If Jim DeMint lived in your state and was running for Senate election/reelection.....

[erowe1]

I have a counter-proposal for you. Find me a neoconservative that doesn't identify himself as a "social conservative".

Joe Lieberman.

And for that matter, the large majority of neoconservatives whose names appear in this article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

 

[erowe1]

Neo-conservativism isn't limited to a party. It's been said Woodrow Wilson was the first neo-con, to which many could easily see why.

Agreed. I'm not sure which part of what I said you're responding to, but if you're implying that you think Kucinich and Buchanan are neoconservatives, then we might as well just discard the label and say "statist" or something instead.

 

[Fozz]

I don't know how many of those there are. But if there's not somebody better than Demint in a primary, then like I said, pickins would have to be pretty slim.

Even on fiscal issues he could be improved on. There were 17 Republicans who voted against all 5 bailouts and stimulus packages in 2008-2009, and they were all in the House, not a single one in the Senate, including Demint. Plus, his foreign policy stinks. We should be able to do better than that. I'm not saying I'd use foreign policy as a litmus test and never under any circumstances support someone who doesn't pass that test (for example I'd probably support Jeff Flake for Senate, and would take him over Jim Demint in a heartbeat), but it's a huge issue, and not something that can just be bracketed off as though it's no big deal. In fact, for all the ways that Demint is better than Chuck Hagel, I'd probably take Hagel over Demint just for that reason.

Trust me, foreign policy is very important to me, and I am very careful about saying I would vote for DeMint. It took me a while after hearing about DeMint for me to trust him, but the reason I do is because he puts the right issues above foreign policy. He probably cares as much about Honduras as he does about the Iraq war. And notice he was not convinced by establishment neocons who said that Rand Paul is too weak on defense. That is a big plus, as well as his belief that domestic Big Government is a bigger enemy of our freedoms than Islam or terrorism.

And I don't necessarily trust everyone who DeMint endorses. I would not vote for Marco Rubio, even though he is similar to DeMint, because Rubio has a much greater tendency to repeat Cheney and Giuliani's nonsensical talking points about national security, and I feel that he may end up like most other Republicans and become more of a warmongering scum than anyone else. I don't see DeMint doing that.

 

[Daamien]

Lieberman opposes same-sex marriage
Lieberman wants a federal abortion policy that "makes abortion safe, rare and legal"
Lieberman supports the death penalty
Lieberman supports the war on drugs

I'd call him a social moderate. Fair enough. I was thinking about those who are within the Republican Party, but now I'm just providing caveats which only further distract from my point that Neocons are collectivists who support federal control over both foreign and domestic agendas, even if just as a means to an end.

 

[Fozz]

While I recognize that marriage, I stand by my statement that Neoconservatives universally support such things as federal bans on abortion, a federal war on drugs, and a federal ban on same-sex marriage. Perhaps not genuinely, but they certainly do so for support.

The way I see it:
All Neocons support using the state to police morality
Not not all Social Conservatives support using the state to police morality
All Neocons label themselves as Social Conservatives
Not all Social Conservatives label themselves as Neocons

Although Neocon philosophy is centered around nation-building foreign policy to enhance America's interests under the guise of "spreading democracy" by policing the world, they apply a similar centralized control domestically to police citizens and their actions. To a Neocon it's all about control, and at a federal level.

Condi is pro-choice.

 

[dean.engelhardt]

Why?

Were you under the impression that neoconservatism was a movement of social conservatives?

This paragraph seems pretty accurate to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#Distinctions_from_other_conservatives

Neoconservatisn and social liberalism aren't dependent and there are cases of people supporting both. The vast majority of neo-cons that have been in power this century have strong social conservative leanings. Below are the wiki definitions I found.

Social conservatism is a political or moral ideology that believes government and/or society have a role in encouraging or enforcing what they consider traditional values or behaviors based on the belief that these are what keep people civilized and decent.

Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.

Regardless of party affiliation, neocons have been in power since 2000. This is consistant with loss of individual freedoms.

Yes, my mind is still blown. DeMint gets 70% support on a Ron Paul forum and there is an argument that neocons are social liberals. I feel like I fell down the rabbit hole.

Plus, I am having difficulty finding a description of neocons as social liberals in your link. Perhaps you can help me out?

 

[erowe1]

there is an argument that neocons are social liberals.

That's because, generally speaking, they are. The socially conservative policies Bush pushed (and there weren't that many when you get right down to it) were in spite of the influence that neocons had on him, not because of it.

 

[qh4dotcom]

Not if his Democrat opponent is also pro-war, which was the case when he got elected in 2004.

What if there's an anti-war 3rd party candidate running? You can also stay at home.

 

[AuH20]

That's because, generally speaking, they are.

Correct. Neos are disgruntled liberals who jumped ship during the Cold War.

 

[Theocrat]

I'd Vote DeThirdParty

I would vote third-party, write-in, or abstain.

Demint is a Neoconservative. I don't care that he is neocon-lite. I can support his legislation and work with him on domestic issues, but I do not support him as a candidate.

My sentiments exactly. I would be voting for this guy instead.

 

[erowe1]

Plus, I am having difficulty finding a description of neocons as social liberals in your link. Perhaps you can help me out?

