The time has come to retire the term “neocon.” While this ignoble moniker may have once described an identifiable ideological tendency, and even a tangible, elite-driven political movement, “neocon” has come to be used almost exclusively as a nebulous slur — always a tell-tale sign of a term’s diminishing utility.
Trump was and is weak, stupid and easily manipulated.
He probably has little in the way of concrete or coherent ideology, unless "receive flattery", "preen and look tough" and "repeat whatever the last person who talked to him said" counts as "ideology" these days.
Those who put their hopes in Trump will quickly find that they have been played, or rather, that they played themselves by projecting their wishes onto the loudmouth dope.
EDIT: The comments here are hilarious. Already the Trump Cult is ladling on excuses, just the way the Obama Cult made excuse after excuse for their hero, even as he betrayed them over and over and over.
LOL, you got that EDIT part right. This is going to be a "fun" 4 years, depending on your place in the overall socioeconomic pecking order. I just can't imagine how he's going to do all of the following without quickly tanking the economy:
> A sizeable tariff package aimed not just at China, but Mexico, Canada and who knows who else
> Rounding up and deporting all of the illegals. This one is simultaneously the funniest and scariest in large part because Trump's Cult seems extra-willing to engage in creative interpretation for him on just *who* is in-line to be deported. I've seen some of the bigger copes on that than I can remember in a while. "But it's JUST going to be the VIOLENT ones!" or "Only the ones who have committed CRIMES!" - Idiots! The crime is **being in the country** illegally in the first place. Trump and his immigration policy makers are not simply focused on people here illegally that are violent or committing crimes. How naive to think so. Especially the actual illegal immigrants interviewed on the streets saying "But nah, he won't deport ME!" LOL - Get ready for the price on construction, lawn work, slaughterhouse and meat packing products, agricultural products and many others to go up, significantly IF it happens.
> Gets led by the nose into a war with Iran which causes severe constrictions on the movement of petroleum products and thus a massive increase in prices.
Slowly and quietly, the comments are coming out that there will be some "pain" initially. Get your popcorn ready.
I don't know, kitten. I'm no big Trump fan, but much of the vitriol and outright hatred for the dude is well out of proportion to anything he actually _did_ whilst in power.
It aint because he assassinated that Iranian general. Most TDS sufferers don't care (or even know) about that foolishness.
Speaking for myself personally, the Soleimani assassination is exactly why I decided not to give Trump another chance. I said many times during his first term that if he was re-elected in 2020 there would have been a hot war with Iran, as stupid as that will end up being.
Also, Trump moving the embassy to Jerusalem and the bogus "Abraham Accords" are the reason that October 7 happened. He emboldens the worst factions in Israel like no American president in history, and that's saying something considering Genocide Joe basically gave them the green light to eliminate Gaza, occupy the entire West Bank and continue launching attacks on Syria and Lebanon.
If I was a betting man, I'd put odds of a major West Asian regional war at about 75% sometime before 2026. I'm no longer predicting what happens with Ukraine, but based on some of Trump's picks, it could escalate unless Ukraine folds before January.
The problem is that the "vitriol and outright hatred" from despairing democrats (and nevertrumper types) is matched at every turn by his fans' uncritical explaining away of everything he actually "did" and does. Or doesn't do -- which is, in fact, a much longer list
There really is TDS, and like ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome), this affliction will now be turned around by Trump's admirers to label Trump's legitimate critics (like you, and Michael Tracy, and me for that matter) as sufferers of the affliction. In the same way, many honest critics of Obama got hammered with the ODS slander. However, there are an awful lot of Trumpies who will not react well to Trump's war-making, unlike the Obama acolytes who readily forgave their man. Of course, Obama was a really skilled political operator, wholly different than Trump in manners of comportment and sheer ability to sell himself. At any rate, we'll see, but this s going to end very badly for us all.
I have a creepy feeling very similar to how I felt when Bush II and Cheney were elected. There was all that talk about "no nation building" and "compassionate conservatism" which all went out the window when 9/11 "happened." As much as I may sound like a tinfoil hat conspiracy loon, I wouldn't be surprised at all if some kind of major false flag happens after mid-year 2025.
You will recall that Genocide Joe declared in 2020 that his administration would bring back diplomacy, and avoid wars. We got "diplomacy" austerity, and war.
Is that not a strike against him? Sounds like a negative to me.
In 2016 his appeal was in being an outsider, not playing the same game as the rest of them, and his (proclaimed) views that differed at the time on war and other issues. Now he's an insider who plays the same games as everyone else and differs significantly from them only in speech, not in actions and policy.
