I've noticed all the neo-cons are ex-leftists

[AmericaFyeah92]

OK not ALL, but many. norman podherotz, bernard lewis, irving kristol, christopher hitchens. even ronald raegan, are just a few. Some were even marxists. This might explain the big-government "conservatives" who seem to rule the once-coservative republican party. Thoughts?

i dunnow if this was the right forum or not but o well.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

Yes they come from the left wing of the democratic party.. was just something else Ive learned from Ron Paul given the last year of following him.

 

[NMCB3]

You are correct.

 

[hueylong]

Good eye.

 

[Liberty Star]

Not just any ex-leftists, ex-Marxists of the radical kind who changed colors to use American military and empire for global interventionism to serve their agenda.

 

[AlexK]

Almost all of the Republicans in Congress seem to be neo-cons. Are you telling me most of them used to be liberals? Just because you found a few of them who used to be liberal doesn't really prove your point.

 

[AmericaFyeah92]

Almost all of the Republicans in Congress seem to be neo-cons. Are you telling me most of them used to be liberals? Just because you found a few of them who used to be liberal doesn't really prove your point.

read the post, wise one. I specified that not ALL were, but that many influential (even founding members) of the neoconservative wing have leftward origins. I could probably find a dozen more names if you wanted.

 

[billyjoeallen]

Don't forget Michael Medved and P.J. O'Roark.

They were both young leftie radicals.

 

[AlexK]

read the post, wise one. I specified that not ALL were, but that many influential (even founding members) of the neoconservative wing have leftward origins. I could probably find a dozen more names if you wanted.

In the title you put "all" and in the post you put "many", which averages out to "most".

 

[danish]

I noticed the founders are jewish. Like Irving Kristol.

 

[Crowish]

David Horowitz (the anti-academic) as well

 

[RonRules]

You're missing the most obvious. Most (except for Reagan) are Jewish.

Watch in about 5 years, when this libertarian movement takes hold, they will infiltrate us as well.

Stay vigilant.

 

[JeffSchulman]

Meh

Murray Rothbard was Jewish..... So is my grandpa.....

 

[RonRules]

"when this libertarian movement takes hold, they will infiltrate us as well."

Look up Eric Dondero's original name, Ron Paul's campaign manager whom he fired. That's was the first attempt at infiltration.

 

[merrimac]

The very first neoconservative was Woodrow Wilson (Democrat) so I fully believe original poster's claim.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

"when this libertarian movement takes hold, they will infiltrate us as well."

Look up Eric Dondero's original name, Ron Paul's campaign manager whom he fired. That's was the first attempt at infiltration.

what was eric dondero's original name?

 

[Kingfisher]

Obama would make a great neo con

 

[PaultheSaint]

I'm 31 and voted in every election possible since I was 18. I never voted Dem and allthough I hate to admit it I did vote for Bush Sr and Bush Jr twice. I also was an avid MSM watcher, especially sensational fox news. I hated the term Neocon and never felt like there was any truth to it. About 2-3 years ago I started to wisen up and really research the issues on the net as I felt like the party I valued(Repub) wasn't what I remember it once being and learning about. Very disturbing as that bubble of false security just popped.

I guess what I'm saying is, I don't think all "Neocons" are from any one party. Some were just lost and caught up in blind patriotism. Once that Mack truck of truth hits you, things start to become really clear and one has to either accept it, or continue to bury their head in the sand and live in that bubble.

 

[gte811i]

Hear, Hear. I'm 28 and I voted for Bush the first time, maybe b/c I was younger and not as wise to the issues. I think this wising up of conservatives is why the Repubs lost in 2006, people started questioning the neo-cons. The problem now is you've got a choice between neo-cons, and socialists, with populism a major common factor among all of them. Factor in the media calling Paul a kook, crazy, can't win . . . it's a tough row to hoe, it can be done, but it's hard.
I see possibly two outcomes, unless people wake up to Paul.

1) Economy stays on the back-burner, and the war isn't that bad, or another attack happens to drum up a war. Neo-cons/Repubs win-People want to get those who attack us/revenge.
2) Economy becomes the issue. Socialists/Dems win hands down, people want handouts in hard times.

 

[Brutus]

The Neo-Cons and the commies share one thing in common, which is their undoing. They are government millenialists. All that is necessary for heaven on earth is the right government using the right force to bring it about.

The Neo-Cons you mentioned were disillusioned by the failure of communism, but not by the redemptive power of government, so they just switched to the horse that was winning and sought to use it to further their ends.

The beltway libertarians are similarly utopian in thinking that people can be forced to like people that are different from them, or people who do things which they view as socially destructive. As a libertarian I don't want the state to regulate the vice of shooting up heroin. However, as a person I am absolutely not obligated to give the heroin junkie any approval, and I can refuse to hire him or associate with him if it is my desire.

Acceptance comes within the framework of secure property rights and VOLUNTARY associations. Voluntary associations also go a long way towards reducing prejudice.