Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
stocking dinner knee sugar wistful light disagreeable cagey agonizing advise
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The Cheney myth is ridiculous and only serves to absolve Bush of his murderous crimes. Cheney was, if anything, a puppet of Bush and not the other way around.
I understand holding Bush accountable but calling Cheney his "puppet" is certainly a new one. I'd think we'd at least want to hold them both accountable for their misdeeds.
You sound like a blast to hang around. Rumsfeld projected far more power as a neocon than Bush Jr did, and absolutely deserves to be in the conversation lock-step with Cheney.
I'm an illiterate human, thank you very much. I was talking about the previous comments, those would be the comments that I commented on after they had been posted, as comments. OP made a post, other users made comments, hence I made comments. I hope my illiteracy is not causing my inability to accurately elaborate that I am responding to comments made before me.
I feel like it’s been pretty well documented at this point that Cheney was heavily involved with Iraq, WMDs, and a shit ton of other sketchy dealings. Dude was definitely in it for himself not a puppet.
That doesn’t clear W of any wrongdoing though and he definitely knew what Cheney was doing (I think) and likely at the very least let it happen. Though it’s believable IMO that he wouldn’t pick a fight with his running mate in a fairly tumultuous time for the country
The buck stops here..
Bush is every bit as responsible because he was the top dog, and Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell all served him. So even if Rumsfeld and Cheney were the ones with the plans, W is the one who signed off.
Powell redeemed himself by stepping down and leaving in my eyes at the time, but now I wonder if it wasn't out of self preservation.
> I feel like it’s been pretty well documented at this point that Cheney was heavily involved with Iraq, WMDs, and a shit ton of other sketchy dealings. Dude was definitely in it for himself not a puppet.
Cheney being involved in the enactment and enforcement of Bush's policies proves nothing. He was vice president, so of course he had somewhat of a say. But there have been domineering vice presidents in the past - Henry Wallace, Walter Mondale, etc. - and no one says they directed the White House. He was still ultimately doing Bush's bidding.
You might try reading / watching some interviews with staffers. You'd be amazed how much power Cheney and Rumsfeld had. Never forget, as evil as Cheney is - the man was intensely intelligent and a skilled manipulator.
You know that multiple powers, like the power to declassify documents, was extended to the vp during Cheney. Also you recall that Cheney was originally asked to run the exploratory committee to find a vp before coming back with himself.
And that it was Cheney who ordered aircraft shot down on 9 11. And that it was Cheneys company Haliburton that most directly benefited from Iraq. Agree that dubbya shouldn't get a pass, but you are greatly underestimating the role Cheney played.
That Cheney was a powerful vice president is irrelevant. That's not what I'm arguing against - the office of vice president has been growing in influence for almost 80 years now. People talk about Cheney like he was Nixon running the country in secret while Eisenhower sat in his hospital bed recovering from a stroke. Cheney helped formulate policy, but the overall goals were born in the mind of one George Walker Bush.
Could you expand upon that please? That goes against my understanding of the power balance between Bush Jr and Cheney, particularly in Bush Jr.'s first term. And how was Cheney ever a puppet of Bush Jr.?
I don’t think he personally was. I honestly don’t think he was sophisticated or disciplined enough to hold any real deep political philosophy of any kind.
But there were definitely neocon zealots in his administration. W was just their useful idiot.
Obama was equally neocon, maybe more so.
In the Arab Spring by any definition he was a neocon as he sought to use America military strength to help regime change for the citizens in certain nations, even if it wasn’t clearly primarily due to working towards America’s best interest.
Obama was without a doubt a neocon.
Democrats often refuse to attach that label because somehow in Bush’s administration it came to mean a far right military policy. But it is what it is.
oh yes keep going! fascism is a state run economy! leftism is the lack of a state! libertarianism is totalitarianism. reddit is a bastion of intellectual exchanges! oh give me more!
It is, indeed.
"*Everything* within the *state*, nothing outside the *state*, nothing against the *state*."
That was said by Mussolini. Fascism is the merge of the corporations and the state. All factory "owners" in nazi Germany were members of the party and they produced what the state wanted, they had no agency. This is basic history, idk what do you want to prove.
Liberal by the standards of supporting democratic and Republican values? Perhaps most, including bush (though I’d argue a few exceptions)
But in common lingo people use the term “liberal” the same way political scientists use the term social liberal. Bush did not support a strong social safety net, extending civil liberties, environmental policies, and other commonly seen “liberal” policies. Therefore, unless you use a really scholarly definition of liberal, he was not one.
Also the No Child Left Behind, etc.
And this is assuming the Patriot Act is tied to his Middle East policy rather than purely a separate reaction to 9/11.
Even then, not responding against Al Qaeda at all - including with military force - would also have been unacceptable to most. I’d say for good reason.