Obama was reelected. So was Dubya. Doesn't mean thst they are wise.
For that matter, I can see why Trump was reelected. In a system rigged and not in favor of the average frustrated voter, it is not necessarily irrational to Burn It All Down.
I'd love to hear you discuss this with Glenn Greenwald, who seems to like Trump because of Trump's supposed opposition to neocons that you debunk here.
As usual, you miss the point because you are incapable of analyzing things fairly due to your Trump Derangement Syndrome. What did Trump say about Bolton? He could APPEAR strong and hawkish, so he didn't actually have to ACT that way. You left out half of it. And to you and your readers who think he's a stupid buffoon, your analysis here is very simplistic. Rubio voted against funding Ukraine and peoples' views change, too. Rubio will behave differently under a Trump agenda than he would have under Nikki Haley for instance because he is representing Trump's agenda. This is all MUCH more complex than you paint it. Rubio is not free to go do any freaking thing he wants to. Grow up, Michael. Maybe you are just wrong about a lot of what you spout off about. You sure as hell missed Trump's point about why he used Bolton. He's the art of the deal, something you clearly don't understand.
It's amazing it bothers you. Surprises me. You have lots of people reinforcing your every word. LOL But I've read a lot of your stuff. Lots of it I agree with. But your TDS keeps you from analyzing a lot clearly. LOL
Oh and p.s. Maybe you could address the points I made about how you over-simplified Trump's cabinet. There's a lot more to it than making conclusions based just on the appointment's views or past. Trump wants to appear tough so he can deter the very wars you want to avoid--and I do, too (the old Reagan idea)-- and he also wants to BE tough in case the US is actually threatened. That is not neo-con ideas of the past at all. Which is meddling, policing, keeping presence all over the globe that is interpreted as aggression. I get you don't like Trump's personality. But it just seems to keep you from looking at things more broadly. Or giving the guy a chance. Still, I read you because you stood up against this censorship and there are other things I like. I like to at least hear someone's pov that I might not agree with, but has a brain in his head. LOL
How many, or which ones, of the US “presence all over the globe” (900 military bases, not including ‘Black Sites’ etc) will Trump close down? You know, because having all these is a neocon thing n all.
Correct. Michael seems to savor any opportunity to use the phrase "kiss his ass," which doesn't just suggest but confirms that he's got at least a mild case of TDS. No problem, but if you're going to be a fair journalist, then you should probably admit that you have an emotional hurdle to overcome in providing a fair analysis.
This is not 2016. A well-written and measured criticism of the soon-to-be US President's appointees and policy is far from deranged, although your own reaction to it certainly is. How do you like the feeling of your own cognitive dissonance?
It is worth remembering that the application of psychiatric and medical terms as well as their jargon to political critics to discredit and ridicule them is something all totalitarians have done, such as the Bolsheviks, Nazis, Fascists, etc. Could it be less surprising that the supporters of the two-party system and of present power such as yourself continue to propagate your own Orwellian newspeak that's perfectly in line with state interests?
It's not that difficult. A "neocon" was just a scummy AIPAC shill that used the morally bankrupt intellectual fraud known as "conservativism" to promote Jewish/Zionist interests (Frum, Perle, Wolfowitz, the tragicomic father-son Podhoretzes, etc). Trump, for all his faults, did seem to nominally go "off reservation" there for a while and actually at least threaten to do some things that an actual "conservative" would be in favor of, but he's clearly back on the Talmudic plantation now, just in time to rally up the suckers into another war for Israel. I've even got some QAnon goofballs in my tertiary outlying social circle that seem unable to spin some of his cabinet appointees as "5D chess moves".
Good essay. The term "neo-neocons" has been coined :)
I would add the historical background in p's 16, 17 and 18 really should have been covered earlier in the essay IMO. You could have also included mention of the philosophical and ideological roots of the neocons, especially Leo Strauss, as well as the overrepresentation of Jewish people and Christian Zionists.
I don't make the last point glibly; it isn't possible to properly explain U.S. administrations' policies, the neocons' influence, and the impact of Zionism on U.S. foreign policy, along with the follies of intervention or 'creative destruction' in the ME, without addressing it.
The outrage over the appointment of virulent war hawks by Trump misses the point. Look at those nominations which are at least partially opposed to the war machine, like Gabbard and Gaetz, and you'll find that none of them have a chance in Hell of getting past the Senate anyway.
It's all Kabuki theatre. If Trump was serious he would simply refuse to nominate anyone to any of these positions. Leave them vacant.
