Let's impeach the president.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Would you be willing to give your definition of "neo-con"? I'm curious as to what different folks think it means. I first heard the word in 1985 from my 9th grade World History teacher and it seems to have undergone quite an evolution.

Beemnseven's definition of Neo-co:

"Neo" meaning 'new'; con, short for conservative. I believe it represents a recent shift in the philosophy of conservatism, specifically in the area of foreign policy. It used to be that conservatives were against foreign entanglements (Bob Taft was against the formation of NATO), intervening in foreign affairs (it was Wilson and the Democrats who were in favor of getting into WWI). Now, they seem content with interventionism of virtually any kind, and some go so far as to call it American Imperialism. In any case, they have dropped the isolationist banner that used to belong to them. There could be shifts in philosophy in some domestic issues as well, but it's my belief that the Republican Party and the country as a whole is slowly tilting towards Socialism.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Beemnseven's definition of Neo-co:

"Neo" meaning 'new'; con, short for conservative. I believe it represents a recent shift in the philosophy of conservatism, specifically in the area of foreign policy. It used to be that conservatives were against foreign entanglements (Bob Taft was against the formation of NATO), intervening in foreign affairs (it was Wilson and the Democrats who were in favor of getting into WWI). Now, they seem content with interventionism of virtually any kind, and some go so far as to call it American Imperialism. In any case, they have dropped the isolationist banner that used to belong to them. There could be shifts in philosophy in some domestic issues as well, but it's my belief that the Republican Party and the country as a whole is slowly tilting towards Socialism.

The problem with your def is that you have conservative and the Rep as one in the same and they are not. Thats one of the reasons they lost so many seats last election is that the conservative base is ticked and wanted to make a statement. Consevatives feel that the Rep party has moved to far to the left and the party has abanded them. Also people get conservatives and the far right religous people mixed together as they may share some basic ideas main stream conservatives don't go that far to the right.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by firstdown

The problem with your def is that you have conservative and the Rep as one in the same and they are not. Thats one of the reasons they lost so many seats last election is that the conservative base is ticked and wanted to make a statement. Consevatives feel that the Rep party has moved to far to the left and the party has abanded them. Also people get conservatives and the far right religous people mixed together as they may share some basic ideas main stream conservatives don't go that far to the right.

Certainly conservative does not equal Republican, particularly today. But I think it's fair to say that there were more conservatives in the Republican Party 50 - 100 years ago than there are today.

And I agree, the 'Religious Right' are not conservatives, at least in the traditional sense, even though they like to call themselves that. I prefer to call them big-government, nanny-state authoritarian thugs.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

But I think it's fair to say that there were more conservatives in the Republican Party 50 - 100 years ago than there are today.

I'm going ot have to go ahead and disagree with you a little here. I suppose it depends on how you define "Conservative", but if you apply the generally accepted usage, conservatives were not considered mainstream in the GOP until at least the Carter Admin.

Lincoln, not a conservative. Ditto T.R. and Milhouse. Ike worked very hard behind the scenes to destroy Joe McCarthy. I would say conservative ascendency began with the founding of National Review in the 50's and did not crest until 1980. But, again, it depends on your defenition.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

There could be shifts in philosophy in some domestic issues as well, but it's my belief that the Republican Party and the country as a whole is slowly tilting towards Socialism.

Wow...I don't see that at all.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Wow...I don't see that at all.

Here are just a few of my reasons for that statement...

-- Polls suggest that somewhere between 65-70% of the American people believe there should be a nationalized health care in some form.

-- Bush's call for the privatization of a portion of everyone's Social Security in an investment account went absolutely nowhere. Most Americans want the government to handle their retirement account. I find that unbelievable.

-- An apparent zeal from the American public to call for price controls or taxes on "windfall profits" from oil companies. When the People think it's just fine and dandy for someone to be called in front of Congress to answer for their profits, that's pretty scary -- and very socialistic.

Since the Republicans are in the business of getting elected, it's hard for them to hold true to their conservative-libertarian philosophies (assuming they ever truly existed in the GOP) when the people are leaning the way they are. So now, they are forced to follow suit.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Polls suggest that somewhere between 65-70% of the American people believe there should be a nationalized health care in some form.

