Converting a Neo-Con

I just heard a very neo con talk radio personality say that if "they" are not going to use the right strategy to win in Afghanistan, then the troops should just come home. Excuse me? These republicans who think Ron Paul is an isolationist, will suddenly find themselves wanting the same thing we want which is to end the wars and reevaluate nation building. They will not come to that conclusion because of philosophy on intervention, they will come to that conclusion out of political necessity.

I know it's hard, but don't force foreign policy down their throat. Instead, describe the war as impossible for our troops. The end game will be the same -- to get our military back home.

Ron Paul vs. The Philosophically Bankrupt

After reading the name-calling and other non sequiturs from the anti-Ron Paul crowd, I am of the view that their hostility arises less from his opposition to war, or the direction American foreign policy has taken for decades, or any of the other specific programs he has criticized. What troubles them the most is that Paul has a philosophically-principled integrity in what he advocates and that, to challenge him, one must be prepared to deal with him at that higher level.

But modern political discourse long ago gave up on principles, in favor of the pursuit of power as a sufficient end. There is an intellectual bankruptcy exhibited by writers and speakers on the political "left," "right," or "middle." Competing ideas and values that once engaged the minds of thoughtful men and women have given way to little more than pronouncements on behalf of narrowly-defined political programs; the validity of a proposition no longer depends upon reasoned analysis, but upon the outcome of public opinion polls.

Ron Paul's campaign interjects an energized, principled inquiry into the political realm, an undertaking for which men and women with no philosophic center or rigorous minds find themselves woefully ill-prepared.

My thanks to everyone who responded. Most everyone has helped in one way or another. A few think that "conversion" is not really the right word to use... one even calling it more like waking up. And I find I agree with that. Becoming awake is how I describe the overwhelming "dawning on me" that took place when I first heard of Ron Paul and watched a YouTube video called "Stop Dreaming". What an appropriate name for that video... it did wake me up. And every piece of information I sought afterwards was like another cup of coffee, clearing away the cobwebs. Still, it seems obvious to me that without the input of a person whose intellect and morals I respected, I wouldn't have even clicked on the link to the video or been interested in the first place. The timing was right for me since I had grown to mistrust the wars and Bush. Still, it was the combination of timing, and another man's concern that woke me up.... both are important.

So my conclusions are thus: We should try to persuade our neo-con friends, family and neighbors with respect and understanding. It may help those whose circumstances have brought them to the point of questioning former assumptions. Of course those still solidly in love with their errors will not appreciate our efforts, but we can't let that stop us. Among the most effective methodologies is the Socratic Method of asking questions, giving them just enough rope to hang themselves. But after they hang themselves on the self contradictions in the neo-con asylum, we should offer them the hope of a clearer understanding that makes sense of events and human nature. If it works, great. If it doesn't, give it time. My conviction is that pain is a great teacher, unfortunately.

souls that have been Neo-conned don't even know it. I invite all neoconservatives to google "neoconservative" and "conservative" and read the definitions. This usually does the trick...or at least separates the wheat from the chaff.

Before the last Presidential Campaign season, CNN was covering Bush's trip to South Korea. They said the (then) president of SK asked if they could end the Korean "war" now. He basically thought he could handle things. Bush said no, not until they (North Korea) stop working on weapons of mass destruction. I had no idea the Korean war never stopped. My 76 year old grandfather was drafted for the Korean "war" and will not live to see the end of it.. Ron Paul's undeclared war argument struck a painful cord.

I fear I will not live to see the end of the new wars unless my country self destructs and can't borrow anymore to pay for them. Very heavy stuff.

another 9-11. The reasoning being that after 9-11 action(invasions) was taken, therefore another 9-11 was prevented.
I suppose Obama could say something similar, you had a job when he took office, he acted, therefore if you still have a job it's because he saved it.
This kind of thing is false reasoning, but people buy it.
You could say that eight years is long enough in Afghanistan and Iraq. Are American troops to die and be maimed forever?
Over a trillion dollars has been spent on these wars. With our economic troubles, our deficits, can this continue? We need the money to solve our economic problems at home.
The bin Laden gang was not a country. To wage war makes no sense now, if it ever did. Go after him and his ilk, not people who did us no harm.
Nation building is not worth American blood. Americans should not die so Afghans can have indoor plumbing.

from the anal canal. Due to years of government propaganda and viewing MSM news this will be an Agean task. Probably best to go to your local tool rental store and rent a John Deere 580 tractor with a backhoe attachment. Secure the Neocon to a sturdy tree and proceed to extract the cranium. Immediately after extraction present a copy o the Constitution to the person. Maybe after all of the dodo clears out of his cranium he will be able to endure the truth. Good luck ,and don`t try this with small children watching.

