The NeoCon quiz challenge

[KazooSkinsFan]

Other then the Second "Millennium," which apparently only spanned 999 years, I don't recall seeing a word used incorrectly as frequently as "neocon." The left think it means, "not liked by the left." It's actually a specific ideology. So, to anyone who thinks they know what a NeoCon is, here is a simple three question test to prove it.

- George Bush ended his presidency a prototypical a neocon, but he wasn't when he was elected president. At what point in his presidency did he become one?

- Rush Limbaugh is clearly not a neocon. Why?

- While Obama didn't run as a neocon, his policies as president have been consistent with neocon policies. But he is not a neocon, why?

The third question is the hardest because you cannot tell from his policies he's not a neocon, but if you think about the true meaning of the term, he's clearly not for a specific reason.

[langleyparkjoe]

Kazo, I'll get back to you when someone posts the right answer

[TCIYM]

- George Bush ended his presidency a prototypical a neocon, but he wasn't when he was elected president. At what point in his presidency did he become one?

I would say it was when Bush decided (immediately following September 11th, 2001) that an immediate threat based upon a clear and present danger was not necessary to institute preventive and preemptive war upon foreign nations on foreign soil without an Act of Congress.

- Rush Limbaugh is clearly not a neocon. Why?

Neocons tolerate high levels of social welfare spending.

- While Obama didn't run as a neocon, his policies as president have been consistent with neocon policies. But he is not a neocon, why?

Neocons do not believe in diplomacy and deference to international law, and refuse to compromise principles. Neocons believe in a unilateral domestic and foreign policy.

How close is this to what you were looking for? I'm unable to discern the heading of this topic as of yet. Enlighten me.

[Deadskins]

- George Bush ended his presidency a prototypical a neocon, but he wasn't when he was elected president. At what point in his presidency did he become one?

I would say it was when Bush decided (immediately following September 11th, 2001) that an immediate threat based upon a clear and present danger was not necessary to institute preventive and preemptive war upon foreign nations on foreign soil without an Act of Congress.

Good answer, but it was a trick question. And you lost points because you said "Bush decided."

[KazooSkinsFan]

Thanks for taking the challenge TCIYM. First what Neocon means. This is not directed towards your answers, just in general.

Neocon is used by the left to indicate someone is an "extreme" conservative. Someone they intensely dislike. Actually, it's completely wrong. Neo is "new" not extreme. And the original neocons came mostly from the Democratic party who felt democracy overseas was the safest defense for the US and the military was the best way to spread democracy. They did not give up their love and trust of government and willingness to spend big.

Today as the Republican party has developed a love and trust of government and not lost their willingness to use the military, most neocons come from there through the reverse path of the original members who were primarily Democrat.

[KazooSkinsFan]

- George Bush ended his presidency a prototypical a neocon, but he wasn't when he was elected president. At what point in his presidency did he become one?

I would say it was when Bush decided (immediately following September 11th, 2001) that an immediate threat based upon a clear and present danger was not necessary to institute preventive and preemptive war upon foreign nations on foreign soil without an Act of Congress.

Close, it was after September 11, but as you said it was originally a preventative war. Bush was always a lover and truster of government, so no issue there. But remember Neocons actually specifically support military for spread of democracy. It wasn't counter to neocon when you point to, but he wasn't really neocon yet. Remember a bit later after the WMDs weren't found he started the nation building specifically because Democracy was safer for us. That was when he became a true neocon.

- Rush Limbaugh is clearly not a neocon. Why?

Neocons tolerate high levels of social welfare spending.

Right, but if you ever listen to Rush he doesn't. He attacked Bush repeatedly for his spending. He clearly does not support government spending. He's a classic "con," there's nothing "neo" about him.

- While Obama didn't run as a neocon, his policies as president have been consistent with neocon policies. But he is not a neocon, why?

Neocons do not believe in diplomacy and deference to international law, and refuse to compromise principles. Neocons believe in a unilateral domestic and foreign policy.

How close is this to what you were looking for? I'm unable to discern the heading of this topic as of yet. Enlighten me.

Obama like Bush is a big spender and lover and truster of government, no problem there. He ran as anti-military though, clearly not neocon. As President, he is supporting nation building in the middle east. But clearly he does not support the objective of building foreign democracies, he has simply decided the path of least resistance is completion of the project. Neocons actively support that objective, Obama doesn't share the objective. Neocons would be happy he's finishing the job, but clearly he's not one of them for that reason.

[KazooSkinsFan]

- George Bush ended his presidency a prototypical a neocon, but he wasn't when he was elected president. At what point in his presidency did he become one?

I would say it was when Bush decided (immediately following September 11th, 2001) that an immediate threat based upon a clear and present danger was not necessary to institute preventive and preemptive war upon foreign nations on foreign soil without an Act of Congress.

Good answer, but it was a trick question. And you lost points because you said "Bush decided."

It was a good answer and it was a trick question because he picked the time consistent with actions but his neocon intent was not yet there, that came later. But I don't get the sarcastic comment

[TCIYM]

Good answer, but it was a trick question. And you lost points because you said "Bush decided."

I'm no political oracle but I could have sworn that Dick Cheney once specifically referred to preventive war as being a core principle of the "Bush Doctrine" (his words, not mine).

