It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


GOP taken hostage by Neocons

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 11:00 PM
The Conservatism we see being expressed by the G. O. P. since the end of the Reagan administration is not Conservatism. It is the entrance of pseudo-conservatives known as Neoconservatives who were at first welcomed into the party but soon seized control over it and all of its policies. In this thread I will elaborate on the beginnings of the Neocon movement and how we have gotten to the place we are at now.

The eventual Neoconservatives influence came from the 1930’s. They were influenced the Socialists and Liberals who were very supportive of New Deal policies, Trade unionism, and Trotskyism as well as the Allies in the war effort. Many were strongly influenced by the American Marxist and former Trotskyite turned Social Democrat and associate of AFL-CIO president George Meany, his name was Max Shachtman.

The followers of Shachtman called themselves Shachtmanites such as future Neoconservative Jeane Kirkpatrick, others however were involved in the political party Social Democrats USA. By the 1950’s and 60’s however a prominent group known as The New York Intellectuals had a member who stated this, “In the United States at this time liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition.” His name was Lionel Trilling.

They were prominent Democrats who retained left-of-center views but were angry with the New Left of limited government Liberalism such as George McGovern and the Hippie movement (I know this is not actually limited government but the liberal politics at the time were heavily statist, more so than today). In 1968 many later Neocons abandoned the Democrats for the GOP and supported Richard Nixon.

*It is to note that many claimed George Orwell predicted the rise of Neoconservatism, this claim has been disputed.*

They opposed the New Left baby boomers which they saw as espousing Anti-Americanism and Non-Interventionism in the movement against Vietnam War. Eventually they drifted further to the right and became more aggressive militarily and opposed the Great Society programs of LBJ.

In 1972 and 1976 the Neoconservatives rallied around the presidential aspirations of Henry M. Jackson. Such future Neocons who worked for him included Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and Richard Perle. Late in the ‘70s their support moved to Reagan and the GOP when they spoke of confronting Soviet expansion.

Michael Lind a self-described former Neoconservative described Neoconservatism as this:

“Neoconservatism... originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ('Scoop') Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals.' [After the end of the Cold War]... many 'paleoliberals' drifted back to the Democratic center... Today's neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists.”

Under President Ronald Reagan the Neoconservatives were finally fully accepted into the Republican Party by the Paleoconservatives whom at the time were the majority in the GOP. The Paleoconservatives were staunchly Non-interventionist, Traditionalist, Socially conservative, and limited government.

The division was soon apparent with Samuel T. Francis writing during the introduction of Neoconservatism into the GOP:

“Old conservatives who welcomed the neo-cons into their ranks soon found that their new allies often displayed the habit of telling them what was and what was not "permissible" to say and how to say it. Criticism of the New Left and domestic communism was fine, but what the neo-conservatives regarded as "McCarthyism"—calling for restoration of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, for example, or the FBI's domestic security functions—was not respectable. Criticizing affirmative action was also okay, but criticism of unconstitutional civil rights legislation, the civil rights movement, or Martin Luther King Jr. was not respectable. Old conservative heroes like Joseph McCarthy, Douglas MacArthur, Charles Lindbergh, Robert Taft, and even Barry Goldwater tended to disappear or earn scorn in neo-conservative journals, while Harry Truman, George Marshall, Hubert Humphrey, and Henry Jackson developed into idols before which conservatives were supposed to bend the knee. Almost none of the neo-conservatives showed any interest in American constitutional principles or federalist and states' rights issues and arguments based on constitutionalism were muted in favor of the "empirical" arguments drawn from disciplines like sociology and political science in which neo-conservative academics tended to concentrate.”

Paleo historian Thomas Woods wrote about the rise of Neoconservatism and its difference with Paleoconservatism:

“The conservative’s traditional sympathy for the American South and its people and heritage, evident in the works of such great American conservatives as Richard M. Weaver and Russell Kirk, began to disappear... [T]he neocons are heavily influenced by Woodrow Wilson, with perhaps a hint of Theodore Roosevelt. ... They believe in an aggressive U.S. presence practically everywhere, and in the spread of democracy around the world, by force if necessary. ... Neoconservatives tend to want more efficient government agencies; paleoconservatives want fewer government agencies. [Neoconservatives] generally admire President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his heavily interventionist New Deal policies. Neoconservatives have not exactly been known for their budget consciousness, and you won't hear them talking about making any serious inroads into the federal apparatus.”