" The force of a correction is equal and opposite to the deception that proceded it"
B. Bonner

NOT an isolationist. Big difference.

Non-Interventionalism does not want to involve it’s country in foreign wars that have no direct impact on it’s own national security. They would trade with other nations - not invade; Does not participate in nation-building, does not install new governments, does not interfere in the affairs of foreign countires/nations. Non-Interventionalism is totally different from isolationism.

Isolationism would end all foreign relations. What Cuba & the U.S. have is isolation which stops travel in & out of the country, does not trade with the other country, or allow immigration.

That is definitely not the same.

Obama = O.ne B.ig A.ss M.istake A.merica

I don't think you can convert the hardcore neocons who love Bush and are emotionally invested in his wars.

All you can do is try to demoralize them by stating the truth.

By having them watch this documentary:

http://video.google.com/v...

Why We Fight describes the rise and maintenance of the United States military-industrial complex and its fifty-year involvement with the wars led by the United States to date, especially its 2003 Invasion of Iraq. The history, why, and what Dr. Paul preaches about foreign interventionism is all covered in this documentary.

Ron Paul 2012 for Peace

came around to our way of thinking without encouragement. However, one of the BEST ways to convert a neocon is show them "The New American Century" (YouTube) or point out how Afghanistan and Iraq violate both the Constitution and international law.

Most neocons who embrace war are former soldiers themselves who see leaving a war unfinished as dishonoring the sacrifices of the troops who have died up until that point.

Most neocons will still agree that we went into Iraq for the wrong reasons, but we're there now and we have to finish to honor the dead.

Remind them that truly honoring our soldiers involves only putting American lives at risk if the conflict is of the utmost importance. If we're not fighting a just war, it is HIGHLY immoral to put American soldiers lives at risk for no good reason.

The only honorable thing to do is leave.

America is the best country in the world and she is patriotic and loves her country. There you go, trying to crack that nut for the last two years.

I'm sick of seeing regular folks defend the positions of billionaires. They'll complain about poor people eating, but not billionaires killing and exploiting millions.

For me, it is real easy, since most of agree that 911 did not go down as we were told, we have no business being occupiers of Iraq and Afghan- Period! Dr Paul is spot on, they are Illegal wars, and why did Congress never declare war? Case closed! :)

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."- Thomas Jefferson

was the last barrier to fall for me. It fell with Fox News muted and my Bible opened to the sermon on the mount.

The tough thing about breaking that last barrier is that it has been shrouded in religious propaganda even though it is the issue that is most contrary to the teachings of Jesus. It's easier to accept that Bush's domestic policy strayed than to accept that you've openly supported such an evil position for so long.

Their whole paradigm that they are moral people is built on not questioning whether our foreign wars are evil and there is a consensus mindset that it is absolutely patriotic to have deeply emotional reactions to any questioning of the wars to the point that you can no longer think about them rationally. Your argument that Ron Paul is not an isolationist cannot break through the cloud of emotion. They need to believe he's an isolationist so they can believe the world would not be better off with different policies or they might have to accept they have supported evil and find themselves in the minority among their peers.

Conviction and the falling away of a paradigm is a difficult journey, but there is absolute peace of mind on the other side.

Here is the best way to make the argument against the wars.

Ask:
1. Do you think we should go to war without a declaration of war as the Constitution demands?
2. Do you think we should fight wars if it would lead to our own economic collapse?
3. What was our founding fathers view of war and dealing with other nations?

Usually only the first question is needed. Most will say that we should not and that is usually enough to say, "Well that's one of the main reasons I'm against these wars" And leave it at that. Most aren't ready for the rest but if they come back to you to ask more questions, you've got them.

Also, if they are a Glenn Beck fan, here are two great youtube videos they should see.

http://www.youtube.com/wa...
http://www.youtube.com/wa...

Where Glenn Beck apologizes for referring to himself as a libertarian and thinking Ron Paul was crazy and says the scales are falling from his eyes and starts to make the argument against our current wars.

If you need to use the 2nd question "Do you think we should fight wars if it would lead to our own economic collapse?"

Follow it up with, "can we afford these wars?", "what good are we doing in them?", "Is the cost vs the reward worth it?" and "Could we accomplish that same good without being there?"

And finally, if you need to ask the last question, "What was our founding fathers view of war and dealing with other nations?" My suggestion is to not give them the answer to this question. Make them go find it out themselves. Otherwise, if you tell them, they can blow it off. If they find the answer themselves, they will own the answer. If they don't go look it up, just keep asking the question and tell them to go and find out.

