What a Good Day to be a Conservative!

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Good thing scott brown won then, considering this Project Vote Smart - Senator-elect Scott P. Brown - Voting Record you can hardly call him a neo-con.

I can't call a Republican who supports big government a neocon? Then I must have my definition of neocon mixed up, because I believe the only conservative in that race was, ironically, named Kennedy.

He supports smaller government. The republicans that support bigger government are the ones we call progressives .

Neocons are progressives. And he doesn't support limited government. Sure he doesn't support ObamaCare, but he had no problem supporting RomneyCare. You can bet he'd support a Republican public option if it came up. He also supports our interventionist foreign policy around the world, which aids in the growth of the state exponentially, and supports torture.

Classic definition of a neocon.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I can't call a Republican who supports big government a neocon? Then I must have my definition of neocon mixed up, because I believe the only conservative in that race was, ironically, named Kennedy.

He supports smaller government. The republicans that support bigger government are the ones we call progressives .

Neocons are progressives. And he doesn't support limited government. Sure he doesn't support ObamaCare, but he had no problem supporting RomneyCare. You can bet he'd support a Republican public option if it came up. He also supports our interventionist foreign policy around the world, which aids in the growth of the state exponentially, and supports torture.

Classic definition of a neocon.

I disagree he does not fit the following descriptions of neo con

Historically, 30 years ago it meant a former liberal who became a conservative. The cliche was because "they were mugged by reality," but it was because they saw the empirical failures of liberal welfare, state and foreign policies, and they were therefore less ideological than other conservatives and brought much more of a social science background to their argumentation.

They were associated with Irving Kristol's journal, the Public Interest, that had a lot of social-science pieces poking empirical holes in liberal theory. These people were former liberals, former Democrats, and in some cases former communists, but gradually over 30 years they really merged into the conservative mainstream, and the difference was very difficult to tell.

In fact, one of the foremost neoconservatives, Norman Podhoretz, wrote an obituary for this distinction several years ago because it just seemed to no longer matter. We've seen the rise of it again, first of all, with John McCain's candidacy in 2000, where the segment of conservatives that supported Sen. McCain tended to have more neo-kind of tendencies and tended to sort of self-consciously describe themselves as "neoconservatives," foremost among them Bill Kristol and David Brooks.

Neoconservatives are less skeptical of government than other conservatives. They are less worried about reducing the size of government, less enthusiastic about tax cuts, more concerned about forging national crusades that can tap either the American public's patriotism or its desire for reform. You saw this in McCain with his campaign finance proposal and a little bit in his foreign policy.

And with the war on terror, you saw neoconservatives emerging as a distinct tendency within conservatism, mostly on foreign policy; its hallmarks being extreme interventionism, extremely idealistic foreign policy, and emphasis on democracy building and spreading human rights and freedom and an overestimation, in my view, of how easy it is to spread democracy and liberty to spots in the world where it doesn't exist currently.

They are mostly ex-liberals, by and large out of the intellectual community. These are people who came to the realization that modern liberalism was not the kind of liberalism that they had subscribed to. They are a fairly small group of people, both in and out of government. Those who are out of government are in either the media or academia. They are influential because they promote each other. They are very skilled at that.

I think of neoconservatism as having a very specific meaning related to history. That is, the neoconservatives were people who in the 1970s were former liberals, in some cases socialists, who moved right in reaction to the left's shift on cultural mores, personal responsibility and foreign policy. So I think the term "neoconservative" has that narrow meaning of that historical period. I think of them as the Podhoretzes and the Kristols and others. I don't think "neoconservative" means much anymore. I don't know what it means now or who they're referring to.

Oh gosh, that's not simple. Neoconservatives are persons who in domestic policy often were former Democrats who felt that conservatives had erred in not accepting the post-New Deal role of the central government. They were in their early incarnation focusing on domestic policy and were distinguishing themselves from Goldwater conservatives.

Also in domestic policies, however, as the '60s unfolded into the '70s and '80s, they led the critique of overreaching in domestic social engineering, saying that we accept the post-New Deal role of the central government, but the accumulated powers thereof are being wielded in a way too confident and optimistic and hubristic, if you will.

