Learning the Right Lessons from the Neocons
A recent review of a book on neoconservatism took the wrong lessons from the movement.
By Ben Weyl
April 1, 2008
President George Bush holds a press briefing at the White House in September 2007. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)In a recent Campus Progress review of Jacob Heilbrunn’s book, They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons, Ethan Porter urges progressives to learn from the triumph of the neoconservative movement. He argues that “neoconservatism’s broad appeal has shown that we believe that, on the whole, America can do good in the world; and it’s better to try to do good and fail than to not try at all.” Porter is on the right track—progressives can and should draw on the success of neoconservatism—but he doesn’t get it exactly right. He draws the wrong lessons from the rise and fall of the neoconservative movement. He expresses unfounded fears about an allegedly impending age of progressive isolationism, buys too much into the conservative idea that the right has laid permanent claim to the concept of patriotism, and argues inaccurately that the neoconservative idea resonated with the average American. All this drowns out his most important point, which is also the reason this is such an important discussion to have—movement building matters, and progressives need to take cues from the neoconservatives in this area if they are ever to gain lasting influence in American foreign policy.
Porter worries that “in the aftermath of the Iraq debacle, the temptation to emulate the isolationists of old…is strong.” But is it? One way to measure the isolationist/interventionist sentiments of progressives is to look at which messages of the presidential candidates have resonated with the public. Here there is deep consensus against isolationism among the presidential candidates. Starting last July, Foreign Affairs invited the major presidential candidates to contribute essays laying out their foreign policy visions. Each of the essays from the candidates urges progressives to embrace a liberal internationalist foreign policy. Porter is wary of excessive isolationism, saying, “We may be tempted to turn inward. That would be a mistake.” He regularly tells supporters that an Obama presidency would mean “America’s back.” So does Bill Clinton. The only progressive candidate whose foreign policy may have tended toward isolationism was Mike Gravel, and we all know how successful his campaign was. The presidential candidate with the strongest isolationist credentials is also arguably the least progressive, most reactionary one. If the progressive base is hungering for some alone-time, it’s not showing up in the presidential race.
Further evidence that progressives do not wish the United States to enter a diplomatic cocoon is their consistent calls for action to end the genocide in Darfur, which has now spread to other parts of Sudan, Ethiopia, and Kenya. The Save Darfur campaign, led by progressives, has galvanized Americans across the country and has put the issue squarely on the national agenda. The campaign has in fact accomplished many of its goals, albeit not its main one: ending ethnic violence in the region. Many progressives now wrestle with the idea of whether to use American force in trying to resolve the conflict. They may have differing views of this, but they’re clearly not sticking their heads in the sand or arguing against any sort of U.S. involvement.
Porter writes that “as neoconservatism championed America at every chance, the left retreated, ceding the argument.” That’s not quite fair. While it’s certainly true that the American left does not have the purest of pasts (remember, many anti-Vietnam War protesters actually cheered "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh/The NLF is gonna win"), contemporary progressives—both politicians and commentators—have consistently couched their rhetoric and policies in patriotic language. Take Russ Feingold or Bill Moyers, for example. Or Paul Waldman of The American Prospect, who notes the contrast between conservatives and progressives on this subject: “This is the difference between thinking that patriotism means talking about how super-awesome America is, and that patriotism means doing things to make America great.” While Porter may not be trying to buy into right-wing talking points by claiming that conservatives have a monopoly on patriotism, his refrain certainly sounds familiar. Additionally, while the image of American flags enveloping the 2004 Democratic Convention may have looked like “an almost pathetic attempt” at patriotism, it is only fair to note that John Kerry proposed an ambitious national service program that year, which would have given half a million young people per year the opportunity to earn money for college by participating in AmeriCorps-like ventures. It’s true that Kerry never made this proposal the be-all, end-all of his campaign, but let’s give credit where it’s due.
