The parties of today have the same basic goal in mind...globalization.
They just have different ways of going about it.

While Neo-liberal and Neo-conservative are used interchangably, I think that the Democratic party leadership is made up of neo-liberals, where as the neo-conservative leadership NOW is made up of neo-conservatives.

Clinton was a Neo-liberal.
Bush is a Neo-conservative.

One of the only things that separates the two genres is non-issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc.
They talk big, and pass stupid little laws that mean nothing, whilst behind the scenes they are using tax payer dollars funding CIA operations in other countries, tearing down dictatorships, and trying to set up a viable global economy.
Things like NAFTA, the WTO, and The World Bank. They let our neo-liberal capitalist economy stretch its tentacles into other countries.

Its like what Britain and Russia were doing to Iran during the 30's, 40's, and 50's.

And while people yell and scream about issues that mean nothing, like abortion and gay marriage, they are out accomplishing their goals, it doesnt get reported on the news, and the public remains comfortably numb.

Look at this definition of neo-conservative. Pretty interesting read.
This will take your simplistic view of neo conservatives and throw them right out the window. They are a very interesting group, and to understand their agenda, you must understand their history, and their recent and past foreign policy actions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocons...ited_States%29

Many are ex-liberals, and the founders of the movement were actually anti-communist trotskyites.
Their vision of a world of American style capitalism is very similar to Trosky's vision of a worldwide socialist rebellion.

I wrote a paper on this subject for my United States History class this semester. My teacher has a PHD in History, and studied for years in Latin America, so he knows alot about the free trade agrrements that are gutting the agricultural landscape of Latin America, leaving the peasents to fend for themselves.

Paper:

An interesting thing about political parties has always been that no matter how much they try and hold together and support the same issues, agendas, and legislation, they can never box in the fundamental secular nature of a person. Political parties are meant to form a standing political army, fighting for certain issues that benefit themselves or their constituents, because according to their logic, there is always safety in numbers. Much the same as the root system of a tree expands and branches out, political parties always contain factions that split off from the main group. Due to the world conditions after the end of WW2, a certain faction in the Republican Party has been slowly gaining momentum and support. The Neo-Conservative (also called Neo-Liberal) movement has gone through a strange evolution since its beginnings, and has assembled a very unorthodox group of followers from all across the political spectrum…..from staunch gun-boat diplomats to hawkish conservatives, former liberals, corporate capitalists, and members of the Religious Right. Even though Neo-Conservatives are labeled too often as being a right wing movement, their ideals clash with traditional conservatives because of their interventionist foreign policy stance, spending massive amounts of taxpayer dollars, resulting in the creation of a trillion dollar deficit, and for expanding the scope of government power.

Irving Kristol was one of the founders of neoconservative theories. Sometimes called the ‘godfather of the neoconservative movement,’ Kristol, a self proclaimed ‘liberal mugged by reality,’ was actually a proud Trotskyite in his youth, and was a member of an international organization of Trotskyite communists known as the Fourth International. Eventually, Kristol and his colleagues formed a small group of anti-Communist socialists that would come to be known as the neoconservatives. During the beginning of the 20th century, the followers of Kristol’s ideas were sympathetic to Woodrow Wilson’s idealistic goals to spread American ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad. Because of a strong reliance on international organizations and treaties, the neo-conservatives rejected Wilson’s methods for failing to accomplish the goals both they and he were striving for.
George Kennan, head of the State Department planning staff of the 1950’s and a self-described post-war liberal is a prime example of the neo-conservative type thinking in American politics. In his top secret 1948 Policy Planning Study 23, Kennan reveals the ideology that drove certain politicians away from mainstream attempts to preserve human rights and raise the standards of living in the United States:

“…we have 50% of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3% of its population….In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity….To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives….We should cease to talk about vague and….unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.”
Although more of a hardliner than his associates, Kennan still held true to the neoconservative state of mind, especially by stressing the importance of maintaining United States hegemony in the international community over all other priorities. Like other politicians, Kennan's agenda for the State was kept away from the public eye to prevent additional negative attention to the government’s actions during the post-WWII era.
Throughout the 1950s and early 1960s the neoconservatives were made up largely by anti-Communist socialists strongly supportive of the liberal social movements of the time, including the civil rights movement, and integration. However, they grew disillusioned with the Johnson administration's domestic initiatives, also known as the Great Society. Some neoconservatives also came to despise the hippie movement of the 1960s and what they felt was a growing "anti-Americanism" among the youth in the US, in the movement against the Vietnam War and in the emerging New Left.
A staunch critic of the war in Vietnam, as well as various other government policies of the time, MIT Professor Dr. Noam Chomsky was one of the driving forces behind the social movements of the time, and worked to raise awareness of what he felt were wrongs being committed by the government. Concerning the “Anti-American” label being thrown around incessantly by the supporters of the war, Chomsky noted:



“It's the kind of term you only find in totalitarian societies, as far as I know. So like in the Soviet Union, anti-Sovietism was considered the gravest of all crimes. But try, say, publishing a book on anti-Italianism and see what happens on the streets on Rome or Milan, people won't even bother laughing, it's a ludicrous idea.”
Much like in modern times, dissenters were seen as threats to the government, and were continually, and still are, publicly labeled as traitors. During the 1970’s, the neoconservatives jumped to the other side of the aisle to align themselves with the Reagan administration, mostly due to the Republicans’ pledge to “do what the continually left-drifting Democrats had failed to accomplish”….halting Soviet expansion. As the ‘New Left’ began to take control of the Democratic Party, neoconservatives were pushed toward a more aggressive foreign policy agenda. The Reagan Era ushered in a new and more aggressive policy of dealing with the ‘communist threat.’ Jeane Kilpatrick, ambassador to the UN at the time, believed any social revolutions to install democratic reforms in the Third World were illegitimate, and that the overthrow of leftist governments, even if replaced by authoritarian dictatorships, was acceptable. Under this doctrine, known as the Kirkpatrick Doctrine, the Reagan administration actively supported leaders such as Augusto Pinochet in Chile and Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines in order to ‘protect US interests.’




Independent thinker Hunter S. Thompson offered up an almost prophetic vision of what he considered a global strategy the neo-conservatives may have been considering. It may have been satire at the time, but upon comparison with current events, similarities between the two become very apparent. The ideas contained in this quote, from Thompson’s 1974 essay Fear and Loathing in the Bunker, printed in a collection of his essays entitled, “The Great Shark Hunt: Gonzo Papers Vol. 1,” are frighteningly similar to the trends in foreign policy our government has used recently. Thompson wrote that the neoconservative’s likely final solutions to all of America’s problems were:

1) A long term treaty with Russia, arranged by Henry Kissinger, securing Moscow’s support of an American invasion, seizure and terminal occupation of all oil-producing countries in the Middle East. This would not only solve the “energy crisis” and end unemployment immediately by pressing all idle and able-bodied males into service for the invasion/occupation forces…but it would also crank up the economy to a war-time level and give the Federal Government unlimited “emergency powers.”
2) In exchange for Russian support for our violent seizure of all Middle East oil reserves, the United States would agree to support the USSR in a “pre-emptive nuclear strike” against targets in China, destroying at least 90 per cent of that nation’s industrial capacity and reducing the population to a state of chaos, panic and famine for the next hundred years. This would end the Kremlin’s worries about China, guarantee peace in Indochina for the foreseeable future, and insure a strong and friendly ally, in Japan, as kingpin of the East.”
Thompson had the gift of seeing through political facades, and clearly demonstrated his gift in this passage. Not only was he right on with the possible intentions a neo-conservative of the time might have had……his scenario also holds many similarities to actions being taken by our government recently.
The neo-conservatives are a very odd collection of ideologues, originating from places all over the political spectrum. Over the course of the last 50 years, this once small faction has gathered more and more influence in the political world, and thus had had a large effect on the foreign policies of our government.





Politicians use political cannon fodder like abortion, gun control, gay marriage, etc. to rally support for them. People will stand behind them for those reasons, even if they dont agree with their other policies.
They say they care about these things to get elected.

Their only real concerns are:
1. Maintaining their control of our government
2. Maintaining US interests worldwide (natural resources, industry, trade)
3. Spreading US style capitalism around the globe
4. Making alliances with whoever can further our agenda, and getting rid of anyone who gets in our way.

There you have it.
Any questions?

__________________
www.contraweb.tk
.: Digital Activism for the New Millenium :.

so, big deal man. Its only the future of human existence who really cares? As long as I get my social security check and can abort my babies I am happy with my government.