In foreign policy, and here's where it gets interesting, they have a more ambitious, more confident approach to the use of power than regular conservatives -- if you see the symmetry here? They say that America is a nation uniquely equipped as the sole remaining superpower to order the world and spread our values, etc., etc.

Who are they? The ones most commonly mentioned are Charles Krauthammer, Paul Wolfowitz, maybe Dick Cheney and his aide, Scooter Libby, Doug Feith in the Pentagon, Bill Kristol.

Calling scott brown a neo con seems like an innacurrate description to me.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's true that many neocons were former Democrats, and that makes sense considering the accepted definition of a neocon is a statist pretending to support limited government. Which describes Scott Brown perfectly.

 

[CurveLight]

I can't call a Republican who supports big government a neocon? Then I must have my definition of neocon mixed up, because I believe the only conservative in that race was, ironically, named Kennedy.

He supports smaller government. The republicans that support bigger government are the ones we call progressives .

Neocons are progressives. And he doesn't support limited government. Sure he doesn't support ObamaCare, but he had no problem supporting RomneyCare. You can bet he'd support a Republican public option if it came up. He also supports our interventionist foreign policy around the world, which aids in the growth of the state exponentially, and supports torture.

Classic definition of a neocon.

What is the source for saying neocons are progressive?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

He supports smaller government. The republicans that support bigger government are the ones we call progressives .

Neocons are progressives. And he doesn't support limited government. Sure he doesn't support ObamaCare, but he had no problem supporting RomneyCare. You can bet he'd support a Republican public option if it came up. He also supports our interventionist foreign policy around the world, which aids in the growth of the state exponentially, and supports torture.

Classic definition of a neocon.

What is the source for saying neocons are progressive?

Well you see both ideologies support growing the state to achieve their goals, and that's why they're both essentially the same. Now their goals may be different, but they use the same means to achieve those goals.

 

[oreo]

I woke up today and realize that their is still hope in America for freedom.

It is a FANTASTIC DAY. Mass. fired a shot yesterday that was heard all the way to Washinton D.C. & that message was--"we're mad as hell & we're not going to take it anymore."

Thank you citizens of MASS that voted for Scott Brown--congrats you did it!--

 

[CurveLight]

Neocons are progressives. And he doesn't support limited government. Sure he doesn't support ObamaCare, but he had no problem supporting RomneyCare. You can bet he'd support a Republican public option if it came up. He also supports our interventionist foreign policy around the world, which aids in the growth of the state exponentially, and supports torture.

Classic definition of a neocon.

What is the source for saying neocons are progressive?

Well you see both ideologies support growing the state to achieve their goals, and that's why they're both essentially the same. Now their goals may be different, but they use the same means to achieve those goals.

So.....does that mean you labeling them as progressives is your own flavor? Is that why a source wasn't cited?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What is the source for saying neocons are progressive?

Well you see both ideologies support growing the state to achieve their goals, and that's why they're both essentially the same. Now their goals may be different, but they use the same means to achieve those goals.

So.....does that mean you labeling them as progressives is your own flavor? Is that why a source wasn't cited?

Yes, that would be the conclusion that I've come to. I'm sure there is a source out there that agrees with me, but it wasn't necessary for me to be able to put two and two together on my own.

 

[CurveLight]

Well you see both ideologies support growing the state to achieve their goals, and that's why they're both essentially the same. Now their goals may be different, but they use the same means to achieve those goals.

So.....does that mean you labeling them as progressives is your own flavor? Is that why a source wasn't cited?

Yes, that would be the conclusion that I've come to. I'm sure there is a source out there that agrees with me, but it wasn't necessary for me to be able to put two and two together on my own.

I've read up on Neocons from Irving to Perle to Fukuyama and frankly, I'm stumped as to what 2+2 was put together. Here are a bank of ideas from Wiki and whatever domestic polices are held by some neocons are a moot point. They will swing whichever the majority vote wind is blowing because their ideas and impact on doubtless dominated by foreign policies. Their Colonial attempts are no more new than water is wet. So I'm curious which of their implemented policies qualify as Progressive? From Iraq we know it can't be Democracy and from the list below that is the closest I see.

