).

If we are gonna start worrying about a republican presidential candidate- look to sitting governors. If they pick another senator - they've lost out of the gate against Daffy Duck.

ctsnowman

(1,903 posts)
9. "they are hawks"
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:39 AM
Jun 2014

As things stand now would support Hillary IMHO. But if by 2016 we are bogged down in a slugfest they could support Rand because his hands would be tied in that area.

smallcat88

(426 posts)
10. I really don't see
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:43 AM
Jun 2014

Rand Paul becoming the GOP candidate in 2016. He's trying to play both sides of the conservative split; traditional and libertarian. Sounds good in theory but the result is he's getting half the people half of the time, and that's just on the right. After two consecutive presidential losses the right still hasn't learned their lesson that they need to attract more centrist voters. There's actually talk of running with Romney again! And short of a miracle white knight magically appearing they have no one who stands a good chance against Hillary. Even the neoconservatives don't know who they favor, they'll just vote for whoever their party ends up running.

padfun

(1,780 posts)
15. Don't be suprised it they try to steal this election
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 11:17 AM
Jun 2014

There will be a lot on the line in 2016, especially with the age of the SCOTUS. The wealthy backers know this so there will be LOTS of money thrown in this election, some of it under the table to sleazy operatives.

They will do their damnedest to win this one. I think the Dems need to be very diligent on watching what is going on.

smallcat88

(426 posts)
16. They're already trying to steal the elections
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 11:28 AM
Jun 2014

with all the gerrymandering and voter restriction laws. Not to mention the 2000 election Bush stole with the help of his daddy's cronies on SCOTUS. And oh yeah, his brother in Florida, one of the now possible contenders for 2016. We all need to be diligent in watching what's going on!

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
17. Rand Paul, because he serves Big Oil
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 11:32 AM
Jun 2014

which is what they really care about.

Also, Paul has no trouble with drones being used on guys who rob liquor stores, so his commitment to fighting unrestrained government violence is a myth.

bigtree

(85,917 posts)
18. so we're going to assume that neoconservatives are sincere and not just spoilers
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 11:40 AM
Jun 2014

. . . not embryologically aligned with republicans and not just faux populists who never vote for policies that actually help anyone, save their wealthy republican allies.

Paul is all about the populist head fake. All roads from Paul lead back to the republican party. That's not the case with Hillary Clinton.

Besides, I think Paul is just a stalking horse for republican ambitions to cynically divide off Democrats from our party's coalition with ideological protests which do little more than disrupt progress and stall reforms; much like the Paulites did with health reform and the budget ceiling.

It's impossible to take neocons or Paul seriously, because their philosophy argues against democratic change and seeks an almost autocratic rule (so long as its a republican one).

It's interesting that you've used neocons to draw similarities between Clinton and Paul. The origins of the neocon movement was from the left; from folks fed up with coalition politics and sought a way to dismiss consensus government which stood in the way of their ambitions, much like Paul's political game.

Hillary Clinton is a coalition politician who advances her initiatives by consensus.

But, more importantly, neoconservativism has proven itself to be an intellectually hypocritical and dishonest philosophy and its zeal for getting whatever it wants betrays a cravenness. They oppose any Obama intervention overseas, but work overtime to promote an evil axis intervention abroad. They oppose social adjustments to the tax rate to advantage working families, but favor tax adjustments to advantage the wealthy.

In all, for the right and left over history, neoconservatism has been little more than a protest against whatever establishment initiative they disagree with and has been a divisive tool to splinter party coalitions and tear down barriers for what they hope to accomplish.

Since the early seventies, neoconservatism has been the sole refuge of anti-democratic pols who believe they can dissolve the constructions of mostly Democratic legislative coalitions and Democratic presidents by dismissing constitutional reforms by hollering about original intent and the like. It's a transparent exercise to cloak their disruptive politics in populism; ignoring bipartisan progress and hoping to just collapse the constructions legislators have used to keep government responsible and vital to programs like education, health, justice, war . . .

As to your question, I'd have to believe that Paul fits their intellectually dishonest desire to remove every government construction that doesn't suit their narrow, mostly conservative, agenda, more than Hillary Clinton could ever be counted on for their cynical politics of destruction, division, and anti-democratic disruption of the political process.

