NationStates Jolt Archive

Something I read in another thread, about how "liberals" came up with the term to be all ominous and evil sounding, got me wondering just where the term came from. After all, I'd first heard of the term when I was reading about Conservatives being concerned about the growing Neo-Conservative movement, an article that went into some detail as to the differences between the two ideologies.

So I hopped onto Google and did a bit of leisurely research. The first couple articles I find were, again, written by conservatives concerned about the encroachment of the neo-conservative movement.

A little further down I came across an article from The Christian Science Monitor about neo-conservatives, giving a detailed explanation and even a history of the movement.

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html

If that article is to be believed then it was indeed liberals that came up with the term, but not as some sort of ominous buzzword to scare the public.

Some other articles of note:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp

http://www.amconmag.com/06_16_03/buchanan.html

I humbly suggest Google for anyone interested in reading more on the topic.

Thank you for posting these links. I wish conservatives would listen to me when I tell them about neoconservatives. Whether or not they choose to call themselves neo-conservatives, they're every bit as dangerous and power-hungry as liberals say they are. These people want to take over the world. Period. But don't take my word for it - take THEIR word for it. Read Project for a New American Century's statement of principles (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm). Note that among the people who signed it are Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz.

Then read Rebuilding America's Defenses (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf). And there's all you need to know about neoconservatives. (Note: That was all for the benefit of any conservatives reading this thread.)

I don't know how ominous and evil sounding Neo-Conservative is, but the Neo-Cons are real and the term comes from a battle going on in the conservative movement. We liberals had nothing to do with it.

Taki Theodoracopulos, writing in his new magazine The American Conservative, said, "We are now in a senseless war that was promoted by the neo-conservatives, the Arab world will sink into despair and terrorists the world over will find thousands of young men ready to die as long as they take an American with them."

David Frum, in National Review, responded in an article entitled, "Un-patriotic Conservatives," saying, "The paleo-conservatives have collapsed into a mood of despairing surrender unparalleled since the Vichy Republic. What are we to make of self described conservatives who make excuses for suicide bombers."

Pat Buchanan, again writing in the American Conservative, fired back, "Who are the neo-conservatives? Ex-liberals, socialists, and Trotskyites, who rafted over to the GOP at the end of conservatism's long march to power with Ronald Reagan. A neo-conservative is more likely to be a magazine editor than a brick layer, he's likely to be a resident scholar at a public policy institute such as the American Enterprise Institute."

This is a war on the Right. However, if you want to find out more about the Neo-Con agenda, which is ominous, read their own words at The Project for a New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/). The Neo-Cons openly favor a Pax American achieved through the use of American power, pre-emptively if necessary, to gain control of the Persian Gulf and to prevent any regional powers from emerging. They are actively working for an American Empire.

* BTW The Weekly Standard (one of your links) is a major self-described Neo-Con magazine

bump

As an old-school conservative with libertarian leanings, I can honestly say the neocons scare the piss out of me.

These people demand an empire, despite the fact that all empires -- Roman, British, Galactic -- collapse fitfully. Empire is like a cancer that grows uncontrollably until its host can no longer sustain it and dies.

They are willing to sacrifice America and all she stands for to defend other countries, each with their own agendas and several with interests opposed to ours.

Their fundamental misunderstanding of "terrorism" and Islamic culture has created more chaos than usual in the Middle East and may well put all of Western civilization in danger.

And they're as fiscally responsible as a Keynesian on crack cocaine.

When will the Republicans wake up and realize that these people are not our friends? :( Please, I call on the liberals of America to help me explain to my fellow right wingers why neocons are a threat to just about everything. (Though you may need to talk slowly and use small words. ;) )

Regardless of it's origin, it has become a smear word for leftists to throw at anyone they disagree with. It is a word to counter the slur that "liberal" has become. It is tossed around here at anyone who posts anything even hinting at conservatism.

Neoconservatives don't really sound all that bad. Just a group that is for American hegemony. Is that really all that bad of a thing?

The neocons are a very scary group of people indeed. They are ideologues who have a power out of all proportion to their numbers because they are entrenched in the Bush administration.

They are also the intellectuals/propagandists who help support the administration through its favored media outlets - The Weekly Standard, National Review, Fox News etc - all so-called conservative but all controlled by the neocons.