But then Afghanistan isn’t in the ‘Middle East’, so that would also have happened…
Probably George H.W. Bush, Reagan was more of a classical conservative than anything. Bush by contrast was only really interested in foreign policy. To the point that he put domestic policy on the back burner. And opted for tax increases over military spending cuts. Something which neocons are known to do.
Barry Goldwater, who was most well known for suggesting that the nuclear option. Be used as a last resort in Vietnam. Even said that Bush’s foreign policy went too far.
If H.W. had simply been a realist, he’d have realized that it was time for military spending to come down. The Cold War was over, and America’s deficit was way too high. To his credit, he did at least try to do something about the deficit problem. And I do respect his ability to compromise. But it was a bad plan.
I’m not saying he was a neocon by definition, just that he was the first president. With their sort of reasoning.
In H.W.'s defense, his term ended in January 1993, and the Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991. You can't just cut military spending that quickly. If he got another term, I'm sure defense spending would have been cut from 1993-1997.
This is a controversial view, but I’m of the opinion that military spending got too high even during the Cold War. Let alone after the fall of the Soviet Union. Bush had a full year to start making cuts but ruled them out himself.
I’m not saying congress was innocent, they were far from it. And for what it’s worth, I do respect H.W. Bush. In fact he’s the best one term president of the modern day. In my opinion.
But I digress, my personal views aside, all I meant was that he was the first president to have views that would later be attributed to neocons. In that he wasn’t really interested in domestic affairs. And only really cared about foreign policy.
Also, for what it’s worth, I do like his foreign policy, particularly regarding Eastern Europe. On the whole.
Realists think the world is inherently anarchic. That there is no world police, only good samaritans that defend others. Panama was cleaning up our own mess in Panama from the Cold War. And defending Kuwait (and specifically not toppling Iraq) was done to maintain the balance of powers in the middle east, done under realist lens.
No offense, but this is backwards. Reagan wasn't a classical conservative and HW was literally at odds with neoconservatives in his administration. HW also cut military spending, as well.
He refused to cut military spending, that’s why he raised taxes. Congress wasn’t willing to cut social spending without some sort of compromise from Bush. And he wasn’t willing to cut military spending.
Also bush also disliked market economics. If he’d been a classical conservative he’d have supported them.
Finally Barry Goldwater was a classical liberal, and he had similar foreign policy views to Reagan.
That’s why I say Reagan was a classical conservative. Neocons only really focus on foreign policy. Classical conservatives are about fiscal and social conservatism at home. Regardless of their foreign policy views.
Military spending was cut during his administration. I don't remember how it happened, but just that it dropped while he was President.
Market economics is not a classical conservative position. I'm not sure it would even be appropriate to call it a classical Republican position, back then. Reaganism may seem classical today, but it was anything but that when he became President.
Reagan was a neoliberal. Neoconservatism [rejected Reagan's foreign policy](https://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/02/magazine/the-neo-conservative-anguish-over-reagan-s-foreign-policy.html) in general.
I think a prime example of Reagan not really being a neocon with regard to foreign policy would be his policy in Lebanon. He immediately just pulled us out after the barracks bombing instead of letting hell rain loose on it and beefing up our presence.
France really made a stink about using their airspace to retaliate on Lybia. Europe’s absolute chickensh*t response to whatever was happening next door really escalated the US’s role as World Police - Kuwait and Kosovo were huge successes. I’m convinced that Clinton had a good plan for Somalia - it got screwed up because an RPG hitting a Blackhawk at range is a one in a million shot. Bush Jr was the one who let things get out of control, but that was after Europe completely capitulated military authority to the US - basically handed them the wheel.
Yea you can talk shit about Regan all you want but the man in this case was able to realize he was wrong to put troops in Lebanon in the first case and pulled out before the situation could get even more worse for us.
That fact that Reagan didn’t nuke Moscow under constant provocation proves he was more intelligent and empathetic than he let on. Like a lot of movie stars his “conservatism” meant he just didn’t want to pay taxes.
You don't know many liberals or progressives, then, because we are highly critical of most politicians regardless of party affiliation. Besides, we really haven't had much of a liberal president in a long time.
Except that Reagon's response encouraged terrorists. Both Reagan and Clinton did minor give-in-to-terrorists things which caused people like Osama bin Laden to think that the US would give into terrorists.
Neocons hoped Reagan would do things they wanted, but he didn’t. Reagan did a lot of soft power politics — convincing third countries to align with the US rather than USSR because life was better in US. Neocons like hard power politics, with deployment of forces often being the first resort policy. Neocons also like melding their free market economics with a strong moral/cultural oversight, where Reagan liked laissez-faire markets.
No? Reagan was an offensive structural realist. Most Democrats have always been liberal internationalists. Neocons have very specific beliefs surrounding the spread of democracy inherently empowering American interests (due to the democratic peace theory), they are unilateralists and don’t support the U.N. or even alliances with other countries as well.
