I'm sure the Neocons would prefer Trotsky.
hahaha... Yah, I gather some of the early founding fathers of Neoconservatism were actual Trotskyists. I recall reading lots of stuff on the history of the neocons by Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com back in the day. I do recall his brilliant meme that the neocons were the new liberal Trotskyists.
Yes, I read the same stuff from Raimondo and other people on the libertarian and paleoconservative Right. I think the theory was that the Neocons replaced class struggle and spreading socialism by force with bourgeois triumphalism and spreading liberal democracy by force.
Were you a libertarian once?
I used to be a pretty conventional Republican conservative. I was never a libertarian, but I did read authors like Hayek many years ago. I became disillusioned with the Right because of the Iraq War and after reading Pat Buchanan's critiques of free trade and globalization. Now I am left-wing or populist on economic issues but still conservative on some social and cultural issues.
I think many leftists who properly understand economics and have a grip on reality (and not, for want of a better expression, being cultural leftist "cucks") have a soft spot for Pat Buchanan, not just because he has been strongly opposed to free trade but also because of his pretty courageous opposition to the Iraq war and the influence of the Neocons. I recall starting to read American Conservative in 2003 when they came out against the Iraq war and being quite impressed with a lot of their analysis of foreign policy because it's stuff you'd expect to see on the left.
I've also never understood why so many ordinary poor or even middle class conservatives are enamoured of free market capitalism when it is so destructive of economies, communities, families and human culture.
LKi have some points here about pat buchanan and and this sort of paleoconservatism.1.he have many interesting insights and he is interesting man there is no doubt in that.2.but sometimes he express kind of antisemitic lite views yes nothing that a normal left winger cant handle but still i prefer when people criticize ideology instead of criticizing ethnicity or non extremist versions of a religion per se.3.he seems to blame israel a lot as the origin and the great benefiter from neocon ideology but honestly its not true since for example ISIS and strong shia iran is a way bigger threat to israel than saddam hussein for example or assad.israel is not a benefiter from neocon ideology destablized middle east is dangerous middle east including for israel.also Israeli is not pulling the strings of the neocon ideology for example Netanyahu is a Neocon yes but its not because Its somehow Israeli ideology its because he been influenced by hardcore republicans when he studied in harward and M.I.T actually he is always mentions how republicans influenced him and his ideas.so basically unlike what buchanan think Neoco ideology is more or less authentic american ideology which is mostly unique for the united states. p.s (even though there been close ideologies to neoconservatism like american jingoism of the 19 centuary or some kind of of militant british imperalism).but its definitely not an Israeli ideology. 4.people like pat buchanan from the right and people like noam chomsky from the left have a lot of interesting insights but still there is always a feeling that unconsciously they feel like history started in 1776 and its started in one specific continent and they are really americanocentric and in someway are thinking that the world is a big U.S.A where all the people in the world have american mentality folklore and traditions (unconciously of course).5.of course that intervention can be a really bad policy in most cases it is but sometimes intervention is sadly necessery policy for example in world war 2 the american intervention been necessery otherwise there could be 2 bad scenarios.bad scenario number one: hitler wins the war in europe bad scenario number two:the soviets are wining hitler and then they are going to "liberate" all of continental europe from evil democratic capitalism.so intervention is like amputation is an extreme measure which should kept only for the most extreme cases (not like neocons which wants to threat a flesh wound with amputation).but sometimes in extreme cases its sadly needed because otherwise the infection in your leg will kill you all.
Yes, Neil Clark, a left-wing UK writer is pretty keen on Pat Buchanan. He wrote a good article back in 2003 on why the Old Left and Old Right can agree on some things, primarily opposing Neocon warmongering. See: https://www.antiwar.com/orig/n-clark1.htmlAs for why ordinary people support free market capitalism, I believe in two big theories. One is that the unusual prosperity of the post-war era lulled many working people into a sense of security where they assumed that their affluence was the result of the free market and not because of governmental policies that created broad prosperity after World War II. The media, politicians, and even schools often downplay the role of government and other factors that went into creating prosperity in rich countries. Even many educated people just assume that the wealthy nations only became rich through the free market without knowing about the history of things like infant industry protectionism. So when a politician like Ronald Reagan comes along and says “government is the problem” many regular people believe it because they only think about the negative side of government like taxation and annoying red tape, but forget about the beneficial aspects of state intervention. The second theory is the issue of racial and ethnic division. People seem less willing to support progressive reforms if they are seen as primarily benefiting “others.” There is also some evidence that multiculturalism and diversity reduces solidarity and civic engagement. This is an old article (2007) but I think it is a good one because Robert Putnam, the researcher that came to this conclusion, is a liberal and not a conservative.http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/I have tried to argue with left-wingers about the multiculturalism issue and why it is probably hurting progressive economic causes but I just got called a “Brogressive” and a reactionary so that was that. There is a section of the Left that simply will not tolerate any difference of opinion on this issue.
