Obama and McCain - Thomas Sowell

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by jmichna

SNIP
What, specifically, is your definition of "neocon"? Not a "cut & paste" definition... but what exactly does the term "neocon" mean to you, Etta Place?

What exactly do you mean by "partisan" politics? That Sowell states his mind? He happens to have conservative views, so that makes him a "partisan"? Again, not a "cut & paste" please, but what does the term "partisan" mean to you?

Doing which of these things defines Sowell as a "neocon"? Seeing your definition for "neocon" will help here.

Is talking outside one's area of expertise something to be avoided? Should people be confined to stating opinions solely in areas they are considered "expert"?

Also, personally it's nice to see an economist talking about ethics and morals... about time, IMO.

When you see Sowell as wrong, then please rebut him, point-for-point, with your logic and reasoning, not some "cut & paste" of yet another person's opinions, also (perhaps) outside their own area of expertise.

I suspect that you, yourself, have no counter arguments to Sowell's opinions and the logic he uses to formulate his opinions, so you fall back on the time-honored tradition of labeling someone a "partisan neocon" and then walk away.

Originally Posted by Etta Place

Fine. I am really not that familiar with Sowell. However, I have heard very positive things about him over the years. But, in the Sowell columns that have been posted in this forum, by jimchna primarily, I have detected a definite advocacy of anything or anyone Republican, a criticism of Obama for just about everything, and a neoconservative view on foreign policy. This makes me question just how smart a guy he really is.

If you aren't that familiar with his works, how can you summarily dismiss him as you do?

I too would appreciate some answers to what your own definition of a Neocon is. I see you use it often and would like to know what you mean when you do.

[robinsre]

Originally Posted by Ishpeck

Though he's one of my heroes, Sowell forgets what nukes are really for. Iran's not as stupid as we like to think of them as being. They're going to use nukes for flaunting -- like we do. Not for bombing.

Ah the "Paper Tiger" argument.

That is a particularly dangerous assumption, one which would have disastrous consequences were it to fail.

Look at the reason you own a gun. You own and carry a gun SPECIFICALLY because you can NEVER predict the actions of another human being reliably.

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by jmichna

Etta,
Talking (partisan) politics? - check
Talking US foreign policy? - check
Talking morality? - check
Talking outside one's area of expertise? - check

What, specifically, is your definition of "neocon"? Not a "cut & paste" definition... but what exactly does the term "neocon" mean to you, Etta Place?

What exactly do you mean by "partisan" politics? That Sowell states his mind? He happens to have conservative views, so that makes him a "partisan"? Again, not a "cut & paste" please, but what does the term "partisan" mean to you?

Doing which of these things defines Sowell as a "neocon"? Seeing your definition for "neocon" will help here.

Is talking outside one's area of expertise something to be avoided? Should people be confined to stating opinions solely in areas they are considered "expert"?

Also, personally it's nice to see an economist talking about ethics and morals... about time, IMO.

When you see Sowell as wrong, then please rebut him, point-for-point, with your logic and reasoning, not some "cut & paste" of yet another person's opinions, also (perhaps) outside their own area of expertise.

I suspect that you, yourself, have no counter arguments to Sowell's opinions and the logic he uses to formulate his opinions, so you fall back on the time-honored tradition of labeling someone a "partisan neocon" and then walk away.

Lastly, you never told us how your recent vacation in France was? How was your trip? What did you see?

BTW, Sowell isn't supposed to be an economist.... he really is one. Here's his CV:

First of all, you can't be serious about my "vacation in France." I thought it was understood that I was making a joke.

Yes, I understand Sowell is an economist.

From what I have read in the columns you have posted here, Sowell is merely mouthing Republican talking points. His ideas don't seem original. He is a conservative, but he's not a conservative like Ron Paul. He follows the same liberal-bashing formula used by Michelle Malkin or any number of conservative commentators.

Sowell's columns also evidence a neoconservative bent. What I mean by neoconservative is a belief that the United States is morally superior to all other countries in its culture and system of government. Neoconservatives tend to look at the world as a dog-eat-dog place where you're either with us or against us. People are good or evil.

This sense of U.S. exceptionalism gives our leaders permission to promote the "values" of the U.S. around the world. Spreading democracy and ridding the world of leaders who defy the will of the U.S. through U.S. military power are ways the U.S. can promote its "interests" and export its wonderfulness.

Many neoconservatives are Jewish, and even the ones who are Christian, feel that the interests of Israel and the interests of the United States are the same. Many neoconservatives are Catholic.

Many neoconservatives came from the left but reacted against the new left thinking of the 1960s and the isolationism during the Vietnam War.

Much neoconservative thinking developed as a reaction to WWII and the holocaust. They absolutely abhor appeasement and perceived weakness. And although they want to promote liberal ideas abroad, they hate them here in this country. These foreign policy hawks also formed a sort of coalition with the Christian right, even though some of them are pro-choice and not real social conservatives. The alliance with the Christians allowed them to become more powerful.

Neoconservatives are not really conservative, as they are authoritarian statists - not averse to using the power of the state to promote their social and foreign policy agendas.

The main characteristic of neoconservatism is the belief that the U.S. must be actively engaged internationally and it must project its strength and power around the globe.