They are automatons who march in lockstep, but to their donors and lobbyists rather than Trump. Sometimes these interests line up and they support Trump, sometimes they don't and they oppose him.
They never oppose their bagmen though. Not once. Massie is the only one.
And here is something else you don't get about Trump. He is AMERICA FIRST, so he does not want to police and fiddle around in all these wars that are not in our interest, but if you DO threaten us, he'll do something about it and he wants to appear ready to do that. That is different than most of your "neocons." Lots more subtlety involved here, Michael.
"America First?" That's another term that needs to be retired. The phony globalist Heritage pres. a few years ago enthused that he's "a huge America Firster" and a huge Trump fan. This is called "co-opting" and it works every time. Elise Stefanik went straight from Harvard to GW Bush admin. and has been selling endless wars ever since. She's on the Board of Directors of regime change group NED. Yet early on she said she was "Ultra Maga." Some wondered how someone so war-happy would gel with Don and Jared, but the reverse was happening, ie, "MAGA" was being co-opted, disappeared. What 2016 voters thought they were getting was vaporized. In 2016 Don was elected mainly by unconditionally promising a wall on day one. Secondly, he was elected by promising to reduce US military aggression abroad, stop US being a "big, stupid, bully," and normalizing relations with Russia. Then, he got elected. If 2016 Candidate Don had once said, "I promise on day one to ask congress for permission and money to build a wall," he would've been laughed off the stage, never to be heard from again. I'd never have listened to another word he said nor voted for him in 2016 (the only time). A few weeks after he won, for the first time ever, he said he'd have to ask congress for permission for a wall, then went on about his concerns about Korea. 9 years later and not one inch of wall was ever built. GOP congress in Don's first term placed into law that no wall could ever be built, that only "fencing" and only for a few miles and for patching. So there's no wall to "finish."
An actual "America First Party" has existed recently before Trump ran. Like pre-Nov. 2016 Trump, they promoted a non-interventionist US foreign policy. The difference is they didn't flip flop and Don did. Ten wks after his 2017 inauguration, Don bombed Syria for no reason and was duly patted on the head by Washington Post. When he bombed Syria again in 2018, the America First Party (http://www.AmericaFirstParty.org) published a letter on its website, 4/16/2018, decrying Don's "effective repudiation of the principles of an America First foreign policy" by bombing a country that is no threat to US security interests:
Monday, April 16, 2018, "Syria Attack at Odds with an America First Foreign Policy"
"It is with sadness that we witnessed President Trump's effective repudiation of the principles of an America First foreign policy last week, with his attack on a nation which is not threatening the security interests of the United States, and which is a natural ally with us in opposing Al-Qaeda.
Our nation's best interests are served when we put the national interest before that of special interests, that is, when we put America First. While crimes that are committed in foreign nations are regrettable, punishing every state and non-state entity in the world for its crimes against civilians is an unsustainable, strategically risky, and unconstitutional objective. A nation with trillion dollar deficits, and ballooning public and private sector debts, cannot responsibly continue to fire off million dollar cruise missiles by the hundreds, while deploying naval task forces at an estimated combined cost of $200 million. We should absolutely not be risking another world war with a major military power and its allies for something which is not a critical national interest. Our nation's constitution -- key to our continued stability and prosperity --
does not authorize spending for use of the military in a combat role
for anything but national defense.
In today's unfortunate circumstances, we can see the fulfillment of George Washington's prophetic warning regarding, "overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." The military, and any domestic or foreign interests that would exploit our military capability for their special interests, need to be tempered by the consistent application of constitutional legal principles: (1) the war-fighting capacity of our government is only to be exercised for U.S. national defense; (2) only Congress has the authority to make the decision to initiate war, and attempting to delegate this authority violates the constitution's separation of powers.
"We welcome many of President Trump's initiatives in trade and border security," said AFNC National Chairman Jonathan Hill, "but cannot but be gravely concerned that the failure to put America First in foreign affairs will cost Americans dearly in lives, diminished security, and in increased economic hardship.""
"America First Party
405 River Road
Greenwood, MS 38930"
After WWI "America First" groups became popular when Americans realized that the US government loved WWI and was getting ready to put US into WWII with its penniless pals in the UK monarchy. For the same reason, Americans pressed for "Neutrality Acts" to they wouldn't be forced into WWII. FDR running for his 3rd term promised that if elected he wouldn't allow Americans into another European war. Of course, like today, FDR and the entire political class were desperate to be "international," eagerly shipped lots of war weapons to its UK pals, and forgot about Neutrality promises. No matter, FDR died in April 1945 and in August 1945 his VP Harry Truman became the first global terrorist by dropping two atom bombs on Japanese civilians within one week.
