NationStates Jolt Archive

"Neoconservative" is one of those terms that I hear a lot, don't understand, look up, and still don't understand. ("Sardonic" is another one.) My question: does anyone here consider themselves to be a neoconservative? What is a neoconservative?

:eek:

It basically means New Conservatism. Gone are the days where Conservatives are about small government and lower taxes. Now they're trying to be our moral guide and are trying to outspend the Democrats.

It basically means New Conservatism. Gone are the days where Conservatives are about small government and lower taxes. Now they're trying to be our moral guide and are trying to outspend the Democrats.
That's a great description. I don't know why anyone would want to be identified as a neoconservative.

When neoconservatism first arose, I think it could best have been describe as a sort of extreme conservative, with a commitment to small government and traditional morals (a sort of authoritarian "you will do what Jesus wants"). But the small government aspect has been abandoned, as former neoconservatives like Newt Gingrich now often try to point out.

I have no idea of the true definition of neo-conservitism. I shall dedicate some time to it's study later.

It basically means New Conservatism.

Thank you for that brilliant translation, Wilgrove. I never knew that "neo" meant "new." :p

Anyway, as to neoconservatism, looking it up should've been sufficient to find yourself a good definition. Wikipedia's even close to accurate in this case.

Of course, for practical purposes the term "neoconservative" is more or less a catch-all slur for a conservative you don't like (when used by a liberal, esp. online).

I have no idea of the true definition of neo-conservitism. I shall dedicate some time to it's study later.

Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States from the rejection of social liberalism and the New Left counterculture of the 1960s. It influenced the presidential administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush, representing a realignment in American politics, and the defection of some liberals to the right side of the political spectrum; hence the term, which refers to being 'new' conservatives. Neoconservatism emphasizes foreign policy as the paramount responsibility of government, seeing the American role of world's sole superpower as indispensable to establishing and maintaining global order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States from the rejection of social liberalism and the New Left counterculture of the 1960s. It influenced the presidential administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush, representing a realignment in American politics, and the defection of some liberals to the right side of the political spectrum; hence the term, which refers to being 'new' conservatives. Neoconservatism emphasizes foreign policy as the paramount responsibility of government, seeing the American role of world's sole superpower as indispensable to establishing and maintaining global order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
And after those people, I don't think anyone wants to identify themselfs with neo-con anymore ;)

Believe that we should follow the Bible as our law, blow up anyone who we dont like just cause we can, and screw the poor as hard as possible while giving tax cuts to ones corperate buddies.

no, but i'm often sardonic.

Believe that we should follow the Bible as our law, blow up anyone who we dont like just cause we can, and screw the poor as hard as possible while giving tax cuts to ones corperate buddies.

Neoconservatives are more likely to be secularists than mainstream conservatives. Instance #498493 of "neoconservative" used as a synonym for "kind of conservative I don't like."

Is there anyone who will admit to being a neocon these days?

Is there anyone who will admit to being a neocon these days?
Yea someone clicked yes, BURN TEH WITCH!!!
Neoconservatives are more likely to be secularists than mainstream conservatives. Instance #498493 of "neoconservative" used as a synonym for "kind of conservative I don't like."
I thought both Bushes and Reagan felt under that religious description? The current Bush sure as héll is.

Neoconservatives are more likely to be secularists than mainstream conservatives. Instance #498493 of "neoconservative" used as a synonym for "kind of conservative I don't like."

No. Theyre not. Unless you have some proof to back that up.


Considering, you know, that all the neocons lately havent been secular. At all.

As a conservative myself, I hate the neocons with a passion. Bush is a neoconservative, and McCain is worse of one. Neocons are big on their overseas adventures and claim Republicanism while expressing big government, corporate rule. They're just liberals in disguise.

No. Theyre not. Unless you have some proof to back that up.

A large number of them are Jews... who generally don't tend towards Christian fundamentalism. Several others are Catholic.

The evangelical Protestant movements that actively aim to suffuse our politics with right-wing religion are a separate grouping.

I thought both Bushes and Reagan felt under that religious description? The current Bush sure as héll is.

Reagan's anti-communism had a neoconservative hue, no doubt. The point was that neoconservatism isn't about religion - at all. That isn't to say that neoconservatives can't incidentally be religious. The current Bush wasn't at all neoconservative when he was running in 2000, if you recall the debates. Whether his ideology in terms of foreign policy changed after 9/11 or whether he simply wrapped his more aggressive policies in neoconservative philosophy is hard to say.

