Things are more complicated than you portray them. Not everyone who is pro-Israel is a "neo-con" let alone a former commie who found a home in the Bush administration. While on the subject of Israel a secular Jew "neo-con", an Orthodox Jew and a Baptist might have total commonality, on abortion rights the neo-con would be to the left of the afore-mentioned. The Jewish run American media is devoutly liberal on social issues but slavishly devoted to Israel. The "typical" American knows more about Islamic divisions in Iraq than about the ceding of property by the Palestinians in 1948. That's why I LMAO at leftists Democrats who decry the horror of neo-conservatism. Within the ranks of the GOP it's an enigma outside of Bush and Company whereas within the liberal social wing of the Democrats it's the water boy. If I could cite one single factor contributing to the decline of America-morally, socially and fiscally-it would be the rise of secular Jewish interests in mind controlling academic, media and entertainment venues. To merely label them as anti-Christian cultural debaser's would be the understatement of a lifetime......
Pabst, neo-cons are NOT fiscally conservatives... http://www.amazon.com/Neocon-Reader-Irwin-Stelzer/dp/0802141935 (look for term "federal deficits") http://www.amazon.com/Neoconservative-Revolution-Jewish-Intellectuals-Shaping/dp/0521836565 (neo-con values) Neo-con domestic security measures, invasion of Syria etc. http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/2004/01/30/frum_perle/index.html http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E01E3DD1038F93BA35751C0A9629C8B63 Of course I'm aware that pro-Israel does not mean being neo-con, while it's certainly true the other way around - all neo-cons are fully pro-Israel. Lots of "traditional mainstream conservatives" are very pro-Israel, especially if religious (as most US citizens are). John Ashcroft is a good example and not a neo-con. Neo-cons like to attack paleo-conservatives, and vice versa. They hate Pat Buchanan, and he hates them. As for morals - that is religion/faith and external pressure on individual liberties --- however integrity and ethics are something different. Corruption - total saturated special interests gone on a rampage - that is what has brought the US down, including neo-cons and "old-money" - they are both elitist. The neo-cons could never have gotten in power, had it not been for the support from "old-money." If you want the real insight into morality religious context and the neo-cons - see the writings of father Dr. Gary Dorrien - the leading world expert on ethics with neo-conservatism, and currently the Reinhold Niebuhr professor at Columbia University.
The article is amazingly one sided against one party ideology which means the author is amazingly one sided for another party ideology. Any party ideologue can easily contribute something that pitiful.
Well, I have called you a neo-con many a time - and I guess I can still do so... you are the user the farthest away from any reality I have read here on ET, but I find that kind of amusing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan You are welcome to fix "the error about paleoconservative Buchanan" - please remove all references of him being a paleoconservative at your own interpretation of reality. LOL. NeoRio1, I have many times wondered if you are a neo-con - which you never have denied when I have asked - so, are you? Funny username anyway. Also, I referenced purely neo-con written books.
Kristol, Burnham and Perle were anti-Soviet liberals in the 60's and broke with the new liberalism of that time that gravitated toward it. That led to the beginning of neoconservatism. Trotskyism had nothing to do with it. The move was basically from moderate liberalism to moderate conservatism. Surprise! The new left is where Barack Obama's roots are. No wonder he's hung around with Marxists, communists and radicals his whole life...
Gord, you need to read the whole story - not the first paragraphs to understand things... I presented all the major points, and you can see the wife of Irving Kristol and mother of William Kristol - Gertrude Himmelfarb, and her fascination with the Victorian era, social Darwinism, new imperialism and Benjamin Disraeli... However, understanding neo-conservatives means accepting that they are a very conflicted group with some common values - primarily the concern for Israel, Middle-Eastern arch enemies and the hate/revulsion of countercultures. Since they embraced the totalitarian ideas - they simply just shifted allegiance - but continued just as radical -- now proponents of authoritarian totalitarianism, simply fascism.
A man could devote his entire life researching and writing about someone as influential and dynamic Pat Buchanan. That is why his wikipedia entry is so long and has so many edits and discussions. But a distinction should be made between the young Pat of the 80's and 90's and the ore mainstream at of today. Pat regularly endorses McCain and supports a state of Isreal.
stock_trad3r, most sane people support the right of Israel's existence --- but Pat Buchanan is evidently paleo-conservative and have a distaste for neo-conservatives. David Frum and some other neo-conservatives are totally against Sarah Palin.
No im not a neocon. My name is NeoRio because i think it's a cool play on words. Im fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I say let people do what they want with their bodies and such which means that i don't fit into your "facist" category lol. Conservative's don't hate government but they hate a lot of it. The reason being is because when things get going the government only hinders the parts of the machine. The thing is that many liberals get left behind and are always left behind so they always want bigger government. The mindset of a liberal means they always want big government because whether the economy is good or bad because they in their stagnant unsatisfying and uninnovative job barely have any increase in profits. This certain mindset is permantly set in ones personality. Sense it is permanent this is why i think 50-60% of government should be spent on education so we can spend less government on those that are less educated.