Talk:Bush neoconservative/archive

''Note: The page where this conversation originally took place has been renamed Talk:Neoconservatism. This conversation took place before the renaming. The "similar list" in question applies to the list of characteristics ascribed to Neoconservatives (labelled "Bush neoconservatives" at the time).

Midian commented
Under President Clinton, a similar list could apply to most Democrats. Does that make them "neolibs", "socialists", or is the Democrat party just really that far left?

Midian 12:06, 30 August 2006 (EDT)
 * the US Invasion of Iraq (And Haiti, and Somalia, and Bosnia)
 * President William J. Clinton
 * the precedence of presidential authority over constitutional law
 * the actions of the president are above the law (sexual assault, perjury, etc.)
 * big government spending for political ends

Woozle replies
''I have moved part of this post and the rest of the thread to Talk:Bill Clinton vs. George W. Bush because that was where the focus of discussion went at this point. --Woozle 20:04, 13 September 2006 (EDT)''

I'm not sure I am understanding some of your points above. Overall, you seem to be saying that there was a similar breakaway cabal during the Clinton years, and so there should be a similar term for them. However, during the Clinton administration there was not, as far as I am aware, such a huge gap between Democratic/liberal ideals and the actual actions of elected officials in the Democratic party (including Clinton) as there is now between Republican/conservative ideals and the actual actions of elected officials in the Republican party -- especially at the very top. If I need to spell out the details of that gap, please let me know.

...

It seems relevant to have a term to distinguish this specific bunch of so-called conservatives from real conservatives because they really only pay lip-service to a few favorite conservative causes (gay-bashing, prayer, worshipping the flag...) without actually being conservative at heart (saving money and cutting taxes, the rule of law, not engaging in "empire-building"...).

Re: Party Split
As one caught in the middle, it appears to me that the Democrats are really just that far left. Everything their party does is okay, because they truly believe we should be a socialist nanny state. And while I loathe the direction the Republicans are heading, they still maintain the core issues I believe in: Less taxes (resulting in less government), right to protect myself, etc. It is more and more an issue of the lesser of two extreme evils.


 * Addendum: While I agree there is a large faction of the Republicans who are going as extreme right as the Democrats are left, not even half the Republicans in office are that far right, and that's why I'll continue to vote Republican.

nonetheless...
...what we need more than anything else right now, more even than having one's preferred party in control, is divided government so the wheels of accountability will start to turn again. (Personally, I think the two-party system needs to be replaced; it promotes extremism and stifles moderation... but I don't see this happening under current conditions.)

Remember also that lower taxes need to be coupled with lower spending; we have the hugest deficit in history right now (in sharp contrast with 2000, when we were paying down the debt and were on track to have it paid off by 2008) due to the Bush administration's cutting taxes while increasing spending, all the while joyously celebrating the claimed ever-increasing strength of the economy (which has now been seriously undermined by the aforementioned deficit and is largely being propped up by foreign investment; like a humvee freshly out of gas, it is moving on a combination of inertia and conversion of potential energy as it coasts downhill). Bush takes a 4.7% unemployment rate and passes it off as progress – but that's up from the 4.2% rate when he took office. (This is by no means the only example of Bush's liberal interpretation of reality; let me know if I should list some more for you.) Is that the kind of "honest straightforwardness" you want from someone who is supposedly upholding your values?

Of course, we don't have the option of putting Bush back in office in 2008 (unless he succeeds in changing the Constitution, something in which he has already shown interest for other reasons), but the current power-group will no doubt have their preferred candidates. We need to find out who they are, and keep them out of DC. At this point, if the GOP put forward a candidate whom they claimed had absolutely no connections to the current administration, I would want to see an awful lot of proof; the GOP has used up most or all of their credibility as the lone bastions of morality and the rule of law by their unblinking support of the Bush administration's undermining of those very things.

--Woozle 18:41, 27 September 2006 (EDT)