To a Green like me, the only good thing about the NeoCons is that they proved that a radical minority can take over the US Government without a violent revolution. Unfortunately, they were able to do it because they had a huge pile of stinking money and absolutely no scruples. Us Greens are stuck with the opposite situation: huge pile of stinking scruples & absolutely no money.

The term "neoconservative" has gotten to the same level as "liberal" in America. It's used as an insult, and both terms have been taken fairly far from their original definitions.

Basically, neo-conservatism asserts that the US needs to police the world and spread democracy, and that people should only have their property "on the condition that they put it to certain defined uses" (according to Irving Kristol.) Basically, it's the warfare wing of the welfare-warfare machine.

A large number of them are Jews... who generally don't tend towards Christian fundamentalism. Several others are Catholic.

The evangelical Protestant movements that actively aim to suffuse our politics with right-wing religion are a separate grouping.

Really? Catholics arent ever religious fundimentals? And while jews may not be as crazy, theyre still anti-gay and such because gawd says so.

"Neoconservative" is one of those terms that I hear a lot, don't understand, look up, and still don't understand. ("Sardonic" is another one.) My question: does anyone here consider themselves to be a neoconservative? What is a neoconservative?

I used to be a die-hard neocon a long time ago before my political ideology completely flip flopped. A neocon is essentially an American nationalist of sorts. They believe very strongly in traditional family values, the importance of Christianity, a very libertarian, pro-corporate economic environment, a rather restrictive social environment (think 1950s America). In terms of foreign policy, they are very much realpolitikers and favor a very strong military, applied very liberally to countries that don't agree with them. They are very much grounded in a traditional, idealized outlook on the US and are the closest thing we have to fascists over here (not intended as a jab, but it is true)

Yes, I believe in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Really? Catholics arent ever religious fundimentals?

Of course they can be, but they're not part of the evangelical political movement that is responsible for much the right-wing social agenda coming from the Republican Party.

And religious Catholics, unlike the neocons, might actually pay attention when the Pope condemns the wars they support.

And while jews may not be as crazy, theyre still anti-gay and such because gawd says so.

Some, yes. In far smaller proportions than Christians. And wouldn't it be strange for them to ally with a political movement that openly insists that they be converted or endure eternal damnation?

I used to be a die-hard neocon a long time ago before my political ideology completely flip flopped. A neocon is essentially an American nationalist of sorts. They believe very strongly in traditional family values, the importance of Christianity, a very libertarian, pro-corporate economic environment, a rather restrictive social environment (think 1950s America). In terms of foreign policy, they are very much realpolitikers and favor a very strong military, applied very liberally to countries that don't agree with them. They are very much grounded in a traditional, idealized outlook on the US and are the closest thing we have to fascists over here (not intended as a jab, but it is true)

I wouldn't call neoconservatives nationalists, for clarity's sake, in that they differ with your typical "nationalist" in opposing immigration restrictions and protectionism. It's also important to remember that religion is seen as a social force by the neoconservative elite, above anything. If you recall Kristol on religion:

Whether you believe or not is not the issue -- that's between you and God -- whether you are a member of a community that holds certain truths sacred, that is the issue." Neoconservatives are "pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers."


Big difference between neoconservatism and Christian conservatism.

And while jews may not be as crazy, theyre still anti-gay and such because gawd says so.

Way to overgeneralize.

Way to overgeneralize.

Liberals don't 'overgeneralize'. They fight tradition, free the enslaved, empower the powerless, stick it to the man, love the haters, give money to all, and are opposed only by those who hate human rights.

Really? Catholics arent ever religious fundimentals? And while jews may not be as crazy, theyre still anti-gay and such because gawd says so.

Must be why they vote Democrat, huh? :p (You did know that, right?)

I used to be a die-hard neocon a long time ago before my political ideology completely flip flopped. A neocon is essentially an American nationalist of sorts. They believe very strongly in traditional family values, the importance of Christianity, a very libertarian, pro-corporate economic environment, a rather restrictive social environment (think 1950s America). In terms of foreign policy, they are very much realpolitikers and favor a very strong military, applied very liberally to countries that don't agree with them. They are very much grounded in a traditional, idealized outlook on the US and are the closest thing we have to fascists over here (not intended as a jab, but it is true)


I don't think you can equate libertarian economic policy with Neoconservative
policy. NeoConservative policy is much more akin to Mussolini's corporatism then laissez-faire economics that libertarians support. Even if we (intellectually) remove regulation from the picture, present economic policy is very far from free market.

