"Neoconservatism"

[El Barto]

From my perspective, which views neoconservatism as essentially modern imperialism, Obama doesn't cut it.  Nor is he an out-and-out internationalist, which I'd consider the antithesis of neoconservativsm.  Honestly, he seems to be taking a fairly pragmatic approach to foreign relations, with little bits of both theories working their way in.  It's one of the few areas where I think he's actually been passable. 

[Scheavo]

Also, I really think it's hard to disentangle neoconservatism from neoliberalism. I see them as two sides of the same coin.

Not sure I would entirely disagree with this, but I would just say that ideologically, it's fallacious to say that he has to either be a neocon or a neoliberal. As fits Obama's personality and public record, he's pretty much a pragmatic moderate. A neo-moderate, perhaps?

[adace]

Also, I really think it's hard to disentangle neoconservatism from neoliberalism. I see them as two sides of the same coin.

Not sure I would entirely disagree with this, but I would just say that ideologically, it's fallacious to say that he has to either be a neocon or a neoliberal. As fits Obama's personality and public record, he's pretty much a pragmatic moderate. A neo-moderate, perhaps?

Sounds right to me.

[Super Dude]

Also, I don't think I'm conflating economic and foreign policy. I said in my earlier post that foreign military interventionism is neoconservatism while economic foreign interventionism (globalization) is neoliberalism. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment. What exactly do you mean by "economic need"?
Finally, I agree they have different approaches. I said as much in the last line of my post.

And if that's your definitions, than Obama is clearly not a neo-con. He has some neo-con traits, but he also has pushed much heavier for what you call neo-liberalism. A neo-con in office would likely have invaded Iran already, whereas Obama is pushing for sanctions and open talks.

By "economic need," I mean that the President doesn't decide that this country has a horrible oil addictions. Economically, we need oil. That is why we are in the Middle East, and it doesn't matter what party or what ideology is in office. I'm not going to defend our actual policies on this, but it seemed to me at one point that you were saying Obama was a neo-con because of his involvement with the Middle East, etc. That is, I feel as if you're saying Obama is a neo-con because he hasn't pulled a Ron Paul or something, but our involvement in the Middle East, and our Imperialism, goes beyond the neo-con agenda.

I agree with your first point, but one has to keep in mind that Obama has never taken the military option off the table. He is certainly more rational and cautious, but if his patience runs on the nuclear issue out or if Iran does something stupid like attack Israel then all bets are off. Maybe he is neo-con lite. Also, I really think it's hard to disentangle neoconservatism from neoliberalism. I see them as two sides of the same coin. Here's a great article about the close relationship between the two ideologies: https://vermontrepublic.org/neoliberalism-neoconservatism-without-a-smirk

As your second point, I generally agree with that but our economic need for oil is somewhat relative. For example, if the country developed a comprehensive plan to switch to alternative fuels and tax the hell out of the oil companies, then our dependance on Middle Eastern oil could be significantly reduced along with the imperative to intervene politically and militarily in the region.

If Iran attacks Israel, yes. That other outcome...what? When weighing something as serious and final as nuclear war, I hardly doubt the president would just lose his patience and say "Fuck it." There isn't a word to describe how stupid a decision that would be.

[Scheavo]

Also, I really think it's hard to disentangle neoconservatism from neoliberalism. I see them as two sides of the same coin.

Not sure I would entirely disagree with this, but I would just say that ideologically, it's fallacious to say that he has to either be a neocon or a neoliberal. As fits Obama's personality and public record, he's pretty much a pragmatic moderate. A neo-moderate, perhaps?

Sounds right to me.

C'mon now, this is the internet, we're not supposed to agree.

[adace]

Also, I don't think I'm conflating economic and foreign policy. I said in my earlier post that foreign military interventionism is neoconservatism while economic foreign interventionism (globalization) is neoliberalism. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment. What exactly do you mean by "economic need"?
Finally, I agree they have different approaches. I said as much in the last line of my post.

And if that's your definitions, than Obama is clearly not a neo-con. He has some neo-con traits, but he also has pushed much heavier for what you call neo-liberalism. A neo-con in office would likely have invaded Iran already, whereas Obama is pushing for sanctions and open talks.

By "economic need," I mean that the President doesn't decide that this country has a horrible oil addictions. Economically, we need oil. That is why we are in the Middle East, and it doesn't matter what party or what ideology is in office. I'm not going to defend our actual policies on this, but it seemed to me at one point that you were saying Obama was a neo-con because of his involvement with the Middle East, etc. That is, I feel as if you're saying Obama is a neo-con because he hasn't pulled a Ron Paul or something, but our involvement in the Middle East, and our Imperialism, goes beyond the neo-con agenda.

I agree with your first point, but one has to keep in mind that Obama has never taken the military option off the table. He is certainly more rational and cautious, but if his patience runs on the nuclear issue out or if Iran does something stupid like attack Israel then all bets are off. Maybe he is neo-con lite. Also, I really think it's hard to disentangle neoconservatism from neoliberalism. I see them as two sides of the same coin. Here's a great article about the close relationship between the two ideologies: https://vermontrepublic.org/neoliberalism-neoconservatism-without-a-smirk

As your second point, I generally agree with that but our economic need for oil is somewhat relative. For example, if the country developed a comprehensive plan to switch to alternative fuels and tax the hell out of the oil companies, then our dependance on Middle Eastern oil could be significantly reduced along with the imperative to intervene politically and militarily in the region.

If Iran attacks Israel, yes. That other outcome...what? When weighing something as serious and final as nuclear war, I hardly doubt the president would just lose his patience and say "Fuck it." There isn't a word to describe how stupid a decision that would be.

Sorry for my poor choice of wording. What I meant is that if sanctions don't work at all to deter Iran, then war would probably be inevitable (although it could be a proxy fought by Israel).