“…the deficit has grown much faster than even the NeoCon philosophy can absorb…”

There is no “neocon philosopy”. “Neocon” ideas are typically taken from a wide variety of philosophies and ideas, with an eye towards isolating what works or does not.

For example, the deficit is in free fall compared to the worst predictions of anyone–against all expectations of the so called “realists”. Practical people know that anything that gets money into private hands and the economy and removes government (or otherwises removes bureaucracy) from the loop fuels economic growth. Tax cuts are one of the more obvious ways to achieve such results. That doesn’t mean that tax cuts have no counter-untuitive short-term effects, or that they affect the economy directly, without regards to other things.

The inability to distinguish spikes in the economy from recession and turmoil, and then blame the recession and turmoil on the tax cuts, is the *kind* of nonsense that drove certain liberals into rejecting liberal dogma in the first place.

to the extent that “neoconservative” means anything at all, it concerns people who abandoned liberal orthodoxy and dogma on means, but not necessarily on goals. (For example, they think Arabs being free is good. Cozing up to the Soviet Union to get there? Not so much.) They were some of the first modern “liberals” to actively get behind the idea of the need for a free market, but their reasons were that that it worked better than any alternative–when facts were faced. They have the same opinion about universal health care that markus has about their economic views–not very high. But in fact, this aspect of “neoconservatism” hearkens back to John Locke and Adam Smith’s brand of classical liberalism: Freedom cannot be free unless property is protected, because a mass of men without any means will surrender their freedom for bread

I think that may be true in a sense. However, we must consider that at least some (but not necessarily all) of the political acts taken in like with the Neoconservative philosophy haven’t really panned out. If you take a look at the policies recommended by the AEI and PNAC (and their projections), they had a couple huge misses. As such, I think that they will probably experience a serious reduction in their influence for the next few cycles (Much like the democratic congress after their performance in the 80’s). I don’t think that the problem was necessarily the philosophy, but rather the implementation and the appearance of the implementation as tied to the current administration. In fact, I think that we’ll probably see the same sort of decreased influence among the Christian Coalition.

Simply put, at the very least, this administration has soured the general public on anything closely tied to them as a political philosophy. We can debate the contributing factors (MSM etc), but at the end of the day… the policies (particularly the projections by the NeoCons) haven’t fit the reality. Iraq hasn’t been the cakewalk they predicted, the Iraqis haven’t embraced democracy, or at least they haven’t yet embraced the responsibility that is incumbent on the citizens of a democracy. The experience in Iraq has not spurred the growth of Democracy in the M.E. In fact, many so-called experts believe that its hurt the growth of democracy there.

A number of republicans seem to be breaking ties with both the Christian Coalition/Religious Right philosophies and the NeoCon policies. This seems to be backed up with the current folks who appear un the running for the 08 Red Ticket. It also seems to fit with the upset that the Right got in Nov ‘06.

Sadly, I don’t think the philosophy was terribly out of line. I think, instead it was the poor implementation and the even poorer communication from the administration. Not to mention the continuing MSM pressure and the bizarre errors that have been magnified by the press (the CIA thing, the PATRIOTACT issues, the ‘protracted’ War, etc etc ad nauseum). That’s not to say that NeoCon’s might not make a comeback, but I think they’ll have a few years at least to regather their forces and momentum.

From an economic perspective, the usual position identified as NeoConservative tends to fit with traditional conservative views (and IMHO tends to work). In essence, we’re talking about tax cuts for growth, even at the expense or acceptance of a Federal Deficit. In a pre-9/11 world, I think this would have been sustainable. However, in the face of 9/11, the subsequent recession, the huge jump in Oil prices, the war in Afganistan and Iraq (which we hoped to pay for with oil, but have instead furthered the debt) etc, the deficit has grown much faster than even the NeoCon philosophy can absorb. Beyond that, wI think a pre-9/11 Iraqi invasion may have worked in the way the NeoCons thought (greeted as liberators, quick takeover by a democratic government, rebuilding and success). However, after 9/11 and Afghanistan, there were a lot more variables including a far more active and vocal Al-Queada which was able to use the situation to grow inter-sect anger and chaos.

I think that the overall problem was that Bush et all failed to adjust the plan based on the events and their fallout. They seem to have moved forward on the original agenda set forth and the changes made it a much greater risk.

In the end, I think that had the NeoCon agenda been pushed pre-9/11 or if the agenda had been modified by the Administration, the NeoCons might have retained their power. As it stands, I think they’ll be tarred by association with this current mess for some time to come.

I solemly swear to tell how Carl Rove ….

Where did you go to school?

Carl Rove ask me to the prom ….

Where were you born?

Carl Rove was born near my hometown ….

Who recommended you for the CIA?

Carl Rove leaked my name ….

Have ever been to Africa?

Carl Rove was on the plane crawling around, he was obsessed, he propositioned me ….

What change are they talking about?

Evan Andersen Lydia Capital

And, for sure, as Steve Mitchell said, that’s Time Magazine’s big breakthrough, too. And who disagrees with that principle? No one. It’s in the prescriptions for a cure that you and Time run into trouble.

The one principle I’ve been able to detect in your writing is that the world is unfair (granted that’s half of the fundamental insight).

Historically, to the extent that “neoconservative” means anything at all, it concerns people who abandoned liberal orthodoxy and dogma on means, but not necessarily on goals. (For example, they think Arabs being free is good. Cozing up to the Soviet Union to get there? Not so much.) They were some of the first modern “liberals” to actively get behind the idea of the need for a free market, but their reasons were that that it worked better than any alternative–when facts were faced. They have the same opinion about universal health care that markus has about their economic views–not very high. But in fact, this aspect of “neoconservatism” hearkens back to John Locke and Adam Smith’s brand of classical liberalism: Freedom cannot be free unless property is protected, because a mass of men without any means will surrender their freedom for bread. Modern liberalism somehow perverted this idea to skip the decline of Rome and jump straight to the bread and circuses.

Markus, it’s not the disagreement that is my issue with you. It’s that you make the same arguments over and over. Arguments that were tired and stupid and worn out when I was a child. Then tomorrow, after having been answered by someone that hasn’t seen your front of reasonableness crack yet, you come back and continue as if you have not been answered.

All of the above is also a good summary of why I don’t bother with Time or Newsweek.

Not to be pedantic but as I understand it, ‘neo-conservatism’ is not,as a theory, very concerned with ‘economic matters’, except as they relate tangentially to the implementation of ‘foreign policy’. As far as this neo-conservative thinks anyway, ‘economic’ matters are completely subject to honest debate from whatever perspective. I have no cast-iron favorites in that horse race. Whatever ‘works’, works for me.

As to your ‘foreign policy’ analysis —- I plead guilty as charged. Sue me.

So where do you keep your leeches anyway ?