Must be why they vote Democrat, huh? :p (You did know that, right?)

That is because they know the only way to actually conserve and hoard their money in this messed up nation is to vote for the Democrats.

Must be why they vote Democrat, huh? :p (You did know that, right?)

Very sneaky, those Jews.

Neo conservatives. are a group of people that used to side with the liberal side of the spectrum despite being against social welfare they favor goverment non interference in personal affairs such as marriage. Foreign policy wise they favor intervention to non intervention as they see the us as the one world power that can stabilize the world.
Bush Jr Bus Sr are not examples of Neo conservatives.
the best example of a neo conservative would be Ronald Reagen.

Neo conservatives. are a group of people that used to side with the liberal side of the spectrum despite being against social welfare they favor goverment non interference in personal affairs such as marriage.

Wow. You just said Neocons dont want to interfer in personal affairs like marriage. You got that totally wrong.

"Neoconservative" is one of those terms that I hear a lot, don't understand, look up, and still don't understand. ("Sardonic" is another one.) My question: does anyone here consider themselves to be a neoconservative? What is a neoconservative?

It's a buzz word that means a "leftist" republican, I think.

It's a buzz word that means a "leftist" republican, I think.

Other way around.

Other way around.

A "right-wing" democrat?

Other way around.

Eh. Three pages in, you might've realized by now that they're neither left nor right, but rather "progressive" on some issues and conservative on others.

Wow. You just said Neocons dont want to interfer in personal affairs like marriage. You got that totally wrong.

you have the wrong Idea of a Neo con.
Neo cons are the more left leaning branch of the republican party.
the democrats used the term as an insult for those they perceived as traitors to the liberal democratic view point. Tracing its origins back to the 70's.

Now the term is over used with liberals calling almost all conservatives that get elected NEO cons and conservatives adopting the term because it makes them sound less like dinosaurs.

Neoconservatism as I understand it, compared with "regular" conservatism, tends to emphasize interventionist foreign policy, perceived improvements in national security, and largely pro-business economic policy, while somewhat deemphasizing free trade and moralistic social policy.

Read Fukuyama's "The End of History". It's like the neoconservative bible.

It's about how, with the end of the Soviet Union, liberal democratic capitalism has won out as the correct system, and that all future conflicts will take place within its framework.

That's the academia, in practice neocons see the lack of worldwide liberal democratic capitalism and want to accelerate the natural push towards it. The reason Rumsfeld and company expected democracy and freedom to just happen in Iraq after Saddam was overthrown was essentially neoconservative ideology - the idea that they're the natural state and dictatorships can be removed, returning things back to balance.

Neocons also usually talk about ending human rights violations in countries like Iraq, Serbia and, these days, Darfur by military force because the violence in these places is an external influence on the lives of people. Remove the influence and everything will be fine - and doing so is the right thing to do and will yield positive consequences. Some people simplify it down to "Trotskyism", except with liberal democracies rather than Soviet Republics the outcome. That's why the current French foreign minister, who is hardly a Christian fundie or even a particular fan of Bush, is sometimes counted as a neocon. And that's why neocons are "American nationalists" - they see the US as the most true and powerful example of a liberal, capitalist democracy and its military therefore as the best tool to right the wrongs of the world without itself seeking to impose new injustices. That conviction comes from the nature and philosophical nature of the US government, rather than any particularly irrational attachments to a bit of land. Given that many real neocons were initially lefties, their commitment to the US was certainly a more conscious decision than the one you'd see from people like John McCain or even George W. Bush (who I wouldn't count as neocons).

The thing is, plenty of people are neocons on some level. I certainly see the appeal, and it's hard not to see the merits (given that it is based on liberal and humanist ideals). It's just that few people know the definition or the ideology, and even fewer would confidently call themselves "neoconservative". Even Fukuyama himself said he gave up the term after what happened in Iraq.

Of course, that's my take. There is another one which goes back to Leo Strauss. And he wasn't necessarily a huge fan of democracy, in that he was more looking towards Plato's Republic and the need for the leadership of a country to uphold certain myths and give direction. Some people take the way the neocons have led the US into Iraq as a proof that that is what it's about, but to be honest, I don't actually think Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and company were that cynical about it. I don't think they acknowledged the possibility that there was no link between Saddam and AQ or WMDs, so when they peddled that line even with a lack of evidence I don't think they knowingly lied. They just asserted something they held to be true without support for it.