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by XDConvert9mm

If you aren't that familiar with his works, how can you summarily dismiss him as you do?

I too would appreciate some answers to what your own definition of a Neocon is. I see you use it often and would like to know what you mean when you do.

I'm not summarily dismissing him. I'm merely suspicious of people who are so partisan toward a particular party that it seems to make them blind to its weaknesses and to the strengths of the other party. I'm talking about the two main political parties in this country.

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

Sowell is a Republican partisan and a neocon.

Originally Posted by Etta Place

I'm not summarily dismissing him. I'm merely suspicious of people who are so partisan toward a particular party that it seems to make them blind to its weaknesses and to the strengths of the other party. I'm talking about the two main political parties in this country.

If this is not a summary dismissal, then can I ask you what this one liner statement was supposed to mean?

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by XDConvert9mm

If this is not a summary dismissal, then can I ask you what this one liner statement was supposed to mean?

I'm dismissing this editorial. I think it's reactionary and fear-mongering. That doesn't mean that I would dismiss everything he says.

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

I'm dismissing this editorial. I think it's reactionary and fear-mongering. That doesn't mean that I would dismiss everything he says.

From your original statement it would logically follow that you in fact would dismiss all info from this source. Can you see how one would think that given the context(s).?

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by XDConvert9mm

From your original statement it would logically follow that you in fact would dismiss all info from this source. Can you see how one would think that given the context(s).?

Yes. And, maybe because I haven't read any Sowell stuff that makes me think he's a brilliant theoretician or philosopher, I assumed (based on what I HAD seen) that he was just another Republican shill.

[Frenchy]

Are You a Neocon?

Are You a Neocon?

by Daniel McCarthy

Regular readers of LRC or other right-of-center sites are sure to have seen terms like "neoconservative" and "paleo-libertarian" from time to time. A quick Google search can explain what the words mean, but definitions don’t really answer the more interesting and important question – which one are you?
Naturally you might be neither "paleo" nor "neo." But for those who’d like to find out I devised a quick quiz during a spell of procrastination a few months back. Here it is. After answering twenty questions it’ll give you my impression of which of ten modern American ideologies is the best fit for you, along with links to sites representing the philosophy of each.
There’s no shortage of political quizzes on the ‘net, but how many others includes "paleoconservative" and "third way" as categories? Not many (or any) that I’ve seen. And to be thoroughly immodest, this quiz is less slanted than most too. I’m a pale-something myself though, so if you find bias that’s where I’m coming from. Other than that the major flaw is that I don’t know modern left-wing ideologies at all well, so the categories of "radical," "liberal" and "third-way" probably are not how leftists would classify themselves.
The quiz questions are mostly about public policy. An alternative method would have been to ask general philosophical questions, or even to ask for interpretations of historical events. I chose the policy-oriented approach because it seemed most straightforward and clear.
Here, in brief, are the ideologies that the quiz examines. You’ll probably want to take the quiz first though. The sketches below aren’t an answer key, but you can probably deduce from the definitions how someone of a given ideology would answer a particular question. That’s the entire principle of the quiz, after all.
Centrist – Just what it sounds like. Someone who doesn’t have any particularly strong ideological leanings in any direction.
Conservative – Specifically a "fusionist" conservative of the National Review - Heritage Foundation mold. Someone who believes in traditional morality and capitalism, and the need for a limited government to allow both to flourish.
Left-libertarian – The quiz uses a mild definition of a left-libertarian, an anti-statist who is somewhat fearful of corporate and religious influence on public life.
Liberal – Supports economic regulation to promote social justice and takes a progressive stance toward moral or cultural issues.
Libertarian – A libertarian opposes most or all government activities. Does not favor much or any government support for either moral or economic systems.
Neoconservative – A "neocon" is more inclined than other conservatives toward vigorous government in the service of the goals of traditional morality and pro-business policies. Tends to favor a very strong foreign policy of America as well.
Paleoconservative – "Paleocons" want less US involvement in foreign affairs than other conservatives and oppose mass immigration. They are also more favorably disposed toward the South and the idea of secession, or at least decentralization, than neoconservatives.
Paleo-libertarian – Similar to other libertarians except for opposition to mass immigration, and shares the paleocon appreciation of the South.
Radical – Critical of bourgeois morality and strongly opposed to capitalism and willing to use state power to achieve desired ends.
Third-way – More supportive of foreign intervention than liberals and less supportive of economic regulation, coupled with more-or-less progressive social views. "Third-way" is to liberal what neoconservative is to conservative.

June 26, 2001

[mgeoffriau]

I've been thinking about this for a bit, and I honestly can't construct an adequate response. Etta, we've disagreed a lot, but your posts in this thread are simply unbelievable. I'm rarely left speechless (too often I have the opposite problem), but your position so far in this thread astounds me. Making bizarre, unsubstantiated claims about Thomas Sowell's political position and intelligence and then attempting to partially back off of those claims when people pointed out that even the shallowest research into Sowell's writing make your statements ridiculous.

I might decide to examine Sowell's column here just for the purpose of demonstrating that your claims don't even hold up without prior familiarity with his work, but I don't know if I have the energy to devote to this discussion. If I've got some time this evening I'll give it a shot.