# WHY BUSH WON IN 2004: Neoconservatism needs an enemy. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 28, 2004, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638 "2004-10-28T08:46:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/41 "2004-10-28T19:34:16Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Apologies - my syntax was sloppy. Not all neoconservatives are former students of Strauss - only Wolfowitz and Perle specifically qualify in that regard. Cite that Wolfowitz and Perle were students of Strauss? Even if it’s true, so what? I had some fucking loonies as teachers at one time or another. That doesn’t mean that I subscribe to some ideology of thiers 50 years later. > [@](#): > > I cannot prove that Soviets _didn’t_ coordinate global terrorism any more than I can prove the nonexistence of garden fairies. That’s OK. I can disprove it. The KGB supported the IRA. [cite](http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/08/26/kgbirish.shtml) The IRA was a thorn in the side of the Brittish, so it makes sense that the Soviets would want to help supply them. > [@](#): > > This is the essence of [Straussianism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss): that relativism and liberalism decay the power of government because it becomes less _necessary_ than when the fear of a foreign enemy abounds. This is silly. If you are insisting that the current administration thinks that the government must have an enemy than prove it. You’ve done nothing to link Straussianism to the Bush administration. > [@](#): > > Gorbachev admitted the necessity of withdrawing from Afghanistan almost as soon as he came to power, in his 1986 “bleeding wound” speech (negotiations with the UN had actually begun in 1982): the only question was how, and when. Before finally withdrawing in 1989, the Soviets repeatedly asked the US to [stop](http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_n2144_v89/ai_7537775) outside interference and funding of [Osama Binladen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_laden#Afghan_Jihad) and Islamic fundamentalists like him in order to stabilise the extant regime and allow the Afghan army to repel the Islamists and avoid a civil war upon withdrawal. This is nonsense. The USSR had invaded Afghanistan and was still occupying it, and we are supposed to stop supporting the resistance because they ask us to? It’s funny that people can still be willing apologists for appeasement of the Soviet Union even though our victory over it has been complete for more than a decade. > [@](#): > > The US replied that it [would not](http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id337.htm), until the last Soviet troop and aid-money had left, even though this clearly doomed Afghanistan to a world of shit at the hands of Osama’s side. The US was absolutely right to do this. Soviets leave the country they invaded, and we stop supplying the resistance of the invasion. It’s very telling of your anti-Americanism that you somehow blame the US for turning Afghanistan into a world of shit when it was the Soviets who invaded it, they who killed many, destroyed schools and infrastructure, they who created the mess that led to what was to come. > [@](#): > > Gorbachev, who had foreseen a _stable_ Afghanistan under the tutelage of Pakistan, could see exactly what would happen if the mujahideen beat the Afghan army after the [1988 elections](http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_n2144_v89/ai_7537775/pg_4) which were part of his agreement with the UN. He was right. It’s simply fantasy to think that if the US stopped supplying rebels in Afghanistan then the Soviets would have turned it into some sort of democratic paradise after their long reign of brutally tearing the country apart. > [@](#): > > I apologise and withdraw this: “contempt” is too strong a term. But the neoconservatives themselves are clearly _not_ Christain Fundamentalists - I contend that they merely find it _useful_ as a societally binding myth. Whatever. You seem to be just making this up as you go along. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/42 "2004-10-28T21:50:00Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > **BrainGlutton** , I’m familiar with the Wilkepedia definition for Neocon. It’s an interesting one because it basically admits that the term has a very murky and muddled meaning. > > I submit that the term doesn’t really have any value. It’s more an insult than a useful label. But some neocons do apply the label to themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/43 "2004-10-29T01:11:55Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But some neocons do apply the label to themselves. Sure, but I suspect most mean it in its literal form (as I do): ‘New Conservatives’. Gone are the days of scared isolationism and complete opposition to all social programs, hence the ‘neo’ part. The ‘LOL WE SPYZ FOR ISRAEL!’ bit got added by lefties later on. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/44 "2004-10-29T01:42:04Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > The ‘LOL WE SPYZ FOR ISRAEL!’ bit got added by lefties later on. Not exactly. The neocons seem to be doing that on their own initiative. [http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041004&s=dreyfuss](http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041004&s=dreyfuss) ---
**Author:** ![See-ahm-bee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/see-ahm-bee/32/7282_2.png) [@See-ahm-bee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/See-ahm-bee)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/45 "2004-10-29T02:31:56Z")
The neocons are nationalist fanatics. They are an enemy of liberty, except for a wealthy minority. The only thing stopping me from attacking them the way they attack freedom fighters in Iraq is I have not the arms. Fortunately, arms can be taken from these maniacs via an election. God speed John Kerry. And God speed Boston Red Sox. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/46 "2004-10-29T03:03:16Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Not exactly. The neocons seem to be doing that on their own initiative. The actions of a few are hardly definitive of ‘neoconservatism’, however much you might want them to be. > [@See-ahm-bee](#): > > The neocons are nationalist fanatics. They are an enemy of liberty, except for a wealthy minority. We also hate puppies, cute kids, and running through the dewy grass on a sunny spring morning. > [@](#): > > The only thing stopping me from attacking them the way they attack freedom fighters in Iraq is I have not the arms. Machine-shop accident? ---
**Author:** ![See-ahm-bee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/see-ahm-bee/32/7282_2.png) [@See-ahm-bee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/See-ahm-bee)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/47 "2004-10-29T03:07:33Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > The actions of a few are hardly definitive of ‘neoconservatism’, however much you might want them to be. > > We also hate puppies, cute kids, and running through the dewy grass on a sunny spring morning. > > Machine-shop accident? I have noticed that neocons nearly always argue their positions by attempting to discredit their critics. No Mr. Brutis douchbag, I was not in any accident you dumb excuse for a human being. Neocons always are arrogant, self-rationalizing, greedy pigs. So how are you different from that Mr. Brootis? ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/48 "2004-10-29T03:10:11Z")
Holy crap, his spelling processor is wigging out! ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/49 "2004-10-29T03:10:16Z")
Insults are not allowed in great debates. You could read the rules here, but that probably won’t be necessary. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/50 "2004-10-29T04:34:48Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > The actions of a few are hardly definitive of ‘neoconservatism’, however much you might want them to be. 😛😛😛 Actually, **Brutus,** they **are** pretty much “definitive.” ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/51 "2004-10-29T05:21:39Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 😛😛😛 > > Actually, **Brutus,** they **are** pretty much “definitive.” Poignant as ever. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/52 "2004-10-29T09:20:16Z")
**Debaser** , I am defining neoconservatism as a political movement based on the absurd Platonic philosophy of [Leo Strauss.](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031212.html) You may holler all you like that there is no such thing as Straussians or neoconservatives (even though they might [self identify](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=268701) as such), but this is as irrelevant here as the discussion of whether _liberalism_ really exists. That you believe Gorbachev was a greater threat to the US than Osama Binladen to the extent that _even now_ you _agree with_ the US supporting and teaching Binladen the methods of terrorism, is extremely difficult to argue with (just like those Stormfronters you mentioned). As for the KGB and the IRA, well, the US taught the mujahideen how to make and use car bombs against the Afghan government, so I guess they’re even: that still does not impugn my claim that neoconservatives relied on information _which the CIA had utterly fabricated_ to exaggerate the Soviet threat. I will put it to you directly, so as to enjoin genuine debate: Do you, **Debaser** , believe that the political elite are justified in using “noble lies”, as in Plato’s Republic? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/53 "2004-10-29T14:10:06Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > **Debaser** , I am defining neoconservatism as a political movement based on the absurd Platonic philosophy of [Leo Strauss.](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031212.html) …and you are refusing to provide any evidence for your outlandish claims of such. > [@](#): > > You may holler all you like that there is no such thing as Straussians or neoconservatives (even though they might [self identify](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=268701) as such), but this is as irrelevant here as the discussion of whether _liberalism_ really exists. **Captain Amazing** starting an “Ask the neocon…” thread hardly proves your wild theories correct. I’m not insisting that there is no such thing as “neocons” much as simply trying to get you to define what you think it means. There could be useful definitions of neocons, but it can also be used as a meaningless insult by conspiracy theorists such as yourself. > [@](#): > > That you believe Gorbachev was a greater threat to the US than Osama Binladen to the extent that _even now_ you _agree with_ the US supporting and teaching Binladen the methods of terrorism, is extremely difficult to argue with (just like those Stormfronters you mentioned). The USSR was our enemy. It made sense to support the Mujahadeen that was resisting them. It’s easy for America haters such as yourself to look back on decistions such as this as mistakes. But, lacking 20/20 hindsight, these sorts of things are going to happen no matter what. The only way for the US to never support those who might become our enemies would be to never support anyone. > [@](#): > > As for the KGB and the IRA, well, the US taught the mujahideen how to make and use car bombs against the Afghan government, so I guess they’re even: that still does not impugn my claim that neoconservatives relied on information _which the CIA had utterly fabricated_ to exaggerate the Soviet threat. First you claim that the CIA fabricated Soviet links to terror, now you admit that such links did exist. Now, you change your claim to something else entirely. I still don’t see what any of this has to do with the OP. > [@](#): > > I will put it to you directly, so as to enjoin genuine debate: Do you, **Debaser** , believe that the political elite are justified in using “noble lies”, as in Plato’s Republic? I think that the entire concept is a figment of your imagination. All politicians lie. Democrats and Republicians (or liberals and neocons) alike. I’d like them to be as truthful as possible of course. Your entire theory that the neocons must lie in order to convince people of an outside threat to give the government power remains completely unsupported by actual fact, BTW. ---
**Author:** ![Jinx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Jinx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jinx)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/54 "2004-10-29T14:17:35Z")
Teacher: Let’s also never forget that Bush lost the Popular Vote in 2000. He was clearly NOT the people’s choice, but the political machine’s choice! - Jinx ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/55 "2004-10-29T14:27:14Z")
It is _outlandish_ to claim that neoconservatism is based on Straussian philosophy? I [and others](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031212.html) can only disagree. > [@](#): > > There could be useful definitions of neocons, but it can also be used as a meaningless insult by conspiracy theorists such as yourself. Conspiracy? No. Straussianism is not _evil_ or _secret_, just childishly oversimplified and outdated. > [@](#): > > It’s easy for America haters such as yourself to look back on decistions such as this as mistakes. As I said in the very first lines of my OP, I love Americans, but simply cannot _believe_ what America has become. > [@](#): > > First you claim that the CIA fabricated Soviet links to terror, now you admit that such links did exist. Both can, of course, be true. The claim in my OP was that the Soviet threat was exaggerated based on information the CIA made up in the first place: another example of using evidence absurdly selectively in order to perpetuate an ideologically driven myth. > [@](#): > > I’d like them to be as truthful as possible of course. Glad to hear you _condemn_ the concept of the noble lie - whether you have been _taken in_ by one is another matter. > [@](#): > > Your entire theory that the neocons must lie in order to convince people of an outside threat to give the government power remains completely unsupported by actual fact, BTW. Just as transitional forms are unsupported to Creationists, perhaps. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/56 "2004-10-29T14:38:57Z")
