Neo-cons?

[Talbaz]

Can one tell me what a neo-con really is cause i hear that there not really such new converstives and sense alot of the higher up are neo-con i such wanna know

[RZZZA]

My definition of neo con is literally "new conservatives", the new crop of faux conservatives who have hijacked the right, jumped in bed with christian fundamentalists and sacrificed traditional conservative ideals, such as keping govt. out of business/personal lives and being more fiscally responsible than the tax and spend democrats. The "new republicans" in power now do none of these things, which is why they are referred to as neo cons.

Thats the way I see it anyway.

[Visna]

Can one tell me what a neo-con really is cause i hear that there not really such new converstives and sense alot of the higher up are neo-con i such wanna know

NeoCon, like so many other political ideas has changed over time. To my knowledge it began in the 60's where it stood for opposition to the Soviets, a welfare state (not necessarily in the form it had back then), equality for blacks and a general unwillingness to compromise on principles, both in domestic and international policy.
Now it's my understanding that it's much more focused on foreign policy. That is, an agressive approach to foreign policy, free trade, support for Isreal, and no support for states that are believed to be involved in terrorism, for instance.
The current administration in the US is heavily influenced by NeoCons, most notably the folks in the PNAC (Project for the New American Century) and the AEI (American Enterprise Institute).

Anyway, here are a couple of websites. Read and form your own ideas.
Wiki on Neoconservatism
Project for the New American Century
American Enterprise Institute

Or, you could PM Oldgamer. He is, by his own admission, a "Nice Neocon". Didn't think the two could be connected, but he is nice...

[RZZZA]

So I'm completely wrong? Neo Con isnt a derogatory term? Coulda sworn the term represented everything wrong with american government today...

[Talbaz]

yes i readed all of those love the second one alot
espically the one with the new peral harbor referance need to help get people wanting more military
how about this one
yes it a anti bush site but it is one view
Neo-cons


Edit: yes it is us out of contacts because people don't know what it really stands for and sadly we elected a bunch of the crazys

[Last Roman]

neoconservatism is a political ideology, started in the 1960s, also called classical liberalism, which emphasises an aggressive foreign policy and are generally more socially liberal (according to the official definition anyways). So really, they are in no way like to traditional American conservatives, which prefer small government and a more isolationist approach to foreign policy.

[Evariste]

neoconservatism is a political ideology, started in the 1960s, also called classical liberalism, which emphasises an aggressive foreign policy and are generally more socially liberal (according to the official definition anyways). So really, they are in no way like to traditional American conservatives, which prefer small government and a more isolationist approach to foreign policy.

You're a fantastic man (brother? ) LR, but that's actually fairly inaccurate, and I know of quite a few classical liberalists that would take issue with this!

Classical liberalism is, at its base, a political philosophy espousing an overall limited government, especially regarding the economy. It was a rejection of previous beliefs that a person was subject to a monarch or noble, and instead was imbued with natural rights that the government protects (or takes away.)

Wikipedia can explain it far better than I.

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy that supports individual rights as pre-existing the state, a government that exists to protect those moral rights, ensured by a constitution that protects individual autonomy from other individuals and governmental power, private property, and a laissez-faire economic policy. The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that in an environment of laissez-faire, a spontaneous order of cooperation in exchanging goods and services emerges that satisfies human wants. It is a blend of political liberalism and economic liberalism which is derived from Enlightenment thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith, Voltaire, John Stuart Mill, and Immanuel Kant.

Today, Libertarianism is largely seen as the modern interpretation of classical liberal ideals, not neoconservatism.

[Classical liberalism] as revived in the 20th century by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.[2] This contemporary restatement of classical liberalism is usually called "libertarianism."

Here's the introduction paragraph to Wikipedia's libertarianism article.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others. Libertarians hold as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation (or threat) of physical force against another person or his property, or the commission of fraud, is a violation of that principle. Some libertarians regard all initiation of force as immoral, whereas others support a limited government that engages in the minimum amount of initiatory force (such as minimal taxation and regulation) that they believe necessary to ensure maximum individual freedom. Force is not opposed when used in retaliation for initiatory aggressions such as trespassing or violence. Libertarians favor an ethic of self-responsibility and strongly oppose the welfare state, because they believe forcing someone to provide aid to others is ethically wrong, ultimately counter-productive, or both.

Note on terminology: Some writers who have been called libertarians have also been referred to as classical liberals, by others or themselves. And, some use the phrase "the freedom philosophy" to refer to libertarianism, classical liberalism, or both.