Claes Ryn went as far as to write a book about the abomination of Neoconservatism titled ‘America the Virtuous: The Crisis of Democracy and the Quest for Empire’. Here is a description of the book:

“Urged on by a powerful ideological and political movement, George W. Bush committed the United States to a quest for empire. American values and principles were universal, he asserted, and should guide the transformation of the world. Claes Ryn sees this drive for virtuous empire as the triumph of forces that in the last several decades acquired decisive influence in both the American parties, the foreign policy establishment, and the media. Public intellectuals like William Bennett, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Michael Novak, Richard Perle, and Norman Podhoret argued that the United States was an exceptional nation and should bring “democracy,” “freedom,” and “capitalism” to countries not yet enjoying them. Ryn finds the ideology of American empire strongly reminiscent of the French Jacobinism of the eighteenth century. He describes the drive for armed world hegemony as part of a larger ideological whole that both expresses and aggravates a crisis of democracy and, more generally, of American and Western civiliation. America the Virtuous sees the new Jacobinism as symptomatic of America shedding an older sense of the need for restraints on power. Checks provided by the U.S. Constitution have been greatly weakened with the erosion of traditional moral and other culture.”

The infighting for the soul of the Republican Party was launched during the Reagan administration and it boiled to the surface with the fight over who the nomination of Mel Bradford as director of the National Endowment for the Humanities. Bradford was viciously attacked by the Neoconservatives for his works criticizing Abraham Lincoln and thus who he withdrew from the nomination.

In 1986 the Intercollegiate Studies Institute journal Intercollegiate Review ran a ‘State of Conservatism’ symposium which drew heavy criticism for its Neoconservative dominance which now entered a Paleoconservative journal. Soon after that the Philadelphia Society wrote a symposium on Neoconservatism. This drew fire from Historian Stephen Tonsor (who refuses to accept the paleo label as he sees paleoconservatism as the only true conservatism) who wrote this:

“It has always struck me as odd, even perverse, that former Marxists have been permitted, yes invited, to play such a leading role in the Conservative movement of the twentieth century. It is splendid when the town whore gets religion and joins the church. Now and then she makes a good choir director, but when she begins to tell the minister what he ought to say in his Sunday sermons, matters have been carried too far.”

In 1987 another conflict arose when Paul Gottfried claims that Neoconservatives lobbied to keep him from a professorship in classical political theory at The Catholic University of America. These were his claims:

“[In 1987,] neocons denounced me to the authorities at Catholic University of America, on the grounds that I was "not safe on Israel," their flagrantly illogical argument: I had denied that Imperial Germany was principally to blame for the outbreak of World War One. Somehow this proved that I had denied the Holocaust, at least by indirection (never mind that it was the wrong German war!), and therefore I had to be against the Israelis (many of whose ancestors fought for the Central Powers in World War One—as did my own, Austrian Jewish forbears). Nevertheless, I still lost a graduate professorship.”

1988 proved another divisive year between Neoconservatives and Paleoconservatives when Russell Kirk, Paleocon, gave a speech at the Heritage Foundation which was titled ‘The Neoconservatives: An endangered species’. Chronicles editor Scott Richert describes it as this:

“[One line] helped define the emerging struggle between neoconservatives and paleoconservatives. "Not seldom has it seemed," Kirk declared, "as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States." A few years later, in another Heritage Foundation speech, Kirk repeated that line verbatim. In the wake of the Gulf War, which he had opposed, he clearly understood that those words carried even greater meaning.”

Midge Decter, a member of the Heritage Foundation’s Board of Trustees and Director for Committee for the Free World, also wife of a prominent Neocon commentator, said this about Russell Kirk’s speech, “a bloody outrage, a piece of anti-Semitism by Kirk that impugns the loyalty of neoconservatives." And she claimed that Kirk, “said people like my husband and me put the interest of Israel before the interest of the United States, that we have a dual loyalty." She went as far as to tell the New Republic this, "It's this notion of a Christian civilization. You have to be part of it or you’re not really fit to conserve anything. That's an old line and it's very ignorant."