Ok, fine. Stay with the warmongers you have in place. Don't wait and see how it goes (and it WILL go better). We did not have the mess we have now when he was in there--on any front. That doesn't mean he'll be perfect; he's no perfect human being. And sorry, America First did NOT exist before Trump. Globalists. Please.
Not sure what this means, but having wimpy people in place like now induces war everywhere. You need to show and be strong in order to not wage war. THEN you can negotiate peace. It will never be perfect, but it will be better. Maybe everyone could wait and see.
AGAIN, what he SAYS and DOES are two different things. Just like who he puts in some positions does not necessarily mean a thing. So you still don't get it. Fine.
Oh and PS, our intelligence agencies say there are plots from these people to kill President Trump. That is an AMERICA FIRST situation. Hello. And his response is appropriate. HELLO.
"Oh and PS, our intelligence agencies say..." I'm shocked that anyone reading and commenting on Mr. Tracey's wonderful and much needed work would cite "our intelligence agencies" as a source to be believed about anything. I certainly don't.
I don't automatically believe them and neither does Trump, but he has other sources that made him believe it. You can't NOT believe something like that. You'd just assume it was a lie and go about your business after there's been two attempts on your life? I doubt it. So there's a good chance it's true.
What sources? Are you normally gullible enough to buy into rumours about whatever intelligence agencies might have told someone else behind closed doors that the public is not privy to whatsoever?
It's not hard to believe someone might have a go at trying to kill Trump again, after the first two tries, but citing unknown and unknowable 'information' and 'sources' — (allegedly) from intelligence agencies! — that you only believe to actually exist just makes the whole idea look like a joke.
Looking forward to the Gabbard piece. Which part of her … ahem… “convictions” are real and which parts are dishonest, self-serving, ladder-climbing? The old Tulsi, or the new Tulsi?
Tracy’s questioning needs answers. Excuses and 3D Chess theories are running pretty thin, as they always do, for as long as I can remember, regardless of things like party affiliation or "Kinder gentler" speeches.
No one knows WTF Trump is gonna do when POTUS. Esp'ly regarding foreign policy????
On Domestic: he'll try deporting as many non- whites as he can get away with..Tariffs tariffs tariffs esl'ly on our better and less expensive manufacturer China. Lower taxes mainly on the rich who need less taxation the most of us living pay check to pay check. large (multi)nat'l corporations will see their tax burden approach zero. Deregulate deregulate deregulate.
And drill drill drill. And probably open the door for building more nuclear powered plants (but in impovished neighborhood's not close to mar a lago for sure or his golf club buddies.
If Trump had an issue with "non-whites" and not simply illegal immigrants, he wouldn't be appointing them to many of his top positions, nor would he have announced his intent to increase legal immigration and award green cards to anyone with some sort of diploma, which if it goes the way it has in Canada is sure to turn all of the US' colleges and universities into expensive diploma mills that are almost exclusively attended by wealthy foreigners eager to buy their way into the country.
Immigration (and apparently race...) is yet another area where Trump's supporters have completely deluded themselves into thinking he's all things for all people, the solution to every issue. You should read into his actual policies.
Not at all. Trump is a deal-making patriot who usually plans much farther ahead than most have proven to be able to imagine. Some of these nominees serve a strategic purpose that he isn't announcing but it's guaranteed to NOT be neocon in any sense of the term.
Trump was and is weak, stupid and easily manipulated.
He probably has little in the way of concrete or coherent ideology, unless "receive flattery", "preen and look tough" and "repeat whatever the last person who talked to him said" counts as "ideology" these days.
Those who put their hopes in Trump will quickly find that they have been played, or rather, that they played themselves by projecting their wishes onto the loudmouth dope.
EDIT: The comments here are hilarious. Already the Trump Cult is ladling on excuses, just the way the Obama Cult made excuse after excuse for their hero, even as he betrayed them over and over and over.
LOL, you got that EDIT part right. This is going to be a "fun" 4 years, depending on your place in the overall socioeconomic pecking order. I just can't imagine how he's going to do all of the following without quickly tanking the economy:
> A sizeable tariff package aimed not just at China, but Mexico, Canada and who knows who else
> Rounding up and deporting all of the illegals. This one is simultaneously the funniest and scariest in large part because Trump's Cult seems extra-willing to engage in creative interpretation for him on just *who* is in-line to be deported. I've seen some of the bigger copes on that than I can remember in a while. "But it's JUST going to be the VIOLENT ones!" or "Only the ones who have committed CRIMES!" - Idiots! The crime is **being in the country** illegally in the first place. Trump and his immigration policy makers are not simply focused on people here illegally that are violent or committing crimes. How naive to think so. Especially the actual illegal immigrants interviewed on the streets saying "But nah, he won't deport ME!" LOL - Get ready for the price on construction, lawn work, slaughterhouse and meat packing products, agricultural products and many others to go up, significantly IF it happens.
