1 Boring Old Man

I’ve spent the last couple of days reading about Neoconservativism. See, I had this great idea of explaining what it is. Well here’s the deal. I’ve erased everything I was writing about it because I was just talking around the bush [pun intended]. It didn’t make any sense.So here are the salient points of what I decided did make sense:

• Neoconservatives are not Liberals
• Neoconservatives are not Conservatives
• Neoconservatives are way more not Liberals than they are not Conservatives
• Neoconservatives are nothing new

Neoconservatives understood the world when our job was to fight Communism, particularly Ronald Reagan’s way of fighting Communism. So,  although there aren’t any more of those Communists to fight, we’re going to keep at it. Who is the enemy now? Rogue States, that’s who. They aren’t Communists, but they will do. The main ones are in the Middle East – Iraq, Iran, Syria.

Neoconservatives see the United Nations as a bother, an impediment to progress. We’re not going to honor our U.N. Commitments. Neoconservatives see the Geneva Conventions as an impediment to progress. We’re not going to honor the Geneva Conventions.

In foreign policy, Neoconservatives are anti-Communists anti-RogueStates. They’re outrageous spenders; they cut taxes, primarily those that affect the rich; and they build really big armies. So they’re not Conservative because they are big spenders and big government people. In domestic policy, Neoconservatives are not just not Liberal, they’re anti-Liberal. But, for them, this is a positive identity. They dissemble anything that has been traditionally seen as a Liberal program or value. So their domestic policy is hard to follow unless you are a very liberal person. Then it’s easy. They are opposed to anything you are for. It’s an extension of that anti-Communism thing. The equation is fairly concrete. Social programs are Socialism, which is really a code word for Communism. They used to say that Liberals were "pinkos," Communist Sympathizers. Now, they say Liberals are Terrorist Sympathizers. It comes down to this. "We’ve got to get rid of those Communists Rogue States and those Liberals" as if these two groups are the same thing. What’s kind of interesting is that back in McCarthy’s day, some Liberals were Communists, at the least intellectual Marxists. Nowdays, there isn’t even a remote connection between those with a Liberal sentiment and the Terrorists. But the old red-baiting rhetoric is still alive.

Karl Rove’s speech to the New York Conservatives is probably to most egregious example of Liberal = Communist Terrorist Supporter. A recent example of Bush equating dissent and subversiveness reminescent of the Nixon Era [quoted by Digby]:

Bush said the war’s critics should stop questioning the motives that led him to launch the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

"The American people know the difference between responsible and irresponsible debate when they see it…. And they know the difference between a loyal opposition that points out what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right," Bush said.

"I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account and demand a debate that brings credit to our democracy — not comfort to our adversaries," Bush said.

That’s it. How’d I do? It sounds kind of silly, but it sure makes more sense than anything I read that tried to explain it in more academic or lofty terms. It’s just the worst of the McCarthy sentiment in new garb – John Birch Society rhetoric with a new "Menace".

How does this relate to the hearings about the unwarranted N.S.A. domestic surveillance program? All we hear about is how important it is to keep tabs on those commies terrorists and having to get judicial approval is just plain Communist Terrorist sympathizing. Not matter how much we point out that we agree enthusiastically with the surveillance and that it’s only the unlawful skipping over judicial review that we’re upset about, the same worn out rhetoric repeats over and over…