Porter is right when he writes that “most Americans believe that their country has a special role to play in the world, and will support politicians who share that belief.” But we didn’t need the neoconservatives to teach us that, and neoconservativsm never had “broad appeal,” as Porter writes. Support for the Iraq war was tied to the belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, posed a threat to the United States, and/or was somehow connected to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks—it had little to do with the broader neoconservative concern with spreading democracy around the world. In the hysteria that preceded the invasion, the war’s pushers talked almost exclusively about the threat Iraq posed to the United States; their justifications for war were rarely and only tangentially humanitarian or geopolitical. By the summer of 2006, the public had soured on the war, yet prominent neoconservatives were now calling for regime change in Syria and Iran. Neoconservatism, far from being widely popular, was made up of a small group of elites who happened to find a president sympathetic to their worldview at the time, and who saw in 9/11 a perfect opportunities to begin their ambitious, delusional program of reshaping the Middle East.
These critiques of Porter’s piece matter because, taken together, they suggest a significantly different lesson from neoconservatism’s rise and fall: not that progressives need to be more patriotic or present a new foreign policy vision—they’ve already done that—but that movement-building matters, as does timing. The most important thing neoconservatives can teach progressives, it turns out, is that a well-established media and academic infrastructure is just as important—if not more so—than an idea’s inherent validity.
Neoconservatives, Porter notes, created their own establishment in the pages of publications like Commentary, The Public Interest and, later, The Weekly Standard. They disseminated their ideas through think-tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the Hudson Institute. In 1998, the neoconservative Project for the New American Century sent a now-infamous letter to Bill Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Clinton wouldn’t do it, but Bush, surrounded by some of PNAC’s most influential members, was sympathetic to their cause, particularly after 9/11.
No one who’s been following progressive politics in recent years needs a refresher course on the importance of building infrastructure for the progressive movement, and increasingly that’s happened, though seemingly less so in the arena of national security (two exceptions are the Center for American Progress, of which Campus Progress is a part, and the still quite new National Security Network). But as progressives continue to refine both their beliefs and the vehicles to deliver them, they should remember that neoconservatives had neither public opinion on their side nor a foreign policy vision that spoke to American ideals. What they had was a receptive president, a well-established network of policy outlets, and a one-of-a-kind catastrophe, both of which served their ends perfectly. If progressives want to emulate the success of neoconservativism, but in a less ephemeral manner, they’ll need to deviate from neoconservatism’s delusional, endlessly rosy-eyed vision, but will also need to mimic neoconservatism’s success at promoting itself.
Ben Weyl is a legislative assistant at the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. The views expressed here are his own.
Social Bookmarking
--------
Comments
!
Hey, as long as they keep sending their tax money over to us in Isreal and fighting our wars, I don’t care whether they they want to call themselves neoconservatives or progressives or whatever.
Next time put in stuff about how anyone who won’t give us their money is anti-Semetic. That always works. The idiots don’t even know that Arabs are Semites, too. Too funny.
Keep up the good work, Ben.
— Mark Katz - Apr 1, 11:48 AM - #Ron Paul is not an isolationist, he has no isolationist credentials and does not promote isolationism (never has). Ron Paul promotes diplomacy and free trade with other nations (the position supported by our highest law- the constitution, that quaint old document nobody cares about anymore). The real isolationists are the warmongering neoconn (neo-facist)rebublicans and neo-progressive (neo-socialist) democrats who are isolationists, you know, the ones who want to go to war with half the countries on the planet, impose trade embargo’s on the ones that aren’t important enough to invade (yet) and enact free trade inhibiting regulations (like nafta) on the rest… the author of this article needs to remove his head from his *** and have a look at reality…
— LibertyNH - Apr 1, 11:48 AM - #Calling Ron Paul an isolationist is like calling your neighbor a hermit for not doing doughnuts on your front lawn. It’s called non-interventionism and it was the platform of the Republicans before 2001. Please do some research before you print lies you no talent sad excuse for a journalist hack!
