What happens when the thinking Left realizes they just elected the Milli Vanilli of politics?

Now, that’s funny.

At least it would be if I didn’t think you were serious. I will be hoping and praying that you will be proven wrong. But until then, I’d say that we should all at the very least give Obama a chance before we demonize him.

And if he does become the Milli Vanilli of politics, I hope that he can choose better music. Maybe something folksy…

But I think even under Bush things were more complex than you suggest.

I absolutely agree. Unfortunately to address that complexity I’d have to write a book instead of a blog posting.

I think I guess I’m more saying that portraying this as “right wing extremists” isn’t the best way of putting it.

Yes, you are right in that I am being simplistic in my descriptions. I agree that I probably shouldn’t make broad generalizations like that. My weak excuse is that I really don’t have much time for posting as I usually do them during my breaks at work. I make mistakes like this because I’m hurried.

I also agree that the terms “right” and “left” really don’t have very good definitions and have often been used inappropriately. Anymore they are used as “swear words” demonizing the other camp. I’m trying to be fair, but I still occasionally use “right-wing” that way, sadly.

Thanks for the “boot to the head.”

Maybe this just highlights the problems of the term “right” and “left” though.

To put it very simply, the neocons believe that America should become a “Pax Americana” or a successor to the British Empire.

I don’t think that’s quite fair. It seems to me that neo-cons started as a movement of very liberal almost Marxist Democrats who, as they put it, “got mugged by reality.” They feel the US should be far more interventionist to promote democracy and human rights. I’m not sure that means they are far right wing extremists nor that all neo-cons agree with the way Bush promoted things. (And while Bush was influenced by neo-cons he himself is anything but a neo-con)

So I think you’re giving a bit of a caricature. Not that I like the Bush administration. But I think even under Bush things were more complex than you suggest. Even with regards to the so-called Bush doctrine I’m not sure it is as extreme as portrayed although it’s implementation sure was bad. But then the very meaning of “Bush doctrine” is a moving target.

I think even many if not most neo-cons agree that the ends don’t justify the means. That’s why I think we have to be careful to distinguish incompetence from ideology.

Could you clarify?

I’ll try.

Some people have called the extreme right-wing section of the conservative base the “neocons.” That actually is a bit misleading in that the neocons are a small group within the far right, while what you could call the extreme right-wing encompasses a lot of various factions, beliefs and ideologies. And so I was being simplistic in my description of Bush being the spokesperson for all of the far right.

Now the left has demonized the neocons to no end and have thus warped or changed the actual truth of the movement. The basic understanding of the movement is that it began as a reaction to the left-leaning influences of the ’60′s. And for the most part a neocon is pretty much identical to a normal conservative. At least they are indistinguishable from a normal conservative on most mainstream and internal matters. They are, however, very different from normal conservative thought when it comes to international affairs.

Neoconservatives are associated with foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), The Heritage Foundation, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). And while on the surface these organizations do sound and act as typical conservative political initiatives, I personally find their focus and ideals on international topics to be very extreme in nature and in some cases abhorrent.

To put it very simply, the neocons believe that America should become a “Pax Americana” or a successor to the British Empire. To this end they have adopted an interventionist belief in regards to foreign policy. They believe that America should “export” democracy directly and refuse to work with international organizations (the U.N. for example) that would stand in their way. They believe that by nation building and interventionist policies they will create more democracies in the world and thus would reduce the breeding grounds for Islamic terrorism.

Bush’s ties to the neocons can be illustrated by the National Security Council text “National Security Strategy of the United States”, published September 20, 2002.

“We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed… even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack… The United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.”

This is the now famous “Bush Doctrine” of preemptive war that took hold of the Presidency after 9/11. Bush’s State of the Union speech in January 2002 was written by neocon David Frum and named Iraq, Iran and North Korea as states that “constitute an axis of evil” and “pose a grave and growing danger.” And, “I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.”

From a Wikipedia article:

Nebraska Republican U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel, who has been critical of the Bush Administration’s adoption of neoconservative ideology in his book America: Our Next Chapter, writes, “So why did we invade Iraq? I believe it was the triumph of the so-called neo-conservative ideology, as well as Bush administration arrogance and incompetence that took America into this war of choice … They obviously made a convincing case to a president with very limited national security and foreign policy experience, who keenly felt the burden of leading the nation in the wake of the deadliest terrorist attack ever on American soil.”

I personally believe that Bush thought that this method of foreign policy was the best thing for the nation at the time. Unlike most rabid lefties, I don’t think Bush is “evil” or try to demonize him. I think he was trying his best, but was in far, far over his head. And he let the neocon’s ideology take over the administration with no possibility of an alternative viewpoint.

PS: My antagonism against the neocons does not in any way form a belief that America should not act against terrorism and threats to the country. I do believe that Bush was successful in reducing the threat of terrorism within the US. But sometimes the end does not justify the means. This is not a black/white policy; there are many shades of grey. And if you do not recognize that, you are in danger of causing great unrest in the world at the expense of current US safety. But what about the future? What about the enemies you’ve created to keep the US safe? This is why I think the neocons are wrong and are extremists.

As for Obama, I was hoping for some hope or some warm fuzzies- something. Nope, nothing. Every time I feel a little hopeful, I realize it’s the same sensation I get after watching an inspiring movie- it’s nice, but it’s superficial and fleeting.

Geoff, I’m sad to say that I don’t share this hope you have. Part of it, I’m assuming, is the joy and spirit of unity currently present in the hearts of Obama supporters, who dusted off their mini flags and waved them for the MSNBC cameras on election night. What’s going to happen when Obama can’t fill their cars with gas and pay their mortgage? Will they still be flying those flags?

What happens when the thinking Left realizes they just elected the Milli Vanilli of politics? What about the duped moderates that just wanted to be part of history? What happens when they see Obama for the uber-liberal he was all his life up to the general election (during which he tried his best Reagan impression)?

The only hope I have is that the next 4 years goes by quick, that Obama media bubble will finally pop, and that the GOP comes to its senses.

In my eyes Bush became the spokesperson for the extreme right-wing of the Republican party,

Could you clarify? I see Bush as very incompetent but have a hard time seeing him as even remotely close to the right wing of the party let alone extreme.