Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yup! But liberals repeatedly get hung up on the term "globalist." They have a difficult time comprehending the term while specifically in the context of these types of conversations.
Conservatives understand but liberals can't seem to grasp it and then they go shooting off on an entirely different tangent.
Libs, if you replace the word "globalist" with top 1% of the pyramid does it make more sense? These are the worlds power players and own and control everything. They definitely have an agenda and they definitely control and heavily influence politicians.
The Bush family and other certain members of the Republican party are/were puppets for the 1%ers, more so than other current Republican party politicians who want to fight the 1%ers tooth and nail.
I could write more but that would be a thumbnail.
Hope this helps clarify....
Naw, pretty much only right-wingers use the term globalist, and it's a loosely defined term depending on context. Kind of like another all-purpose insult or boogeyman term to stoke culture wars, like "woke", Cultural Marxist, SJW, that is a devoid of much substance.
Naw, pretty much only right-wingers use the term globalist, and it's a loosely defined term depending on context. Kind of like another all-purpose insult or boogeyman term to stoke culture wars, like "woke", Cultural Marxist, SJW, that is a devoid of much substance.
If not globalist, what term does the left use to denote what they used to call the 1%?
Between the conservatives' inability to formulate a consistent definition of the term, and the Lefties' desire to instantly demonize anything they perceive as a threat, this thread should make for some interesting reading; Please lead on, (or lead off).
IMO, any republican that has wandered far away from the libertarian sensibilities of what a republican should be. Ronnie Raygun was one of the last who leaned toward the "small govt you can drown in a bathtub" tendency, but his Star Wars nonsense laid that idea to rest.
As to consistent definitions, the lefties are all over the map also. How do you define the term "justice" or "equality" compared to the average woketard?
In order to understand what a NeoCon is, one needs to understand something about traditional conservativism.
Traditional conservatives advocated for a small Federal government, mostly to keep expenses down, and taxes down.
At this point everyone is probably saying "damned right!"
Well, that extended to the US military as well, they did not want a strong US Army nor Navy, considering the costs. History is full of examples of this in our history, such as the near dissolution of the Cavalry after the revolution (reduced to a small dragoon force).
We were woefully unprepared for the War of 1812, the US military was quite small and we relied heavily on the state militias, who were by and large were not professionally trained. It went on like that up until the War between the States and then the military was suppressed once again.
Famously, conservatives opposed entry into world war one and then imposed an isolationist policy on the US. Anti-war sentiment centered on the Republican Party and conservatives generally until Pearl Harbor, and our entry into world war two.
After the war, something new was afoot. War was good for business and large armament manufacturers (and the automotive and aircraft industries) wanted to keep the money flowing. This was a new age in the Republican Party: all for small government EXCEPT the military! That was new for conservatives.
One might remember president Eisenhower warned us about the rise of the military-industrial complex. He watched it grow in the decade and a half after WW II and he saw it as a dangerous trend.
Once the armaments manufacturers and others saw that a large Pentagon budget would be reliably profitable for them, they would use their money to influence policy toward that end, even to encourage involvement in foreign wars.
Well the military industrial complex became a powerful force in both parties ... until the conservative Democrats in the south went over to the Republican Party. Then it's influence was concentrated mainly among Republicans. Anti-war activists opposed involvement in the Vietnam War specifically, and are usually though of as liberals ... liberals have criticized the large Pentagon budget for many decades since, preferring to spend the money on domestic social programs and infrastructure.
That's the classic "guns vs butter" political contest. Liberals advocated for a larger domestic agenda and smaller military budget, conservatives ('new' conservatives) advocated for a larger military agenda and less domestic spending.
So these new conservatives continued to maintain a belief in small government, with the notable exception for the military. They have continued to support a very bloated Pentagon budget, which would seem to be counter to their small government philosophy. In order to justify such a large budget, and to get the military to re-order parts and supplies, they need foreign entanglements or at least planned obsolescence.
Irving Kristol (father of Bill Kristol) popularized, and possibly coined, the term neoconservative to describe his politics. Its origin might go back as far as 1968, and was certainly current by the 1970s.
Kristol was editor of Commentary magazine, a Jewish, pro-Zionist opinion journal. Like many Jews in the 1950s and 1960s, Kristol was liberal, pro-civil rights, pro-separation of church and state.
Kristol opposed 1950s and 1960s conservatism, which was traditionalist, pro Christian social issues (pro-prayer in schools, anti-abortion, anti-gay rights), America First, and even anti-foreign wars to some extent. (The John Birch Society opposed U.S. intervention in Vietnam.)
But the 1967 Six-Day War instilled Zionist fervor in many liberal Jews. They were shocked when the New Left hippies and black militants (the Jews' allies) opposed Israel and sympathized with the PLO.
This motivated Kristol, and Jews like him (including former Trotskyites like David Horowitz), to leave liberalism for conservatism.
Further motivating them was that Soviet Jewry was becoming a big issue. The USSR wouldn't let them immigrate to Israel. Conservatives were anti-Communist, so Jews like Kristol found common cause with conservatives.
Kristol and formerly leftist Jews embraced the anti-Communism of conservatism, but disdained Christian social conservatism. So he called his group neoconservative, partially because they were new to conservatism, but also because they differed on key issues.
After the Cold War, many conservatives wanted to return to an isolationist America First foreign policy (e.g., Pat Buchanan, Joe Sobran). In contrast, the core issue for mostly Jewish neoconservatives is support for Israel. So though the Cold War ended, they continued pushing for a militant U.S. foreign policy, so America would always be there for Israel.