What does Neoconservatism mean? It means ongoing wars in the middle east until the American version of democracy reigns. It’s an internationalist movement, one which, in the middle east at least, seeks to protect Israel especially.

Economically, its globalist and pro-corporation. Free trade forever, no protection against foreign imports for American industries. It supports outsourcing and NAFTA and GATT and the WTO. In short, it supports the destruction of the industrial and manufacturing base of the United States.

And if some of the people who lost their jobs to China and Mexico retrained in IT-related jobs, as the neocon economists told them to do, jobs which are now being outsourced to India, well, the neocons will just say that’s the way that free trade/a pure market economy works.

Neocons have an absolute belief in the superiority of free trade that matches a Marxist’s belief in the dialectic. It doesn’t matter if it’s irrational, if it doesn’t work. When American corporations export whole factories to China and Mexico and pay those workers there a fraction what they paid an American worker, they applaud. Never mind that this is a travesty of Ricardo’s theory of Comparative Advantage.

These people are fanatics, and they are in many cases paid advisers and propagandists for the corporations (William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard for example.)

These are the neocons.

These are also the people that 59 million Americans voted for...

Regardless of it's origin, it has become a smear word for leftists to throw at anyone they disagree with. It is a word to counter the slur that "liberal" has become. It is tossed around here at anyone who posts anything even hinting at conservatism.

Then it is used by people who don't know what it means. I disagree with traditional conservatives, but I respect their ideology, and see it as part of the broad mainstream of American politics (as is liberalism). I am opposed to the philosophy of people like Reagan, Bush (the elder), Bob Dole, and John McCain (who is more conservative than liberals want to acknowledge), but their ideas do not represent a danger to America.

The Neo-Cons are outside of the spectrum of American politics and are a real danger to this country.

What do Neo-Cons believe?

1. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
2. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
3. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
4. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
5. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
6. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
7. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
8. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
9. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
10. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.

Neo-Con institutions include the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Heritage Foundation and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and some Neo-Con periodicals are Commentary, Policy Review and The Weekly Standard.

Read "The Case for American Empire" in the neo-conservative Weekly Standard ("The most realistic response to terrorism is for America to embrace its imperial role").

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/000/318qpvmc.asp

Neo-conservative is not an attack thrown from the left, it grew out of a split in the conservative movement. There's the traditional conservatives (paleo-conservatives), the most famous being Pat Buchanan, who fought Bush Sr. for the Republican nomination in 1992, and then proceeded to take over the Reform Party in the late 90s. Paleo-cons believe in very small government, limited government control, low taxes, low spending, and more power to the states. This year the Constitution Party put forward paleo-con Michael Peroutka. If you read his website, you'd be surprised how much they criticize Bush and the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, high spending, and even the Gay Marriage Amendment, which paleo-cons believe is a matter strictly for the states and dislike the feds regulating it (they would rather the states ban it). Paleo-cons are much more isolationist, and anti-immigration.

Neo-cons are not afraid of big government. They'll use it whenever they feel they need to. To them, states' rights only applies to conservative states. They will cut most social programs, but funnel huge amounts of money into the military. They are quite simply imperialistic.

Paleo-cons believe in very small government, limited government control, low taxes, low spending, and more power to the states.

Isn't it weird that 100 years ago, that definition would have been "Liberal"?

These are also the people that 59 million Americans voted for...

Well, not really. The neocons have been very successful in positing traditional conservative social views - opposition to abortion, anti-gay marriage etc. They win elections because they appeal to a majority of Americans who are socially conservative.

But one day truly conservative Americans will wake up. The neocons, when in power via the Republican party, do nothing to roll back social liberalism. Nothing significant will change in the next four years. Abortion will still be legal, there’ll be no Amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a women, etc.

In the meantime, the necons will rejoice as more and more Americans lose good jobs with benefits to China and Mexico. When Walmart employs 2 million people, low paid and most without benefits, they’ll see this as a triumph of free trade and the market economy.

This is the genius of the Republican neocons - they persuade conservatives to vote GOP on social issues that they (the neocons) know they can’t do anything about anyway. Not that they really care because many neocons - Andrew Sullivan, Bill Kristol, David Frum, Paul Wolfowitz - the list goes on forever - are socially liberal anyway.

All they are concerned with is in remaking the middle east, to make Israel safe, no matter how many American lives are lost in the process, and with extending American corporate power. As Bill Kristol wrote, if the Republicans ever went soft on the “War on Terror” in the middle east, and free trade, he and the other neocons would jump ship and join the Democrats as neo-liberals.

