Es el partido Republicano Conservador o Neo Conservador, y cuales son las diferencias entre Neo-con y conservador?

El partido Republicano ha sido el partido conservador de Reagan y Godwater, pero igualemente hay una gama de neoconservadores que se han apropiado del mismo y gracias a eso vemos a figuras como Colin Powell que acaba de endosar al socialista de turno... Igualmente hay que ver como es que estos hibridos llegaron no solo al partido, sino que se apropiaron del mismo... y mas importantemente hay que ver como podemos salir de ellos.

Para entender mejor esta problematica, he buscado la opinion de uno de los paleoconservadores mas coonocidos, Pat Buchannan:

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/06/22/pat-buchanan-behind-the-crack-up-of-the-right/

Behind the crack-up of the rightBy: Patrick J. Buchanan
6/22/2012 05:45 AM

In introducing his new book, “Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America,” Paul Gottfried identifies a fundamental divide between neoconservatives and the traditional right. The divide is over the question: What is this nation, America?

Straussians, writes Gottfried, “wish to present the construction of government as an open-ended rationalist process. All children of the Enlightenment, once properly instructed, should be able to carry out this … task.”

For traditional conservatives, before the nation is born, “ethnic and cultural preconditions” must exist. All “successful constitutional orders,” he writes, “are the expressions of already formed nations and cultures.”

To the old right, America as a nation and a people already existed by 1789. The Constitution was the birth certificate the nation wrote for itself, the charter by which it chose to govern itself. The real America had been born in men’s hearts by the time of Lexington and Concord in 1775.

In a recent issue of Modern Age, Jack Kerwick deals with this divide.

Irving Kristol, he writes, and quotes that founding father of modern neoconservatism, saw America as “a ‘creedal’ nation, a nation to which anyone can belong irrespective of ‘ethnicity or blood ties of any kind, or lineage, or length of residence even.’”

“For Kristol and his ilk,” Kerwick goes on, “one’s identity as an American is established by nothing more than an intellectual exercise whereby one rationally assents to the propositions encapsulated in the Declaration.”

“Given this unqualified quasi-religious commitment to ‘the Rights of Man,’ (for a neoconservative) America must be future-oriented, for as long as human rights are threatened, and regardless of where they are imperiled, her work in the world will never be complete.”

Here one arrives at a root cause of the conflict between neocons and the right — a conflict that did not mature until the end of the Cold War.

Given their belief in America as an ideological nation and their fear that the party of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter was failing to wage the Cold War effectively against our ideological foe, communism, it was natural that the neocons would defect from their party to align with the party of Ronald Reagan. (Como podemos ver, los Neo-Cons no son mas que ex-Democratas)

By the 1980s, they were allies of the Old Right for the last decade of the Cold War.

It was when that Cold War ended that the chasm came into full view.

Some conservatives began to argue that now that the Soviet Union was history and Mao’s China had given up on world revolution, our war was over and we should bring our troops home and become again “a normal country in a normal time.”

Neoconservatives cried that this was “isolationism,” and backed U.S. interventions in Panama, Haiti, Somalia, Kuwait and Iraq.

While a Republican House opposed war on Serbia, neocons cheered Bill Clinton’s 78 days of bombing that tore Kosovo from the mother country.

When some on the right opposed the invasion of Iraq as an unwise and unnecessary war, National Review denounced them as “unpatriotic.”

On reflection, the neoconservative rage made sense.

If one believes America is not a normal nation with definable interests, but a creedal nation dedicated to democracy, equality and human rights, one has converted to what Kristol called a “civic religion.” And the mission of that faith is to advance the work begun in 1776, to make America — then the entire world — free, democratic and egalitarian.

Either our ideology triumphs or another shall, neocons believe. We are in a world historic struggle for the hearts and souls of mankind.

This ideology, this political religion, causes neocons, as Gottfried and Russell Kirk observed — the latter in his 1988 Heritage Foundation lecture on the species — to see opponents on the right as heretics and enemies of the true faith.

Yet, in the final analysis, the neoconservatism of Irving Kristol, writes Kerwick, future-oriented and utopian, “is not … a form of conservatism at all.”

Decades ago, when Irving called for a “Republican ideology,” the scholar Gerhart Niemeyer upbraided him: “All modern ideologies have the same irrational root: the permeation of politics with millenarian ideas of pseudo-religious character. The result is a dream world.”