> Gets led by the nose into a war with Iran which causes severe constrictions on the movement of petroleum products and thus a massive increase in prices.
Slowly and quietly, the comments are coming out that there will be some "pain" initially. Get your popcorn ready.
"TDS" is simply a thought terminating cliche meaning "stop bringing up pesky facts that make my idol look bad!"
I don't know, kitten. I'm no big Trump fan, but much of the vitriol and outright hatred for the dude is well out of proportion to anything he actually _did_ whilst in power.
It aint because he assassinated that Iranian general. Most TDS sufferers don't care (or even know) about that foolishness.
Speaking for myself personally, the Soleimani assassination is exactly why I decided not to give Trump another chance. I said many times during his first term that if he was re-elected in 2020 there would have been a hot war with Iran, as stupid as that will end up being.
Also, Trump moving the embassy to Jerusalem and the bogus "Abraham Accords" are the reason that October 7 happened. He emboldens the worst factions in Israel like no American president in history, and that's saying something considering Genocide Joe basically gave them the green light to eliminate Gaza, occupy the entire West Bank and continue launching attacks on Syria and Lebanon.
If I was a betting man, I'd put odds of a major West Asian regional war at about 75% sometime before 2026. I'm no longer predicting what happens with Ukraine, but based on some of Trump's picks, it could escalate unless Ukraine folds before January.
The problem is that the "vitriol and outright hatred" from despairing democrats (and nevertrumper types) is matched at every turn by his fans' uncritical explaining away of everything he actually "did" and does. Or doesn't do -- which is, in fact, a much longer list
I am not a kitten, and I don't hate the man. I just recognize that he is what he is.
Right, sorry. You look to be a full grown cat. In fact, you look a lot like my cat Sugar Hiccup. She’s a brown tabby too.
There really is TDS, and like ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome), this affliction will now be turned around by Trump's admirers to label Trump's legitimate critics (like you, and Michael Tracy, and me for that matter) as sufferers of the affliction. In the same way, many honest critics of Obama got hammered with the ODS slander. However, there are an awful lot of Trumpies who will not react well to Trump's war-making, unlike the Obama acolytes who readily forgave their man. Of course, Obama was a really skilled political operator, wholly different than Trump in manners of comportment and sheer ability to sell himself. At any rate, we'll see, but this s going to end very badly for us all.
I'd agree, except that, as we saw from 2016-2020, there are plenty of Trump cultists who will forgive the man anything.
I have a creepy feeling very similar to how I felt when Bush II and Cheney were elected. There was all that talk about "no nation building" and "compassionate conservatism" which all went out the window when 9/11 "happened." As much as I may sound like a tinfoil hat conspiracy loon, I wouldn't be surprised at all if some kind of major false flag happens after mid-year 2025.
You will recall that Genocide Joe declared in 2020 that his administration would bring back diplomacy, and avoid wars. We got "diplomacy" austerity, and war.
No TDS has little to do with Trump being “my idol”. It creates a frenzy that camouflages what he is up to. Rachael Maddow was very good at this.
Concerning point 2 - that phrase "IF it happens" is the money quote, there.
Let me know when they're going to "lock her up!" or when "Mexico" is going to hand over a gimmick check for the wall that never got built.
Agreed, I don't think anything Trump says or does has bearing on whether or not "neocon" is still a useful term.
Trump is easy. If his lips are moving, he's bull-shitting. (to be fair, he is very good at it, like so many good politicians)
Look Up Professor Harry Frankfurter "On Bullshit" (as opposed to lying), if you have not already done so.
You may find it to be most instructive.
I recall the spinning and cog diss when Obama installed Rahm Emanuel but that was soon overtaken by O’s solution to the banking disaster.
I like the term “Neocon”. IIRC Sachs recently did a nice run down on that cabal.
Well, there’s always “Divine intervention” and not being a prophet I’m forced to wait and watch..... oh, and rant.
Hey Cat, I've got Tuna for you. Are you going to come out of that tree I planted, or are you going to sit up there and hiss and piss.
Trump was reelected. He seems to know “something “.
I don’t like him but he seems to be playing “the game” better than most.
Is that not a strike against him? Sounds like a negative to me.