H2O Man

(73,323 posts)
24. Luckily, we don't
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 12:27 PM
Jun 2014

have to assume anything. We can look at the history of neoconservatives. We can think back to Joe Lieberman, who was a registered democrat most of his career (and offered the neoconservatives hope, even if Gore was allowed the victory he achieved -- though Cheney opened the door to many more neoconservatives), or consider the other democrats who are, by definition, neoconservatives.

bigtree

(85,917 posts)
28. neocon philosophy exclusively favors republicans; promotes republican values
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 12:42 PM
Jun 2014

I think Rand Paul embodies all of that, and its reflected in the support he's received.

Hillary Clinton espouses the politics of the majority polled in the Democratic party, and that's also reflected in her support from a majority of Democrats polled when considering potential presidential candidates. She practices coalition politics, which neocons eschew.


H2O Man

(73,323 posts)
30. Respectfully disagree.
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 12:58 PM
Jun 2014

Neoconservatives are who they are; as tempting as it may be to pretend it's an exclusively republican illness, that is without any question untrue.

bigtree

(85,917 posts)
32. neocons aren't progressives or liberals anymore are they?
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 01:16 PM
Jun 2014

The movement was born out of a frustration with war and discrimination which the political system coveted and defended at the time. Neo conservatism was a protest against the status quo.

Modern day conservatives have completely co-opted that ground to promote and defend conservative ambitions, like PNAC. Where you seem to be drawing analogies between Democrats and neocons are on issues where some Democrats have aligned with them on some initiatives.

Others, like Lieberman are simply faux Democrats, running under our Democratic banner, but voting on most impportant issues with republicans- more like neopubs than true members of the self-defined neocons who are exclusively republican and vote exclusively with republicans.

What Democratic-oriented issues do you find that neocons support? I can't think of any. I can't imagine any neocon movement to support any primarily Democratic initiative. None.

I understand that some Democrats align with neocons on some issues; but some Democrats like Manchin, Landrieu, Lieberman are just republicans in Democratic clothing.

Hillary Clinton's record doesn't resemble any of the democrats' who I would define as neopubs, and I think that's reflected in the support she's receiving in polling from all left spectrums of the party.

 

2banon

(7,321 posts)
19. NeoCons would favor Hillary Clinton in a heartbeat. Obviously.
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 11:41 AM
Jun 2014

Rand Paul is against the ME Invasion/Involvement

Thanks for making our point very, very succinctly. And Well Done!

TBF

(31,921 posts)
22. Good question -
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 11:52 AM
Jun 2014

Hillary is obviously the candidate of choice for the status quo this time. I don't think it could be more apparent. Now, whether her health will hold up is a factor (she would be the age of Reagan when assuming office).

At least we know she is decent on civil rights issues which puts her ahead of Rmoney and the like ... but she is definitely status quo.

Rand Paul will likely run as Repug or Indy but I don't know if the repugs really trust him. He's pretty out there like his dad. I don't think that he really has a chance. To answer more directly they would pick Hillary.

daleanime

(17,796 posts)
23. Hillary vs Rand is a neocon wetdream....
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 11:55 AM
Jun 2014

Last edited Sat Jun 21, 2014, 01:39 PM - Edit history (1)

if they manager to force us to choose between the two of them, they would be washing their sheets every night.

H2O Man

(73,323 posts)
25. Respectfully disagree ......
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 12:30 PM
Jun 2014

I've seen no evidence of sheet-washing on the neoconservatives' part. But I'd agree that many in the republican party do have an association with sheets.

JustAnotherGen

(31,681 posts)
26. The leadership of the Neocons?
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 12:38 PM
Jun 2014

Or the people who would vote for Rand?

Rand is a master of the dog whistle - Give me a welfare queen. Give me an illegal immigrant. Give me a Praise Juesus. Give me a Willie Horton. Give me an anti abortion!

And there ya go! All ideals about not imposing our will on the rest of the world will go out the window and the people will go vote for him.

He will probably say all this with the Duck Dynasty guys standing behind him and Sister Sarah Alaskastan wrapped in an American Flag.

Those people are "simple" - they will vote for him. Just simple. It's the bad ones who will vote for a Jeb.

H2O Man

(73,323 posts)
27. True.
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 12:41 PM
Jun 2014

All that is as important as it is true. However, those issues relate closely to the tea party, but have nothing to do with neoconservatism.

JustAnotherGen

(31,681 posts)
29. See I don't distinguish anymore
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 12:52 PM
Jun 2014

That side over there - they all have to own their hate.


Paul Ryan was a standard every day student of the Neocon - and then he spouted off nonsense about black men/boys.

They are all one now.

That's my perspective. I don't distinguish. They started it. The otherism. Now they have to live with someone over on the left who thinks those people are all the same.