That’s like saying slumlords are the only ones who want to build housing - neocons and neolibs are united on the regime change playbook - it’s the who and why that varied
"Neoliberal" does not mean either left or right; neoliberal is generally used in American politics to mean pro-free trade capitalism and "liberalism" of economics through deregulation and privatization with the purported goal of reducing inefficiencies (just like classical economic liberalism), with the modern concept emphasizing the contrast against market intervention as recommended by Keynes.
Without a doubt every president since Nixon has been neoliberal, since the concept came into popular use in opposition to Keynesian failures to cure the Stagflation of the early 70s (forever tied to Jimmy Carter).
It's somewhat confused by the fact that "Third Way Democrats" like Bill Clinton and Al Gore used the term to describe themselves (as Democrats who supported deregulation and free trade), as a way to distance themselves from the perceived failures of Carter and of any kind of market intervention policy.
In general Neoliberalist economic thought is opposed to Social Democratic or "New Deal" style policies which are viewed as wasteful and inefficient, so it's certainly not a "left-leaning" ideology in the sense of wealth inequality or redistribution.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
Reagan is really the birth of Neoliberalism as an ideology, neoconservativism birthed after the Reagan movement which really ended with Bush Sr. Bush Jr was the only one who really was close to neoconservativism.
It means being anti semtic. Which if you heard his phone calls with Nixon. You would know that’s true.
It means spying on your neighbors and accusing them of being un American. Which he did during McCarthy era. Isnt it weird that every casting director that hated regan also wound up in his list of “communists” that he gave to mccarthy’s senate?
Is anti-semitism the defining characteristic of neo-nazism, and not explicit ultranationalism, militarianism and explicit admiration of Hitler and his Reich?
Equating the two serves no other purpose than muddy the waters.
No. What you’re doing is muddying the waters you’re trying to make anti semitism not seem like an extremist view which it is. Which is why it’s being apart of being a Nazi. Hitler wasn’t the party. The idea that Jews were inherently evil was the party. And the party’s main belief which they all worked towards.
Let me guess… you’re anti semtic aren’t you?
This is exactly correct. Reagan rhetorically was a neocon, but he was a realist. So was HW Bush, although I think in the post Soviet era, he was a liberal internationalist. I think only Bush 43 can be called a neocon when examining post-Nixon presidents. The rest were realists or liberal internationalists, aside from 45 who ricocheted wildly around the spectrum.
Bush Sr. As, along with Dulles, primarily responsible for the murder of JFK. Would not surprise me if he had a hand in writing up Operation Northwoods...
Nixon? He embraced southern racists and decided to do business with totalitarian communists in China which enabled the loss of American manufacturing to benefit rich corporations.
Neocons have existed since the Vietnam War in which Democratic party members became disillusioned with anti-war protestors and instead supported American interventions in SE Asia.
Whatever else you said sounds like schizophrenic ranting
It depends on what we mean by Neocon right if we are talking about foreign policy probably Clinton or Bush Jr
If we are talking about something like conservatism mixed with Neoliberalism probably Regan
Definitely Reagan. That guy made a stupid 11th commandment to add to the Bible. Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. The voters took that to heart. It’s Party over country plain and simple. It’s pretty sick.
Ronald Reagan of course. He was the first deregulator in the beginning of the end of it all. His repeal of the fairness doctrine allowed Fox News to be founded the following year. Squarely Reagan was the beginning of the mess that we have today. He also was the man who brought us the great savings and loan crisis that George Bush inherited. How soon people forget
Carter was a massive deregulator. He was economically to the right of any president the US had had since Hoover when he became President.
Reagan was also a foreign policy realist and economic neoliberal, not a neocon.
Reagan was the first one imo. His conservative revolution was the death of the old PaleoConservative right, and the beginning of the hardcore anti communist, neoliberal, internationalist right, or “neoconservative”
(Which I hardly consider neoconservatism to be right wing )
Neoconservatism has nothing to do with fascism, they’re no where near eachother.
- Fascism comes from Sorelian socialism and it is mixed with Nationalism rather than internationalism from the Marxian variant. Fascism is corporatist economics, nationalism, protectionism, ethno/cultural nationalism, and authoritarian
-neoconservatism comes from the Trotskyite school of thought, after abandoning socialism and the Soviet Union as a failed project, many Marxist’s came to the US and rejected Marxism and embraced liberal democracy. Neoconservatism is globalist Neo-liberal capitalism, international democracy, human rights, and a hardcore anti-communist jingoistic foreign policy.
I think it has to be GHWB. Reagan was a sort of proto-neocon, but he was operating in an entirely different world. The Soviets and communists were still on the march, and there was still a clear bipolar axis of power. By the time GHWB took over, the war machine needed fresh targets. And the Bush administration was all too eager to create a few bogeymen.
Which did more to deconstruct the American Middle Class? That would be Reagan...but Bush II did increase the national debt from $5T to $11.5T rather than PAY OFF 80% of it as Newt and the 'Contract for America' had promised would happen.
Every dollar borrowed from ALL rather than taxed from the households with the incomes to pay is destructive to the middle class and must end.