"There is a section of the Left that simply will not tolerate any difference of opinion on this issue"Yes, those people are contemptible and delusional.However, I am detecting the beginning of a sea change on immigration from the left, even from leftist heterodox economists.I already know Putnam's article, and no doubt there is much truth to it.Multiculturalism is a massive failure.
Stop hyperventilating. There IS a strong resemblance, and it is probably deliberate. Not because Trump loves Russia but because the graphic designer he hired knows about iconography that works.So the WS is probably right, that this is no accident, and making a jokey dig at Trump out of it. They are not calling him a communist. Is it surprising that a neocon would catch the visual reference?
Another reader who cannot detect parody, humour, caricature, or the stealing of opponents' memes and subversion of them.Eh, cucked Kenny boy?
Oh, and you still haven't answered me on free trade, cuckservative Ken.
You are probably right about the iconography. Trump's success has to be explained by persuasion. Or if someone doesn't agree with me on this one, then at least something is there that is hard to explain for the political analyst. Most mainstreamers cannot understand why is Trump so good at campaign. He has not very deep knowledge of politics, people realise that he might not do the things he has promised, they understand that he has been all over the place when It comes to policy, yet he is winning. I don't care what they call him and what he is, but he is a phenomenon that is very hard to explain. Almost no one else would get away with stuff that Trump has gotten away with.
LK, I answered you on free trade long ago. You simply botch the math. You don't understand the argument, and are unwilling to debate it outside a forum where you face little informed dissent (just the likes of Kevin Wayne, who probably agrees with you on trade).
Kristjan, you should read Scott Adams of Dilbert on Trump, who argues just that. I sometimes think Adams is punking me, but he is often insightful, always interesting, and has a far better track record on Trump than pretty much anyone else. Look for the blog at Dilbert.com
(1) "LK, I answered you on free trade long ago. You simply botch the math."No, you haven't Ken B. I've already told you the math of the argument within the abstract world proposed by Ricardo works fine there, but only there.My critique is *empirical*. Stop bloody lying. The reality:In *the real world*, industries have constant, increasing or diminishing returns to scale. The path to wealth and first world development for most countries lies in manufacturing, not in dead-end diminishing returns to scale sectors like agriculture.Also, Ricardo’s comparative advantage argument for free trade actually uses a naive labour theory of value assumption in its argument. Who cares about immediate labour hours, when the long-term benefits of industry are far better than immediate increased output based on labour time? When did you become a vulgar LTV supporter, dude?This is why Ricardo's abstract argument utterly fails in the real world. Portugal would be justified in developing a manufacturing cloth industry and other industrial sectors(even if it required imposing tariffs) and ignoring free trade. In the long run, this is what will make it rich. Wine and diminishing returns to scale sectors are a path to poverty. (2) if you have a counterargument or some post from Landsburg, then make it or post it here. It easy. (3) except I bet that, once again, you will not. You cannot. You have jack sh*t on this. The *empirical* -- not mathematical -- argument against total and constant free trade is correct.
kristjanhe is succesful in my opinion because he is not afraid of being politically incorrect.when a politican afraid of being politically incorrect but in the same time he behave in "secret" with his close circle in a politcally incorrect way people feel the hypocrascy and start to hate this politicans.but when a politicans start from the position of i dont care about political correctness people feel authenticity.thats in my opinion is why trump is succesfull.
And yet, it's the Clintons that ought to be the recipient of Commie-bating, if anyone should:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1psPUpnycllEOLCxPnWWgzqd-FVvFas3F-i5UPO6uZq8/edit?pageId=109341462083856125738We have literally entered the Twilight Zone.