And this is worth a debate in itself: > [@](#): > > **Debaser** :lacking 20/20 hindsight, these sorts of things are going to happen no matter what. The only way for the US to never support those who might become our enemies would be to never support anyone. I agree. But I am arguing that in 1989, Gorbachev was _not_ the threat to the US that the neocons made him out to be, and that this is why the US did not listen to his assessment of what would happen after Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. Of course we cannot see the future. But if the US had seen the _present_ more clearly in Afghanistan back then by listening to sources like the CIA rather than the neoconservatives, it could have **prevented** the Taleban gaining power, Osama Binladen using his US-supplied lessons in terrorism to create Al Qaeda, and 9/11 ever happening. Let us try and see the future, from 2004, _without_ these dangerous myths. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/57 "2004-10-29T15:00:17Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > And this is worth a debate in itself: > I agree. But I am arguing that in 1989, Gorbachev was _not_ the threat to the US that the neocons made him out to be, and that this is why the US did not listen to his assessment of what would happen after Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. His assessment being what? That after a decade of raping and murdering the people of Afghanistan suddenly the USSR was geniunely interested in promoting a peaceful, stable democracy there? The US would be foolish to believe this. It was absolutely the right thing to do to continue to support those fighting the Soviet forces until the minute that they left. > [@](#): > > Of course we cannot see the future. But if the US had seen the _present_ more clearly in Afghanistan back then by listening to sources like the CIA rather than the neoconservatives, it could have **prevented** the Taleban gaining power, Osama Binladen using his US-supplied lessons in terrorism to create Al Qaeda, and 9/11 ever happening. There is absolutely no reason to beleive this. The Soviets leaving was going to create a vacuume no matter what the US did. The forces that were eventually to become the Taliban were already well armed from fighting the Soviets for a decade. Like I said before, it’s very telling that you somehow can twist the blame from what the Soviet Union did to Afghanistan to lay at the feet of the US. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/58 "2004-10-29T15:03:33Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Conspiracy? No. Straussianism is not _evil_ or _secret_, just childishly oversimplified and outdated. Your view on what Straussianism or Neoconservatism is can be described as nothing but a conspiracy theory. I’ll get into this more in a moment. > [@](#): > > As I said in the very first lines of my OP, I love Americans, but simply cannot _believe_ what America has become. You clearly have a bias against America. > [@](#): > > Both can, of course, be true. The claim in my OP was that the Soviet threat was exaggerated based on information the CIA made up in the first place: another example of using evidence absurdly selectively in order to perpetuate an ideologically driven myth. The Soviet Union was a very serious threat. They had a country full of nuclear tipped ICBM’s pointed at the US and Europe, remember? It’s rather silly for you to claim that somehow this was all a conspiracy by the Neocons. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/59 "2004-10-29T15:09:42Z")
> [@](#): > > His assessment being what? That the [elected government](http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_n2144_v89/ai_7537775/pg_4) would not withstand an anti-democratic coup by fanatical Islamists. > [@](#): > > Like I said before, it’s very telling that you somehow can twist the blame from what the Soviet Union did to Afghanistan to lay at the feet of the US. I condemn the initial Soviet invasion as much as you or the UN at the time, but Gorbachev was not Breshnev. Reagan recognised this, but the neoconservatives had his ear. I cannot prove that Binladen would _not_ have carried out 9/11 if Reagan had listened to the CIA instead, but it is similarly absurd to claim that he would have formed Al Qaeda and attacked the US no matter what. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2004, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/60 "2004-10-29T15:14:23Z")
quote]Your view on what Straussianism or Neoconservatism is can be described as nothing but a conspiracy theory. I’ll get into this more in a moment. [/quote] Please do not misrepresent me when you do, given that I have already said that Straussianism is _not_ a conspiracy, merely a hopelessly flawed philosophy. > [@](#): > > You clearly have a bias against America. I would ask you to prove this factually, but the difference between us is that I understand what _argument_ and _debate_ entails. > [@](#): > > They had a country full of nuclear tipped ICBM’s pointed at the US and Europe, remember? It’s rather silly for you to claim that somehow this was all a conspiracy by the Neocons. You misrepresent me if you say I claim this. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638.md?page=4)