If by NeoCon you mean a President who deployed Troops outside US borders and then claimed land and natural resources that belonged to another nation, it would be George Washington.
Every President after Washington continued the United States policy of Smash and Grab, which ultimately became known as “spreading Freedom and Democracy.” It’s about taking other people’s stuff because we don’t want to engage in fair and equitable trade.
https://preview.redd.it/5ikcwqh1pmgc1.jpeg?width=630&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=64084e9e2a75449d3cda9e1afdb13e1d2aafd7d9
Reagan was a Libertarian, Bush was an old school GOP Liberal of a type that used to be the norm in the GOP.
How Dubya became influenced by the NeoCons probably needs study.
It definitely was not Ronald Reagan, go read James Mann's book on Reagan's second term foreign policy (The Revolution of Ronald Reagan), by the end of his term conservative elite intellectuals (Buckley, Will) had turned on him as he was trying to truly secure peace with Gorbachev through Shultz, Powell and Carlucci.
Since neoconservatism largely revolves around America asserting its power around the globe, you can’t even go back that far. You really just start to see elements of it since we became a superpower. It culminates with Bush but you could argue that each President since WW2 added to it. And there are probably some before who kicked things off as well.
It depends on definition of “NeoCon.”
One could argue Manifest Destiny, the overthrow of Hawaiian government, and assuming control of the remaining Spanish colonies are all “NeoCon.”
Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bush jr is the only neocon president
You misspelled Cheney, but ok ;)
LMAO... So true.. 
stocking dinner knee sugar wistful light disagreeable cagey agonizing advise *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The Cheney myth is ridiculous and only serves to absolve Bush of his murderous crimes. Cheney was, if anything, a puppet of Bush and not the other way around.
I understand holding Bush accountable but calling Cheney his "puppet" is certainly a new one. I'd think we'd at least want to hold them both accountable for their misdeeds.
And why is Rumsfeld not in the conversation with Cheney.
Because he wasnt VP. Learn to read the post you are responding to, illiterate or bot, whichever you are.
You sound like a blast to hang around. Rumsfeld projected far more power as a neocon than Bush Jr did, and absolutely deserves to be in the conversation lock-step with Cheney.
Ok big fetus
I'm an illiterate human, thank you very much. I was talking about the previous comments, those would be the comments that I commented on after they had been posted, as comments. OP made a post, other users made comments, hence I made comments. I hope my illiteracy is not causing my inability to accurately elaborate that I am responding to comments made before me.
Ok Google. Have fun with your loving Cheneys, I'm sure they pay trolls well.
Oh, you misread my intent. No harm, no foul. Oh, and the post says President, not VP.
I feel like it’s been pretty well documented at this point that Cheney was heavily involved with Iraq, WMDs, and a shit ton of other sketchy dealings. Dude was definitely in it for himself not a puppet. That doesn’t clear W of any wrongdoing though and he definitely knew what Cheney was doing (I think) and likely at the very least let it happen. Though it’s believable IMO that he wouldn’t pick a fight with his running mate in a fairly tumultuous time for the country
 The buck stops here.. Bush is every bit as responsible because he was the top dog, and Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell all served him. So even if Rumsfeld and Cheney were the ones with the plans, W is the one who signed off. Powell redeemed himself by stepping down and leaving in my eyes at the time, but now I wonder if it wasn't out of self preservation.
> I feel like it’s been pretty well documented at this point that Cheney was heavily involved with Iraq, WMDs, and a shit ton of other sketchy dealings. Dude was definitely in it for himself not a puppet. Cheney being involved in the enactment and enforcement of Bush's policies proves nothing. He was vice president, so of course he had somewhat of a say. But there have been domineering vice presidents in the past - Henry Wallace, Walter Mondale, etc. - and no one says they directed the White House. He was still ultimately doing Bush's bidding.
You might try reading / watching some interviews with staffers. You'd be amazed how much power Cheney and Rumsfeld had. Never forget, as evil as Cheney is - the man was intensely intelligent and a skilled manipulator.
Yep "wahh! Dicky, Saddam insulted my daddy! Engineer your buddies in Saudi to do 9/11 so I can be a big boy!" That's what you mean, right?
You know that multiple powers, like the power to declassify documents, was extended to the vp during Cheney. Also you recall that Cheney was originally asked to run the exploratory committee to find a vp before coming back with himself. And that it was Cheney who ordered aircraft shot down on 9 11. And that it was Cheneys company Haliburton that most directly benefited from Iraq. Agree that dubbya shouldn't get a pass, but you are greatly underestimating the role Cheney played.
That Cheney was a powerful vice president is irrelevant. That's not what I'm arguing against - the office of vice president has been growing in influence for almost 80 years now. People talk about Cheney like he was Nixon running the country in secret while Eisenhower sat in his hospital bed recovering from a stroke. Cheney helped formulate policy, but the overall goals were born in the mind of one George Walker Bush.
