well you and I certainly agree that neocons are not confined by "religion"...not sure what you mean by "persuasions", so I'll withhold agreement on that one for a heart beat.get it to x wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 7:26 pm Neocons include W and his whole crew. Lindsey Graham, Mitt et al. It's not confined to any persuasion/religion.
I also wouldn't put Romney in that camp, he wasn't/isn't even a "Reagan" in that respect (before the title was articulated)...Dick Cheney certainly was, though you didn't list him. W wasn't there by nature or ideology, he'd wanted to accomplish things domestically, but he was thrust into an international role by events that were beyond his expertise...too influenced by Cheney, Rumsfeld et al and they were influenced by the neocon folks. Graham goes with whatever flow gets him 'appreciated' and reelected.
But you're gonna need to scold Salty who keeps using people with Jewish heritage, indeed specifically those whose relatives were the victims of pogroms and holocaust, as those at the "dinner parties where they control the course of history".
Old, old, old trope.
Back to neocons, this belief set is best understood as those on the ideological, bleeding edge of belief in America playing a unilateral role in world affairs, including militarily, to enforce our will...even if without direct provocation. A kind of "manifest destiny" for the turn of the century.
Traditional internationalists believe in restraint, collective action with allies, maintenance of the rule of international law, etc. They are willing to utilize force in concert with others under extreme situations, but naturally prefer soft power to hard power to achieve America's aims.
Both believe in a strong military capacity, forward leaned around the world, recognizing, clear-eyed, that hostile actors will otherwise fill voids if we don't. But again, there's a preference for collective action and the usage of soft power over hard.