In 2016 his appeal was in being an outsider, not playing the same game as the rest of them, and his (proclaimed) views that differed at the time on war and other issues. Now he's an insider who plays the same games as everyone else and differs significantly from them only in speech, not in actions and policy.
Obama was reelected. So was Dubya. Doesn't mean thst they are wise.
For that matter, I can see why Trump was reelected. In a system rigged and not in favor of the average frustrated voter, it is not necessarily irrational to Burn It All Down.
This is a fantastic essay
I'd love to hear you discuss this with Glenn Greenwald, who seems to like Trump because of Trump's supposed opposition to neocons that you debunk here.
He didn't debunk anything. He just holds Trump to an unrealistic standard. He's purity spiraling.
As usual, you miss the point because you are incapable of analyzing things fairly due to your Trump Derangement Syndrome. What did Trump say about Bolton? He could APPEAR strong and hawkish, so he didn't actually have to ACT that way. You left out half of it. And to you and your readers who think he's a stupid buffoon, your analysis here is very simplistic. Rubio voted against funding Ukraine and peoples' views change, too. Rubio will behave differently under a Trump agenda than he would have under Nikki Haley for instance because he is representing Trump's agenda. This is all MUCH more complex than you paint it. Rubio is not free to go do any freaking thing he wants to. Grow up, Michael. Maybe you are just wrong about a lot of what you spout off about. You sure as hell missed Trump's point about why he used Bolton. He's the art of the deal, something you clearly don't understand.
It's fascinating that you could read all 4,000+ words here and reduce it to some kind of crazy psychiatric "syndrome" I'm afflicted with.
It's amazing it bothers you. Surprises me. You have lots of people reinforcing your every word. LOL But I've read a lot of your stuff. Lots of it I agree with. But your TDS keeps you from analyzing a lot clearly. LOL
Oh and p.s. Maybe you could address the points I made about how you over-simplified Trump's cabinet. There's a lot more to it than making conclusions based just on the appointment's views or past. Trump wants to appear tough so he can deter the very wars you want to avoid--and I do, too (the old Reagan idea)-- and he also wants to BE tough in case the US is actually threatened. That is not neo-con ideas of the past at all. Which is meddling, policing, keeping presence all over the globe that is interpreted as aggression. I get you don't like Trump's personality. But it just seems to keep you from looking at things more broadly. Or giving the guy a chance. Still, I read you because you stood up against this censorship and there are other things I like. I like to at least hear someone's pov that I might not agree with, but has a brain in his head. LOL
How many, or which ones, of the US “presence all over the globe” (900 military bases, not including ‘Black Sites’ etc) will Trump close down? You know, because having all these is a neocon thing n all.
Correct. Michael seems to savor any opportunity to use the phrase "kiss his ass," which doesn't just suggest but confirms that he's got at least a mild case of TDS. No problem, but if you're going to be a fair journalist, then you should probably admit that you have an emotional hurdle to overcome in providing a fair analysis.
This is not 2016. A well-written and measured criticism of the soon-to-be US President's appointees and policy is far from deranged, although your own reaction to it certainly is. How do you like the feeling of your own cognitive dissonance?
It is worth remembering that the application of psychiatric and medical terms as well as their jargon to political critics to discredit and ridicule them is something all totalitarians have done, such as the Bolsheviks, Nazis, Fascists, etc. Could it be less surprising that the supporters of the two-party system and of present power such as yourself continue to propagate your own Orwellian newspeak that's perfectly in line with state interests?
It's not that difficult. A "neocon" was just a scummy AIPAC shill that used the morally bankrupt intellectual fraud known as "conservativism" to promote Jewish/Zionist interests (Frum, Perle, Wolfowitz, the tragicomic father-son Podhoretzes, etc). Trump, for all his faults, did seem to nominally go "off reservation" there for a while and actually at least threaten to do some things that an actual "conservative" would be in favor of, but he's clearly back on the Talmudic plantation now, just in time to rally up the suckers into another war for Israel. I've even got some QAnon goofballs in my tertiary outlying social circle that seem unable to spin some of his cabinet appointees as "5D chess moves".
Good essay. The term "neo-neocons" has been coined :)
I would add the historical background in p's 16, 17 and 18 really should have been covered earlier in the essay IMO. You could have also included mention of the philosophical and ideological roots of the neocons, especially Leo Strauss, as well as the overrepresentation of Jewish people and Christian Zionists.
I don't make the last point glibly; it isn't possible to properly explain U.S. administrations' policies, the neocons' influence, and the impact of Zionism on U.S. foreign policy, along with the follies of intervention or 'creative destruction' in the ME, without addressing it.
