# Is Hillary Clinton a Neocon? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 11, 2014, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-a-neocon/695282 "2014-08-11T03:22:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![choie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/choie/32/7829_2.png) [@choie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choie)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-a-neocon/695282/21 "2014-08-11T21:57:08Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > The traditional meaning of the term neo-conservative applies to foreign policy aggressiveness (ie, Scoop Jackson). And as former member **Liberal** loved reminding us, “liberal” had a different meaning back when knighthood was in flower. Words mean things, to quote Aaron Sorkin, but those meanings change. Neo-conservatism seeped out of the left like poison from a vulnerable wound, but it’s _long_ since abandoned its roots. Modern neocons are Wolfowitz, Cheney, Kristol, Feith, Perle, Libby, and the whole AEI / PNAC cabal–and these are Republicans, full stop. They pushed aggression and imperialism and didn’t need 9/11 to do it, although they knew realistically it would take a long time to prepare for such action barring some catastrophic event. The specific tragedy of 9/11 was unforeseen but once it occurred, it was as good a reason as any to push their agenda forward. Compare this with Hillary. God knows I haven’t been a fan of hers since that Iraq vote, but even I don’t believe she’d have taken us into this mire without 9/11 and the resulting hawkish political atmosphere. She voted the way the majority of Democrats in the Senate and House did, because she’s a political animal. Since 2006 she’s stated she regrets that Resolution vote and claims she wouldn’t have voted that way if the Senate had been told the truth about the intelligence (or lack thereof) on WMDs in Iraq. I vacillate on whether I believe her, but how many neocons would make such a claim at all? Even many regular rank-and-file Republicans still refuse to admit (or perhaps, granting that some are sincere, believe) that decision was wrong, Colin Powell notwithstanding. No. Clinton may suck up to the Likud lobby like so many do (interestingly, more than most of us Jewish Americans), she may be tough and more hawkish than some other Democrats, but I can’t tar her with the neocon brush. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-a-neocon/695282/22 "2014-08-11T22:29:32Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Wow. Just… wow. Solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. ---
**Author:** ![choie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/choie/32/7829_2.png) [@choie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choie)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2014, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-a-neocon/695282/23 "2014-08-11T22:33:22Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. Dayum, Tacitus for the win! Well stated, **Captain Amazing**. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2014, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-a-neocon/695282/24 "2014-08-12T02:43:09Z")
> [@choie](#): > > Modern neocons are Wolfowitz, Cheney, Kristol, Feith, Perle, Libby, and the whole AEI / PNAC cabal–and these are Republicans, full stop. Liebermann? FWIW, Wolfowitz, Feith, and Perle actually worked for Scoop Jackson. It may be argued that the term ‘neoconservative’ is now meaningless as it has been applied by the Left as a pejorative for anyone who was for the Iraq War. However, the OP’s indication seemed to look at the traditional use of the term, as I don’t think there is anyone in the world who thinks Hillary Clinton is against, for example, universal health care. The old liberal term applied 150 years ago. Neoconservative in the traditional sense existed through the 1980s (Daniel Patrick Moynihan for one) - a bit of hyperbole to claim it had long outlived the old use. Hillary Clinton _can_ be referred to as an aggressive Wilsonian if you would rather. ---
**Author:** ![choie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/choie/32/7829_2.png) [@choie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choie)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2014, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-a-neocon/695282/25 "2014-08-12T09:19:46Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > Liebermann? One former DINO (and a dinosaur, at that) among an array of Republicans-and-always-were doesn’t prove your point. > [@ISiddiqui](#): > > It may be argued that the term ‘neoconservative’ is now meaningless as it has been applied by the Left as a pejorative for anyone who was for the Iraq War. Geeze I hope you don’t get a splinter on all that straw you’re using in that sculpture. 