All they are concerned with is in remaking the middle east, to make Israel safe, no matter how many American lives are lost in the process, and with extending American corporate power.

I agree with Democratic Nationality and would add that part of the Neo-Con agenda in the Persian Gulf is to control the world's oil supply as a way to gain leverage over Europe, Russia, and especially China. Currently China is the second largest importer of oil (behind the U.S.) and is expected to become the major consumer of Saudi crude.

The explosion of American military bases in the Middle East is to control potential rivals by controlling their oil.

Isn't it weird that 100 years ago, that definition would have been "Liberal"?
The liberal movement split as well, with the socialism-influenced welfare liberals joining the progressives and labor unions to form the base of the modern Democratic Party, and the old liberals becoming known as libertarians (or the less-used "neo-classical liberals"). They basically agree on social issues (with exception of gun rights) but differ on economic policy.

I agree with Democratic Nationality and would add that part of the Neo-Con agenda in the Persian Gulf is to control the world's oil supply as a way to gain leverage over Europe, Russia, and especially China. Currently China is the second largest importer of oil (behind the U.S.) and is expected to become the major consumer of Saudi crude.
That will backfire so hard that I sincerely hope I'm nowhere near this continent if they get the impetuous necessary to do that.

However, if you want to find out more about the Neo-Con agenda, which is ominous, read their own words at The Project for a New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/). The Neo-Cons openly favor a Pax American achieved through the use of American power, pre-emptively if necessary, to gain control of the Persian Gulf and to prevent any regional powers from emerging. They are actively working for an American Empire.
None of this comes as any surprise to me at all. When I first came on to these boards it was to decry the American agenda of regime change and empire building.

Iraq is a classic example of the planting of the seeds for American conquest. Anyone who talks about the US being in Iraq to remove the "terrorist" element are failing to see the broader picture, or are living in denial, and/or support US domination of the Middle East.

Personally speaking, I do believe that this policy will cause an even greater backlash against the US and her allies. There are over one billion Muslims worldwide and they are not the easiest people in the world to subjugate. Look at what happened between Iraq and the UK, and Afghanistan and the USSR.

As far as I am concerned, the US invasion of Iraq is no less diabolical than the German invasion of Poland and history students all know what happened after that incident?

While the US may have the most advanced weapons in the world today, they are lacking in the manpower necessary to take on an enemy that will gladly give up their lives for Allah. The sad part of this whole "neo conservative" escapade is that worldwide terrorism has actually increased and in my humble opinion, it is only a matter of time before the US or her allies get burned again.

:(

Anyway, the next election will not be fought on social issues. It’ll be fought on the economy. Gays getting married is just not going to turn out the vote next time around. It’s not going to happen. The neocons won’t be able to play that card again.

We have a trade deficit which is reaching unsustainable proportions, we are losing our industrial and manufacturing base every day - we are becoming a country that will soon make almost nothing.

Not only that. I was reading the other day that in 10 years time there will be almost no IT jobs in the US because they are increasingly being outsourced to India.

Also that law firms are in the process of exporting legal research jobs to India, that accounting jobs are going to be outsourced as well. India now has many universities where they teach the American legal system and the American tax code in their law and accounting degrees. Just so they can take jobs from Americans that US corporations export to benefit from cheap labor.

The Republicans, completely taken over by the neocons and the corporations, will probably run a candidate who will change nothing. But the Dems have a chance to nominate someone who is an economic nationalist. They are not *quite* so in awe of the madness of the free trade philosophy and the corporate structure that supports it.

If the term neo-conservative came from liberals, then that would make Irving Kristol a liberal. It's his term from his book, the exact name escapes me at the moment. Conscience of a NeoConservative? No, I'm getting that mixed up with Barry Goldwater's book. Anyway, some conservatives like Goldwater would indeed consider Kristol and his Klan to be liberals. And Kristol would, and has, likewise, distanced himself from the conservativism of Goldwater...and Eisenhower and Nixon for that matter.