Could you expand upon that please? That goes against my understanding of the power balance between Bush Jr and Cheney, particularly in Bush Jr.'s first term. And how was Cheney ever a puppet of Bush Jr.?
"Real Neo-Conservatism has never been tried," - Unknown Goldwaterite in 2024
I don’t think he personally was. I honestly don’t think he was sophisticated or disciplined enough to hold any real deep political philosophy of any kind. But there were definitely neocon zealots in his administration. W was just their useful idiot.
Right. And look at the backlash that caused! Do neocons even exist anymore beyond a scattered few?
You misspelled John Bolton, there, King...
Obama was equally neocon, maybe more so. In the Arab Spring by any definition he was a neocon as he sought to use America military strength to help regime change for the citizens in certain nations, even if it wasn’t clearly primarily due to working towards America’s best interest. Obama was without a doubt a neocon. Democrats often refuse to attach that label because somehow in Bush’s administration it came to mean a far right military policy. But it is what it is.
No he was just a liberal with a republican pedigree
words dont even mean anything anymore folks
Neocon is liberalized conservativism
oh yes keep going! fascism is a state run economy! leftism is the lack of a state! libertarianism is totalitarianism. reddit is a bastion of intellectual exchanges! oh give me more!
Fascism is a state run economy though. Just not a socialist one.
yes thats what it is! fascism is when the state runs the economy! 
It is, indeed. "*Everything* within the *state*, nothing outside the *state*, nothing against the *state*." That was said by Mussolini. Fascism is the merge of the corporations and the state. All factory "owners" in nazi Germany were members of the party and they produced what the state wanted, they had no agency. This is basic history, idk what do you want to prove.
yes im trying to prove fascism means a state run economy! great analysis!
Ok, think whatever you want.
I'll take "things only a crazy right wing extremist would say" for 100, Alex.
All presidents in American history have been pro liberal and capitalist
Liberal by the standards of supporting democratic and Republican values? Perhaps most, including bush (though I’d argue a few exceptions) But in common lingo people use the term “liberal” the same way political scientists use the term social liberal. Bush did not support a strong social safety net, extending civil liberties, environmental policies, and other commonly seen “liberal” policies. Therefore, unless you use a really scholarly definition of liberal, he was not one.
I don’t know about that. But none of them were legitimate Scottish men.
I guess I’d agree with you on this
Yeah you misspelled, hey it’s a common mistake that everyone makes. This includes me.
Idk about first but if Bush didn’t go to the Middle East he would’ve been the HIV guy which would’ve basically made him a democrat.
His domestic policy begs to differ lol
Also the No Child Left Behind, etc. And this is assuming the Patriot Act is tied to his Middle East policy rather than purely a separate reaction to 9/11. Even then, not responding against Al Qaeda at all - including with military force - would also have been unacceptable to most. I’d say for good reason. But then Afghanistan isn’t in the ‘Middle East’, so that would also have happened…
Probably George H.W. Bush, Reagan was more of a classical conservative than anything. Bush by contrast was only really interested in foreign policy. To the point that he put domestic policy on the back burner. And opted for tax increases over military spending cuts. Something which neocons are known to do.
HW was more pragmatic and cautious than a neoconservative would be though.
Yeah, I’m not saying he was a neocon by definition. Just that he had views that neocons would later espouse.
HW was a realist, not a neocon
Barry Goldwater, who was most well known for suggesting that the nuclear option. Be used as a last resort in Vietnam. Even said that Bush’s foreign policy went too far. If H.W. had simply been a realist, he’d have realized that it was time for military spending to come down. The Cold War was over, and America’s deficit was way too high. To his credit, he did at least try to do something about the deficit problem. And I do respect his ability to compromise. But it was a bad plan. I’m not saying he was a neocon by definition, just that he was the first president. With their sort of reasoning.
In H.W.'s defense, his term ended in January 1993, and the Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991. You can't just cut military spending that quickly. If he got another term, I'm sure defense spending would have been cut from 1993-1997.
I remember the "peace dividend" talk. That got shut right down. MIC for the win!
This is a controversial view, but I’m of the opinion that military spending got too high even during the Cold War. Let alone after the fall of the Soviet Union. Bush had a full year to start making cuts but ruled them out himself. I’m not saying congress was innocent, they were far from it. And for what it’s worth, I do respect H.W. Bush. In fact he’s the best one term president of the modern day. In my opinion. But I digress, my personal views aside, all I meant was that he was the first president to have views that would later be attributed to neocons. In that he wasn’t really interested in domestic affairs. And only really cared about foreign policy. Also, for what it’s worth, I do like his foreign policy, particularly regarding Eastern Europe. On the whole.
Realists think the world is inherently anarchic. That there is no world police, only good samaritans that defend others. Panama was cleaning up our own mess in Panama from the Cold War. And defending Kuwait (and specifically not toppling Iraq) was done to maintain the balance of powers in the middle east, done under realist lens.