— PA4RP - Apr 1, 12:15 PM - #Ron Paul’s foreign policy positions are about as far removed from isolationism as possible. Opposition to military and economic interventionism does not an isolationist make. In fact, you have it reversed—-it is US interventionism that has contributed heavily to the idea of the “Ugly American.” Ron Paul is the only candidate with massive worldwide support which is, unbelievably, still growing. Were you aware of this?
Cheers,
John H. Huckans, Ph.D.
— John H. Huckans - Apr 1, 12:36 PM - #Mr. Weyl,
You want to use the neoconservative moment as a history lesson, but, while the lesson is worthwhile, your use of that history is inconsistent.
— Abhi Nemani - Apr 1, 03:35 PM - #“These critiques of Porter’s piece matter because, taken together, they suggest a significantly different lesson from neoconservatism’s rise and fall: not that progressives need to be more patriotic or present a new foreign policy vision—they’ve already done that—but that movement-building matters, as does timing. The most important thing neoconservatives can teach progressives, it turns out, is that a well-established media and academic infrastructure is just as important—if not more so—than an idea’s inherent validity.”
First consider that lesson: infrastructure is important. That’s a fairly uncontroversial claim. When trying to influence public policy from the grassroots, a movement’s infrastructure is crucial. Movement conservatism, for example, has used its well-built and diffused organization to raise money, influence the media, and shape public opinion. Magazines, think thanks, and business leaders have helped them along (See Krugman’s Conscience of a Liberal for an illuminating narrative). The point, though, is that movement conservatism was successful because it grew the ideology of a cabal into a national force. That’s a lesson progressive would do well to learn. (As a side note, the lesson of Iraq for all of us—(neo)conservatives included—should be to question the neoconservative ideology’s “inherent validility.” See Kesler’s “Iraq and the Neocons.”)
Movement-building—and by your own admission—had little to do with the neocons’ success:
“Neoconservatism, far from being widely popular, was made up of a small group of elites who happened to find a president sympathetic to their worldview at the time, and who saw in 9/11 a perfect opportunities to begin their ambitious, delusional program of reshaping the Middle East.”
Thus, neoconservativism was not a movement (no well-established media and academic infrastructure), but a fringe philosophy, and it’s success was catalyzed by happenstance, not effort. That’s not a formula progressives should learn. Progressives should not be slaves to chance, but champions of our ideology, an ideology of trust in man and man’s potential. And we should trust that our ideology, once well-articulated, can build a true movement of its own.
Sideshow Ron?
Wow, you think we are ugly now, wait till we have to reTake everything his policies lose.
Remember Carter? If he had supported the Shah of Iran there would have been no Gulf War, Bin Laden, 9/11 and several MM dead Iranians (from the war with Iraq).
— crypt2121 - Apr 1, 10:33 PM - #This – Neoconservatism, far from being widely popular, was made up of a small group of elites who happened to find a president sympathetic to their worldview at the time, and who saw in 9/11 a perfect opportunities to begin their ambitious, delusional program of reshaping the Middle East.” – is all wrong.
If there had been no 9/11, W would probably be really popular right now. Contrast were he was headed with were we ended up.
— crypt2121 - Apr 1, 10:36 PM - #Hey crypt2121, I didn’t agree with you at first, but after reading all your posts — dude, you are persuasive.
— Burt Thomas - Apr 2, 09:17 AM - #Wake up: Ron Paul is to the RIGHT of Bush. Read up on John Birch Society — and about why they are a nut-party, most of which views Paul agrees with.
As for the neocon[artist] view that “America can do good in the world: Torture is a war crime that cannot be made legal. And it is not a “good” thing to do: the US and its allies executed those found guilty, at Nuremberg and in the Pacific theater, of using torture — including that of waterboarding.
Neocon[artists], as another notes, was a small group of anti-elitist elitists — deluded liars and hypocrites — who reject reason and the rule of law, and with it democracy and freedom, because they believe the way to go is to be lawless bullies. They whine, though, when they don’t have the biggest stick.