Like 19th-century Marxists, neocons envision a future that is utopian — i.e., it is unattainable. For in the real world, history, faith and culture shape peoples, and peoples shape countries to reflect who and what they are.

Nations constructed from ideological blueprints like the Soviet Union of Vladimir Lenin and the China of Mao Zedong eventually collapse when their ruling ideas collide fatally with reality and human nature.

The one great success of the neocons came about by accident. In the shock of 9/11, George W. Bush was converted to global democratic revolution “to end tyranny in our world.” And off we marched.

And after decade-long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we reaped the harvest: 6,500 dead, 40,000 wounded, trillions in debt, a nation divided and pandemic hatred of America across the Islamic world.

Perhaps the new wars for which our neocons clamor in Syria and Iran will prove at last the great leap forward into the brave new world of their dreams.


Gane o pierda Romney, el problema que son los Neo-Cons para el partido conservador persistira. Lo que puede ocurrir, a raiz de la ascendencia del Tea Party es que la era del Neo-con este en sus postrimerias y que le ocurra como a cualquier otro dinosaurio que carece de un nicho natural en el orden de la vida... La pregunta es como llegar alli y cuando llegaremos?

El sector neoconservador del GOP es culpable de iniciar o perpetuar algunas practicas de la guerra fria que hoy dia no tienen logica...

He aqui algunas definiciones de lo que es un Neocon:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Neocon&defid=4841305
Una de las cuales es: Neoconservative; a socially-conservative socialist.

Este articulo habla un poco del asunto:
http://rense.com/general67/acus.htm
T Is For Traitor
NeoCons, Meet
Your Accusers
By Douglas Herman
douglasherman7@yahoo.com
Exclusive to Rense.com
10-9-5

"Treason. noun. Criminal act of betraying one's country as defined in Article II section 3 of the U.S. Constitution."

"They are the so-called neo-cons, or neo-conservatives. A compact group, almost all of whose members are Jewish. They hold the key positions in the Bush administration, as well as in the think-tanks that play an important role in formulating American policy and the ed-op pages of the influential newspapers." -Uri Avnery

The Night After: The Easier the Victory, the Harder the Peace


Charley Reese and Paul Craig Roberts are just a couple of aging, American conservatives and syndicated columnists. Same for David Ray Griffin, a theologian and author. Same for decorated veterans, Craig Roberts and Stan Goff. Same for Cindy Sheehan and Sibel Edmunds and Colleen Rowley, just a handful of hardworking women with huge consciences.

What do these fine men and women, conservatives all, have in common? They are the conscience of the country at the moment. They are the most vocal opponents to the Neocon, New World Order plot, the bravest critics of the treason that the plotters in power inflict on America. And not afraid to say so in so many words.

"In discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions," said David Ray Griffin, "one of my points has been that the entire (Kean)Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true... I concluded my study of what I came to call "the Kean-Zelikow Report' by writing that it, 'far from lessening my suspicions about official complicity, has served to confirm them. Why would the minds in charge of this final report engage in such deception if they were not trying to cover up very high crimes?'"

According to Charley Reese: "Perle, Feith and Wurmser joined other neocons in the Bush administration. Perle was especially vocal in pushing the war on Iraq. They had two pretexts: the attack of Sept. 11, even though Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with it, and the mythical weapons of mass destruction....At a cost of $200 billion and nearly 1,000 American lives (Now 2,000+) Israel did achieve its 'strategic objective in its own right' removing Saddam from power."

Added Reese, in his column, AIPAC's Power, or America's Cowardice? "I have long since given up the hope that Americans would wake up and resent the manipulation of their government by a foreign country." Treason anyone?

Probably the most compelling and outspoken conservative is Paul Craig Roberts, former Reagan Cabinet member. Roberts accuses the neocons of treason outright: "The neocons have declared America at war with 1 billion Muslims who have done us no harm. Simultaneously, the neocons destroyed our traditional alliances. Instead of isolating a terrorist enemy, neocons have isolated America."

Wreckers at work, happily profitting from the destruction. Treason defined.

The 9-11 Attack, Iraq War, WMDs? Ideally, the free press should perform the investigative task but they,ve abdicated their responsibility and have been willing accomplices to a series of Crimes of The Century for the last, well, century.

Traitors, like cockroaches, love the shadows. Unlike cockroaches, traitors pretend to be true patriots while working behind the scenes, plotting the overthrow and demise of their country.