Looks like the Swamp drained Trump.
Good catch in noting the similarities between Stefanik/Haley, & Rubio/Pompeo. I hadn't realized that.
The outrage over the appointment of virulent war hawks by Trump misses the point. Look at those nominations which are at least partially opposed to the war machine, like Gabbard and Gaetz, and you'll find that none of them have a chance in Hell of getting past the Senate anyway.
It's all Kabuki theatre. If Trump was serious he would simply refuse to nominate anyone to any of these positions. Leave them vacant.
Which in turn blows up the idea that congressional Republicans are automatons, marching mindlessly in lockstep to every Trump command.
They are automatons who march in lockstep, but to their donors and lobbyists rather than Trump. Sometimes these interests line up and they support Trump, sometimes they don't and they oppose him.
They never oppose their bagmen though. Not once. Massie is the only one.
And here is something else you don't get about Trump. He is AMERICA FIRST, so he does not want to police and fiddle around in all these wars that are not in our interest, but if you DO threaten us, he'll do something about it and he wants to appear ready to do that. That is different than most of your "neocons." Lots more subtlety involved here, Michael.
"America First?" That's another term that needs to be retired. The phony globalist Heritage pres. a few years ago enthused that he's "a huge America Firster" and a huge Trump fan. This is called "co-opting" and it works every time. Elise Stefanik went straight from Harvard to GW Bush admin. and has been selling endless wars ever since. She's on the Board of Directors of regime change group NED. Yet early on she said she was "Ultra Maga." Some wondered how someone so war-happy would gel with Don and Jared, but the reverse was happening, ie, "MAGA" was being co-opted, disappeared. What 2016 voters thought they were getting was vaporized. In 2016 Don was elected mainly by unconditionally promising a wall on day one. Secondly, he was elected by promising to reduce US military aggression abroad, stop US being a "big, stupid, bully," and normalizing relations with Russia. Then, he got elected. If 2016 Candidate Don had once said, "I promise on day one to ask congress for permission and money to build a wall," he would've been laughed off the stage, never to be heard from again. I'd never have listened to another word he said nor voted for him in 2016 (the only time). A few weeks after he won, for the first time ever, he said he'd have to ask congress for permission for a wall, then went on about his concerns about Korea. 9 years later and not one inch of wall was ever built. GOP congress in Don's first term placed into law that no wall could ever be built, that only "fencing" and only for a few miles and for patching. So there's no wall to "finish."
An actual "America First Party" has existed recently before Trump ran. Like pre-Nov. 2016 Trump, they promoted a non-interventionist US foreign policy. The difference is they didn't flip flop and Don did. Ten wks after his 2017 inauguration, Don bombed Syria for no reason and was duly patted on the head by Washington Post. When he bombed Syria again in 2018, the America First Party (http://www.AmericaFirstParty.org) published a letter on its website, 4/16/2018, decrying Don's "effective repudiation of the principles of an America First foreign policy" by bombing a country that is no threat to US security interests:
http://www.AmericaFirstParty.org
Monday, April 16, 2018, "Syria Attack at Odds with an America First Foreign Policy"
"It is with sadness that we witnessed President Trump's effective repudiation of the principles of an America First foreign policy last week, with his attack on a nation which is not threatening the security interests of the United States, and which is a natural ally with us in opposing Al-Qaeda.
Our nation's best interests are served when we put the national interest before that of special interests, that is, when we put America First. While crimes that are committed in foreign nations are regrettable, punishing every state and non-state entity in the world for its crimes against civilians is an unsustainable, strategically risky, and unconstitutional objective. A nation with trillion dollar deficits, and ballooning public and private sector debts, cannot responsibly continue to fire off million dollar cruise missiles by the hundreds, while deploying naval task forces at an estimated combined cost of $200 million. We should absolutely not be risking another world war with a major military power and its allies for something which is not a critical national interest. Our nation's constitution -- key to our continued stability and prosperity --
does not authorize spending for use of the military in a combat role
for anything but national defense.
In today's unfortunate circumstances, we can see the fulfillment of George Washington's prophetic warning regarding, "overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." The military, and any domestic or foreign interests that would exploit our military capability for their special interests, need to be tempered by the consistent application of constitutional legal principles: (1) the war-fighting capacity of our government is only to be exercised for U.S. national defense; (2) only Congress has the authority to make the decision to initiate war, and attempting to delegate this authority violates the constitution's separation of powers.