Democracy
Freedom
Positive liberty
Women's suffrage
Economic progressivism
Economic interventionism
Fair trade
Mixed economy
Social justice
Labor rights
Civil liberties
Feminism
Women's rights
Social welfare
Social progressivism
Ethical conservation
Efficiency Movement
Techno-progressivism
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism?wasRedirected=true

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So.....does that mean you labeling them as progressives is your own flavor? Is that why a source wasn't cited?

Yes, that would be the conclusion that I've come to. I'm sure there is a source out there that agrees with me, but it wasn't necessary for me to be able to put two and two together on my own.

I've read up on Neocons from Irving to Perle to Fukuyama and frankly, I'm stumped as to what 2+2 was put together. Here are a bank of ideas from Wiki and whatever domestic polices are held by some neocons are a moot point. They will swing whichever the majority vote wind is blowing because their ideas and impact on doubtless dominated by foreign policies. Their Colonial attempts are no more new than water is wet. So I'm curious which of their implemented policies qualify as Progressive? From Iraq we know it can't be Democracy and from the list below that is the closest I see.

Democracy
Freedom
Positive liberty
Women's suffrage
Economic progressivism
Economic interventionism
Fair trade
Mixed economy
Social justice
Labor rights
Civil liberties
Feminism
Women's rights
Social welfare
Social progressivism
Ethical conservation
Efficiency Movement
Techno-progressivism
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism?wasRedirected=true

We're arguing semantics here. Neocons aren't technically progressives, at least rhetorically. That's why they have their own name. My point was that both ideologies support the growth of the state to support their goals. Though if you look at history, progressives never roll back the policies of neocons and neocons never roll back the policies of progressives. The welfare state increases under neocon leadership, and the warfare state increases under progressive leadership. So maybe there are more similarities than they'd like to admit.

 

[Sidestreamer]

I woke up today and realize that their is still hope in America for freedom.

Let's not forget how glad you are that Ted Kennedy died.

 

[beowolfe]

Ah, see some attempt to detract from Brown's conservatism by stating he is pro-choice.

Brown is fiscally conservative and socially moderate.

His stance is one of smaller government, lower taxes, and strong on defense. He also called for a repeal of the gay marriage law in Massachusetts and he supports enhanced interrogation of suspected terrorists.

In essence, Scott Brown is a JFK Democrat - something the Democrat Party sadly moved away from a number of years ago. A JFK Democrat of today is now a moderate conservative Republican!!

Perhaps the party will wise up, dump the too left Big Government liberalism of Reid and Pelosi (and Obama?) and align itself once again with the more moderate political middle that is most of America.

Same goes for the Republicans...

You would have thought that conservatives would have figured out the difference betwween conservatives and republicans after Dubya's debacle. But I see you still haven't. The people in charge of the GOP now are NOT conservatives. They don't believe in smaller/limited government, they don't believe in fiscal responsibility. How do I know? Because I remember the last administration when the GOP had all the reins of power. Did they reduce the size and/or scope of government? No. Did they put our fiscal house in order? No. Heck, they didn't even listen to the reactionaries. Did they outlaw abortion? No. Did they get rid of the IRS? No.

What makes anyone think that the GOP is going to do the bidding of conservatives?

 

[CurveLight]

Yes, that would be the conclusion that I've come to. I'm sure there is a source out there that agrees with me, but it wasn't necessary for me to be able to put two and two together on my own.

I've read up on Neocons from Irving to Perle to Fukuyama and frankly, I'm stumped as to what 2+2 was put together. Here are a bank of ideas from Wiki and whatever domestic polices are held by some neocons are a moot point. They will swing whichever the majority vote wind is blowing because their ideas and impact on doubtless dominated by foreign policies. Their Colonial attempts are no more new than water is wet. So I'm curious which of their implemented policies qualify as Progressive? From Iraq we know it can't be Democracy and from the list below that is the closest I see.