What's the difference between Reagan in 1976, Bush in 1988 and anyone on the Right in 2016? Not a damn thing!

H2O Man

(73,323 posts)
40. Thanks.
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 08:30 PM
Jun 2014

I can see why any sane person would group the republicans currently in Washington, DC, into a single cluster. And there is a lot of truth to that view.

Four nights ago, I did a public presentation in a small town in upstate New York. There were sixty-some people there to hear me talk about the human relationship with the environment. Small potatoes, I know, though the organization that hosted it said it was the largest turn-out they had ever had.

About a third of those people were registered republicans. While I'm speculating, I don't think any were tea partiers or neoconservatives. Just common, ordinary folks who were interested enough in what I had to say to come out that evening. Most of the people there tend to work in one of two local employers' businesses; live in the same neighborhoods, in the same types of houses; send their children to the same school; drive the same types of vehicles; shop in the same grocery stores; and on and on.

Hence, I tend to view the democrats and republicans in that community as having more in common with one another, than either group has in common with any elected official in Washington, DC. They are more likely, for example, to meet each other at a picnic, than they are to sit down and break bread with any politician in Washington.

During the second Iraq invasion, that community buried a couple of its sons, who had been killed in the war. I remember one of those funerals quite well. Families with adults registered in either of the parties attended. I had the opportunity to talk with the now adult friend of one of the boys killed in Iraq before I spoke. He said that it pisses him off that there are forces attempting to get the US to invade again. He noted that it is the kids from town's like his that do the fighting.

I don't want any other American kids being sent to kill or be killed in a war that has nothing to do with national security. What's happening today in Iraq is a religious civil war, and it is tragic. But I'm opposed to any politician who advocates involving our military in it. And I'm against any political ideology that lobbies Washington to become militarily involved.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
31. What Captain Kirk said to Nomad.
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 01:13 PM
Jun 2014

KIRK: Then you will continue to destroy that which thinks and lives and is imperfect?



KIRK: We've got to get rid of it while it's trying to think.

TheKentuckian

(24,943 posts)
34. I don't think it makes a lot of difference. I'm sure there is a preference but it is mostly
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 02:32 PM
Jun 2014

a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation.

They probably overall feel Hillary to be more broadly reliable but know there is expanded risk of having to compromise in certain areas because she has a constituency that is substantially opposed to their agenda but have proven for a couple of decades that they are easily herded.

However, they are also tuned in and as such aware that Paul isn't as he wants to present and is actually a regular ass TeaPubliKlan that plays a libertarian on TV for marketing and branding purposes. Not that being a Libertarian is a good thing but Rand Paul pretty consistently goes with regular when it is a choice between what he plays and what he is.

In fact, the Libertarian shtick is mostly just a way to transfer juice and brand recognition from his father and to provide some kind of excuse for his more heinous positions that can't be sold any other way in polite company.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,153 posts)
35. Since your definition of 'neocon' seems to be 'people with power during the Bush admin
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 05:06 PM
Jun 2014

who have turned up again to say "fight in the Middle East"', this seems to be Cheney, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Feith(!), Kristol, and people with that outlook. I'd dispute that they are '“liberal” on domestic policy' or that 'they like to give lip service to “helping the most needy” in our nation'. I also don't think it's that important who they favour in 2016. For all that the media is keen on giving them a platform, they don't seem to be power brokers inside the Republican party these days. Even if they did have a choice of Hillary and Rand and preferred her, I can't see them persuading many Republicans to vote for Hillary.

H2O Man

(73,323 posts)
37. Interesting.
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 05:30 PM
Jun 2014

The definition of "neoconservative" in your post isn't mine, as most people who have responded understood. Mine is different than your's.

Thanks!

muriel_volestrangler

(101,153 posts)
38. I was paraphrasing your OP
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 05:57 PM
Jun 2014

Which parts are you saying I've misinterpreted? Can you give an specific example of a person you are referring to as a neocon?

In particular, you said "During the past week, the news media -- television in particular -- has featured the same gang of neoconservatives that ruled the Bush administration, advocating for a third military invasion of Iraq."

H2O Man

(73,323 posts)
39. Sure. Glad to.
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 08:09 PM
Jun 2014

A good example would be post #24, which is response to Friend BigTree's post #18. He had mistakenly identified neoconservatives as a republican identity. As I pointed out there -- correctly -- people such as Joe Lieberman, a democrat most of his career, was a neoconservative all of his career. More, he is far from the only Democrat in DC to be one.