Yes, and for a good reason too. Health care in this country is very expensive and for what? It's certainly not because we have the best health care, especially when compared with developed nations that do have national health care. Yes, we have the best doctors in the world but not everyone can afford them. Certainly not your average Joe. Anyone who has health problem in this nation will most certainly go into a financial hole. Someone declaring bankruptcy because they can't cover their health care costs doesn't sound right to me.

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

-- Bush's call for the privatization of a portion of everyone's Social Security in an investment account went absolutely nowhere. Most Americans want the government to handle their retirement account. I find that unbelievable.

Social Security is a safety net not an investment program. There is a reason why as you get older you move your money to safer investments. This money is primarily intended for the old and disabled. It is intended for those who have the least and those can not generate (livable) income. If you want to privatize social security, why not get rid of it all together? I mean, you might as well have people manage their own funds. Of course there are issues like what happens to your employer's SS match? I'm sorry but privatization is not the answer. The gap between the haves and havenots will only grow.

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

-- An apparent zeal from the American public to call for price controls or taxes on "windfall profits" from oil companies. When the People think it's just fine and dandy for someone to be called in front of Congress to answer for their profits, that's pretty scary -- and very socialistic.

Since the Republicans are in the business of getting elected, it's hard for them to hold true to their conservative-libertarian philosophies (assuming they ever truly existed in the GOP) when the people are leaning the way they are. So now, they are forced to follow suit.

What's wrong with price control, or rather examining excessive profits? The United States successfully utilize price and wage control during war time. Left to their own devices corporations will seek to maximize profits at the expense of consumers and the competition. For that reason there are valid economic motivation for outlawing cartels and monopolies. It's simply isn't good for the economy in the long run. Looking at the profits generated by the oil companies, it pretty clear they are taking advantage of the public.

Finlay, the role of the government is to administrate the nation's affairs, this includes looking out for the people first and foremost.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

Yes, and for a good reason too. Health care in this country is very expensive and for what? It's certainly not because we have the best health care, especially when compared with developed nations that do have national health care. Yes, we have the best doctors in the world but not everyone can afford them. Certainly not your average Joe. Anyone who has health problem in this nation will most certainly go into a financial hole. Someone declaring bankruptcy because they can't cover their health care costs doesn't sound right to me.




Social Security is a safety net not an investment program. There is a reason why as you get older you move your money to safer investments. This money is primarily intended for the old and disabled. It is intended for those who have the least and those can not generate (livable) income. If you want to privatize social security, why not get rid of it all together? I mean, you might as well have people manage their own funds. Of course there are issues like what happens to your employer's SS match? I'm sorry but privatization is not the answer. The gap between the haves and havenots will only grow.



What's wrong with price control, or rather examining excessive profits? The United States successfully utilize price and wage control during war time. Left to their own devices corporations will seek to maximize profits at the expense of consumers and the competition. For that reason there are valid economic motivation for outlawing cartels and monopolies. It's simply isn't good for the economy in the long run. Looking at the profits generated by the oil companies, it pretty clear they are taking advantage of the public.

Finlay, the role of the government is to administrate the nation's affairs, this includes looking out for the people first and foremost.

See this is outstanding. I totally disgaree with you on about everything you said in response to Beem but I think it is great discussion now because it really highlights the difference between liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism by it's nature wants society to rely upon each other. It espouses a sort of "it takes a village" mentality. True conservatives want none of that. They want every person to stand on their own and rely only upon themselves. I might add that the "it takes a village mentality" is a sort of socialism and history has shown that socialism does not work. Socialsim may work on paper but when applied empirically it has always led to poverty, apathy an eventually totalitarianism.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

See this is outstanding. I totally disgaree with you on about everything you said in response to Beem but I think it is great discussion now because it really highlights the difference between liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism by it's nature wants society to rely upon each other. It espouses a sort of "it takes a village" mentality. True conservatives want none of that. They want every person to stand on their own and rely only upon themselves. I might add that the "it takes a village mentality" is a sort of socialism and history has shown that socialism does not work. Socialsim may work on paper but when applied empirically it has always led to poverty, apathy an eventually totalitarianism.

Is providing "free" public schooling socialism?

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

See this is outstanding. I totally disgaree with you on about everything you said in response to Beem but I think it is great discussion now because it really highlights the difference between liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism by it's nature wants society to rely upon each other. It espouses a sort of "it takes a village" mentality. True conservatives want none of that. They want every person to stand on their own and rely only upon themselves. I might add that the "it takes a village mentality" is a sort of socialism and history has shown that socialism does not work. Socialsim may work on paper but when applied empirically it has always led to poverty, apathy an eventually totalitarianism.