🙂 Seriously, I don’t know very many, if any, progressives who called everyone who voted for the resolution a Neocon, and I used to be a raging DUer from its conception until about 2009 or so–so I know what the leftiest lefties were saying. I’m sure you’d get about the same number of righties who’d call Hillary a pinko subversive. > [@ISiddiqui](#): > > However, the OP’s indication seemed to look at the traditional use of the term, as I don’t think there is anyone in the world who thinks Hillary Clinton is against, for example, universal health care. > > The old liberal term applied 150 years ago. Neoconservative in the traditional sense existed through the 1980s (Daniel Patrick Moynihan for one) - a bit of hyperbole to claim it had long outlived the old use. A week is a long time in politics. I would say 30 years is a significant amount of time for a label to morph. The biggest Neocon movers and shakers are most assuredly Republicans, and have been since Bush I. In any event the semantics don’t really matter to the main point. Hillary has no imperialist agenda the way the Neocons do, and I don’t believe she’ll go to war under any pretext the way the Neocons would and did. She’s no dove, and I’m pretty nauseated by her suckling at Netanyahu’s teat (oy, what an image), but she’s not a psycho, oil-thirsty hawk who’ll drench the Middle East in blood to make way for American domination. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2014, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-a-neocon/695282/26 "2014-08-12T14:39:50Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I think this might just be the break the '08 Obama primary campaign was looking for! Actually I think the possible effect on the campaign of 2016 might be a bit more relevant, but I understand if you don’t want to talk about that. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2014, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-a-neocon/695282/27 "2014-08-12T15:17:23Z")
I can’t help but view this as more of the infamous Clintonian triangulation that Hitchens wrote about. Say just enough to entice the moderate republicans but not so much that will upset the democrats. I want to like her because I like the idea of a first US woman president. But every time I see her interviewed, I just get the urge to have a hot cleansing shower. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2014, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-a-neocon/695282/28 "2014-08-12T15:21:46Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. Not a fan of Assad’s war to preserve the (Syrian) union? Sounds like evil to me. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2014, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-a-neocon/695282/29 "2014-08-12T17:46:21Z")
> [@choie](#): > > In any event the semantics don’t really matter to the main point. Hillary has no imperialist agenda the way the Neocons do, and I don’t believe she’ll go to war under any pretext the way the Neocons would and did. She’s no dove, and I’m pretty nauseated by her suckling at Netanyahu’s teat (oy, what an image), but she’s not a psycho, oil-thirsty hawk who’ll drench the Middle East in blood to make way for American domination. And I’d argue most neo-conservatives wouldn’t either. Iraq’s invasion was, contrary to some lefties (but not all) conspiracy theories, not to claim oil fields, but based on a theory that a democratic Iraq would lead to a “flourishing of democracy” across the Middle East. It was the NeoCons who were the most excited about the Arab Spring - if they were simply in it for an imperial oil grab, they most definitely would not have been. Clinton’s more aggressive position on Syria, as well as her position on intervening in Libya, seems to indicate some neoconservative tendencies in her foreign policy thought (Progressive friends of mine also get unsettled by how much Hillary Clinton and John McCain got along in the Senate). I agree that she wouldn’t have invaded Iraq like George W. Bush did, but that’s because she wouldn’t have been as naive as the neocons around Bush II who thought a democratic Iraq would be some sort of beacon to the rest of the Middle East. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2014, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-a-neocon/695282/30 "2014-08-12T18:00:37Z")
But even still, the differences between McCain and Clinton are significant. Hillary basically said that the U.S. should have armed the opposition, McCain/Graham/Kristol/etc called for an extensive U.S. bombing campaign on Syria. Clinton apparently supported rather limited U.S. intervention in Libya in 2011, while McCain advocated regime change in Libya in 2000. Look, guys, it’s clear that Hillary isn’t a neocon, and it doesn’t even make sense to compare her to them. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2014, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-a-neocon/695282/31 "2014-08-12T18:22:11Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Actually I think the possible effect on the campaign of 2016 might be a bit more relevant, but I understand if you don’t want to talk about that. > > Regards, > Shodan No, I think it will be pretty irrelevant to 2016. It probably didn’t matter much in '08, and it will matter much, much less in 2016. