I'm Not a Neo-Con: I'm a Neo-Prog

By Chadd De Las Casas, published Oct 17, 2007
Published Content: 260  Total Views: 127,928  Favorited By: 30 CPs
Rating: 4.1 of 5
Hard line diplomacy? American involvement in foreign affairs? Belief in an American duty as a superpower to smash oppressive governments like Iraq and Serbia during the genocides of Kosovo? Hatred of communism and socialism? Favoritism towards the executive branch? You bet I'm all of those things and what does that make me?

Well if you ask some people, that makes me a Neo-Con. The word itself is something of a misnomer thought up by liberal pundits to try to demonize those whom they feel fall too far to the right. It appears to be their answer to the ever popular (and far more appropriate) label of socialist, pacifist, unrealist, nihilist, apologist, appeasement monkey, and any other variant that can be tossed down onto those who believe that the United States should be too timid to use the most powerful military in world history against nations like Iraq.

The fortunate thing about this word is that it's one of those magic phrases, like Islamic Fundamentalism, that allows you to try to attack someone without generalizing or driving away allies within the same party. You can attack President Bush and call him a Neo-Con, hoping to attack his Conservative values, and still hopefully get Conservatives to flock to your side to back you.

The word itself originated in the 60's, following the "New Liberalism" movement which continues to rear its ugly head from time to time to silence progress for America. The word itself is not exactly meant to be derogatory - it is like so many words (such as cycle of violence) that have taken on meanings for themselves completely independent of their intent due to a perceived benefit that comes from using it.

I'm Not a Neo-Con: I'm a Neo-Prog

A Bull Moose - the symbol of the Progressive Party.

Credit: Unknown Flickr

Copyright: Unknown Flickr

Takeaways
  • Neo-conservatism was essentially the response to the "New Liberal" movement.
  • Accused Neo-Con values are more Bull-Moose style than Conservative.
  • The Progressive movement was actually coined by Teddy Roosevelt - not socialist liberals.
Comments
Showing Comments 1 - 15 of 15
 
 
Are the Zionist Jews bankrolling the whole thing too with this whole Rockafellar puppet scheme?

Posted on 10/30/2007 at 6:10:00 AM

 
Yeah you support the troops alright. You support them going to a senseless war that is nothing more than a war for OIL. Also you support them dying over the ambitions of conquest by evil men like David Rockefeller. Bush is nothing more than a puppet. If you don't wake up to what is happening now it is to late for you. You say you are Pro Military. Well guess what? RON PAUL gets MORE MONEY than ANY other republican candidate! Why do you think that is? Because they know this war is senseless. And they want to come home. The PEOPLE want the troops to come home. The polls prove it. Also the troops want to come home. And Ron Paul wants to bring them home. If you really supported the troops you would respect their desire to come home. There's a reason why they donate the most to Ron Paul, and that is because they are informed and want to come home. You support the executive Branch? For what? So they can take all your liberties and rights away? So US soverignty w

Posted on 10/30/2007 at 4:10:00 AM

 
McMillen: There have been a number of regime changes throughout the history of the world that have been successful. The Jews, after their Exodus from Egypt, conquered Israel and stayed there for thousands of years. Alexander the Great until his death reigned over Greece, Persia, and Egypt. The Roman Empire controlled nearly all of Europe, northern Africa, and the Middle East. Cortés overthrew the Aztecs and established Mexico; and likewise, Mexico broke away from Spain. The American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Mexican-American War added from the Louisiana purchase to California onto America, and still America extends that far. And that's just a brief list of regime changes up to the 1800s. They have been very successful throughout history, believe it or not.

Posted on 10/29/2007 at 10:10:00 PM

 
Nice Chadd.

Posted on 10/21/2007 at 7:10:00 PM

 
There are two ways in which we ought to think:with our heads and with our hearts. It would seem that Joe Btfsplk down there prefers neither style of thought but instead prefers to think with his wallet.

Posted on 10/18/2007 at 5:10:00 PM

 
Liberal "Support": I'll support the troops, as long as they're not acting like Soldiers.

Posted on 10/18/2007 at 1:10:00 PM

 
And I'll concede to that Mr. McMillen. Fact: Gore is the only one to have won a popular vote and lost an electoral vote with an asterisk to distinguish it from the other time someone won a popular vote and lost the electoral vote.

Posted on 10/18/2007 at 1:10:00 PM

 
Yeah I like that logic: "I support the troops, just not what they fight and die for, or any of their actions, or their leadership, or providing them with money." I wish people were more honest with the world.

Posted on 10/18/2007 at 1:10:00 PM

 
Your article got me interested in the history of the Progressive Party. Turns out one of the main tenants of the party was trust-busting and absolving corrupt politics and regulating big business. That's something "neo-progs" have no connection with whatsoever.

Posted on 10/18/2007 at 10:10:00 AM

 
Sounds like the Democrats did steal the term, but out of a similar dissatisfaction with their own party. Your declarations regarding the blame that gets put on neo-cons is a little out of touch...it must be rhetoric on your part or you're buying into GOP rhetoric too much. I support the troops in my own way...by not supporting a confusing and confounded war that, in my opinion, is going to do more harm than good. My question is this: How many regime changes in the history of the world have been successful?

Posted on 10/18/2007 at 9:10:00 AM

 
You are mistaken on the election between Roosevelt and Taft. The truth is that WILSON did not win the popular vote but still had the largest majority of the votes. Roosevelt got about 1,300,000 votes less than Wilson and the electoral college vote was 435 to 88 in Wilson's favor. Taft had less of both electoral votes and popular votes. The 2000 election is the first case of someone getting over 50% of the popular vote and not winning the electoral college, as well. Fact.

Posted on 10/18/2007 at 9:10:00 AM

 
"Speak softly and carry a big stick" no matter how heavy it weighs on the American taxpayers!

Posted on 10/18/2007 at 8:10:00 AM

 
OK you Neo-Prog. I like the way that sounds, it has a inherent negative connotation to it already.LOL

Posted on 10/18/2007 at 7:10:00 AM

 
oops! Chadd

Posted on 10/18/2007 at 4:10:00 AM

 
Go Chad!!!!

Posted on 10/18/2007 at 4:10:00 AM

Type in Your Comments Below - (1000 characters left)
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Showing Comments 1 - 15 of 15
 
Most Commented On