Remeber, neocon[artists], even if you outwardly deny it by lying your teeth loose: torture is a war crime that cannot be made legal, neocon[artist] efforts to implement total lawlessness notwithstanding. Wake up and smell the damage you’ve done to your country — the disgrace you have wrought.
— JNagarya - Apr 3, 07:09 PM - #“While it’s certainly true that the American left does not have the purest of pasts (remember, many anti-Vietnam War protesters actually cheered “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh/The NLF is gonna win”), . . . .”
You totally miss the point, which was this (I was there; you certainly weren’t): the US was illegally in Viet Nam, and intervening in a civil war in Viet Nam which was none of the US’s business; the US didn’t belong there. That chant essentially meant: “Viet Nam for the Vietnamese.” And aren’t you saying the same, today, about Iraq? — Iraq for the Iraqis — not for Halliburton and Blackwater, and Exxon?
(And let’s recall Bush’s courageous “Bring ‘em on!” — so long as the military was between him and “‘em”.)
The right-wing — which deludes itself that the US could have “won” in Viet Nam — has nothing valid or truthful to offer in criticism of the so-called “left” of the ’60s: they were wrong about Viet Nam, and they are still wrong in pursuing the same policy in Iraq. Yes, in Iraq: Bush, et all, believe/d the delusion that the US could have “won” in Viet Nam, and they set out to prove it with Iraq. And what has happened to their delusion in Iraq? Disaster — exactly as predicted by those who’d actually worn a uniform (unlike, as example, chickenhawk Dick “5 Deferments” Cheney).
Again: the right has nothing valid to say about the “left” of the ’60s because they were wrong then, and they are still wrong.
— JNagarya - Apr 3, 07:18 PM - #Sideshow Ron?
Wow, you think we are ugly now, wait till we have to reTake everything his policies lose.
Remember Carter? If he had supported the Shah of Iran there would have been no Gulf War, Bin Laden, 9/11 and several MM dead Iranians (from the war with Iraq).
— crypt2121 – Apr 1, 09:33 PM – #
The US put the Sah in power, and our CIA taught him how to torture his own people, the result being the revolution which booted his ass out. That’s the interventionism the wise oppose: it only creates “blowback” — including that of 9/11.
The US has not been innocent in the Middle East; we weren’t hit because we were nice guys spreading freedom and democracy: Saddam was our ally until Bushit Jr. decided he knew better than his daddy.
— JNagarya - Apr 3, 07:24 PM - #I would love to think of the neocons as an ideologic-moral movement, afterall I looked up to them personally for decades of the Cold War. But that’s what you believe if you want to believe it and don’t know the veracity of what you are believing, and don’t care. The neocons are indeed a cabal and its bond is not an idea but cold cash. As the Cold War ended and the nation began to look to less spending on strategic weapons, through the ex-staff of Sen. Jackson, the cabal gathered for influence peddling in Wash DC for more big item war toys. For getting billions spent on needless arms, the neocons were rewarded with millions in cash. Today the neocons are in decline because they sought to be seen as “mensch” by pushing the US into World War IV in the Middle East. Fukuyama, one of their satellites, finally saw through them and they slandered him as an “anti-Semite” as coverup. Having gotten the money, the neocons next wanted respect…sounds like Al Capone!
Many books will appear as damage control and cover-up. Afterall, they still can pay off writers with noting else to do. But as documents will become declassified, the public will know that it was only a cabal of shysters who got too big for their bridges. In the end, the neocons were pear-shapped blobs that sought to seem manly sending others to die in their WWIV. Now, having failed because they were advising the idiot trio: Bush-Rumsfeld-Cheney, their chickens are coming home to roost. So they run with their ill-gotten winnings to offshore villas. What difference is there between the shysters in the sub-prime fraud and the neocons, except that the latter are frumpy putzes?
— DE Teodoru - Apr 4, 01:14 PM - #Porter writes, “neoconservatism’s broad appeal has shown that we believe that, on the whole, America can do good in the world; and it’s better to try to do good and fail than to not try at all.”
