> He thinks that the neo-con right has been successful
> to a large degree--even with the left i.e. British
> Labour and the embrace of Thatcherite economics--by
> being honest, up front and so forth. Most on the left
> are not as honest about what they want.
Does Zizek ever mention that these people also tend to have connections to insane amounts of capital to fund their pet projects? They are allowed to fail and move on to the next thing immediately. Money is no option.
When you have some well-heeled benefactors there to pick you up every time you fall, allowing you to barrel into your next project without a moment's hesitation, it almost doesn't matter how "up front," dishonest, etc. you are about your beliefs.
Regarding Moral Clarity (MC), one of the Right's big selling points. You examine the Right long enough and you'll find that even this is a lie. There are many fissures. These can be exploited. (Paleocon vs. Neocon, libertarian vs. paleocon, Christian Right vs. libertarian, etc.) Highlighting these inconsistencies can work in fighting the Right as a whole. They are as morally foggy as their own worst caricatures of the "Left."
My own perception of the public isn't that they are enamored of the "honesty" of neo-conservatives. No one was honest in the lead-up to war; we got a 6 month public relations game, instead. I don't even think most people know who neocons are, or what characterizes their beliefs. Not many people know William Kristol is comfortable with being called an American imperialist, for example, because most people at a grassroots level don't even know who he is.
Brian