As you can see, they very much overlap.

Neoconservatism on the other hand was born out of a fusion of socialism and a philosophy of aggressive and constant foreign intervention. Consider these paragraphs:

Historically, neoconservatives supported a militant anticommunism, tolerated more social welfare spending than was sometimes acceptable to libertarians and mainstream conservatives, supported civil equality for blacks and other minorities, and sympathized with a non-traditional foreign policy agenda that was less deferential to traditional conceptions of diplomacy and international law and less inclined to compromise principles even if that meant unilateral action.

Indeed, domestic policy does not define neoconservatism — it is a movement founded on, and perpetuated by an aggressive approach to foreign policy, free trade, opposition to communism during the Cold War, support for Israel and Taiwan and opposition to Middle Eastern and other states that are perceived to support terrorism. [citation needed]

Believing that America should "export democracy," that is, spread its ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad, they grew to reject U.S. reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish these objectives. Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives may be characterized by an idealist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and a much weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, and, in the past, a greater acceptance of the welfare state, though none of these qualities are necessarily requisite.

Now, consider Wikipedia's article on Libertarian perspectives of foreign policy:

Broadly speaking, while all libertarians are suspicious of a national government intervening in the internal affairs of other nations, some hold that such intervention can never be justified — that war expands government and its encroachments on the lives, liberty and property of both domestic citizens and foreign peoples — while others consider that the world is now so interconnected that especially bad conditions in another nation will eventually impact at home, thus making intervention necessary (on rare occasions) to the national government's role in national defense.

So as you can see, there are several fundamental differences between libertarians/classical liberals and neoconservatives. To sum it up: libertarians put maximum importance on a limited government, while Neoconservatives don't mind the expansion of the government in domestic affairs as they do spreading democracy to other countries.

For some great reading on these political ideologies, check out (what else) Wikipedia. The articles on there are a great primer for almost any ideology that you could ever want to know more about!

Classical Liberalism - http://=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...cal_liberalism
Libertarianism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
Neoconservatism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-conservatism

[Last Roman]

You're a fantastic man (brother? ) LR, but that's actually fairly inaccurate, and I know of quite a few classical liberalists that would take issue with this!

You are correct. I meant neo-liberalism. Or rather, neo-liberalism is the economic ideal that neo-conservatives follow, advocating government deregulation and privatization, ironically, this is the same economic ideal that traditional conservatives want!

[Aristophanes]

neoconservatism is a political ideology, started in the 1960s, also called classical liberalism, which emphasises an aggressive foreign policy and are generally more socially liberal (according to the official definition anyways). So really, they are in no way like to traditional American conservatives, which prefer small government and a more isolationist approach to foreign policy.

I have to disagree: classical liberalism is in no way analogous to neo-conservatism.

It is a blend of political liberalism and economic liberalism which is derived from Enlightenment thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith, Voltaire, John Stuart Mill, and Immanuel Kant.

As is noted on wiki, our contemporaries who hold views similar to classical liberals are generally described as 'libertarian'.

[Last Roman]

I have to disagree: classical liberalism is in no way analogous to neo-conservatism. As is noted on wiki, our contemporaries who hold views similar to classical liberals are generally described as 'libertarian'.

I corrected myself:

You are correct. I meant neo-liberalism. Or rather, neo-liberalism is the economic ideal that neo-conservatives follow, advocating government deregulation and privatization, ironically, this is the same economic ideal that traditional conservatives want!

[Oldgamer]

neoconservatism is a political ideology, started in the 1960s, also called classical liberalism, which emphasises an aggressive foreign policy and are generally more socially liberal (according to the official definition anyways). So really, they are in no way like to traditional American conservatives, which prefer small government and a more isolationist approach to foreign policy.

I became a conservative when my father took me to the 1964 GOP Convention (I was 15, at the time). The words of presidential nominee Barry Goldwater stirred me considerably. Prior to that time, I was a conservative because my parents were conservative. After AuH2O, I was a conservative in fact.

Every person who identifies himself as a neoconservative, that I know personally, is also a conservative. It is possible to be a conservative without being a neoconservative (witness Patrick Buchanan), but it is not possible to be a neoconservative without being a conservative. And note that I've been part of the neoconservative movement since its inception, and know some of its leading lights (some of them would call me a "leading light", I suppose, but I don't consider myself in their category).