Some people might consider me neoconservative, but I'm pretty liberal on social/civil rights issues so I guess I could be neolibertarian...

Some people might consider me neoconservative, but I'm pretty liberal on social/civil rights issues so I guess I could be neolibertarian...

Although I am opposed to subsidies and business handouts...

*snip*
Wow, thank you. This is the best description I've heard yet, here or in real life. (Assuming what you say is true. If it's not, this is the worst description I've heard.)

I believe that I am a neoconservative but I am not 100% sure that I understand the meaning of the word. I never learned about neoconservatism when I was a political science student in college. I graduated in 2000.

It is my understanding that neocons believe in human rights and are strong advocates for using any means necessary to promote human rights internationally.

This strain of conservatism is different from libertarians who also recognize human rights but do not support the use of military force for anything other than defense of the homeland.

I support any military activity that liberates people whose government imprisons, tortures, or kills anyone based on their religious or political beliefs. I believe that we should not do any business with governments that act that way.

I do not think that UN support is necessary to approve such military actions. After all, China has an awful human rights record and they have a permanent seat on the security council. I think one aspect of neoconservatism is the idea that if the UN is not going to get the job done, individual nations have the right to conduct military operations to liberate the oppressed with or without any consent from the UN.

If anybody can give me a better definition of neoconservatism I would appreciate it.

"Neoconservative" is one of those terms that I hear a lot, don't understand, look up, and still don't understand. ("Sardonic" is another one.) My question: does anyone here consider themselves to be a neoconservative? What is a neoconservative?

There is no set definition of a neo-conservative; Irving Kristol himself described neo-conservatism as more of a persuasion than a doctrine. Moreover, there's been significant shifts in neo-conservative thinking depending upon the generation we're talking about. First generation neo-cons like Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, and Jeanne Kirkpatrick were more than anything stringent anti-communists. Second generation neo-cons like Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol expanded the scope of neoconservatism once the Cold War was over to more of an expansion of democracy mindset (there's something that's sometimes described as third-generation neo-cons, but they as a group have never even approached a cogent set of beliefs). It's been a while since I worked on this (my final paper for my master's class seminar on foreign policy centered around defining neo-conservatism and defining a set of conditions wherein we could confidently blame "neo-conservatism" for the problems in Iraq rather than some other doctrine), but if I recall correctly, Irving Kristol laid out three basic premises of the neo-conservative persuasion:

1) Anti-Communism/Pro-Democracy: As noted above, this shifts depending upon which generation you're talking about. Early neo-cons were the most rabid anti-communists around, originating from the days of Henry "Scoop" Jackson in the Democratic party. This group disaffected from the party when the party instead nominated McGovern and then Carter, and aligned themselves, somewhat tenuously, with the more militant wings of the Republican party. Once communism fell, however, second-generation neo-cons took over and quickly began arguing for rapid expansion of global capitalism and democracy under American aegis. In contrast to the earlier poster who stated that Fukuyama's The End of History was the neo-con Bible of this period, I'd state instead that it was Krauthammer's The Unipolar Moment, in which Krauthammer envisioned the United States as a benevolent Roman Republic leading a kind of globalized confederation of democratic capitalist states. Conflated in with the rest of their writings, they prefer capitalism strongly, but they do so with none of the consistency or ideological purity demonstrated by libertarians or by liberals. Instead, they in practice prefer a kind of corporatism whereby government hands off the money necessary to succeed, but beyond that stays out of a corporation's way. Many people see this (rightly, in my estimation) as a desire to have it both ways on economic policy: they like corporations, they don't like negative externalities that corporations sometimes produce, they don't like regulations aimed at preventing externalities in the first place, and they don't particularly care to square their intellectual circles.

2) Primacy of American hegemony: This partly fits in with the above point, but they are uniformly adamant about the United States's role as perpetual hegemon, because of the United States's unique combination of virtue and strength. To paraphrase Krauthammer, the United States is powerful enough to dominate the rest of the world, and virtuous enough to do so without either earning the legitemate ire of the rest of the world. The flip side to this, however, is that we must be eternally vigilant about maintaining American hegemony, those who criticize us are usually seen as agents attempting to undermine this hegemony, and since we are virtuous, those undermining our control cannot be.