Isn’t THIS the biggest error in Porter’s argument? It is NOT better to try to do good and mess up – if messing up causes civil war, ethnic cleansing, hundreds of thousands of dead, millions of displaced people, and instability on a regional level. Intentions are one thing – but outcomes are more important.
In a way, progressives assume that the war in Iraq was motivated by some nefarious plot for money or oil, but that ignores the humanitarian and democracy-building aspects of the war, however flawed and hackneyed they were coming out of the mouths of people with serious policy delusions and an unmatched arrogance. In a way, Iraq WAS a war of good intentions and bad outcomes. That’s hardly something we should be supporting.
— Andrew Garib - Apr 6, 06:47 PM - #If I had been around in the 60’s and 70’s , I feel that I would have proudly served in Vietnam and definitely supported the just War against the Communists (as I do today-nevermind what the treasonous Leftist Mainstream Media or what nihilist college punks say). If I would’ve been of legal age in the 60’s and 70’s I would have also voted for Nixon (being that I proudly voted for Bush twice) and proudly donned Pro-Nixon gear such as bumper-stickers on my car (just as I have Pro-Bush stickers and t-shirts today) as well stood up firmly to all the America-hating anti-war student protestors who chastised our troops and would’ve expressed my hatred towards all the Jane Fonda-type Leftist traitors; by going onto college campuses and duking it out with these Commie scum (while donning the Flag and other Patriotic gear and chanting ‘hooray for Nixon!’). I have a feeling that I may have to do this in the not too distant future as well; this time chanting ’hooray for Bush’ instead and donning Pro-Bush gear! It is for reasons like this that I support the Draft; to make young spoiled punks (nihilistic America-hating college anti-war protestors mostly) like this pay America their proper dues (and their share of the burden) to the cause of maintaining our freedom. As the saying goes; “Freedom is not Free”. In other words, to maintain prolonged freedom (as we have for over 230 years – dating back to 1776), a nation must occasionally fight their enemies (ie. go to war). After learning of how badly our heroic returning troops were treated when they returned from serving in Vietnam (this makes my blood boil quite frankly), I vowed to myself that I would not allow this to happen in MYtime. As a result, I have and will continue to support the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere proudly and defend them vigorously whenever they are attacked by the Left and the Mainstream(Lib)Media (ie. Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, etc.); these critics are the same scum who attacked our heroic Vietnam vets in the 70’s. Our troops are doing a great job and making great progress in rebuilding and establishing democratic governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, I believe (nevermind what the hate-America Left says). I also vowed to myself when I was still in grade school, that if we (America) were ever attacked (as we were on 9/11) that I would definitely enlist to serve and help to bring down our enemies. I have a good memory and thus being that I am a man of my word, that is why I finally chose to join the Armed Forces in the Reserves in October 2007 and my boot- camp starts in June 2008-I will be an MA (Master At Arms) . Also, I feel it is my duty to serve being that I am Pro-War and support the just Wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, the War on Terror and our great Commander in Chief, President Bush.
I want you to know that I am a very staunch overt supporter (have Pro-Bush bumperstickers on my car and wear Pro-Bush t-shirts frequently) of you, President Bush (I brag about having voted for him twice and even volunteered for his re-election campaign despite catching flak for it being I live in a fairly blue state
NJ) and am a Reagan Republican. I plan on voting for the candidate who has stood up for you (over the years) and that stands up for you, President Bush, the most and our just Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the Global War on Terror against our enemiesthe Islamo-Fascists, Communists and the Axis of Evil. Don’t forget however, whoever gets nominated, they have very Big Shoes (‘W’) to fill; much like when Reagan left office in1989 and when Eisenhower left in 1961.