Well, I would argue there has never been a truly succesful libertarian state in history. The world's most succesful societies have managed to balance market based capitalism within a government sponsored socialistic framework - this country is no exception. I know people from Sweden and they are not poor, not apathetical, and not subject to totalitarianism.

I would say that pretty much all of northern Europe belies your final point as well.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by saden1

Yes, and for a good reason too. Health care in this country is very expensive and for what? It's certainly not because we have the best health care, especially when compared with developed nations that do have national health care. Yes, we have the best doctors in the world but not everyone can afford them. Certainly not your average Joe. Anyone who has health problem in this nation will most certainly go into a financial hole. Someone declaring bankruptcy because they can't cover their health care costs doesn't sound right to me.




Social Security is a safety net not an investment program. There is a reason why as you get older you move your money to safer investments. This money is primarily intended for the old and disabled. It is intended for those who have the least and those can not generate (livable) income. If you want to privatize social security, why not get rid of it all together? I mean, you might as well have people manage their own funds. Of course there are issues like what happens to your employer's SS match? I'm sorry but privatization is not the answer. The gap between the haves and havenots will only grow.



What's wrong with price control, or rather examining excessive profits? The United States successfully utilize price and wage control during war time. Left to their own devices corporations will seek to maximize profits at the expense of consumers and the competition. For that reason there are valid economic motivation for outlawing cartels and monopolies. It's simply isn't good for the economy in the long run. Looking at the profits generated by the oil companies, it pretty clear they are taking advantage of the public.

Finlay, the role of the government is to administrate the nation's affairs, this includes looking out for the people first and foremost.

On health care, there is no doubt the system we have in the United States isn't perfect. But if your only solution is for the government to assume control of it, it will get far worse, not better. Don't believe me? Ask just about any veteran about VA hospitals. Didn't we learn anything about the fiasco at Walter Reed? That's just the latest example of what can happen with government-run health care.

Go to your local post office and ask yourself if that's the environment you'd like to find yourself in when it's time to visit the doctor. With nationalized health care, you should expect all the compassion of the IRS, and the efficiency of FEMA.

Social Security -- all it has ever done is create dependency. Over the long haul, private investments through the stock market have consistently out-performed the return on social security. And the government gets to decide at what age your entitled to it, the rate at which they can send it to you, and thanks to Clinton/Gore, they can tax you AGAIN on the payments you receive. Then when you die, all the money you've paid into it for your whole life goes to the government, not your family. Sure, it's a safety net. But a really bad one. If the people had that money to save and invest as they saw fit, they'd be in an infinitely better situation.

Price controls/windfall profits tax -- what do you think will happen with the price of gas when the government takes more of the profits from oil companies and their shareholders? The price will go up. There is no better economic system than when a business owner or corporation is motivated by seeking maximum profits on the products or services they provide. When that happens the consumers get better quality. As an aside, do you believe the quality of a product is better when it's free? Or when the person behind that product is motivated by getting as much money as they can for creating the best product they can?

Price controls do nothing but create scarcity of goods and services. When the government steps in to dictate how much anyone can make on a product, the incentive for the creation of that product declines.

Free markets work, Saden. Government control does not.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Beemnseven's definition of Neo-co:

"Neo" meaning 'new'; con, short for conservative. I believe it represents a recent shift in the philosophy of conservatism, specifically in the area of foreign policy. It used to be that conservatives were against foreign entanglements (Bob Taft was against the formation of NATO), intervening in foreign affairs (it was Wilson and the Democrats who were in favor of getting into WWI). Now, they seem content with interventionism of virtually any kind, and some go so far as to call it American Imperialism. In any case, they have dropped the isolationist banner that used to belong to them. There could be shifts in philosophy in some domestic issues as well, but it's my belief that the Republican Party and the country as a whole is slowly tilting towards Socialism.

This is a lot better than many definitions I've heard. You could certainly teach certain television commentators a thing or two.