3) Emphasis on conservative, especially religious, values: Irving Kristol attributes this belief to de Tocqueville, which is true if in highly bastardized form and with a lot of unspoken Gramscian undertones. But his point was that many of our religious values, especially conservative ones, were ones that worked hand in glove with values that were conducive to supporting democracy, opposing communism, and belief in American exceptionalism. As such (and it should be noted that this is far more prominent an emphasis in first generation rather than second generation, although one could hear echoes of it in William Kristol's declaration that a liberal like Obama could not have legitemate religious faith), religion as a system should be promoted in order to further our cultural acceptance of the kinds of beliefs necessary to prevent lapses into more liberal (i.e. accomodational) or isolationist positions that might lead to the development of another hegemon or a bipolar/multipolar world system.

This could be a bit off, but I think this describes neoconservatism pretty well. It should be noted that, pace what an earlier poster noted, this goes squarely against pretty much any strain of realist thinking, although it finds some common ground with offensive realists. I also think the failings of the "persuasion" are patently obvious: they didn't bother to pay close enough attention to genuine liberal writers such as Locke, Kant, and de Tocqueville. Tocqueville's Democracy in America, had they bothered to really read it, would have pointed out just how impoverished their notion of civic institutions really was, with religion being just one of many that leads Americans to the general acceptance of social equality that makes democracy possible. Absent these civic institutions, you get democracies in exactly the same way Robespierre's France was a democracy, or democracy in name only. Incidentally, this describes modern Iraq pretty well.

Stupid Neocons...

Bush is a good example of a Neocon. Or Cheney.

Stupid Neocons...

Bush is a good example of a Neocon. Or Cheney.

no neither of them are. Before 9/11 Bush was anti interventionist, and Neo cons would rant about how he was reducing aid and support to Israel.
the reason he is so inept at intervention is he was not intending to be an interventionist president.

I'm really getting confused by this thread. A part is describing neo-cons in a way they would hate Bush, and another group is describing neo-cons as best buddies from Bush. It's totally, definatly, 100% impossible to éver discuss about neo-conservatism with this much dissagreement about the definition of "neo-conservatism".
Can we do something about it, is there any way we can reach a consensus so we cán discuss about it?

Read Fukuyama's "The End of History". It's like the neoconservative bible.
Ugh, my reading list comes back to haunt me... Although when I do get around to reading it, I'll likely end up with similar thoughts as those I have on Hobbsbawm, if my lecturer's summary is anything to go by.

It basically means New Conservatism. Gone are the days where Conservatives are about small government and lower taxes. Now they're trying to be our moral guide and are trying to outspend the Democrats.
Hang on. Since when were conservatives not trying to be our moral guide?

*snip*
Another good post. I'd give you and Neo Leonstein Smarties, as an indication of the respect I have for your post's intelligence/length (they get indistinguishable after a while.) As I am physically separated from all of you, please enjoy this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Smarties.jpg/800px-Smarties.jpg) drool-inducing picture of said confection.

this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Smarties.jpg/800px-Smarties.jpg).

No (http://student.dcu.ie/~copains/fr489_02/experiences/images/smarties.jpg).

No (http://student.dcu.ie/~copains/fr489_02/experiences/images/smarties.jpg).

But those are Skittles. I don't want to say the posters have lost their skittles, I want to say they're smart. I think it would confuse them.

i consider myself a traditional conservitive repiblican i want a smaller centeral government and lower taxes and stuff like abortion and gay rights and stuff like that should be left to the states to decide. states rights damn it

I'm really getting confused by this thread. A part is describing neo-cons in a way they would hate Bush, and another group is describing neo-cons as best buddies from Bush.
Start by reading Xenophobialand's post. It's the most correct one. Then have a look at my explanation and fix the gaps pointed out by him.

Then you should have some idea of what neocons want. And then you can answer for yourself where Bush fits into the picture...in reality he's the powerful support the neocons wanted to make their theory work. Clinton hadn't been as ready to accept their advances (and they did make them), but Bush was probably more religious, more ethnocentric and easier to...direct a certain way.

But that's changed these days as well. Back before Iraq, Powell was beaten into submission by neocons because Bush wouldn't listen to him. Now, with Bush's agenda in tatters, a seriously bad name being left in history and a lot of Americans getting killed, who has become the most influential person in the White House? Condi Rice, that's who. And she's more the multipolar, pragmatic, 'let's do diplomacy'-type.

Meh, I have to laugh at all the petty distinctions between 'neo' conservatives and ''true' conservatives and all that junk, I see them as no different as any common garden variety bourgeois pest due for immediate euthanasia.