Democracy
Freedom
Positive liberty
Women's suffrage
Economic progressivism
Economic interventionism
Fair trade
Mixed economy
Social justice
Labor rights
Civil liberties
Feminism
Women's rights
Social welfare
Social progressivism
Ethical conservation
Efficiency Movement
Techno-progressivism
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism?wasRedirected=true

We're arguing semantics here. Neocons aren't technically progressives, at least rhetorically. That's why they have their own name. My point was that both ideologies support the growth of the state to support their goals. Though if you look at history, progressives never roll back the policies of neocons and neocons never roll back the policies of progressives. The welfare state increases under neocon leadership, and the warfare state increases under progressive leadership. So maybe there are more similarities than they'd like to admit.

Let me re-phrase the question. Above are a list of known progressive movements in American politics. Could you pair up a few of them with Neocon policies? If not, there is no legitimate claim to label them as Progressives, technically, rhetorically, or any other X-cally I am aware of¿. This isn't a question of semantics. It's a problem of a gross misapplication of the Progressive term. The major flaw is claim at their common base they both advocate larger government to achieve their goals. That is demonstrably false. Not all movements require a larger government. Ie. Women's Suffrage. We did not need to expand government to give women the Right to Vote. (for the wannabe comedians let me point out having more Votes to count doesn't qualify as government expansion)

 

[Rinata]

I woke up today and realize that their is still hope in America for freedom.

What are you talking about?? One Republican won a senate seat in the most democratic state in the union. I wouldn't get to happy.

And what do you mean there is still hope for freedom?? Was a bear holding you by the ass today and not letting you go about your business???

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I've read up on Neocons from Irving to Perle to Fukuyama and frankly, I'm stumped as to what 2+2 was put together. Here are a bank of ideas from Wiki and whatever domestic polices are held by some neocons are a moot point. They will swing whichever the majority vote wind is blowing because their ideas and impact on doubtless dominated by foreign policies. Their Colonial attempts are no more new than water is wet. So I'm curious which of their implemented policies qualify as Progressive? From Iraq we know it can't be Democracy and from the list below that is the closest I see.

Democracy
Freedom
Positive liberty
Women's suffrage
Economic progressivism
Economic interventionism
Fair trade
Mixed economy
Social justice
Labor rights
Civil liberties
Feminism
Women's rights
Social welfare
Social progressivism
Ethical conservation
Efficiency Movement
Techno-progressivism
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism?wasRedirected=true

We're arguing semantics here. Neocons aren't technically progressives, at least rhetorically. That's why they have their own name. My point was that both ideologies support the growth of the state to support their goals. Though if you look at history, progressives never roll back the policies of neocons and neocons never roll back the policies of progressives. The welfare state increases under neocon leadership, and the warfare state increases under progressive leadership. So maybe there are more similarities than they'd like to admit.

Let me re-phrase the question. Above are a list of known progressive movements in American politics. Could you pair up a few of them with Neocon policies? If not, there is no legitimate claim to label them as Progressives, technically, rhetorically, or any other X-cally I am aware of¿. This isn't a question of semantics. It's a problem of a gross misapplication of the Progressive term. The major flaw is claim at their common base they both advocate larger government to achieve their goals. That is demonstrably false. Not all movements require a larger government. Ie. Women's Suffrage. We did not need to expand government to give women the Right to Vote. (for the wannabe comedians let me point out having more Votes to count doesn't qualify as government expansion)

Actually women's suffrage did require government expansion, as it would have been decided at the state level otherwise. I obviously have no problem with women's suffrage, but you can't deny that it required the growth of the federal government. And it is a question of semantics, as I've already made clear that my point in calling neocons progressive was to highlight the fact that they're as statist as progressives are.

 

[Mike458877]

I woke up today and realize that their is still hope in America for freedom.

Amen and it just kept getting better, the more the liberals pissed and moaned about Brown winning.

I have to say though, Obama blaming Bush was simply the best.

Obama is the gift which just keeps giving!

Mike

 

[CurveLight]

We're arguing semantics here. Neocons aren't technically progressives, at least rhetorically. That's why they have their own name. My point was that both ideologies support the growth of the state to support their goals. Though if you look at history, progressives never roll back the policies of neocons and neocons never roll back the policies of progressives. The welfare state increases under neocon leadership, and the warfare state increases under progressive leadership. So maybe there are more similarities than they'd like to admit.