Paleoconservatives were soon being fired in 1989 from the Rockford Institute, 1993 from National Review, 1995 from the Washington Times, and 1997 from the New York Post. All for their commentary which was never seen as problem until that point in time as many criticized Neoconservatives, Israel, supported the South and preached tradition.

In 2001 the first Neoconservative assumed office of president of the United States, he was not alone as the GOP had squeezed out the remaining Paleoconservatives from their ranks leaving just a few in office. In just 20 years they had taken over the Republican Party and launched their own president into power who would soon take us into two wars, spend us into oblivion, open the borders, destroy civil liberties, ignore the constitution, expand government, enforce politically correct, and at the same time preach social issues while never fully acting upon his promises.

This is how Paleoconservative, REAL CONSERVATIVE, Pat Buchanan describes the current Republican Party and Neocons:

“Buchanan vocally opposes those neoconservatives whom he calls "undocumented aliens from the Left, carrying with them the viruses of statism and globalism". He describes their first generation as people who began as "Trotskyist, socialists or Social Democrat", then became "JFK-LBJ Democrats", but broke with the Left during the Vietnam War and "came into their own" during Reagan's administration.[17] He said he welcomed neoconservatives during the early 1970s, but that it has become an inquisition, "hurling anathemas at any who decline to embrace their revised dogmas." Buchanan compares "Neocons" to squatters who take over a once-beloved home (the Republican Party) and convert it into a crack house.

How is it even remotely possible that former Trotskyites and Socialists are now the Conservatives in this country? That just blows my mind! These people are not Conservatives and never intended to be, they were kicked out of the Democratic Party and moved into the Republican Party. For some reason the real Conservatives opened the door and like stubborn family, have never left. Now they have kicked the Conservatives out of their house and have taken over. Destroying it, dirtying it up and just as Buchanan said, turning it into a crack house.

Ask yourselves this, are these people really Republicans? Or are they just people who have hijacked the party? The only logical answer is that they have hijacked it and are now driving it off the cliff. These people are just disgusting.

posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 11:39 PM
This can also be ascribed to the Progressive movement and their eugenicist ideology taking over the democratic party 100 years ago. These subversive elements in both parties seek to take America off of it's constitutional foundations. They seek to redact and rewrite history, they seek control over the actions of individuals.

You could call neocons the Progressive Right, as they share many of the same characteristics.

Progressives and neocons have seriously muddied the waters of political discourse in this country. So much so that we cast dispersions upon each other based on the things they say. This thread goes a long way to exposing one half of the poison killing this country.

posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 11:53 PM
reply to post by projectvxn

The Progressives come from a very different group than the Neocons but they still hail from the Socialist/Marxists of America. The New Left brought in the Progressives to control the Democratic Party while at the same time pushed the Neocons out. Basically the two parties we have today are controlled by the rivaling sects of the Democratic Party of the 1960’s.

On one side you have the Statist Neocons and the other you have the Statist Progressives. Even though they are both from different thinkers as Neocons come from ‘30s Trotskyites and Marxists while the Progressives come from ‘60s Communists and Socialists, they both uphold the same ideology of controlling the masses. It is just sickening the level of control they desire. It has come at the cost of both political parties, although the Neocons controlled the Democratic Party of the 1930’s to 1960’s.

Look at it this way:


Democratic Party 1932-1968
Republican Party 1980-now


Democratic Party 1972-now

So what this means is that the last time either political party was truly for either Conservatism or Liberalism was the GOP prior to 1980 and the Democratic Party prior to 1932. I would like to know why the Democrats were globalist and Statist prior to 1932 though, remember the Democrats were never statist until Wilson. Conspiracy maybe?

posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 12:03 AM
reply to post by Misoir

Actually Wilson was the second statist. Teddy Roosevelt was the first American president to suggest we could spread American democracy through the barrel of a gun.

posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 12:09 AM
reply to post by projectvxn

Anyone who believes that spreading American values through force is American has obviously never read the constitution or has dismissed its meaning.

posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 12:30 AM
reply to post by Misoir

lol I could not help myself, but after this I HAVE GOT TO GET SOME SLEEP!
You have probably seen me state this before, but I do not like either party because the Progressives have taken over both.
Neocons may lean a little farther to the center-right but they are still progressives.
Many do not wish to see it but they are driving this country off of a cliff.
Many think this is intentional (including myself).
I believe they are poison and should be removed from office before it is too late, the problem is that, more than likly the next group will be just as bad in a few years. That is the main reason we are in need of term limits for these clowns.

posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 12:37 PM
reply to post by Quadrivium

You could view both sides as coming from the Marxist theorists of America so they are both progressive and evil.

posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 03:43 PM

posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 08:08 PM

posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 09:28 AM
reply to post by Misoir

Unfortunately, all I see now is thieiving bastards, every way you turn to look into politics.

It matters not which party, which branch of which party, or even which person you look at.

While I certainly believe in our rights I do not see them being fully nor fairly represented.

This is because of lobbyist groups and special interest groups and the re-election machines.

As far as I see Conservatives push money into corporations pockets so they can get bribed later.

As far as I see Liberals would rather just outright steal the money and call it the people doing something.

And when it comes to the Republicans I see the same as the Conservatives.

As well as when I look at the Democrats I see the same as the Liberals.

So, to me, terms like "Neoconservative" only mean the new hi-jackers to me.

While they talk a good talk, on all sides, all they are doing is talking while hi-jacking the funds.

Because the average American citizen is too damn stupid to know anything about politics and economics.

I think we as a country need to hit the reset button and throw all of these thieving bastards out.

Nothing they are doing is doing a damn thing for the people of this nation anymore.

Former-President Bush and President Obama should have "Bailed Out" American small businesses.

About the only time I saw the American people really knowing what was going on was when "Healthcare Reform" was spoken of at local town hall meetings, and due to the populace having to jump through hoops to use it, they knew more about the process than those politicians who had the legislature written for them by the Healthcare Industry officials who lobbied them to begin with, and that was the very first time in the 21st Century I was impressed with the average citizens.

Part of that lobbying by the Healthcare Industry was also writing the legislation for the politicians.

So, in essence, we are not represented, the lobbyists have hi-jacked our nation as well.

Guaranteeing their paychecks, shareholders happiness, and monetary gain through racketeering.

I could care less about the "Grand Old Party" or the Neoconservatives.

As far as I see it they are constantly staging coups against one another.

We as citizens are caught in the middle and we are the only ones who suffer because of our ignorance.

And I am done with America as far as I am concerned I would rather live on Gilligans Island.

That made much more sense because at least that was happenstance and stupidity.

Not outright thievery.
edit on 11/2/10 by SpartanKingLeonidas because: Adding Depth and Insight Into The Post.

posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 11:59 AM
The results are out. Americans had spoken and made their choice. At least the majority of them. Congratulations. But what had they really chosed?

a. Tax cuts for the rich to enrich themselves further through slavery of humanity.
b. More spending for the military to protect the rich and dominate mankind.
c. Spending cuts on social welfare - to hell with poor and middle class americans.

This was, unfortunately, what americans had chosened, or had been misled to choose for. If this is not corporatist facism so clear, I know not what else is...

I weeped.

But all is not lost, for my faith in fellow americans is steadfast. Perhaps the result was an act of desperation, and should the republicans not change but continue with their pet causes or lavishly paid corporatist dues, beholden to big biz as the house majority leader is, they will be removed by the voters themselves.

To those who voted republicans, shed those crocodile tears. Every eye will be watching, to seek only for truth and reality so that all humanity may realised their common aspirations.

posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 12:29 PM
I thought the GOP was taken over by con artists right after the Civil War. The carpet baggers stormed over the south, learning the way to take from the people.

posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 01:21 PM
Incredible post Misoir, probably one of the best I've read on ATS. The neocons in the GOP have masked themselves as the party of "limited government" and limited spending, but the truth is, they outspend Democrats and expand government more so than Democrats. Where as Democrats will incorporate social welfare and other "safety-net" programs into their agenda, the neocons only want to spend on military, corporate welfare, and of course, Israel. Just remember freedom-lovers, neocons expanded America's intelligence apparatus to over 1,200 agencies - most of those pointed right back at you.

posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:16 PM
Great read, informative and educational, thanks. So in your words what do you think the NeoCons ultimate goal is for today's America? What current politicians are considered NeoCons. Weren't Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfawitcz self claimed NeoCons? What industry or company(s) are the strongest supporters of NeoCons, if any?
Would you consider either of the Bush's as NeoCons?
My vague understanding of their philosophy is they believe society on it's own can never rise to higher moral grounds therefore the NC's manipulate the system, via war and catastrophe in order to install more framework for a NWO. Do you think they are for a NWO?


posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 05:11 PM

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
So in your words what do you think the NeoCons ultimate goal is for today's America?

