Is Hillary A Neo-Con?

cawacko

Well-known member
Kind of a different and interesting perspective on Hillary.


Is Hillary Clinton a Neocon?
by Edward H. Crane

Ed Crane is president of the Cato Institute.


"You know, when I ask people, 'What do you think the goals of America are today?' people don't have any idea. We don't know what we're trying to achieve. And I think that in a life or in a country you've got to have some goals." Senator Hillary Clinton, MSNBC, May 11, 2007

Senator Hillary Clinton's worldview, as formulated above, is starkly at odds with that of America's founders. The idea that the American nation had "goals", just as individuals do, would have been wholly alien to them. For them the whole undertaking of government was to protect our "self–evident" rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This emphasis on the primacy of the individual is the essence of true American exceptionalism.

National goals are a euphemism for concentrated national political power. The "Old World" was full of nations with goals, almost all pernicious. The concept of national goals is not so much un–American as it is non–American. But Mrs. Clinton persists in promoting the concept, saying at a recent campaign speech in New Hampshire that rather than an "ownership society" she would "prefer a 'we're all in it together' society". She frequently invokes the notion that Americans want "to be part of something bigger than themselves".

She has an unusual ally in this. The one other powerful political force in the US today that shares her frustration over the lack of national goals is neoconservatism. Neocons call it "national greatness". Their theorists Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan called President George W. Bush's willingness to "engage wherever necessary around the world" a recognition of "an essential part of national greatness".

Perhaps its most articulate proponent, however, is David Brooks, the New York Times columnist. Mr. Brooks wrings his hands in a Weekly Standard article that "Americans have discarded their pursuit of national greatness in just about every particular". And how would he describe that goal? "Individual ambition and willpower are channelled into the cause of national greatness. And by making the nation great, individuals are able to join their narrow concerns to a larger national project." "Ultimately," he continues, "American purpose can find its voice only in Washington."

Mrs. Clinton would appear to have found a soulmate in Mr. Brooks, if not a future running mate.

Yet there is more to Mrs. Clinton's neocon connections. Another characteristic she shares is the promiscuity with which both camps would use the federal government — as if there simply were no constitutional limits on federal power. Given the neocons' high profile in pushing us into the Iraq war, it is often overlooked how far their domestic policies unfailingly call for vigorous federal initiatives.

The federal takeover of education, dubbed "No Child Left Behind", is a neocon project. So, too, was the Faith–based Initiative that funded local religious organisations. Mr. Brooks recently called for presidential candidates to "create a flourishing families committee. Get economists, religious activists, and psychologists in one room to figure out how government can reduce stress on struggling families". This would be the same government that took three days to discover that Hurricane Katrina had created a bit of a problem in New Orleans.

Not to be outdone, in It Takes a Village (the "village" being the federal government), Mrs. Clinton suggests the government should fund videos on baby care that "could be running continuously in doctors' offices, clinics, hospitals, motor vehicle offices, or any other place where people gather and have to wait". Shades of 1984.

Expansive government is always going to be a project of those who would subject individuals to collective, national goals. The founders were well aware of this danger, which is why they gave us a constitution of enumerated — and therefore limited — powers. As Thomas Jefferson put it: "I consider the foundations of the constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the US, by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people'. To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power no longer susceptible of any definitions."

Mrs. Clinton looks in danger of following the fateful path of the neocons, with her aim to take possession of that boundless field.


This article appeared in the Financial Times on July 11, 2007.


http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8495
 
Wow, CATO isn't going to endorse Hillary? Well, that's a plus for me.

CATO doesn't endorse George Bush.

What I often like about their articles is that doesn't come from a Republican/Democratic partisan position.

As I said this is a different perspective on her. One can obviously agree or disagree but it's not a just a 'Hillary sucks' or 'Hillary is great' article.
 
CATO doesn't endorse George Bush.

What I often like about their articles is that doesn't come from a Republican/Democratic partisan position.

As I said this is a different perspective on her. One can obviously agree or disagree but it's not a just a 'Hillary sucks' or 'Hillary is great' article.

But the perspective they do come from, is more cringe-inducing to me, possibly than republicans. :)

I don't think Hillary is a neocon, by the way.
 
But the perspective they do come from, is more cringe-inducing to me, possibly than republicans. :)

I don't think Hillary is a neocon, by the way.


Well, they called for us not to invade Iraq and they have been calling us to pull out our troops for a long time now so they can't be all bad. :)

You disagree with the analogy they are trying to make? You're not a fan of the proposed Hillary/David Brooks ticket?
 
Well, they called for us not to invade Iraq and they have been calling us to pull out our troops for a long time now so they can't be all bad. :)

You disagree with the analogy they are trying to make? You're not a fan of the proposed Hillary/David Brooks ticket?

I didn't read the whole thing. I started to get a rash. lol. I hope you do not mean that moron David Brooks of the NY Times?

I would rather you ran on the ticket. At least I know I could get you drunk, and get you to sign stuff. ;)
 
Ok, I see that part now. They are making a very simplistic comparison. I know both of these people fairly well (their positions I mean), David Brooks and Hillary Clinton have very little in common ideologically.
 
Ok, I see that part now. They are making a very simplistic comparison. I know both of these people fairly well (their positions I mean), David Brooks and Hillary Clinton have very little in common ideologically.

I agree Hlllary and Brooks are ideologically different. The article expands on what a Neo-Con really is and that is what I found interesting about it and believe there is an argument to be made that one must not only be Republican to be a neo-con.
 
I agree Hlllary and Brooks are ideologically different. The article expands on what a Neo-Con really is and that is what I found interesting about it and believe there is an argument to be made that one must not only be Republican to be a neo-con.

Cawacko, it is Joe Lieberman who is living proof of that.
 
I didn't read the whole thing. I started to get a rash. lol. I hope you do not mean that moron David Brooks of the NY Times?

I would rather you ran on the ticket. At least I know I could get you drunk, and get you to sign stuff. ;)

I would, by executive order, have a twelve hour morotorium on anything I sign in case I was being seduced by a beautiful young woman while in an alcoholic state and did not know what the hell I was doing.
 
Cato... moveon...The only difference between the two is political ideology.
Both lean so bad they touch the ground at the top.
Well ther is one difference, Cato has more money ;)
 
She's more honest than a neocon in that she's OPENLY anti-american. Neocons pander to a positive american national identity, but only if actions taken under that pretense further the goals of the New World Order. For instance, we're noble and good, when we go die in foreign deserts, protecting israel and the world oil, but if we even DISCUSS controlling our OWN BORDER we're suddently despicable "loud talkers" in the words of lindsay, the shitpile, graham.
 
She's more honest than a neocon in that she's OPENLY anti-american. Neocons pander to a positive american national identity, but only if actions taken under that pretense further the goals of the New World Order. For instance, we're noble and good, when we go die in foreign deserts, protecting israel and the world oil, but if we even DISCUSS controlling our OWN BORDER we're suddently despicable "loud talkers" in the words of lindsay, the shitpile, graham.
There's no one here more anti-American than you, Bubbi. You believe in flags and borders, not what America really stands for.
 
Ahhh hah...

No, Anita Bryant endorsed oj. Cato endorsed genocde.



and you see the light...Cato was OJ's hit man...both escaped punishment!


As Johnny Cochran said..."If the glove doesn't fit ya must aquit" however the glove was never placed on Catos' guilty hand..a abomination of justice imho! If it had been both would have fell like dominos...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top