NationStates Jolt Archive

People talk about Neoconservativism like the Republican Party has changed it's stripes a bunch. In reality, it hasn't changed all that much. What has changed is the conditions that it has to deal with. Neocons still stand for small government, but the problem is that people have gotten accustomed to the large Federal programs, and they realize that trying to dismantle them right now would be political suicide.

The idea of controlling morality has been there since the Civil War. It was a moral issue to do away with slavery. Later one, it was a pre-condition on Utah that it had to ban polygamy before it could become a state. However, until recent history (70's), the people seemed to police themselves on morality, so there was no need for the government to step in.

The Republicans have suuported business for nearly as long as they have been a party. It was a Republican Congress who passed the land grants to the railroads which got the Transcontinental Railroad built.

About the only change has been in foreign policy, as the conservatives have traditionally been isolationist, however that began to change after World War 2.

then why does it have that 'neo' on front of it?

then why does it have that 'neo' on front of it?

Because somebody decided to label it after the Reagan-era resurgence.

then why does it have that 'neo' on front of it?Why does neoliberalism has a neo- in front of it ?
The "neo" does not stand for "new", but more for a "new era of"

Conservatism and capitalism (called "liberalism" in Europe, which stand for "free market") both have faded due to socialism and centralization, but the basic ideas are being revisited now some groups (neolibs, neocons) gains ground again as the public doesn't always believe in the liberalisation of ethics (in the US) or the socialist welfare programms (in Europe)

then why does it have that 'neo' on front of it?

To slander those with the affiliation and to draw a line between "true" conservatives and this branch of conservatism.

oh...

oh...

And for liberals we just use the word liberal or communist.

To slander those with the affiliation and to draw a line between "true" conservatives and this branch of conservatism.

My point being that there really is no distinction.

My point being that there really is no distinction.

Neoconservatives are typically more aggressive as you stated in foreign policy. BECAUSE of this (military), spending does go up where generally conservatives may be against high spending. Conservatives may also be more moderate on social issues, but there are different flavors of conservatism so to generalize is retarded on my behalf.

Neoconservatives are typically more aggressive as you stated in foreign policy. BECAUSE of this (military), spending does go up where generally conservatives may be against high spending. Conservatives may also be more moderate on social issues, but there are different flavors of conservatism so to generalize is retarded on my behalf.

True, but the foreign policy changes are still 50 years old. During the '50's, Eisenhower had to restrain his fellow Republicans who wanted to not oly resist Communism, but actually intervene to overthrow it. As for the social issues, there is also a spectrum to deal with, so we arent' covering everyone, but the general ideas still hold.

I would disagree on the small government point. (Neo)Conservatives have traditionally been in favor of putting federal funding in the military, as opposed to social programs and whatnot, which is primarily the domain of the liberals and Democrats. That still requires taxes, so to a degree, neocons aren't motivated purely by political realities in regards to government size.

Also, I would point out that the liberals and conservatives in America were both pro-business until the 20s and 30s, when the Democrats, in the wake of Progressivism - which merged with the Democrats - and the Depression, took a more populist approach to economics.

I would disagree on the small government point. (Neo)Conservatives have traditionally been in favor of putting federal funding in the military, as opposed to social programs and whatnot, which is primarily the domain of the liberals and Democrats. That still requires taxes, so to a degree, neocons aren't motivated purely by political realities in regards to government size.

Also, I would point out that the liberals and conservatives in America were both pro-business until the 20s and 30s, when the Democrats, in the wake of Progressivism - which merged with the Democrats - and the Depression, took a more populist approach to economics.

Both the Republicans and Democrats absorbed some of the Progressive ideas. Teddy Roosevelt (R) is generally viewed as the first Progressive President.

As for the military, that's part fo the foreign policy ideas. It might be noted that once the Cold War got started, both parties liked the idea of spending money on the military. It wasn't until Vietnam that the Democrats stopped pushing it.

You miss the point, however. Neoconservatism is a foreign policy philosophy. It is nothing else. In fact, one can be a flaming socialist and a neoconservative by definition. Woodrow Wilson, neoconservatism's first man in power, was by today's Ameriican standards a liberal.
The other thing to note is that neoconservatism is not wholly American. Its intellectual basis was developed in Britain well into the 20th century. The professor who helped developed it in the UK (forgot his name) is still alive, actually.

However, until recent history (70's), the people seemed to police themselves on morality, so there was no need for the government to step in.
What makes you think that the people don't still police themselves on morality? There is no need for the government to step in.

libs: take your money and spend it on hospitals and schools

cons: take your money and spend it on bombs and factories.



hmmm...

tough choice. :rolleyes:

In fact, one can be a flaming socialist and a neoconservative by definition. Woodrow Wilson, neoconservatism's first man in power, was by today's American standards a liberal.
I actually fail to see how one can be a neocon and not socialist in some way! Or at least statist! Woody Wilson wasn't the first neocon in power, socialist Teddy Roosevelt was.