"We welcome many of President Trump's initiatives in trade and border security," said AFNC National Chairman Jonathan Hill, "but cannot but be gravely concerned that the failure to put America First in foreign affairs will cost Americans dearly in lives, diminished security, and in increased economic hardship.""
"America First Party
405 River Road
Greenwood, MS 38930"
After WWI "America First" groups became popular when Americans realized that the US government loved WWI and was getting ready to put US into WWII with its penniless pals in the UK monarchy. For the same reason, Americans pressed for "Neutrality Acts" to they wouldn't be forced into WWII. FDR running for his 3rd term promised that if elected he wouldn't allow Americans into another European war. Of course, like today, FDR and the entire political class were desperate to be "international," eagerly shipped lots of war weapons to its UK pals, and forgot about Neutrality promises. No matter, FDR died in April 1945 and in August 1945 his VP Harry Truman became the first global terrorist by dropping two atom bombs on Japanese civilians within one week.
Ok, fine. Stay with the warmongers you have in place. Don't wait and see how it goes (and it WILL go better). We did not have the mess we have now when he was in there--on any front. That doesn't mean he'll be perfect; he's no perfect human being. And sorry, America First did NOT exist before Trump. Globalists. Please.
The warmongers are gone, long live the warmongers!
Not sure what this means, but having wimpy people in place like now induces war everywhere. You need to show and be strong in order to not wage war. THEN you can negotiate peace. It will never be perfect, but it will be better. Maybe everyone could wait and see.
He's Israel first, actually. The Make Israel Great Again candidate.
He said he's going to attack Iran for Israel. That is not America First.
AGAIN, what he SAYS and DOES are two different things. Just like who he puts in some positions does not necessarily mean a thing. So you still don't get it. Fine.
Again nothing. You are just clinging to Trump's nuts.
Oh and PS, our intelligence agencies say there are plots from these people to kill President Trump. That is an AMERICA FIRST situation. Hello. And his response is appropriate. HELLO.
"Oh and PS, our intelligence agencies say..." I'm shocked that anyone reading and commenting on Mr. Tracey's wonderful and much needed work would cite "our intelligence agencies" as a source to be believed about anything. I certainly don't.
I don't automatically believe them and neither does Trump, but he has other sources that made him believe it. You can't NOT believe something like that. You'd just assume it was a lie and go about your business after there's been two attempts on your life? I doubt it. So there's a good chance it's true.
What sources? Are you normally gullible enough to buy into rumours about whatever intelligence agencies might have told someone else behind closed doors that the public is not privy to whatsoever?
It's not hard to believe someone might have a go at trying to kill Trump again, after the first two tries, but citing unknown and unknowable 'information' and 'sources' — (allegedly) from intelligence agencies! — that you only believe to actually exist just makes the whole idea look like a joke.
Looking forward to the Gabbard piece. Which part of her … ahem… “convictions” are real and which parts are dishonest, self-serving, ladder-climbing? The old Tulsi, or the new Tulsi?
Excellent article and hard to refute anything that you wrote here. You continue to impress with your clear eyed and non partisan work.
Tracy’s questioning needs answers. Excuses and 3D Chess theories are running pretty thin, as they always do, for as long as I can remember, regardless of things like party affiliation or "Kinder gentler" speeches.
No one knows WTF Trump is gonna do when POTUS. Esp'ly regarding foreign policy????
On Domestic: he'll try deporting as many non- whites as he can get away with..Tariffs tariffs tariffs esl'ly on our better and less expensive manufacturer China. Lower taxes mainly on the rich who need less taxation the most of us living pay check to pay check. large (multi)nat'l corporations will see their tax burden approach zero. Deregulate deregulate deregulate.
And drill drill drill. And probably open the door for building more nuclear powered plants (but in impovished neighborhood's not close to mar a lago for sure or his golf club buddies.
If Trump had an issue with "non-whites" and not simply illegal immigrants, he wouldn't be appointing them to many of his top positions, nor would he have announced his intent to increase legal immigration and award green cards to anyone with some sort of diploma, which if it goes the way it has in Canada is sure to turn all of the US' colleges and universities into expensive diploma mills that are almost exclusively attended by wealthy foreigners eager to buy their way into the country.
Immigration (and apparently race...) is yet another area where Trump's supporters have completely deluded themselves into thinking he's all things for all people, the solution to every issue. You should read into his actual policies.
Not at all. Trump is a deal-making patriot who usually plans much farther ahead than most have proven to be able to imagine. Some of these nominees serve a strategic purpose that he isn't announcing but it's guaranteed to NOT be neocon in any sense of the term.
A "deal-making patriot" for what country? Israel?
Do you have a source for your "guarantee?"
Great work