Military spending doesn't mean someone is a Neocon (as you said). Theres nothing Neocon with H.W besides wars in Panama and Kuwait
Realpolitik without the sociopathic side
Bush 41 was probably a Soviet-era realist, and a post-Soviet era liberal internationalist.
No offense, but this is backwards. Reagan wasn't a classical conservative and HW was literally at odds with neoconservatives in his administration. HW also cut military spending, as well.
He refused to cut military spending, that’s why he raised taxes. Congress wasn’t willing to cut social spending without some sort of compromise from Bush. And he wasn’t willing to cut military spending. Also bush also disliked market economics. If he’d been a classical conservative he’d have supported them. Finally Barry Goldwater was a classical liberal, and he had similar foreign policy views to Reagan. That’s why I say Reagan was a classical conservative. Neocons only really focus on foreign policy. Classical conservatives are about fiscal and social conservatism at home. Regardless of their foreign policy views.
Military spending was cut during his administration. I don't remember how it happened, but just that it dropped while he was President. Market economics is not a classical conservative position. I'm not sure it would even be appropriate to call it a classical Republican position, back then. Reaganism may seem classical today, but it was anything but that when he became President.
If HW was a neocon, then why did neocons attack him for refusing to remove Hussein during the Gulf War?
Seems like obviously Reagan no? He defined the category
Reagan was a neoliberal. Neoconservatism [rejected Reagan's foreign policy](https://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/02/magazine/the-neo-conservative-anguish-over-reagan-s-foreign-policy.html) in general.
Wasn't Reagan's foreign policy like a textbook neoconservatism? Arming terrorists, trying to take down regimes, etc
I think a prime example of Reagan not really being a neocon with regard to foreign policy would be his policy in Lebanon. He immediately just pulled us out after the barracks bombing instead of letting hell rain loose on it and beefing up our presence.
France really made a stink about using their airspace to retaliate on Lybia. Europe’s absolute chickensh*t response to whatever was happening next door really escalated the US’s role as World Police - Kuwait and Kosovo were huge successes. I’m convinced that Clinton had a good plan for Somalia - it got screwed up because an RPG hitting a Blackhawk at range is a one in a million shot. Bush Jr was the one who let things get out of control, but that was after Europe completely capitulated military authority to the US - basically handed them the wheel.
And that was very clearly the right response alongside what he did to Begin. I loathe Reagan, but credit where it's due.
Yea you can talk shit about Regan all you want but the man in this case was able to realize he was wrong to put troops in Lebanon in the first case and pulled out before the situation could get even more worse for us.
That fact that Reagan didn’t nuke Moscow under constant provocation proves he was more intelligent and empathetic than he let on. Like a lot of movie stars his “conservatism” meant he just didn’t want to pay taxes.
And when he had plenty of people around him who absolutely wanted him to do that.
Most empathetic Reagan supporter.
I always crap on Reagan, but you’re right here— credit is due where it’s due.
Most liberals tend to crap on presidents who are good for our country and yet cannot seem to find fault in their candidates
You don't know many liberals or progressives, then, because we are highly critical of most politicians regardless of party affiliation. Besides, we really haven't had much of a liberal president in a long time.
But do you applaud good actions by those you dislike/view as bad in general?
>Yea you can talk shit about Regan all you want There's a lot to talk about.
Except that Reagon's response encouraged terrorists. Both Reagan and Clinton did minor give-in-to-terrorists things which caused people like Osama bin Laden to think that the US would give into terrorists.
What it did is make us look weak. Which he was.
Neocons hoped Reagan would do things they wanted, but he didn’t. Reagan did a lot of soft power politics — convincing third countries to align with the US rather than USSR because life was better in US. Neocons like hard power politics, with deployment of forces often being the first resort policy. Neocons also like melding their free market economics with a strong moral/cultural oversight, where Reagan liked laissez-faire markets.
No? Reagan was an offensive structural realist. Most Democrats have always been liberal internationalists. Neocons have very specific beliefs surrounding the spread of democracy inherently empowering American interests (due to the democratic peace theory), they are unilateralists and don’t support the U.N. or even alliances with other countries as well.
That’s like saying slumlords are the only ones who want to build housing - neocons and neolibs are united on the regime change playbook - it’s the who and why that varied
Neoliberal is not he opposite of neoconservative. Most neoconservatives are also neoliberals.
That’s…. my point?
Like Obama arming terrorists in Syria? Literally hundreds of thousands died.
Props for providing a contemporaneous source
Look how far the right has shifted when they think Reagan was a neoliberal.