Kristol and his ethnicly Russian Jewish family and friends were prototypical New York Jewish Trotskyite liberals for most of the last century. But in the 60's they felt alianated from what they perceived to be a pro-communist, anti-American, and culturaly decadent New Left and more and more so, the Democratic Party. They, being white and Jewish, also did not appreciate Affirmative Action in academia. At the risk of sounding anti-semetic (and considering anytime you criticize the neoconmen you get accused of being anti-semetic anyway) it is my opinion that they did now want to loose their disportionate representation in academia. Nonetheless, the issue of affirmative action, along with anti-communism and anti...um...hippies, I guess... was their formost reasons for bolting to the Republican party and identifying themselves with conservatives. But, again, I think I can legitamately assoicate this with their ethnic heritage, they were for a very pro Israel, very aggresive foreign policy. And remember, these are Russian Jews, their ancestors not being treated too kind by the Russian Tzars OR the Communists, so, at least imho, they are all for aggresion against Muslims and Russians. (Unless the Muslims are fighting the Russians, as in the case of their support of both pre fallen Berlin Wall Osama bin Laden and present day Chechnyan rebels vigourously highlights.)

But I guess what you would call traditional conservativism (I know that should be redundant, but the butchery of today's English makes it otherwise) has always been isolationist. So not only were they fighting pro Affirmative Action liberals and making up a communist boogeyman, they were also fighting isolationist conservatives.

At the same time, you had a bigger demographic shift, that of the Reagan Democrats, which, in my mind, is synonomous with Irish Catholic working class men (and the women who love them.) It was this numerical superiour group that tilted the power in Washington from the Democrats to the Republicans. They were also against Affirmative Action, communists and the perceived cultural rot...but they were also fiercly isolationist. They were lower to middle middle-class, they weren't effete academic profesors. As such, they didn't have posts in the Reagan administration as the effete academians did, they just voted for the guy. So the isolationists may have brought Reagan to power, but the imperialists, (the neoconmen) were the ones who influnced him. Given that, it's no coincidence that during the Reagan administration we fought Catholic communists in Latin America, (not to mention sucked up to the Butcher of Belfast Haggie Thatcher), funded both sides of a war in the Middle East, and helped Osama bin Laden in Russian occupied Afganistan....all Christmas, er, I mean, Chaunakah wishes of the neoconmen.

Even in the Clinton administration they had some influence. There were still Slavic boogeymen out there, out in the Balklands, and lo and behold, all the sudden we were again on the side fighting them. The guys we were helping may have been Muslims, but they weren't Arab Muslims and they were fighting Slavs.

But again, the term neoconservative itself was not conjured up by the vast left wing conspiracy...unless you consider this exported perpetual war, that reeks of Trotsky, to be liberalism. And conservative Irish Catholics like Pat Buchanan, (who coined the term paleo-conservative in response to the neos) and other Catholics like Robert Novak, certainly do.

The liberal movement split as well, with the socialism-influenced welfare liberals joining the progressives and labor unions to form the base of the modern Democratic Party, and the old liberals becoming known as libertarians (or the less-used "neo-classical liberals"). They basically agree on social issues (with exception of gun rights) but differ on economic policy.

Aye, I know, i'm a Poli-Sci student. :) It's just amazing how things can change in comparatively such a short time :)

Well said, Minnisconiganlinois. I focused on the imperialistic aspirations of the Neo-Cons, but your evaluation of the Trotskyite origins and the affinity for Israel is spot on. The Neo-Cons also differ from the "paleo-cons" in their embrace of big government.

By the way Irving Kristol’s book is Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea.

Michael Ledeen, one of the current leaders of the neoconservative movement, wrote in his book, The War Against the Terror Masters, “Creative destruction…both within our own society and abroad…(foreigners) seeing America undo traditional societies may fear us, for they do not wish to be undone.” He concludes: “They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.”

George Orwell’s world of perpetual war.

Perhaps it is time for Liberal Democrats and Libertarian Republicans to form an alliance of expediancy to stop this threat.

Regardless of it's origin, it has become a smear word for leftists to throw at anyone they disagree with. It is a word to counter the slur that "liberal" has become. It is tossed around here at anyone who posts anything even hinting at conservatism.


Liberal and conservative are equally regarded as smear words, it just depends on who you are talking to. Talk to anyone who fancies themselves to be a "conservative", and if you disagree with anything they say, they will disdainfully label you as a "liberal". On the other hand, the same goes for the self-named "liberals" of this nation.