But neoconservatives realized that only supporting Israel would not be as persuasive as advocating for broader principles, like "New World Order" (the rallying cry of the Gulf War) and "All Peoples Want Freedom" (the rationale for the Iraq War).
Neocons are heavily composed of Jewish Republicans, but some neocons are Democrats and/or gentiles. Jeane Kirkpatrick and Hilary Clinton are famous gentile neocons.
A neocon supports a militaristic, imperialist foreign policy, with special emphasis on Israel's wants and needs. Neocons generally disdain social issues, and are often pro-gay rights and pro-abortion, but sometimes they'll give lip service to social issues to please Christian Zionists. Nothing ever comes of their support, because they make no effort in that direction.
Neocons generally favor open borders and globalism (i.e., free flow of goods and labor between nations, with minimal or no tariffs).
To Jewish neocons, an isolationist "America First" policy meant staying out of World War II, abandoning Jews to Hitler. And it means abandoning Israel. For America to abandon its role as world policeman is a threat Jewish lives. That's how they see it.
This is why neocons hated Trump when Trump said "America First." And though Trump made an exception for Israel, neocons continued to hate and fear Trump, because the America First philosophy might lead some people to eventually think, hey, why should Israel be an exception?
Neocons also hated Trump's anti-immigration policy, as they generally favor diversity for America and Europe (but not for Israel, which must remain a Jewish state).
I've warmed up to some of the neocon's ideas such as nation building... send in a specialized team of operatives to take out the leadership in the nations where most of the refugees are coming from, and then install western puppet leaders to help clean up the media and modernize the culture. Makes sense in theory? Could it be done? Who knows.
Your definition is generally what David Duke referred to when he mentioned "neoconservatives" ... it's strange that they (neocons) didn't like Trump and yet now the left is anti-israel. That tells me the definition has changed... why are they now targeting Israel? Inquiring minds would like to know why the global elite have turned their backs on them.... that alone makes me more likely to support Israel. Chuckle.
These elites seem to want to trash any country not supporting mass melting pot immigration laws. Period. I suspect that's part of it. It doesn't really matter how progressive they are with other policies... they only seem to care about creating a mass melting pot in every western country that has major power combined with a homogeneous population and culture... nothing else seems to matter at this point.
Your definition is generally what David Duke referred to when he mentioned "neoconservatives" ... it's strange that they (neocons) didn't like Trump and yet now the left is anti-israel. That tells me the definition has changed... why are they now targeting Israel?
My definition is the one by which neocons self-defined themselves. David Horowitz says he was a New Left Trotskyite in the 1960s, until the Six Day War. When he saw the New Left side with Arabs, and what he perceived as rising anti-Semitism on the Left, he defected from Left to Right.
Neocons aren't targeting Israel. Bill Kristol is as pro-Israel as ever. The far Left is targeting Israel. The far Left (as opposed to Establishment Democrats) has always targeted Israel.
As for the definition changing ... neocons were proud of the term until the Iraq War. The Iraq War was enthusiastically supported by both Establishment Democrats and Republicans. Only the fringes opposed it: the Far Left, hardcore Libertarians, and Paleo-cons (traditionalist, antiwar conservatives).
About then, Pat Buchanan founded The American Conservative magazine as a voice for the antiwar right.
After the Iraq War, people began denying they'd ever supported it. This was especially true among previously pro-war Democrats, soft progressives, and Libertarians. (I personally witnessed several born-again "antiwar Libertarians" try to memory hole their previous pro-war advocacy.)
The antiwar Right, led by Ron Paul (who drew support from both Paleo-cons and Libertarians), grew stronger. In 2008, he appeared close to winning the GOP presidential nomination, thus toppling Neocon control of the GOP. Remember the hate and venom that Establishment Republicans threw at him?
Later, Trump threatened to accomplish what Paul failed: topple the Establishment's pro-war, pro-Israel consensus. Hence, the hundredfold hate directed at Trump from both Democrats and neocon "Never Trumpers."
Paul was the hero for the Tea Party, founded as a voice for antiwar conservatism. It was only later infiltrated by neocons and redirected to focus solely on taxes: https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1453797440/
By the late 2000s, Neocons were left holding the Iraq War baby, everyone blaming them for the war. It didn't help that Neocons were by 2007 pushing for a war against Iran. "Iraq was the wrong war. Iran is the right war," said Wayne Allyn Root that same year.
And so Neocons, rather than discard their imperialist foreign policy, instead disavowed the label. While previously proudly embracing it, they now claimed that "neocon" was meaningless and even anti-Semitic.
The definition hasn't changed. It's merely lost its luster. No one wants to be called a neocon, because it's (correctly) associated with the Gulf War, the Afghan War, especially the Iraq War, interventions in Syria and Libya, and pending war with Iran.
The term 'neocon' is likely 'fluid', that is, it likely means whatever the speaker wants it to mean, & has no fixed shape while easily yielding to external pressures.
I think of it as the political ideology of being comfortably numb, &/or the quasi-religious philosophy of free market fundamentalism.
Allowing the free movement of products across borders according to free market forces, along with reductions in trade barriers, tariffs, & regulation, when workers are not allowed to do so, has created a global economic climate where products are manufactured using cheap labor in underdeveloped countries & then exported to more developed countries.
Workers in underdeveloped countries nevertheless remain poor, whereas workers in developed countries become unemployed, while multinational corporations grow even more wealthy.
Without considering the many & various externalities involved, the free market fundamentalists have, perhaps unconsciously, proved Adam Smith's 'Invisible Hand' metaphor works. That is, when individuals & corporations, acting solely in the pursuit of their own self-interest, are led, as if by an 'invisible hand' to do what's best for the world.
That is, if one agrees with what the wealthiest individuals & corporations have decided is best for the world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