Let me re-phrase the question. Above are a list of known progressive movements in American politics. Could you pair up a few of them with Neocon policies? If not, there is no legitimate claim to label them as Progressives, technically, rhetorically, or any other X-cally I am aware of¿. This isn't a question of semantics. It's a problem of a gross misapplication of the Progressive term. The major flaw is claim at their common base they both advocate larger government to achieve their goals. That is demonstrably false. Not all movements require a larger government. Ie. Women's Suffrage. We did not need to expand government to give women the Right to Vote. (for the wannabe comedians let me point out having more Votes to count doesn't qualify as government expansion)

Actually women's suffrage did require government expansion, as it would have been decided at the state level otherwise. I obviously have no problem with women's suffrage, but you can't deny that it required the growth of the federal government. And it is a question of semantics, as I've already made clear that my point in calling neocons progressive was to highlight the fact that they're as statist as progressives are.

It's not semantics because you couldn't find one item on that list that would fit into Neocon policies. What is just as strange is claiming giving equal voting rights = government expansion. I'm not sure you know what that term means because not all actions taken by the government = expansion. It is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for a progressive policy. It's just bizarre to see it claimed Suffrage increased the size of government. Affirmative Action is an example of expansion.



Also, to claim they are Statists is off because the US government has had central control over our economy for as long as we've existed, regardless of the Party in power. An example is Brown's Senate victory is a plus for Wall Street.

 

[Rinata]

I woke up today and realize that their is still hope in America for freedom.

Amen and it just kept getting better, the more the liberals pissed and moaned about Brown winning.

I have to say though, Obama blaming Bush was simply the best.

Obama is the gift which just keeps giving!

Mike

I haven't heard that. What is your source?? Or are you a typical bagger that just made it up???

 

[Claudette]

I woke up today and realize that their is still hope in America for freedom.

Amen and it just kept getting better, the more the liberals pissed and moaned about Brown winning.

I have to say though, Obama blaming Bush was simply the best.

Obama is the gift which just keeps giving!

Mike

I haven't heard that. What is your source?? Or are you a typical bagger that just made it up???

Rinata. I believe it was in a speech he gave to ABC?? When the reporter asked him what his thoughts were on Brown win in MA he advised that the people are angry and fed up with whats going on in DC in the last year and then he ammended it by saying in the last eight years.

Seems he always has to drag Bush into everything even an election a year after Bush left office. I think thats what Mike is referring to.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Let me re-phrase the question. Above are a list of known progressive movements in American politics. Could you pair up a few of them with Neocon policies? If not, there is no legitimate claim to label them as Progressives, technically, rhetorically, or any other X-cally I am aware of¿. This isn't a question of semantics. It's a problem of a gross misapplication of the Progressive term. The major flaw is claim at their common base they both advocate larger government to achieve their goals. That is demonstrably false. Not all movements require a larger government. Ie. Women's Suffrage. We did not need to expand government to give women the Right to Vote. (for the wannabe comedians let me point out having more Votes to count doesn't qualify as government expansion)

Actually women's suffrage did require government expansion, as it would have been decided at the state level otherwise. I obviously have no problem with women's suffrage, but you can't deny that it required the growth of the federal government. And it is a question of semantics, as I've already made clear that my point in calling neocons progressive was to highlight the fact that they're as statist as progressives are.

It's not semantics because you couldn't find one item on that list that would fit into Neocon policies. What is just as strange is claiming giving equal voting rights = government expansion. I'm not sure you know what that term means because not all actions taken by the government = expansion. It is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for a progressive policy. It's just bizarre to see it claimed Suffrage increased the size of government. Affirmative Action is an example of expansion.



Also, to claim they are Statists is off because the US government has had central control over our economy for as long as we've existed, regardless of the Party in power. An example is Brown's Senate victory is a plus for Wall Street.

It's semantics because your complaint is in the way I worded something. If you fail to see how the government needed to grow to force the states to allow women to vote then I'm afraid I can't help you, and certainly don't have an interest in trying.

Brown's Senate victory is a plus for Wall Street, because he's a statist. Just as Coakley's victory would have been a plus for Wall Street, because she's a statist.