The key with convincing anyone of anything is that you can't do it. They have to convince themselves. So the more you have them answer the questions and come to their own conclusion, the better. The more you try to convince them, the less they will want to be convinced.

Email and Phone Your Reps!
www.freedombomb.com

their love of the military, and a few words of the founding fathers to help them see the light...

Remind your neo-con that when the Soviet Union collapsed because of it's overspending - they left their soldiers serving in other countries stranded, unable to send them supplies and unable to bring them home.

Our men and women in our armed forces deserve better than that.

Bring them all home now, because we just can't afford the fight. (or subsidizing our "Allies" defense)

And from the founders -

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities." - George Washington

“In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense.” - James Monroe

“peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” - Thomas Jefferson

Your on the right track and I just learned of the good Doctor about 3 years ago myself.

Do you know the roots of Neo-Conservatism? Have you researched Leo Strauss and Irving Kristol? Has you heard Ron Paul's explanation of what a neo-con is on the House Floor? (It's on utube somewhere)

Long story short neo-cons are in FACT followers of Marxist/Trotskyite communist ideology. If you provide these facts to people who think they are patriotic and let them know they are actually devoted to communism it will work on them like acid.

Communist/Socialism/Fascism has killed 100's of millions all good men and women must stand against this evil.

is due to - not becoming more educated on facts.

9/11 brought the Patriot Act and war on terrorism. I believe a majority of Americans take the official story as fact. This then "authorizes" the war as their belief. 9/11 is key. So, it is a tough battle there.

I head with a different route and go with historical examples to step by step show that our interventions are the initial cancer that is planted, even decades before the "war". American political/military history, interventions, and CIA blowback education is needed.

terrorism counter points - afghanistan/soviet/bin laden/ 1970's/cia - Iraq/1990's/Hussein/oil/u.s. dollar being dropped - iran/1953/u.s. overthrows.

u.s. involved in the division of others peoples land - korea, vietnam ...

Also, a basic monetary system and the Fed background is needed since the military industrial complex and foreign policy are funded by the "freedom" of fiat currency and fractional reserve banking. Domestic policy is "secondary" with the states, counties, and finally the towns being held hostage by dependency on funds from "government".

Here is a dp thread with some american intervention history for foreign policy counter points.

http://www.dailypaul.com/...

1. "Isolationist", reefers to Israel. Neocons and Neoliberals do NOT want Israel to be "isolated" from U.S. tax payer money. So in this light, yes, Ron Paul is an isolationist in foreign policy, however, Ron Paul agrees with the Neocons and Neoliberals that Isolationism does not work. Ron Paul reefers himself as a NON-INTERVENTIONIST http://en.wikipedia.org/w...

Educate yourself, and then educate others about non-interventionism so you can explain to the neocons in plain terms why this policy is best for the USA, Israel and the world.

Promote Ron Paul as an non-interventionist and you solve your problem and educate people to sane solutions for insane problems.

feels a sense of guilt and false responsibility for an American presence in Afghanistan. There is the feeling that we are partially responsible for creating the mess and that it would be irresponsible to simply walk away. Also, that the situation would be worsened if we were to do so, which is a fear tactic used by government and MSM... we did not show the same concern for Lebanon which was completely taken over by Syria and Hizbollah forces...

We have to keep pointing out our government's exploitation of the strategic location, resources and 'contracts' produced by this war. I believe the average person on the street distrusts the government, believes that "war has been going on in the Middle East since the beginning of time" and is angry that so much of our necessary funds are going toward this conflict.

I agree with paul4won that there are those who think differently and want the govt. to be in charge, on both sides of the right/left paradigm, but they are the ones in the MSM and politics that keep fanning the flames of guilt and fear... we have to keep putting out the truth...

for answers. I haven't had any luck either. Maybe, ask them what Jesus would do? Would Jesus bomb the shit out of people killing over a million of them or would Jesus talk and trade with them. Do they even know why we are there? The whole reason we are there is flimsy. Would we like Russian troops here chasing after a terrorist group but killing most of the citizens? I don't think so.

This is all continuing the charade that our differences are political. Listen carefully, the person everyone calls an atheist is about to say something worth listening to: This is a spiritual battle.

Yeah, you have to engage at the physical level, but there will be few, if any "conversions." People who know what they are doing and why are different from you and I at a very, very deep level. That is why everyone who DOES break the spell talks about "waking up" not changing political parties.