In order to understand neoconservatism, one has to understand its roots. As Taylor Branch documents in his classic "At Canaan's Edge: America in the King Years 1965-68" (Simon & Schuster; 2006), the neoconservative movement began with a fracturing of the Socialist Party as the result of the Six Day War. Max Schactman, a Polish-born American, was the founding member of the movement. Michael Harrington, who broke with Shactman over the Vietnam war, actually coined the term "neoconservative."

It is important, I think, to understand who the neoconservatives are, including where they come from, in order to fully appreciate where they seek to take this nation. It is a serious mistake to assume that they are all republicans -- even if that party has provided a better vehicle for their agenda in recent years. Likewise, it is a serious error to identify them as belonging to any one religion, or ethnic group.

With a proper understanding, one can view the make-up of the House of Representatives and the Senate in a different, often more accurate way, than with simplistic labels such as democrat or republican, liberal or conservative. And that applies to a wide group of people who are currently advocating the US again invade Iraq. Surely, the group you identified includes several from the Bush-Cheney administration; however, there were others in Congress who not only allowed that second invasion to happen, but were in strong support of Bush-Cheney's military aggression.

Raksha

(7,167 posts)
45. I don't make that assumption. I learned the hard way that they aren't all Republicans.
Sun Jun 22, 2014, 02:06 AM
Jun 2014

Re "It is a serious mistake to assume that they are all republicans -- even if that party has provided a better vehicle for their agenda in recent years."

Re "Likewise, it is a serious error to identify them as belonging to any one religion, or ethnic group."

True, but it makes me puke that so many of them do. Anti-Semitism is far from dead, and the rest of us have to take the heat for the neocons even when we hate everything they stand for.

Doesn't change the fact that Bush and Cheney aren't Jewish...thank heaven for small favors!

bigtree

(85,917 posts)
46. I'm going to take a moment on this if I may - as they say in Congress, 'point of personal privilege'
Sun Jun 22, 2014, 03:26 AM
Jun 2014

Most everyone can see that the neocon agenda isn't a modern-day Democratic agenda. Yes, our party has a handful of legislators who regularly vote republican on important issues. But that doesn't make that neoconservative agenda a bipartisan one; no more than progressiveness is a republican trait just because some GOP legislator happens to vote for a Democratic initiative.

Now, from a progressive pov, neoconservatism is republicanism. For the vast majority of the Democratic party, neoconservatism is republicanism. I'm sure neocons would like to claim that theirs is a popular and intermingling philosophy, but it is one that is rejected wholesale by the majority of our party.

I suppose the argument could be correctly made that the two military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan have snared a good many Democrats into the web of justifications about spreading democracy and freedom behind the very brand of militarism modern-day neocons espouse. They've had success in maintaining those glaring examples of their nation-building, fake democracy-erecting military misadventures, but, that influence and acquiescence from Democrats has been on the wane since 2007.

Support from Democrats for almost every neoconservative-friendly impulse to war since 2007 has either been pared back or has been abandoned. The party has been collectively steadfast against republican economic initiatives favored by the neoconservatives, as well.

But your inference isn't something that can't be measured. You've supposed that Hillary Clinton could appeal to neoconservatives. Consider her voting record provided by the Left Coaster:

1.1 Consistent with observations (and caveats) in Part 1 of this series, outside of national security and war, Sen. Clinton gets high-to-very-high progressive scores almost across the board. In short, her voting history reflects a very high consistency of voting with a majority of the most progressive Senators in Congress across a multitude of issues - especially those concerning corporate interests. This does not, in any way, mean that she never voted badly - of course she has done so, but on the whole she voted far more in sync with the most progressive members of Congress than otherwise . . .

1.2 When we look at the overall Progressive Punch score for Sen. Clinton, it is apparent that on the whole, she voted more progressively and more in sync with the most progressive Democrats in the Senate (92%) than did Sen. Obama (90%). Now, granted there is likely to be some noise in the data - so, let's be somewhat conservative in our assessment and say that she was at least as progressive overall in her voting pattern as Sen. Obama.

1.3 Although the Far Right would love to try and make Sen. Lieberman and Sen. Clinton seem like twins separated at birth, Sen. Lieberman's voting record is nothing like Sen. Clinton's in the majority of categories. Sen. Lieberman broke with the most progressive Senators far more frequently than Sen. Clinton did and voted with the GOP far more frequently than Sen. Clinton did. Clearly, we can't look at his voting record and conclude that he has a "solid" progressive record overall. For example, on labor rights he is at 58% to Sen. Clinton's 91% progressive score according to Progressive Punch.