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2014, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-a-neocon/695282/32 "2014-08-12T19:23:55Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > Iraq’s invasion was, contrary to some lefties (but not all) conspiracy theories, not to claim oil fields, but based on a theory that a democratic Iraq would lead to a “flourishing of democracy” across the Middle East. You can find about as many “reasons” for the 2003 invasion as there were figures in the Cheney-Rove cabal, but only the most naive were motivated by helping democracy. This is clear from the aftermath, where Iraqis were disappropriated to enrich Western companies in a Friedmanist experiment. Only in a mentality where “democracy” means dog-eat-dog capitalism could this be considered assisting “democracy.” Most of the cabal eventually admitted that WOMD was a lie to appeal to Americans, but they never arrived at a consensus of what the war’s _real_ purpose _was_. Henry Kissinger (a key unpaid Bush advisor) stated in as many words that the purpose was “to humiliate radical Islam – Afghanistan wasn’t enough.” (Nevermind that Iraq was secular; I guess humiliating one group of Arabs was as good as another.) Condoleeza admitted that Iraq was chosen because it would be easier than real enemies like Iran or North Korea. Oil, and other economic benefits to America, certainly played a big role in the thinking of some, especially Cheney. Richard Haass who served as an important advisor or envoy under Reagan, Bush-41 and Bush-43, and was the most intelligent neocon (though he avoided that description after the 2003 travesty) indicated that he didn’t know why Bush went to war. But G.W. Bush was, at one point, very clear on the purpose of the 2003 invasion. He was battling Gog and Magog in fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. :eek: Whatever one’s opinion of Hilary, to lump her with the Bush-Cheneyian neocons is ludicrous. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2014, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-a-neocon/695282/33 "2014-08-12T19:34:42Z")
FWIW, neither Kissinger nor Condi Rice is a NeoCon (esp not Rice, she was usually on the Powell side of the Powell v. Rumsfeld battles). ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2014, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-a-neocon/695282/34 "2014-08-12T19:53:52Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > But even still, the differences between McCain and Clinton are significant. Hillary basically said that the U.S. should have armed the opposition, McCain/Graham/Kristol/etc called for an extensive U.S. bombing campaign on Syria. > > Clinton apparently supported rather limited U.S. intervention in Libya in 2011, while McCain advocated regime change in Libya in 2000. > > Look, guys, it’s clear that Hillary isn’t a neocon, and it doesn’t even make sense to compare her to them. All you are proving though, is that Hillary Clinton is different in degrees, not in the concept of using force to affect change. Clinton is far more careful and smart about when to use force, but she doesn’t appear to be shy about wanting using it when conflicts result. And actually that she just may be different in initial response - I could see her bombing Syria after the arming of rebels would’t have prevented Assad’s regime from decimating his civilians. As far as Libya, Hillary’s comments in the Goldberg interview (in the OP) seem to indicate that you’re view of her position is not accurate: “But you know, we helped overthrow [Libyan leader Muammar] Qaddafi.”. The result was the same, but in a more intelligent and cost-effective manner. Though, I don’t think its all that bad of a thing that Clinton would be more aggressive than Obama in some ways (though her comments on Israel are way too much). In the discussion with Jeffrey Goldberg, she didn’t seem to shy away from throwing around American weight ‘to do good’, especially in combating (in the words in the interview) “expansionist jihadism”. Hillary is trying to thread a needle between the last two Presidents and their views of foreign policy, but when you have this exchange: > [@](#): > > JG: There is an idea in some quarters that the administration shows signs of believing that we, the U.S., aren’t so great, so we shouldn’t be telling people what to do. > > HRC: I know that that is an opinion held by a certain group of Americans, I get all that. It’s not where I’m at. and this (in a response by Clinton to a question on a middle ground between Bushism and Obamaism): > [@](#): > > One of the reasons why I worry about what’s happening in the Middle East right now is because of the breakout capacity of jihadist groups that can affect Europe, can affect the United States. Jihadist groups are governing territory. They will never stay there, though. They are driven to expand. Their raison d’être is to be against the West, against the