Indeed, this point is the main topic of this thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=373134) dealing with the misinformation, misunderstanding, and outright fallacies promoted by the 1 dimensional scale of politics we as a nation cling to that requires everyone to be a liberal or a conservative, with compromising "moderates" somewhere inbetween.

I personally don't believe politics to be anywhere near so one dimensional. As a result, you have people who consider themselves "conservatives" wholeheartedly supporting politicians that are more radical and liberal than anyone the Democratic party has thrown at us in ages, simply in different ways than traditionally 'liberal' ideologies.

Of course liberals and conservative get heated in their discussions and sometimes cross the line of civility. That is normal and as it should be - passionate ideological debate is the life blood of democracy. The opposite of liberal is not conservative and the opposite of conservative is not liberal. The opposite of both is apathy.

However, this thread points out that this new ideology, "neo-conservativism," is not only antithetical to traditional American political values, be they liberal or conservative, but is also a grave danger to the United States and the world.

On this point liberals and libertarian conservatives can agree.

As an old-school conservative with libertarian leanings, I can honestly say the neocons scare the piss out of me.

These people demand an empire, despite the fact that all empires -- Roman, British, Galactic -- collapse fitfully. Empire is like a cancer that grows uncontrollably until its host can no longer sustain it and dies.

They are willing to sacrifice America and all she stands for to defend other countries, each with their own agendas and several with interests opposed to ours.

Their fundamental misunderstanding of "terrorism" and Islamic culture has created more chaos than usual in the Middle East and may well put all of Western civilization in danger.

And they're as fiscally responsible as a Keynesian on crack cocaine.

When will the Republicans wake up and realize that these people are not our friends? :( Please, I call on the liberals of America to help me explain to my fellow right wingers why neocons are a threat to just about everything. (Though you may need to talk slowly and use small words. ;) )

thank you. they scare the piss out of me too. on the other hand i'm a liberal so that doesn't mean much. Conservateives are fiscally responsible. (yeah Reagan stood for it too, but thought other stuff was more important but lets not get into that.)neocons do not. Empires never fare well, they always get more and more powerful and then bang you lose one country, another, another and then the whole worlds up against you. unless you nuke em, (you forgot another empire, Soviet) The idea doesn't work. Aother thing that scares me is teaching Creationism in school. Come on, i'm a Christian, but not everyone is. Eveloution is a scientific idea, but Creationism is a religious one. Ever heard of seperation of church and state? O many religious normal conservatives want this too. Also people for those people who don't know:Saddam Hussien was not in on 9/11, Insurgents do not equal terrorists (they are freedom fighters there's a diffrence), and yes the war in Iraq was lied about, and we went there to serve only American intrests not anyone elses. (why not just say we want the oil, take itand leave, sure it's bad, but less people die that way. One final thing, WHO CAME UP WITH THE IDEA OF BLOWING UP FALLUJAH?!?!?!? COME ON DESTRROYING A MAJOR CITY WILL NOT GET US LOVE! FOR EVERY :mp5: WE DESTROY, THERE ARE PROBABLY :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: MORE.

My pissed off liberal rant is over thank you
We now return you to your regularly schelduled thread.

Neoconservatives don't really sound all that bad. Just a group that is for American hegemony. Is that really all that bad of a thing?

Perhaps not, if people in power actually held the principles they claim to (but because of the way institutions must look out for themselves before their principles or risk losing the ability to fight for those principles, people in power will never hold the principles they claim to).
A quote from the New American Century:

"• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;"

If they actually believed these things, they would lobby for the following:
-Sever diplomatic ties with China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Turkey, and some members of the CIS. All of these states are extremely undemocratic--several are torture regimes--and therefore are hostile to our values.
-Immediately get on as positive terms as possible with France, Germany, and many of the other countries we have alienated which are strongly democratic.
-Lobby for the abolition of sweatshops as they are counter to the economic freedom and viability of the population of the countries in which they exist.
-Come out against the WTO, a body whose unelected board has the power to change countries' constitutions to fit the WTO's member companies' wishes. WTO policy has led to a drastic rise in infant mortality rates throughout countries which they have influenced, and WTO companies like Becthel are famous for business practices like monopolizing water supplies and then shooting the prices up.

Yet the neocon movement does not do any of these things. Therefore I cannot support them because their actions conflict with their stated values.

Incidentally, signatures to the New American Century mission statement include Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, Steve Forbes, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Any of these names sound familiar?