Ranting and Raving

An interesting thing to note is that Bush isn't a Neocon, not really, he's closer to a Kissinger-type Realpolitik. His presidency has been used as a platform for many neocon ideas, but speaking as one, his self-interest trumping ideals disqualifies him for the position. (People don't realize that the true neoconservative is a mix of Wilsonian ideals and the willingness to implement them, a la Teddy Roosevelt or, yes, Kissinger as well. Bush fulfills the latter, which is why he gained their support.) Yet, if a democratic candidate, and I do not expect one this election, were to arise that embodied a true neocon, not just in willingness to act but in principles as well, the neocons could quite possibly abandon Bush like rats on a sinking ship, especially if he does a rush-job and leaves Iraq in ruins and autocracy or gives birth to a Palestinian state with borders not conducive to a lasting peace. Perhaps not necessarily the ones actually within his organization, but their ideological brethren have the potential to turn democratic. Remember! Most neocons are 'former' liberals, who in reality, at least I believe, retain much of their domestic ideals yet have simply decided that foreign policy needs trump domestic ones. The entire concept, I believe, that neoconservatives embody are in fact, closer to the ideals of the democratic party, but are forced to the GOP only because it is the only party willing to implement it's ideals. Yet possible 'neocons' exist on both sides. Many of the ideological fathers of the neoconservative movement , for instance, worked for Democratic Senator "Scoop" Jackson. If the democratic movement were to endorse more assertive means of foreign policy, or if a new party were to be formed, utilizing the substantial financial supports for neoconservativism that already exist and the many possible adherents to it on both parties, the GOP would lose a great groundswell of support. An interesting concept, no?