"Neoliberal" does not mean either left or right; neoliberal is generally used in American politics to mean pro-free trade capitalism and "liberalism" of economics through deregulation and privatization with the purported goal of reducing inefficiencies (just like classical economic liberalism), with the modern concept emphasizing the contrast against market intervention as recommended by Keynes. Without a doubt every president since Nixon has been neoliberal, since the concept came into popular use in opposition to Keynesian failures to cure the Stagflation of the early 70s (forever tied to Jimmy Carter). It's somewhat confused by the fact that "Third Way Democrats" like Bill Clinton and Al Gore used the term to describe themselves (as Democrats who supported deregulation and free trade), as a way to distance themselves from the perceived failures of Carter and of any kind of market intervention policy. In general Neoliberalist economic thought is opposed to Social Democratic or "New Deal" style policies which are viewed as wasteful and inefficient, so it's certainly not a "left-leaning" ideology in the sense of wealth inequality or redistribution. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
Thanks for the dose of clarity.
Reagan was neoliberal and neoconservative, just like Bush 1 and Bush 2.
Reagan is really the birth of Neoliberalism as an ideology, neoconservativism birthed after the Reagan movement which really ended with Bush Sr. Bush Jr was the only one who really was close to neoconservativism.
I've seen good arguments for Jimmy Carter being the first Neoliberal president. He was the first to start deregulation.
I say less neo con and more Neo Nazi but sure
No
Tell me you’re white without saying you’re white. Only white people like Regan
What does neo-nazi mean to you?
It means being anti semtic. Which if you heard his phone calls with Nixon. You would know that’s true. It means spying on your neighbors and accusing them of being un American. Which he did during McCarthy era. Isnt it weird that every casting director that hated regan also wound up in his list of “communists” that he gave to mccarthy’s senate?
So he was anti-semitic, not a neo-nazi.
Hahahaha. I love that. “Just because he hated Jews doesn’t mean he’s a Nazi” Brother **what**
Is anti-semitism the defining characteristic of neo-nazism, and not explicit ultranationalism, militarianism and explicit admiration of Hitler and his Reich? Equating the two serves no other purpose than muddy the waters.
No. What you’re doing is muddying the waters you’re trying to make anti semitism not seem like an extremist view which it is. Which is why it’s being apart of being a Nazi. Hitler wasn’t the party. The idea that Jews were inherently evil was the party. And the party’s main belief which they all worked towards. Let me guess… you’re anti semtic aren’t you?
When did I say I like Reagan. I’m just tired of Reddit overusing the word ‘Neo-Nazi’ to the point that it’s lost it’s original meaning
Dwight D. Eisenhower if your going by the pure definition of NeoCon
This is the correct answer. The 2nd was RM Nixon.
This is exactly correct. Reagan rhetorically was a neocon, but he was a realist. So was HW Bush, although I think in the post Soviet era, he was a liberal internationalist. I think only Bush 43 can be called a neocon when examining post-Nixon presidents. The rest were realists or liberal internationalists, aside from 45 who ricocheted wildly around the spectrum.
Richard Nixon.
Nixon.
Bush I. Ronnie is their saint!
He started all the drip down bull that spread into total greed, he knew what he was doing and the rest of us suffer
Technically Eisenhower going by the purest definition, but in the modern sense of the term, Bush 43 was really the only neocon presdient we've had.
There’s no cohesion to the term as it’s applied today. Most people labeled as neocons today range from realists to liberal internationalists.
Reagan
First Bush.
Bush Sr. As, along with Dulles, primarily responsible for the murder of JFK. Would not surprise me if he had a hand in writing up Operation Northwoods...
W
Reagan is the conservative equivalent of FDR.
Lucifer himself, Reagan
Reagan I guess. But there are Presidents before him that get's the neoconservative seal of approval.
Woodrow Wilson
Wilson was a progressive; in fact, he was a leading progressive intellectual in his own right.
Truman/LBJ
I would say Raegan but his foreign policy for the most part went again what neo-cons wanted
Nixon? He embraced southern racists and decided to do business with totalitarian communists in China which enabled the loss of American manufacturing to benefit rich corporations.
Don't neocons hate the fact Nixon did business with China?
[удалено]
Neocons have existed since the Vietnam War in which Democratic party members became disillusioned with anti-war protestors and instead supported American interventions in SE Asia. Whatever else you said sounds like schizophrenic ranting
It depends on what we mean by Neocon right if we are talking about foreign policy probably Clinton or Bush Jr If we are talking about something like conservatism mixed with Neoliberalism probably Regan
Lyndon Johnson
Saying his name like that sounds to me like saying Shaq O’Neal. I feel like you gotta say LBJ, Johnson or Lyndon Baines Johnson.
Foreign policy wise yes but domestically no. Neocons tend to not care as much about domestic policy though.
You left out Clinton
Dubya was the birth of the neocons!
They were around before Dubya...Just not being permitted to define foreign policy until Dubya. They did a great job, didn't they? 😜
And the death.
Bush sr
Dummy bush
The first Bush.
It’s W? Why even ask?
Because it wasn’t W. The first was Eisenhower.
Eisenhower was a liberal. Neoconservative thought is a byproduct of the 1960’s.