I gave the quote about most of them being secular above. But like I said, it's not a defining characteristic, the defining characteristic is in foreign policy. But most of the people who best represent neoconservatism are social liberals (at least in comparison to most Republicans) and are generally in an uncomfortable tension with the religious right. I don't know of any who are especially bent on social conservatism: Joseph Lieberman, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Irving and Bill Kristol, Max Boot, Eilliot Abrams, etc. There might be some who embrace those things for partisan reasons, just as their are some dyed in the wool social conservatives like Demint who embrace neoconservative foreign policy for partisan reasons. But the two things are entirely separate, and I'm pretty sure that the neoconservative wing of the GOP would rather not have to deal with the social conservatives. If the GOP ever became noninterventionist, they'd have no hesitation about going back to being Dems, and on the social and fiscal issues they'd probably be more comfortable in that party.

 

[TCE]

Just speaking hypothetically: If I were Bill Kristol or someone like that, I'd view this thread with great interest to determine what small concessions I could make on domestic spending to get the liberty voters to grudgingly fall behind a pro-war, pro-police state candidate...

Jim DeMint may be one of the best in the Senate on fiscal issues, but that's just not saying all that much.

This is the best post on this thread.

All the neo-cons need to do is be a bit more fiscally conservative and then they'll realize most of us don't care about our foreign empire. That way, they get to stay in power and we think we're moving in the right direction. The same tactic they have used for the past 200 years is now being targeted at us.

And 70% of us have fallen for it.

 

[No1ButPaul08]

That's because, generally speaking, they are. The socially conservative policies Bush pushed (and there weren't that many when you get right down to it) were in spite of the influence that neocons had on him, not because of it.

I have to somewhat disagree on this. The neocons used the religious right to get and keep George Bush in office. They had to throw them a bone. They knew exactly what they were doing.

 

[No1ButPaul08]

Just speaking hypothetically: If I were Bill Kristol or someone like that, I'd view this thread with great interest to determine what small concessions I could make on domestic spending to get the liberty voters to grudgingly fall behind a pro-war, pro-police state candidate...

Bingo. This is what they did to the religious right. These people don't care about social policy, liberal or conservative.

 

[dean.engelhardt]

This is the best post on this thread.

All the neo-cons need to do is be a bit more fiscally conservative and then they'll realize most of us don't care about our foreign empire. That way, they get to stay in power and we think we're moving in the right direction. The same tactic they have used for the past 200 years is now being targeted at us.

And 70% of us have fallen for it.

I agree with your post, but how much longer can we seperate foreign empire building from fiscal irresponsibility? Eventually we we need to pay the debt of foreign wars and that is done domestically.

 

[AuH20]

I agree with your post, but how much longer can we seperate foreign empire building from fiscal irresponsibility? Eventually we we need to pay the debt of foreign wars and that is done domestically.

True. Wars are primarily financed through inflation. So when Demint supports an auditing of the fed, he is indirectly calling for a reduced global presence. Many people overlook this fact.

 

[TCE]

I agree with your post, but how much longer can we seperate foreign empire building from fiscal irresponsibility? Eventually we we need to pay the debt of foreign wars and that is done domestically.

Judge Napolitano tells it perfectly. There are is just one Big Government Party with two factions:

One attacks our commercial liberties, taxes us to death, gives us a nanny state where everything is regulated and spends tons of money.

One believes in wars and attacks civil liberties while pushing its will onto us through the drug war. It too spends tons of money enforcing these rules.

DeMint is the second one, although he is a pinch better than your standard Republican, that is all he is. He goes off and endorses Rand, speaks out against the Fed and believes in term limits and all of us are drooling over him.

Guess what? Every Republican in the House co-sponsored Hr 1207, why don't we support them? Newt Gingrich believed in term limits, why don't we like him? Sarah Palin endorsed Rand, so is it cool to like her?

I am not for paying off the wars at all. GET OUT of the countries and then we can talk about paying off the debt. I am not willing to pay higher taxes all while the problem is still going on and we have no plans to leave.

 

[TCE]

He also voted for No Child Left Behind and was one of the co-sponsors: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h107-1

So, virtually doubling the size of the Department of Education means he's a conservative?

EDIT: Apparently he did Co-Sponsor it, but voted against it...that's interesting.

 

[dean.engelhardt]

True. Wars are primarily financed through inflation. So when Demint supports an auditing of the fed, he is indirectly calling for a reduced global presence. Many people overlook this fact.

Lets give DeMint a benefit of a doubt for a minute. Lets assume that DeMint supports an audit of the Fed for unstated support to end the wars. In the mean time he votes to fund the war while as a member of congress he could take a stand for defunding it?

I've heard this agrument DeMint is an non-invertentionalist because he wants to audit the fed, which could end funding to empire building. When the congress vote for $78B emergency funding for the war, Ron Paul was vocally against it. DeMint vote for it. Because of this I can't buy the closet pacifist theory.

Strongly Favors topic 15:
Expand the armed forces
(-5 points on Social scale) Rated 0% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record: Strongly Favors topic 15
YES on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill: Favors topic 15
YES on deploying SDI: Favors topic 15
YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan: Strongly Favors topic 15
NO on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding: Favors topic 15
NO on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months: Favors topic 15

 

[purplechoe]