[Deadskins]

- George Bush ended his presidency a prototypical a neocon, but he wasn't when he was elected president. At what point in his presidency did he become one?

I would say it was when Bush decided (immediately following September 11th, 2001) that an immediate threat based upon a clear and present danger was not necessary to institute preventive and preemptive war upon foreign nations on foreign soil without an Act of Congress.

Good answer, but it was a trick question. And you lost points because you said "Bush decided."

It was a good answer and it was a trick question because he picked the time consistent with actions but his neocon intent was not yet there, that came later. But I don't get the sarcastic comment

Does that clear it up for you? Or did you mean the "Bush decided" portion?
I think you would be being disingenuous if you claimed not to get that.

[Deadskins]

Good answer, but it was a trick question. And you lost points because you said "Bush decided."

I'm no political oracle but I could have sworn that Dick Cheney once specifically referred to preventive war as being a core principle of the "Bush Doctrine" (his words, not mine).

Uh huh, and when the dummy speaks, you do understand the ventriloquist is operating the controls making his mouth move, correct?

[KazooSkinsFan]

Good answer, but it was a trick question. And you lost points because you said "Bush decided."

I'm no political oracle but I could have sworn that Dick Cheney once specifically referred to preventive war as being a core principle of the "Bush Doctrine" (his words, not mine).

That's true, and you could argue reasonably they were getting closer to neocon at that point. But the administration didn't really get into that as a primary driver of their mission until the WMD justification fizzled. But to your point the war authorization the Senate passed did refer to that as well as a variety of other reasons for the war, not just WMD's. My argument is that the real meaning of neocon is military use for democracy. If that's only a minor reason you're doing it and not the focus you're not really a neocon.

[KazooSkinsFan]

- George Bush ended his presidency a prototypical a neocon, but he wasn't when he was elected president. At what point in his presidency did he become one?

I would say it was when Bush decided (immediately following September 11th, 2001) that an immediate threat based upon a clear and present danger was not necessary to institute preventive and preemptive war upon foreign nations on foreign soil without an Act of Congress.

Good answer, but it was a trick question. And you lost points because you said "Bush decided."

It was a good answer and it was a trick question because he picked the time consistent with actions but his neocon intent was not yet there, that came later. But I don't get the sarcastic comment

Does that clear it up for you? Or did you mean the "Bush decided" portion?
I think you would be being disingenuous if you claimed not to get that.

It clears up what you think you meant. But no, I still don't see why I'd have gotten it because your use of the term decided is such a stretch even when explained. This is just English, and not even addressing the Democratic talking point that somehow Gore won, not Bush. If you're hung up on that still, get over it, Gore lost. Sorry, Democrats losing an election doesn't mean there was fraud.

[Deadskins]

First of all, it was obviously a joke. Secondly, I never even mentioned Gore. I said Bush wasn't elected. Get over yourself!

[KazooSkinsFan]

First of all, it was obviously a joke. Secondly, I never even mentioned Gore. I said Bush wasn't elected

I didn't get the joke because the English usage was such a stretch, it had nothing to do with politics. But on the follow on question, my challenge is that the "jokes" consistently just happen to support one ideology. I like South Park for example who constantly rip people I like because they rip everyone. Family Guy is the reverse, as is the humor of a lot of people like Colbert. I'd think they were funny if they ever applied that humor to people they like. If you don't laugh at their jokes, you don't have a sense of humor. When senses of humor represent one and only one ideology, I don't think it's humor, I think it's agenda and loses the humor because the joke was a statement, not a joke.

get over yourself

I think you would be being disingenuous if you claimed not to get that

ditto

[Deadskins]

I don't think you have a clue as to my ideology. The reason I believe that is because you always attribute to me stances I don't share.

[welch]

- George Bush ended his presidency a prototypical a neocon, but he wasn't when he was elected president. At what point in his presidency did he become one?

I would say it was when Bush decided (immediately following September 11th, 2001) that an immediate threat based upon a clear and present danger was not necessary to institute preventive and preemptive war upon foreign nations on foreign soil without an Act of Congress.

- Rush Limbaugh is clearly not a neocon. Why?

Neocons tolerate high levels of social welfare spending.

- While Obama didn't run as a neocon, his policies as president have been consistent with neocon policies. But he is not a neocon, why?

Neocons do not believe in diplomacy and deference to international law, and refuse to compromise principles. Neocons believe in a unilateral domestic and foreign policy.

How close is this to what you were looking for? I'm unable to discern the heading of this topic as of yet. Enlighten me.

TCIYM did a pretty fair job of summarizing the neo-conservative essay collection, "Present Dangers", edited by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, and sponsored by the Project for a New American Century PNAC). See:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html

The neo-cons believed, at least until 2004, that the over-throw of Saddam Hussein would unleash a "democratic tsunami" from Iraq westward, leaving democratic governments in Iraq, Iran, and Syria. They argued that the fall of the Soviet Union had given the US a "world historical" moment to re-shape the planet; they argued that the US should adopt the role of world empire without using the name. In 2004, the quarterly "Public Interest" debated Francis Fukuyama's doubts that the invasion of Iraq had opened the door to anything but a prolonged mess in the Middle East.

Some of the old essays are available at the PNAC website. Most of the members are active in the American Enterprise Institute and the Hudson Institute. Readers can find some of their current views at either site.