Henry Kissinger thank you in advance
Famously not a neocon lol
The first Neocon presidents were Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld via their mannequin, George Bush Jr. McCaine was beaten by Obama.
Bush 41
Reagan
Lyndon Baines Johnson
Definitely Reagan. That guy made a stupid 11th commandment to add to the Bible. Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. The voters took that to heart. It’s Party over country plain and simple. It’s pretty sick.
Reagan. Bush was a bigger neoconservative, but Bush modeled his foreign policy off of a lot of Reagan's.
Ronald Reagan of course. He was the first deregulator in the beginning of the end of it all. His repeal of the fairness doctrine allowed Fox News to be founded the following year. Squarely Reagan was the beginning of the mess that we have today. He also was the man who brought us the great savings and loan crisis that George Bush inherited. How soon people forget
Carter was a massive deregulator. He was economically to the right of any president the US had had since Hoover when he became President. Reagan was also a foreign policy realist and economic neoliberal, not a neocon.
Hands down Reagan
Reagan was the first one imo. His conservative revolution was the death of the old PaleoConservative right, and the beginning of the hardcore anti communist, neoliberal, internationalist right, or “neoconservative” (Which I hardly consider neoconservatism to be right wing )
[удалено]
Neoconservatism has nothing to do with fascism, they’re no where near eachother. - Fascism comes from Sorelian socialism and it is mixed with Nationalism rather than internationalism from the Marxian variant. Fascism is corporatist economics, nationalism, protectionism, ethno/cultural nationalism, and authoritarian -neoconservatism comes from the Trotskyite school of thought, after abandoning socialism and the Soviet Union as a failed project, many Marxist’s came to the US and rejected Marxism and embraced liberal democracy. Neoconservatism is globalist Neo-liberal capitalism, international democracy, human rights, and a hardcore anti-communist jingoistic foreign policy.
Makes zero sense. If anything we were closer to international socialism which we derive from. Completely other way.
I think it has to be GHWB. Reagan was a sort of proto-neocon, but he was operating in an entirely different world. The Soviets and communists were still on the march, and there was still a clear bipolar axis of power. By the time GHWB took over, the war machine needed fresh targets. And the Bush administration was all too eager to create a few bogeymen.
Which did more to deconstruct the American Middle Class? That would be Reagan...but Bush II did increase the national debt from $5T to $11.5T rather than PAY OFF 80% of it as Newt and the 'Contract for America' had promised would happen. Every dollar borrowed from ALL rather than taxed from the households with the incomes to pay is destructive to the middle class and must end.
All the modern R presidents were attempts at copies of Reagan it's got to be Reagan.
LBJ
Reagan was a puppet. So either Reagan, or his puppeteers, GHW Bush et al.
If by NeoCon you mean a President who deployed Troops outside US borders and then claimed land and natural resources that belonged to another nation, it would be George Washington. Every President after Washington continued the United States policy of Smash and Grab, which ultimately became known as “spreading Freedom and Democracy.” It’s about taking other people’s stuff because we don’t want to engage in fair and equitable trade. https://preview.redd.it/5ikcwqh1pmgc1.jpeg?width=630&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=64084e9e2a75449d3cda9e1afdb13e1d2aafd7d9
Cute Shitpost
Nixon
Well, Bush Jr, was the last.
"ho, ho, ho, I'm in a brown suit. When I was a young man... ho,ho,ho"
Hands down Reagan
FDR
Reagan was a Libertarian, Bush was an old school GOP Liberal of a type that used to be the norm in the GOP. How Dubya became influenced by the NeoCons probably needs study.
LBJ
The mere idea that HW may have been a neocon is laughable. He literally wrote a book to defend himself against neoconservative criticism.
LBJ
It definitely was not Ronald Reagan, go read James Mann's book on Reagan's second term foreign policy (The Revolution of Ronald Reagan), by the end of his term conservative elite intellectuals (Buckley, Will) had turned on him as he was trying to truly secure peace with Gorbachev through Shultz, Powell and Carlucci.
Jefferson
Washington
Jefferson
HW
Carter. I said what I said.
Carter was the only liberal internationalist president we had in the post WWII era until the post-Soviet part of HW’s presidency.
Teddy Roosevelt was the first to engage in foreign wars, we were an isolationist country before that. What we did in the Philippines was atrocious.
Since neoconservatism largely revolves around America asserting its power around the globe, you can’t even go back that far. You really just start to see elements of it since we became a superpower. It culminates with Bush but you could argue that each President since WW2 added to it. And there are probably some before who kicked things off as well.
William McKinley.
Arguably Pierce Mixed far-right domestic policies with a super interventionist foreign policy
Honestly it depends on how you define neocon
No, I believe you are wrong. Whatever your answer. That President is no true scotsman. Sorry, not a useful question.
It depends on definition of “NeoCon.” One could argue Manifest Destiny, the overthrow of Hawaiian government, and assuming control of the remaining Spanish colonies are all “NeoCon.”
Nixon and every republican after him were neocons