On corporate subsidies he is at 67% to Sen. Clinton's 100% progressive score. On war and peace his progressive score is at an abysmal 48% (more than 1 in 2 votes with the GOP and against the most progressive Democrats!) compared to Sen. Clinton's 80% - which in turn is just slightly lower than Sen. Obama's (86%) scores on war and peace. Indeed, on human rights and civil liberties, Sen. Clinton has the highest score at 82%, slightly ahead of Sen. Obama (77%).

view the tables here: http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011142.php


Rand Paul, as you acknowledge above, is little more than an opportunist who sometimes advocates for his own brand of faux progressiveness; but votes like a republican. That's all the republican party requires; that their members adhere to their strategy of obstruction and obstinacy.

Paul's special brand or populist head-fakery is perfect for the Ryan/Cruz republican whose politics thrives on chaos and anarchic obstruction to thwart the will of the majority in Congress.

Now, where would the republican party-oriented philosophy find a reliable or even friendly alliance from a Democrat like Hillary Clinton who scores 80% or higher with progressive groups - groups who measure that support from total voting records, rather than anecdotal judgments based on one issue or the other? The comparison and inference strains credulity.

H2O Man

(73,323 posts)
47. Very good.
Sun Jun 22, 2014, 10:30 AM
Jun 2014

I'd like to start with a link to another thread, that provides us with some interesting information:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025134361

I could, of course, say that I did not actually say "that Hillary Clinton could appeal to neoconservatives." That I just asked who DUers thought neoconservatives would favor, if the race was between her and Rand Paul. Even quote Socrates: "Don't get angry with me, just because I ask questions." But you and I both know that you know why I asked that. (Plus, you don't get angry at me; you just like a good debate!)

The world is a big place. Within the republican party, there are those such as John McCain, who want the US to respond militarily everywhere. It is sad to see a once honorable man reduced to what McCain is today. However, what he is, is distinct from a neoconservative, as they are focused on the control of one specific region of the globe.

Thus, what is important when considering Clinton's appeal to neoconservatives is region-specific. If she is for non-military approaches in 80% of the time, that is only important in this context to if those include the region the neoconservatives are obsessed with. Likewise, if McCain is in favor of bombing 98% of the world, that doesn't make him a super-neocon; it makes him a mad man.

bigtree

(85,917 posts)
48. never angry with you - our conversations debating differing opinions
Sun Jun 22, 2014, 12:39 PM
Jun 2014

. . . have only the most respectful personalizations, if any. That's a rarity for folks who sometimes have such drastic differences of opinion. The focus on issues brings understanding in along with the advocacy and that's a priceless thing.

I read the article on Kagan you linked to with great interest. I'm not unfamiliar with the Kagans, having followed their careers and efforts since they first advocated along with the 'Committee to Liberate Iraq'.

I laughed out loud at Kagan's expressing how 'comfortable' he feels with Hillary Clinton's foreign policy. He and his brother are described in the article as 'taking considerable pains to describe their advocacy as broadly bipartisan'.

I'm laughing again, because this is the mark of the neocon efforts to legitimize their brand of interventionism which uses any foot in the door to expand what is really an authoritarian agenda. Think Bush on steroids. There aren't any limits to where they believe American power should be used to leverage American influence and interests abroad.

The damage that 9-11 did to what Kagan describes as 'realists' like Pres. Obama in the Democratic party was force them to choose between what Bush was exploiting and conflating as defense of our 'national security' and the party's modern tendency to reject overriding appeals to militarism.

It was a casualty of those attacks on the nation that the anxiety for Americans to 'do something' brought with it a co-opting of the neocon's interventionism by many Democrats to avoid looking 'weak' or obstinate to the defense of the nation. That majority of acquiescing Democrats gave the Kagans and other self-professed neocons the platform for their nonsense and the talking point that, hey, look, the other side is doing it too.

Not much excuse for legislators who didn't find their backbones early on in that neoconservative bid to use 9-11 as pretext to invade Iraq with talk of 'dominoes' and an evil axis, but the progress of war, and the evidence of the folly of continuing indefinitely; and the realization of the limits of the efficacy of U.S. military force has tempered and reversed most of the impetus to follow neoconservatives all the way down.

What we are fighting right now with Democratic legislators is the temptation for them to start down that road again. In many ways, you can see the remnants of the neocon argument about the need to 'do something' in the way that President Obama split the difference between what neocons wanted in Afghanistan and ended up sacrificing more troops defending the political seat in Kabul than Bush did retaliating for 9-11 - then the pullback and resignation of an imperfect end.