It is my belief (and our Republican leaders’ beliefs) that our old enemy Iraq can someday be a strong ally and trade partner of America; much like Japan, Germany and South Korea are today. However, this will take time; we’ve had troops in Japan, Germany and South Korea for over 50 years now! Who knows, Iraq and Afghanistan may follow the same route. Following WWII, it took time to rebuild Japan and Germany too. Let’s be patient, it’s only been 5 years since we went into Iraq – it took longer than that to rebuild Germany and Japan (following WWII). Let’s ‘Stay the course’ as you say, President Bush , because as you also say ‘we’d rather fight them (the terrorists, al-qaeda, etc.) in their Middle-East than in our Mid-West’. As a result of this strategy; we haven’t been attacked in 6+ years on US soil (since 9/11)-let’s keep it that way! Other nations in Europe, Asia, Africa, etc. have been attacked by terrorists such as Al-Qaeda since 9/11; but not us thanks to you, President Bush and your strong anti-terrorist stance. President Bush you have exhibited a strong anti-terrorist stance in defending the homeland by creating the Patriot Act (Wiretaps, surveillance, etc.), creating the Dept. of Homeland Security, providing increased funding for our Intelligence Agencies – CIA,FBI, NSA,etc in fighting the War on Terror against America’s leading enemies, the Islamo-Fascists. This however does not mean the terrorists have given up on attacking America at home; according to the FBI, several major and more minor attempts have been made by Al-Qaeda in the US nationwide since 9/11. Each time, thankfully the terrorists were caught by the FBI before they struck. Once again, thank you President Bush and the Patriot Act and FISA Act. It just goes to show, despite what the nay-sayers say, wiretaps save lives! Keep up the good work. If it were up to me I’d make you ‘President for Life’ and I am going to be very sad when you are no longer our President; I get very angry when I see people (liberals) who Keep a Countdown your days left in office or have impeach nonsense or have anti-bush bumperstickers with slogans like 1-20-09 (‘the end of an error’) and are in celebration mode. When I see these things I feel like punching their lights out and at the very least slashing their tires as well; and probably will someday if they keep it up! I truly feel that people like this(the anti-Bush haters) will be punished someday if not in this life then certainly in the next one by GOD and be sent to Hell for eternity for their animosity to a great man, great leader and an excellent family man and Christian who practices what he preaches an who turned his life around by finding God (becoming born again)which enabled you to overcome alcohol and substance abuse issues when you were a younger man. I credit you also for helping me to find God once again after being out in the ‘wilderness’ for many years after I finished High School (and I attended a parochial catholic school mind you). I believe I am also born-again thanks to your inspiration and your pro-christian stance on fundamental christian tenets such as opposing gay marriage and abortion. I also oppose these because God opposes them; the naysayers just need to read the Bible . Although do not belong to any current denomination (although I consider myself evangelical) I was raised Catholic but plan on becoming a Methodist in the near future.
You have reinviogorated religious zeal in millions of Americans and I feel this gets overlooked often. Thanks to you, millions of Americans have returned to God or have been born-again I feel and I am one of them. I am very grateful to have a good Christian like yourself leading our country; America needed this after the 90’s and the decadent sleazy Sodom & Gomorrah Clinton years and thanks to you we are once again on our voyage back to Eden and social conservativeness. I want to bring America back to the wholesome days of the 50’s (ie. Happy Days) where kids got there mouths washed put with soap for cursing and teachers were allowed to discipline and hit unruly students. I think disciplining our unruly youth is very important and will keep them out of prison when they grow older and enable them to become productive citizens and good Americans; we should work toward allowing these things once again for the good of America. I believe this will enable us to combat the negative counter-culture we have today and that came about in the 60’s that is obsessed with sex and drugs and cursing and glorifies violence and crime Against the law enforcement community and other good patriotic Americans. I personally hate these types and admire the police and the military and our law enforcement authorities and can’t stand these anarchist nihilist types who are basically ‘rebels without a cause’ and destined for an eternal life in Hell come Judgement Day. Once again, thank you President Bush for all and your cabinet have done. I consider you a lot like greats who were also unjustly villified and even persecuted such as Lincoln and John the Baptist. It is without reservation that I predict that just like these 2 great men (and Saints even) are now certainly in Heaven for the righteous living (and their naysayers in Hell); the Kingdom of God will also be yours for you righteousness and good deeds and inspiring ways(and your naysayers will be doomed to Hell, God-willing). I know I certainly pray for this to come to fruition. Keep up the good work and righteously and successfully fulfilling your ‘charge’ (ie. A Charge to Keep) upon this Earth.