And who are the betrayed? Well you and I for now, and our grandchildren later. For the last two centuries though, the betrayed are those restless spirits in ten thousand graves scattered around the country.

They sleep in Fredericksburg and Gettysburg and Arlington Cemetery, too. They lie in Normandy and Pearl Harbor and the airborne dust of the WTC. They repose in ten thousand small town cemeteries scattered around the country. Their names are inscribed in granite and marble, cast in bronze, etched in black monuments, eroded on slate or stamped into stumps of stone, lying in myriad, overgrown, forgotten cemeteries in America.

They are the ones, hallowed as heroes, who trusted their leaders a little too much. Put their lives on the line. Slept in mud and snow. Ate badly and slept worse, longing for home. They are all around, unsettled, wondering what-the-hell-happened to the republic they were told they were fighting and dying to preserve.

Curious how the most vehement, impassioned opponents of the new American imperialism, the open, unapologetic version, are mostly former Republican party members. Conservatives who sense a betrayal, they loudly and bravely mince no words, pull no punches. They are the canaries in the coal mine whose timbers are cracking.

Traitors, meet thy accusers.

At least the living ones.
The dead intend to meet you later.

The opponent party, the moribund Democratic Party resembles an unburied carcass, one of those cavalry horses one sees in old Civil War photos. The bloated corpse is an ass in this case, and aside from one black Congresswoman from Georgia, Cynthia McKinney, perhaps the only lifeblood in the Democratic Party remains at the grassroots level.

But hell hath no fury like a hurricane ignored or a Conservative betrayed. The Greek philosopher, Diogenes, once said: "I am like a dog: I fawn on those I love; I bark at those I hate; and I sink my teeth into scoundrels. While our country is under attack by a series of idealogues, vigilance and opposition in the manner of Diogenes is the due course of action.

Again Paul Craig Roberts asks, "Will neocon fanaticism destroy America?---Stalemated in Iraq, the White House moron intends to attack two more countries."

Treason flies many flags, often under a single banner. The most famous pirates in history rarely approached the structural theft, bloodthirstiness or blatant hypocrisy of their modern counterpart. Simply put, most governments and their leaders fly the black flag but pretend to defend the greater good. Nothing could be more false or potentially fatal.

Who does this war-without-end benefit? Not you and me. "We invaded Iraq to have a war," wrote professor Brian Foley in The Profit-Driven War. "We had a war because there are powerful interests in our country that are geared toward making money from war."

War--while not in itself treasonous, for self-defense--is worth billions to war makers. The Middle East War(s) will likely bankrupt"both morally and economically"this nation. What better definition of treason?

Any "criminal act of betraying one's country" is definable as treason. You listening George? You hear Dick? You understand Chertoff? (Notice that many neocons hold dual citizenship). You comprehend Rummy, Rice, Rove, Wolfowitz, Myers, Ashcroft, Giuliani, Gonzales, Kean, Clinton? Maybe you can escape justice in this world--your type always does--but those you betrayed await you in the next.
_____



Amateur historian and USAF veteran, Douglas Herman writes regularly for Rense and is the author of the provocative suspense novel Guns of Dallas

Este es el peor problema que tiene el GOP y esperamos que en el proximo periodo electoral, se deshagael partido de los NeoCon's o de los conservadores y se deje de tanta duplicidad.

Creo que el problema principal del Partido Republicano ahora mismo son las posturas socialmente conservadores.

De hecho, fue una razón determinante en la inhabilidad de ellos de recuperar el Senado.

Lo que deben hacer es enfocarse en posturas económicamente conservadoras. Deberían adoptar, por lo menos a nivel nacional, posturas a favor del aborto, derechos de la mujeres, derechos de las minorías, matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo...ect.

Las personas que están encontra de eso no van a irse al Partido Demócrata. Algunos, se quedarán en las casas. Pero otros se quedarán ya que, en lo mínimo, el Partido Republicano respalda su visión económica.

Al adoptar la visión socialmente liberal, estas dejarán de ser un "issue" y laceraría la base demócrata.

De hecho, los Compassionate Christian Conservatives son en realidad Neo-Con's...

Estoy en acuerdo, Charlie.

Yo descarto a los Republicanos automáticamente por esas posturas socialmente conservadores y este concepto de "nation-building".

Si los Republicanos fuesen como tú dices, yo mismo estaría dispuesto a considerar sus ideas, aunque también soy liberal en cuestiones económicas.