There is a small difference between some of us, as regards certain social issues, such as abortion (I, for one, take the pro-life side of the equation). Once again, though, I've never known a neoconservative who wasn't a fiscal conservative, and most of them take the conservative view on social issues.

As simply stated as possible, a neoconservative is someone who believes in a strong foreign and military policy, seeing in the United States' current supremacy in the world as a superpower an opportunity. We did not seek the War on Terror, and we see it as a necessary diversion from our real goals, which are to bring about global security and spread democracy.

Interestingly enough, America's new isolationists are a mixture of traditional American conservatives and the American Left. The Left is committed to isolationism, preferring to put America's foreign policy and its military at the disposal of the United Nations. In a practical sense, however, the American Left ... when in power ... tends to vacillate in the use of American power (both military and diplomatic), because their real interest lies in domestic and environmental policy.

Concerning small government, we want the government to be a small as possible, consistent with our overall goals. But having small government should not be the goal, in and of itself. When "traditional conservatives" talk about small government, what they mean is a reduction in the size of the Federal bureaucracy, and severely limiting its intrusiveness in the average American's day-to-day lives, to include lowering Federal taxation and curbing the power of organizations such as the IRS and the EPA.

I do agree with you that modern conservatism (to include neoconservatism) is heavily based upon classical liberalism, meaning the Enlightenment. American liberalism once was also based upon classical liberalism, but this changed in 1972 with the takeover of the Democratic Party by the Socialist/Marxist wing thereof. However, I think that these people are less influenced by Marxism than they are by 19th Century German philosophy, especially that of Nietszche (but that's another thread!!).

[Erik]

I beleive Last Romans defenition is correct.

But I was wondering: do the "neo cons" call themselves neo-conservatives? or is it just a lable that is placed on them by others?

[Last Roman]

But I was wondering: do the "neo cons" call themselves neo-conservatives? or is it just a lable that is placed on them by others?

Some do, like Oldgamer, who proudly admits that he is a neocon. Others just tote around the Republican name, not really knowing if they are a neocon or traditional conservative (more and more republicans are becoming the former, which scares me)

[Rhah]

Neo-Cons are basically pure evil, incarnate in the form of men.
Rumour has it that they drink the blood of children, and that they especially have a taste for Arab children, which is why they have forced the Good 'ole US of A into invading Iraq. Once Iraq is properly under US control, they will be assured of a fresh supply of young arab blood.

This is a fact.

[Miraj]

Neo-Cons are basically pure evil, incarnate in the form of men.
Rumour has it that they drink the blood of children, and that they especially have a taste for Arab children, which is why they have forced the Good 'ole US of A into invading Iraq. Once Iraq is properly under US control, they will be assured of a fresh supply of young arab blood.

This is a fact.

I believe this to be true also.



I am not joking.

[Erik]

I believe this to be true also.



I am not joking.

Well, I don't think they are necessary evil.
But their economic ideal seems to be exactly the same as that of Mussolini's, so in that regard they are evil fascists.

[Major.Stupidity]

If you want a better understanding of what Neo- Conservatism is, may I suggest reading The Assassin's Gate by George Packer. It’s quite the introductory history of neo conservatism and how its founders have gained power the way they have. It’s a great book!

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Neo-Con is a label that the libs like to use about any conservative they are in disagreement. Much like the Conservatives like to label all libs as....libs. It makes it so much easier to hate the opposition if you label them this way.

[Last Roman]

Neo-Con is a label that the libs like to use about any conservative they are in disagreement. Much like the Conservatives like to label all libs as....libs. It makes it so much easier to hate the opposition if you label them this way.

no, it's a real thing, even hardcore Republicans like Oldgamer admit there is a difference

But their economic ideal seems to be exactly the same as that of Mussolini's, so in that regard they are evil fascists.

actually, they want the total opposite (though their views on Labor Unions is probably similar) but neoconservatives strive for a deregulated market, not the "corportism" of the Fascists.

[Erik]

actually, they want the total opposite (though their views on Labor Unions is probably similar) but neoconservatives strive for a deregulated market, not the "corportism" of the Fascists.

A deregulated market is also part of corporatism.
Especially when the deregulation allows corporations to bundle their strength with politicians.

Anti-trust laws are also loathed by both the neo-cons and Mussolini, and that makes them very different from European style Liberalism.

Oh it's not true? keep reading the thread. I specificaly say that there ARE neo-cons, but again some token Liberals like to lambast anyone on the right as a Neo-con.

Yeah, if I got a penny for every time a liberal labled somebody a neo-con on this forum I would own two pennies now....