The neocons were founded (neoconservative political thought) was founded by leo Strauss at the university of chicago. I think Kristol/Wolfie were his pupils...

the neocons saw the liberal beheviour as a corrupting influence, hence the anti-hippy brigade..

they envisioned America as being able to spread democracy throughout the world, and to be a force for good in the world. they needed to drum up threats like that the USSR could strike (rumsefld was sec of defense) at the time ))

The USA needed threats (real or imagined) to beef up the neo-con agenda.

Look for the 'power of nightmares' thread in the'media & commenators' forum here, it gives a transcript of the 3 hour documentary

__________________
I have something to hide.

Um...not quite. If anything, Neo-cons are MORE idealistic than traditional conservatives...not less. No neo-con supports the subjugation of people.

The neo-con stance is that free people are in our own best interests. Spreading democracy, aside from being the right thing to do, is in our own bests interest.

Neo-cons accept the fact that greed is human nature. They also accept the fact that capitalism and democracy are the ideals tools with which to channel that greed. That someone else does not necessarily have to lose in order for you to win.

If those ideals (in that original post) were Neo-con before, they obviously are not now. I think it all comes down to semantics. Someone who is defined as a Neo-con today, would not have been defined as a neo-con in the 50s...

Capitalism the cure for greed? YEAH RIGHT!!
Greed is rampant in our capitalistic society. The only people that benefit from that greed are the more upper class citizens.
Capitalism is a way to make the rich richer, and create the illusion that the rest of society is ok, when in reality, millions of people get left behind in the dust of corporations, politicians, and the elite.

"The neo-con stance is that free people are in our own best interests. Spreading democracy, aside from being the right thing to do, is in our own bests interest"

If we love freedom so much, why is it we destroy free societies and install dictators for our own benefit? Right now even we are trying to take out Chavez, a democratically elected leader, simply because he has nationalized his oil distribution, and the elite do not like that. You always seem to dodge facts from history. You cannot disprove what has already happenned and written in stone. And dont even try to say that because it is in the interests of our economy, it doesnt matter that we end up killing people or depriving people of freedom or democracy.
Your statements contradict what is actually happening, and already has happenned, in the world.

And there is such a thing called sovereignty. Every nation has the natural right to decide what type of structure to govern itself by. It is not our place to make that decision, even if it would benefit our economy (the top 10% of our country, the elite)

Politicians love to claim that all of this is in the interest of the public.
How is it in our interest when we pay the bill for all these wars and regime changes, when the only people who benefit are the corporations who make money off of the military industrial complex, industrial giants, pil tycoons, and the elite? We get screwed. It is not in our self interest, or the self interest of the country we are screwing. It is only in the self interest of the elite, and their counterparts.
So dont give me that "its in our/their self itnerest" crap. You dont have the right to determine what their self interest is. That is their job. That is freedom.....freedom to choose.
Your logic is very flawed.

I never said neo conservatives have always been the same. Read the article. They have been through many evolutions since they began.

__________________
www.contraweb.tk
.: Digital Activism for the New Millenium :.

I did not make the claim that it is a "cure" for greed. There is no cure for greed, because greed is a part of human nature. It is tightly bound to our survival instincts. Any system that attempts to suppress greed will fail.

Capitalism channels greed in a way that is productive and many times mutually beneficial.

Greed is rampant in every society. The others are simply in denial about it until they collapse.

Funny how America's lower class seems to live better than the middle class of most other nations...including ALL current commie nations.

Greed can be (and usually is) mutually beneficial. Corporations cant make profits unless they can provide people the products they want. The masses get their products, the corporations get their wealth.

When was the last time we did that? You make it sound as if we do that all the time...when in reality, we have not done it for a long time. We have changed for the better.

Please post your evidence for this.

If you are making the claim, you are expected to provide proof.

Says who? Did Hitler have the sovereign right to exterminate the Jews?

Why?

The public apparently agrees. Because they keep electing them back into office.

Because democracies are inherently less dangerous to us than non-democracies. You are such a big fan of history...you of all people should know that.

They are not the only people that benefit.

The masses dont seem to agree with you. Neither do I.

Who said I wanted to? I want to give them the choice. Without democracy, they dont have that choice.

People like you want to pretend they are happy with the status quo, when in reality you have zero way of knowing that, because they cant speak for themselves. You are happy to let their oppressors speak for them and pretend it is their will as well.

The article portrays "Neo-cons" of the 50s as being the same as neo-cons of today, which is false. I merely offered a clarification. No need to thank me.