Well I cannot say there is any sole objective they are seeking to accomplish but when you look at their ideological history it does show where they generally stand. Take for instance their beginnings with Trotskyism; Trotsky was the man who called for ‘perpetual revolution’ and to spread democracy and human rights around the globe. Sound kind of familiar?

What current politicians are considered NeoCons. Weren't Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfawitcz self claimed NeoCons?

There are very few Republicans who are not Neoconservatives today. Those who do object to Neoconservatism are locked out of the media, party establishment, etc… It would be easier for me to identify the Paleoconservatives/Paleolibertarians who are the genuine Conservatives in America. Paleoconservatives are Samuel Francis, Patrick Buchanan, Paul Gottfried, Joseph Sobran (deceased), and Walter B. Jones. Paleolibertarians are Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard (deceased), Albert Jay Knock (deceased), Lew Rockwell, and Robert Taft (deceased).

What industry or company(s) are the strongest supporters of NeoCons, if any?

Almost all corporations on Wall Street support Neoconservatism because of the ideologies support for outsourcing jobs to cheap labor nations and insourcing cheap labor and their support for pro – big business policies. They are ‘Wal – Mart Republicans’. And any business involved in the military industrial complex or natural resource investments throughout the Middle East.

Would you consider either of the Bush's as NeoCons?

George W. Bush is the perfect example of a Neoconservative.

My vague understanding of their philosophy is they believe society on it's own can never rise to higher moral grounds therefore the NC's manipulate the system, via war and catastrophe in order to install more framework for a NWO. Do you think they are for a NWO?

There are many definitions of the NWO but if you are going by the JBS version of NWO then yes, they are for it. The New World Order is to be an equalization of wealth between all nations (equal poverty), mass immigration and multiculturalism, support for political correctness, spreading democracy abroad and transforming the original meaning of ‘rights’. They work in abstractions when discussing issues such as when they criticized Afghanistan under the Taliban not for enforcing the true concepts of Islamic law but simply because they are not feminist; the truth must be ignored because it does not fit their actual agenda.

Answer me this, after 9/11 which was committed by Muslim immigrants why did we not shut down immigration from Muslim nations but instead declared Islam a religion of peace then began bombing Afghanistan? It makes no sense whatsoever when you do not understand the underlying agenda which is the same as the one being enforced by every Liberal/Socialist revolution since the French (1789).

posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 05:26 PM
reply to post by Misoir

Thank you Misoir, I appreciate your knowledge and postings regarding history. Not much to add, just curious about the Neocon thing, and you have answered my inquiries.


posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 05:40 PM
Hi Miso!

Excellent post...I enjoyed reading it very much. There are no conservatives in American Politics, except maybe the Paul's. The Republicans changed at the time of Reagan, as you mentioned. For part of this change, the religious right (Pat Robertson et al.) jumped into the fray and switched the Republicans into Pro-Life; and the Democrats became Pro-Choice. People seem to forget that George Bush senior was the biggest advocate of Pro-Choice as a Senator. Then as POTUS: he begins the drug war, voices the need for a "New World Order," and starts the Gulf War. Government control and the need for a pro-active war of little justification...nothing conservative about that.

I'm beginning to think Joe McCarthy may not have been so crazy after all, since the Progressive Socialist Democrats and the Globalist Warmonger NeoCons seem to have abandoned the American principles of Liberty and Freedom.

Peace to you in 2012.
edit on 15-1-2012 by ibiubu because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2012 by ibiubu because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2012 by ibiubu because: not enough coffee

posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 06:44 PM
Classic Hegelian dialectic again. They just rename everything and the short memory of people helps obfuscate the truth.
Yes, both parties are infected with Statism of every kind.

new topics

top topics


log in