Bori :

Tu perdonas, pero como tu vas a dejar tus principios sobre el aborto por votos????


si tu crees que es una vida, entonces tu crees que la sociedad tiene el derecho y responsabilidad de poner limites al aborto para proteger esa vida?....yo si! y muchos latinos que son conservadores en ese aspecto piensan igual.


Mira la inconsistencia de los liberales/democratas sobre esto.....tu puedes matar por cualquier razon a un bebe, despues que este adentro de la mujer pero es CRIMINAL si lo matas afuera....y esto lo llaman derechos de la mujer? y los derechos de esa vida que no tiene voz ni se puede defender?


Los conservadores creen que el aborto es aceptable en circumstancias extremas como la vida de la mujer y violacion pero tu y yo sabemos que el 90% de los abortos en EEUU y Puerto Rico son por razones invalidos para terminar una vida que siente, tiene corazon y es VIDA!


Los liberales dicen que eso es un derecho bajo la privacidad......y yo les contesto, si yo mato a mi hijo de 12 anos en mi casa, eso cae en privacidad?.....que le importa a nadie y al gobierno si yo mato a mi hijo porque es una inconveniencia para mi financialmente y emocional?

vez la inconstencia aqui?????..........si es una vida porque como sociedad no podemos proteger esa vida excepto en casos extremos y como ultimo recurso?


sorry, pero yo no creo que los conservadores deben de vender sus principios sobre el aborto por votos........debemos de enforcar mas en responsabilidad individual y tener mas respeto y dignidad hacia la vida.


Tu perdonas pero eso es una de las razones que deje ser un democrata..........vida es vida y siempre debemos de proteger aquellos que no se pueden defender y una mujer NO tiene derecho en mi opinion de terminar un vida porque ella decidio al ultimo momento que es una inconveniencia financial o emocional para ella......Si eso es asi vamos a darle derechos a los padres de matar a sus hijos que tienen problemas de drogas o criminal o son una inconveniencia para ellos. o a los retardados, vamos a matarlos tambien.....despues que lo hagan en su privacidad, WHY NOT?

Boriquesazo escribió:Estoy en acuerdo, Charlie.

Yo descarto a los Republicanos automáticamente por esas posturas socialmente conservadores y este concepto de "nation-building".

Si los Republicanos fuesen como tú dices, yo mismo estaría dispuesto a considerar sus ideas, aunque también soy liberal en cuestiones económicas.

El concepto de "nation building" es eminentemente Neo-Con.

A que te refieres cuando dices "liberal en cuestiones economicas"?

El termino neo conservador es uno usado peyorativamente por personas como Pat Buchanan para referirse a personas que aparte de su postura en asuntos belicos, particularmente en la defensa de Israel, son Democratas.

Si hablamos de conservadores estamos hablando de personas de la ideologia de Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Eisenhower, etc...

Aqui entre nos, dudo que la gente de Obama tenga nada que ver con la gente de Ron Paul... No orbitan en la misma galaxia politica.

Ron Paul es mas Libertarian y Obama es mas LBJ democrata de gobierno grande y que se joda la deuda.

Seamos claros. En PR, no hay verdaderos conservadores. Hay conservadores sociales, pero lo que esdel gasto, se sabe que sin el dinero federal, en PR hay un desastre.

Creo que a Romney le negaron el voto en PR por ser tan gringo.

y por eso estan tan jodios y tienen al pueblo BRUTO! Si tu en P.R hablas de :

* gobierno limitado
* taxes bajos para negocios e invercionistas
* privatizar parte del seguro social y medicaid para que el individuo tenga mas control sobre su retiro y dinero envez de burocratas en el gobierno.
* romper el descojon que tienen en el departamento de educacion publica con school vouchers y charters schools.
* hablar de responsabilidad individual y dar servicios al pais a cambio de welfare...dando y dando

es como hablarles en CHINO....tu tienes que hablarle su idioma y eso es ser un SANTA CLAUS con el dinero de otros. El idioma en P.R es DAME, DAME, DAME, DAME....es mi derecho y si no me los das no me sirves para nada.!



Romney no solamente era bien "gringo" (whatever that means) tambien es millonario y un % alto en P.R. son envidiosos y acomplejados por naturaleza.

Muchacho, en Macondo no se puede hablar de recortar ni el cabello del gasto publico... La verdad es que una mayoria de los votantes viven de algun tipo de dadiva gubernamental.

Ojala y voten pro independencia para que vean como se pone la cosa... Van pensar que cagaron un piano...