Darn and I was JUST getting used to Neo-Con.

EURASIA INSIGHT

ARCH-CONSERVATIVE PUNDITS IN RUSSIA CHARACTERIZE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AS "NEO-Bolshevik"
Igor Torbakov 9/28/05

Editor's Note: Updated to clarify State Department official's comments on the Active Response Corp.

As Moscow and Washington wrestle for influence in Central Asia and the Caucasus, some of the more conservative political analysts in Russia have generated controversy by citing parallels in the methods and geopolitical goals of the Bush administration and none other than Lenin’s Bolsheviks.

The consensus view in Moscow remains that the Bush administration is the ideological force behind the so-called "color-revolution" phenomenon, in which popular protests led to regime change in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Washington has adamantly denied direct involvement in the revolutionary events, and US officials’ democratization rhetoric has noticeably cooled since the Andijan massacre rocked Uzbekistan in May. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Even so, many Russian policy-makers suspect that Washington is biding its time before trying to foment regime-change elsewhere in the former Soviet Union. Attention is currently focused on Azerbaijan, which will hold parliamentary elections on November 6. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Arch-conservative Moscow pundits perceive the Bush administration as guided by an idealistic notion of leading a global democratic revolution. Such aggressive idealism reminds the analysts of the Bolsheviks, who, shortly after staging their coup in 1917, vigorously pursued their fantasy of engineering a global communist revolution. Though polar opposites ideologically, the Bush administration and the Bolsheviks seem to share a zealously held belief in the righteousness of their cause, the Moscow analysts contend.

"The leader of the biggest world power [Bush] has actually turned himself into a champion of the world revolution," political scientist Boris Mezhuyev wrote in a commentary posted recently on the APN.ru website


So Bush is the Champion of Democratization of the Newly emerging Nations who have thrown off the shackles of oppression? Cool, it will be a challenge to paint him with this brush and then defame him. But the supporters of Fascistic Regimes are experts at Double-Think. Most of it by omission.

Notice how Uzbekistan is mentioned? "the Andijan massacre rocked Uzbekistan in May", Now in IRAN they gun demonstrators done regularly, sometimes they even drag the bodies behind jeeps around the City Streets, but you don't find much mention of those outrages outside the Free Iran networks.


This was a strange article to read. I had gotten used to being called Neo-Con and Neo-Fascist but Neo-Bolshevik? That's going to be a stretch. ;-)
After thought This is to a great extent consistent with the Past.

Taliban gone, GOOD Bush did it, BAD.
Saddam gone, GOOD Bush did it, BAD.

There is another consideration, in some circles Democracy is an ideal that should be practiced in "moderation". There were EU political figures that thought the EU Constitution to be "too important" to leave to a referendum. The masses need to be led by an intellectual elite you see?

What if Europeans started getting the idea that they should be voting on more things, instead of leaving decisions up to the bureaucracy and the intelligentsia? Not GOOD!

But the one thing that strikes me is that maybe someone should point out that Lenin did not INVENT Revolutionary movements? We here in America had a History of such things going back to Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, Franklin and Washington to name a few, who did not invent the concept either.

But I guess Neo-Jeffersonian does not have the same Ring as Neo-Bolshevik? ;-)

|