The neocon philosophy of military intervention is evidenced in the one foot in, the other out, decisions Pres. Obama made on Syria, and, now they're lingering on in the recent deployments back to Iraq in an effort to interject just a fraction of the neocon's wishes there, but still holding on to the neocon notion that there's some imperative to the use of military force in Iraq that outweighs the counterproductive effect.

I was especially interested in this passage in the article:

Inside the Obama White House, Mr. Kagan is viewed, said one former top official, as a “gentleman,” whose perspective is sought out because of his excellent grasp of history. But there is also a feeling that he dangerously glosses over the devastating effect of the war in Iraq, and that American force, when unsuccessful, undermines rather than advances American security and the global order.

At an intimate fund-raiser for Democratic Senate candidates in May at the Upper East Side home of the financier Blair Effron, Mr. Obama became animated when answering a question about his foreign policy. He said calls from hawks like Senator John McCain for American intervention in Syria and other global hot spots weres grossly irresponsible, according to one attendee. The president added that the entire notion that America undergirded global order through a broad use of force was a dangerous fallacy.


I think Pres. Obama's sentiment expressed in the article points up the difficulty in separating what policy or personnel decisions Hillary Clinton might have made as president from what efforts she made on behalf of the wishes of the CiC. Remember, though, it was Pres. Obama's decision to retain a bevy of top players from the Bush era foreign policy, military, and intelligence misadventures, not Clinton's.

It's a hope and a prayer for the Kagans and their friends that the next president will open the door for their neocon adventurism, but there is a new and determined effort from legislators concerned with the overreach and misappropriation of resources and manpower to strike a balance in responding to external threats to U.S. interests abroad with more reliance on an international and regional response with the U.S. involvement and intervention tied to a firm set of principles that recognize the limits of our military forces in effecting these political goals.

In that ideological struggle within the Democratic party, Kagan and his neocons are still widely discredited; even though there is still a reflexive fealty from party members to their squawking whenever something blows up.

I will acknowledge the struggle to cement those principles of restraint into recognizable and reliable policy, but the restraint and skepticism from Democrats like Pres. Obama and the 'realist' approach of our emerging Democratic coalition, is a significant difference from 'stay 100 years' advocates who represent what neocons are really pushing for.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
43. Speaking of Neo Cons... look at what I just found
Sun Jun 22, 2014, 01:35 AM
Jun 2014

by doing a search...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

I thought it was gone.

Especially the younger ones, read the list of signers...

PROJECT PARTICIPANTS
Roger Barnett
U.S. Naval War College
Alvin Bernstein
National Defense University
Stephen Cambone
National Defense University
Eliot Cohen
Nitze School of Advanced International
Studies, Johns Hopkins University
Devon Gaffney Cross
Donors' Forum for International Affairs
Thomas Donnelly
Project for the New American Century
David Epstein
Office of Secretary of Defense,
Net Assessment
David Fautua
Lt. Col., U.S. Army
Dan Goure
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Donald Kagan
Yale University
Fred Kagan
U. S. Military Academy at West Point
Robert Kagan
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Robert Killebrew
Col., USA (Ret.)
William Kristol
The Weekly Standard
Mark Lagon
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
James Lasswell
GAMA Corporation
I. Lewis Libby
Dechert Price & Rhoads
Robert Martinage
Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessment
Phil Meilinger
U.S. Naval War College
Mackubin Owens
U.S. Naval War College
Steve Rosen
Harvard University
Gary Schmitt
Project for the New American Century
Abram Shulsky
The RAND Corporation
Michael Vickers
Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessment
Barry Watts
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Paul Wolfowitz
Nitze School of Advanced International
Studies, Johns Hopkins University
Dov Zakheim
System Planning Corporation
The above list of individuals participated in at least one project meeting or contributed a paper for
discussion. The report is a product solely of the Project for the New American Century and does not
necessarily represent the views of the project participants or their affiliated institutions.

Oh and I forgot... seeing this list of luminaries, can I say a few bad words? Oh and the website is gone, which is unfortunate since it included a certain name exploring a run... the other, other, Bush (Jeb)

Raksha

(7,167 posts)
44. Definitely Hillary. Rand Paul, for all his negatives, is an isolationist.
Sun Jun 22, 2014, 01:55 AM
Jun 2014

Hillary is anything but, and she is also a neocon hawk, although I guess in her case "neoliberal" would be more appropriate. Not all of them have an R after their names.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A 2016 Question