The term seems to have been coined by a British socialist named Micheal Harrington in the mid 1970s to describe what was then a newish phenomenon- the conversion of ex leftists (mainly Trotskyists) to Conservatism. He was thinking of people like Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz and too a lesser degree, Milton Friedman. I think they were the driving force behind Commentary Magazine, but I'm just riffing here and could be wrong. This was somewhat alarming to the left because these guys gave Conservatism a kind of urbane, intellectual heft that it had been lacking. The Jewish ethnicity of most of these folks seems to have contributed to the faulty notion that Israel is the primary motivating consideration in the formulation of their worldview. Not so. They were primarily anti-communist and anti-Soviet Union, although there support for Israel which is easily understood, did reveal a gap between them and the "paleo-conservatives" like Taft, William F. Buckley, and more recently, Pat Buchanan. This was the context in which I first heard the phrase in 1985.

But I think terms and concepts evolve and certainly in the absence of an overriding threat from the Soviet Union, which glossed over a lot of these distinctions, your definition is fair enough for the current debate. Interestingly, it seems that it was the incesant use of the term, by Chris Matthews, in connection with certain Jewish last names combined with the insinuation that Israel was calling the shots behind the scenes that got Scooter Libby fired up to the point that he called Tim Russert to bitch. I watch Hardball fairly regularly and I do recall that Chris was on something of a tangent in the summer of 2003 in this regard.

I don't know why I waste the energy when it's stated much better here:

Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

This is a lot better than many definitions I've heard. You could certainly teach certain television commentators a thing or two.

The term seems to have been coined by a British socialist named Micheal Harrington in the mid 1970s to describe what was then a newish phenomenon- the conversion of ex leftists (mainly Trotskyists) to Conservatism. He was thinking of people like Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz and too a lesser degree, Milton Friedman. I think they were the driving force behind Commentary Magazine, but I'm just riffing here and could be wrong. This was somewhat alarming to the left because these guys gave Conservatism a kind of urbane, intellectual heft that it had been lacking. The Jewish ethnicity of most of these folks seems to have contributed to the faulty notion that Israel is the primary motivating consideration in the formulation of their worldview. Not so. They were primarily anti-communist and anti-Soviet Union, although there support for Israel which is easily understood, did reveal a gap between them and the "paleo-conservatives" like Taft, William F. Buckley, and more recently, Pat Buchanan. This was the context in which I first heard the phrase in 1985.

But I think terms and concepts evolve and certainly in the absence of an overriding threat from the Soviet Union, which glossed over a lot of these distinctions, your definition is fair enough for the current debate. Interestingly, it seems that it was the incesant use of the term, by Chris Matthews, in connection with certain Jewish last names combined with the insinuation that Israel was calling the shots behind the scenes that got Scooter Libby fired up to the point that he called Tim Russert to bitch. I watch Hardball fairly regularly and I do recall that Chris was on something of a tangent in the summer of 2003 in this regard.

I don't know why I waste the energy when it's stated much better here:

Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, that's definitely more intricate than my definition. The only point I would argue is the assertion that Milton Friedman was an "ex-leftist". Admittedly, I haven't done a whole lot of research on him. If I'm wrong on that though, I have certainly learned something new.

How do you describe yourself politically, 70Chip?

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Yeah, that's definitely more intricate than my definition. The only point I would argue is the assertion that Milton Friedman was an "ex-leftist". Admittedly, I haven't done a whole lot of research on him. If I'm wrong on that though, I have certainly learned something new.

How do you describe yourself politically, 70Chip?

Friedman is not , you're right. Again I was riffing. Friedman is a disciple of Hayek who I thought the neo-cons revered but according to Wiki, they do not.

I became a conservative in reaction to disco music. I'm thoroughly anti-disco. Seriously, politics is for me a lot like the NFL. I like to root for my team but I've come to realization that it doesn't really affect my life that much, or at least it shouldn't. I think most people understand this instinctively and show it by not paying attention. People always bemoan the apathy of the American people, but I prefer it to the activism that often finds expression in other countries. I think it's actually sophistication in disguise.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Seriously, politics is for me a lot like the NFL. I like to root for my team but I've come to realization that it doesn't really affect my life that much, or at least it shouldn't. I think most people understand this instinctively and show it by not paying attention.

??????
We are at war. However you feel about that, the idea that politics doesn't affect our lives directly seems to me to be pretty nuts.

Originally Posted by 70Chip

People always bemoan the apathy of the American people, but I prefer it to the activism that often finds expression in other countries. I think it's actually sophistication in disguise.

This has got to be sarcasm right?