Crusaders, against the fill-in-the-blank—and we all fit into one of these categories. How do we try to contain that? I’m thinking a lot about containment, deterrence, and defeat. You know, we did a good job in containing the Soviet Union, but we made a lot of mistakes, we supported really nasty guys, we did some things that we are not particularly proud of, from Latin America to Southeast Asia, but we did have a kind of overarching framework about what we were trying to do that did lead to the defeat of the Soviet Union and the collapse of Communism. That was our objective. We achieved it. (FWIW, I can hear Dubya say something like that, can’t you?) I don’t think it’s all that crazy of an opinion to think she may be on the more interventionalist side. She’ll likely be more interventionist than her husband. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2014, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-a-neocon/695282/35 "2014-08-12T19:57:00Z")
Or for example, this: > [@](#): > > JG: Is the lesson for you, like it is for President Obama, “Don’t do stupid shit”? > > HRC: That’s a good lesson but it’s more complicated than that. Because your stupid may not be mine, and vice versa. I don’t think it was stupid for the United States to do everything we could to remove Qaddafi because that came from the bottom up. That was people asking us to help. It was stupid to do what we did in Iraq and to have no plan about what to do after we did it. That was really stupid. I don’t think you can quickly jump to conclusions about what falls into the stupid and non-stupid categories. That’s what I’m arguing. If you read closely, you’ll note Clinton isn’t saying going into Iraq was stupid by itself, she’s saying it was stupid to go in without a plan about what to do after we went in. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2014, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-a-neocon/695282/36 "2014-08-12T20:05:18Z")
LOL, almost on cue, this just popped up in my RSS feed (from Vox, the Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias web site): > **[Neocons \<3 Hillary Clinton](https://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/8/12/5995581/clinton-kristol-weekly-standard)** > > Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology,... > [@](#): > > Hillary Clinton, in her foreign policy interview in The Atlantic, comes across as super hawkish. So hawkish, in fact, that the neoconservative flagship Weekly Standard magazine literally republished it as a house editorial. Essentially, they’re saying, Clinton speaks for them. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2014, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-a-neocon/695282/37 "2014-08-13T13:25:33Z")
Clinton is certainly hawkish, but there are more varieties of hawks in the world than neocons. She doesn’t want to remake the Middle East in America’s image or engage in preemptive warfare. She will aggressively defend American interests and intervene in cases where genocide is ongoing. In other words, she’s a lot like her husband. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2014, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-a-neocon/695282/38 "2014-08-13T16:07:20Z")
“Don’t do stupid stuff” is far from the worst imaginable strategic framework one can follow. We would all be better off if Dubya had followed it, for instance. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2014, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-a-neocon/695282/39 "2014-08-13T16:43:32Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > “Don’t do stupid stuff” is far from the worst imaginable strategic framework one can follow. We would all be better off if Dubya had followed it, for instance. The problem is, if you actually ARE stupid, as Dubya undoubtedly is, you don’t recognize stupid stuff, that’s why you do it. Dubya thought he was doing the smart thing, the right thing. He was led by the nose by a bunch of PNAC neoconservative ideologues, most notably, Cheney and Rumsford. Plus of course, Cheney had economic motives: in starting a war in Iraq, he was justifying the $34 million going-away bonus that his former employer Halliburton gave him when he left them to run for Vice President. I think Hillary is smart, but at heart a neocon on foreign policy. We’ve seen where neocons get us: in the middle of disastrous wars in the Middle East. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-a-neocon/695282/40 "2014-08-14T00:38:57Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > “Don’t do stupid stuff” is far from the worst imaginable strategic framework one can follow. We would all be better off if Dubya had followed it, for instance. It’s basically “do no harm”. And yeah, we’d be better off if Bush had done no harm. But a smart guy like Obama can and should show a little more boldness. And most importantly, make quick decisions and have confidence in those decisions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hillary-clinton-a-neocon/695282.md?page=1)