Best regards and God Bless,
— Rick - Apr 6, 08:06 PM - #I hope all you America hating leftist, commie, nihilist traitor scum who hate also the President go to hell as well as all your loved ones. I hope you and yours all are punished for the rest of your lives on this earth with horrible accidents, injustices, diseases and the like for bashing a great man, great leader and a great Christian. Millions of People like me can’t wait for the Rapture to join forces with President Bush and all his supporters (the Real Americans and great Real Christians) to do battle with the evil Left once and for all and throw you all into Hell as stated in Revelation to be with your heroes such as Marx, Lenin, Darwin, Che, Mao, Malcolm X, etc.. In the meantime we will pray that God will punish you and yours on the evil Marxist, Commie nihilist LEFT. You may want to refer to the following passages in the Bible which sanction this: ,Psalm 58:10, Exodus 20:5, Deuteronomy 30:7 and Deuteronomy 7:10 and 7:15, and Ecclesiastes 3:8 and Revelation 3:21. So unless you are an ignorant heathen atheist or unknowing christian (many of these)this is not un-Christian to say and is actually sanctioned in the Good Book if you care to look for yourselves!
If it was up to me Patriots like us would have all you Leftist scum rounded up and holocausted and later hanged en masse in public for treason to America and to our great Commander in Chief, President Bush! Hopefully this will happen some day. Millions of us Pro-Bush and America loving Patriots like myself would run through a brick wall for him and gladly severely punish all who wish him, America and his loyal Patriotic exemplary Christian followers bad or try to do them harm.
Bush and GOP, and Fox News and Talk radio haters are Destined for Hell and hell on earth for the remainder of their lives and those of their loved ones as well as their offspring! It will be music to our (The Real Americans) ears when terrible things happen to you heathen cretins! Leftists are such wusses it is not even funny; who are you kidding about trying to pass yourselves off as pacifists? That is just a clever disguise used by cowards and traitors and commies for generations; refer to the Bolsheviks and their anti-war stance in WWI which led to Russia’s CZAR premature withdrawal from a popular war in WWI.You guys on the Left (I would estimate around 70% of you all) are just modern day Bolsheviks;let’s be real for a change! You just don’t have the guts to admit it. But those of us, (like us) who know our history and read your Leftist blogs can’t be fooled by your REAL intentions comrades! Sorry to tell ya, but it ain’t gonna happen ever in America so you may as well just toss the Che t-shirts and hammer and sickle flags in the trash where they belong; in the ash heap of history and thus joining the former Evil Empire of the USSR in this league. The only good commie is a dead one. Or as the slogan was when I was growing up “kill a commie for your mommy’. We won the Cold War thanks to Reagan and the neocons ; thank God and the rest of the world is much better off for it and the Founding Fathers must be smiling for our efforts to save America from subversion to Marxist-Leninist leftist trash like you all. A great leftist purge (holocaust) in America is needed and I would strongly support the leader who initiates it and would also Gladly serve as a PATRIOTIC soldier in this organization to eliminate the Leftists, Marxists, Anarchists and Commies from US soil.God is on our side and with His help we will not have to wait until the Rapture at Armageddon for us to see that you evil Leftist scum are punished for your malevolence. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah and the Bubonic Plague; either change your ways treasonous Leftie scum or these will occur to you and much worse. We will pray for all this to occur and when our prayers are answered (the complete destruction and eternal damnation of the evil Left) we will celebrate; music to our ears! God Bless America! We celebrate all your misfortunes you traitors!
