The neo-cons are not that much dissimilar to the imperialists of Twain’s day,and there is a seductive reason to it all. Assert American power in this window of opportunity, lance the festering boils, put things to right by force or, better, by mere threat of force. Prod he who sits in darkness towards the light of democracy and free market enthusiasm. A bayonet is quite an effective prod.
Who better than we to rule the world? Who else is as enlightened and universally beloved?
It is seductive to the liberal minded because it offers the quick fix, the fast track to universal human rights. Is it violent? Well, yes, but then so is any revolution, whether home grown or imposed. If we believe the principles enough to fight to keep them, ought we not be willing to assert them, impose them if need be? Democracys will not attack each other, regardless of the circumstances of their inception. And if they get testy, we simply give them a stern talking to while we rev the engines of our armored divisions.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
I will be the first to admit that neo-con is a term so much abused that it no longer has much of a definition . . .
[/QUOTE]
It is a movement with a definite and coherent history. Its primary concern is American military hegemony in the world and an aggressive foreign policy; all other concerns are negotiable.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
It is a movement with a definite and coherent history. Its primary concern is American military hegemony in the world and an aggressive foreign policy; all other concerns are negotiable.
[/QUOTE]
Even by Wikipedia standards, that is probably the most poorly sourced, biased, and badly written article I have ever seen.
I’ve never understood the whole deal about Hillary Clinton – why so many Republicans seem to viscerally hate her or why anyone is enthusiastic about her. A woman of no great accomplishments (nothing that makes me think she’s qualified for such a high office); pretty centrist policies (which is why it baffles me when she’s talked about as if she were a strong leftist); shamelessly panders (which I guess is pragmatic in a political sense).
Looking at all the candidates, even more than in most years, I’m thinking, Jesus Christ, can’t we do better? Are we liberals doomed to always have to vote for people we know won’t do what we actually want done, because the people who would are “unelectable”? Damn it, where’s my blood pressure medicine.
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
She’s extremely smart, and has learned lessons from the past. Once she gets to the general election campaign, she won’t make gaffes that scare Republicans, and she’ll make a lot of overtures to them. She knows she has the Democrats locked up - her job will be to win over independents and Republicans.
[/QUOTE]
And indeed, she’s spent much of her Senate career making moves that will allow her to do just that.