We sincerely hope you and yours all are punished for the rest of your lives on this earth with horrible accidents, injustices and diseases for bashing a great man and a great Christian. People like us can’t wait for the Rapture to join forces with President Bush and all his supporters (the Real Americans and great Real Christians) to do battle with the evil Left once and for all and throw you all into Hell as stated in Revelation to be with your heroes such as Marx, Lenin, Darwin, Che, Mao, Malcolm X, etc.. In the meantime we pray that God will punish you and yours on the evil Marxist, Commie nihilist LEFT.. Unless you are an ignorant heathen atheist or unknowing christian (many of these)this is not un-Christian to say and is actually sanctioned in the Good Book if you biblically illiterates care to look for yourselves!
God is on our side and with His help we will not have to wait until the Rapture at Armageddon for us to see that you evil Leftist scum are punished for your malevolence. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah and the Bubonic Plague; either change your ways treasonous Leftie scum or these will occur to you and much worse. The Neocons are here to stay so if you don’t like it move to Godless Socialist Canada or Wuss-infested Godless Socialist Europe. Now is your chance. The Right has been winning the Culture War since Reagan was in office in the 80’s and the GOP came to power again in 94’ and Dubya in 2000 ;in the near future we are about to rid ourselves of the indulgences of the evil hedonistic, nihilistic and narcississtic evil 60’s
— Rick - Apr 6, 08:18 PM - #counter culture by soon completing our own counter-counter culture revolution. We will pray for all this to occur and it will cuz God is on our side and when our prayers are answered (the complete destruction and eternal damnation of the evil Left in America at least for now)) we will celebrate; music to our ears and you all will be nothing more than troglodytes! God Bless America! BTW, I hear France is nice this time of year:) I am sure you’ll find plenty of Godless queers to indulge your hedonistic ways over there or up north of us with the canucks, eh?
Rick- you must be off your medication. I hope there are no minorities or gays within a 50 mile radius of you or they may have cause to fear for their life.
— PA4RonPaul - Apr 10, 04:59 PM - #As for your rant, substitute Allah for Bush and Infidel for Left and you sound just like an Islamic extremist or Bin Laden himself. My Bible says “judge not lest ye be judged” and “love thy neighbor”. But this is a free country and I support and respect your right to express your opinion, even if I don’t agree. I am also a Christian so I love you as I love all mankind and I will pray for you to find patience and tolerance of your fellow man.
As for America, our founding fathers (white Christians) believed in Non-Interventionalism-taking care of the needs of this country first. It used to be part of the Republican platform and it is what true patriots believe and wrote in the Constitution. Reagan ended the cold war with diplomacy not force. Reagan would be disgusted by the neocon’s foreign policy of pre-emptive strikes and forcing democracy through the barrel of a gun. This country has truly lost it’s way, but there is always hope.
Rick is clueless. Get it through your moral-relativism-is-our-absolute hypocrisy: Saddam Hussein was put in power by the West, was the #1 exterminator of “terrorists” in the Middle East, and was for decades the US’s staunchest ally in that regard in the Middle East. That’s why Reagan had IRaq removed from the “State-Sponsors of Terrorism” list so he could legally provide the WMDs he used against “enemy” IRan.
Being a nihilist hater of the non-existent — “Commies” makes you a paranoid dupe and a fool. The only excuse for being that is wealth. And you haven’t that excuse, “Rick”.
Try thinking as substitute for repeating bogus idiotological nonsense that was false when first uttered.
— JNagarya - Apr 11, 02:04 AM - #The Founders were white, but they were not “Christians” in the sense you imply: our country was NOT “founded on the bible”. And if you think they were Christians otherwise, then compare their actions with their mouths: they did everything they could, including genocide against the original inhabitants of this continent, out of greed for cash and land. As you should know — “Christian” — every religious and ethical system on the planet condemns and repudiates greed — Reagan’s “Christian” sociopathic “Greed is good” notwithstanding.
— JNagarya - Apr 11, 02:08 AM - #