WTF is a Neocon?

[Hobbit]

I've been thinking about that for a long time. Basically, it's been slung around as a derogatory term for anyone siding with the Republicans. It sounds negative, especially since, with the prefix "Neo," people think "Neo-Nazi." However, a neocon is an otherwise conservative person who believes in big government. George Bush is a neocon. I, however, am not a neocon. So now that we have that out of the way, can we start using that word for what it really means?

 

[5stringJeff]

Neoconservatism refers to the political movement, ideology, and public policy goals of "new conservatives" in the United States, who are mainly characterized by their relatively interventionist and hawkish views on foreign policy, and their lack of support for the "small government" principles and restrictions on social spending, when compared with other American conservatives such as traditional or paleoconservatives.

In the context of U.S. foreign policy, neoconservative has another, narrower definition: one who advocates the use of military force, unilaterally if necessary, to replace autocratic regimes with democratic ones. This view competes with liberal internationalism, realism, and non-interventionism.

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

 

[Annie]

Neoconservatism refers to the political movement, ideology, and public policy goals of "new conservatives" in the United States, who are mainly characterized by their relatively interventionist and hawkish views on foreign policy, and their lack of support for the "small government" principles and restrictions on social spending, when compared with other American conservatives such as traditional or paleoconservatives.

In the context of U.S. foreign policy, neoconservative has another, narrower definition: one who advocates the use of military force, unilaterally if necessary, to replace autocratic regimes with democratic ones. This view competes with liberal internationalism, realism, and non-interventionism.

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

Agreed, often more liberal on social/moral issues. Many were Democrats that had always been stronger on defense than the party, thus 'new' conservatives.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Then there's the whole JEW issue. Many feel neocons have put the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of the u.s. I disagree with this. I see the interests of the US and Israel to be allied on the points regarding security in the middle east.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

I've been thinking about that for a long time. Basically, it's been slung around as a derogatory term for anyone siding with the Republicans. It sounds negative, especially since, with the prefix "Neo," people think "Neo-Nazi." However, a neocon is an otherwise conservative person who believes in big government. George Bush is a neocon. I, however, am not a neocon. So now that we have that out of the way, can we start using that word for what it really means?

A "Reagan Democrat" would be a good example of a neocon.

I think it's use as a derogatory term probably comes from the fact that a lot of people didn't know what it meant. It was most likely used by someone in an editorial and picked up by people who wanted to sling it around as a counter. The word Liberal had pretty much become a dirty word starting with the '88 campaign, and some thought they finally had something to use.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Im not certain that BIG GOVERNMENT is a real plank of any neocon agenda. It's just the usual corruption that comes with power.

 

[nosarcasm]

the only person I ever met that called themselves a neocon was Jewish
and ran around in a Israeli Defense Forces T-shirt. He supported the war on
terror but didnt care about abortion and works for the conservatives here
in the state legislature in Idaho. He didnt feel neocon was an insult obbiously.

 

[William Joyce]

Then there's the whole JEW issue. Many feel neocons have put the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of the u.s. I disagree with this.

You're not the only one.

Here's a thoughtful treatment of the Jewish motivations of "neocons":

http://www.vdare.com/misc/macdonald_neoconservatism.htm

Neocons are hawkish on foreign policy because they want Israel's interests advanced. They are for big government and liberalism on social issues because they never were conservatives and never cared for that anyway. In fact, many neocons trace their lineage to the socialist/Jewish intellectual scene in New York City back in the 50's, which was hardly "conservative." But many of these once-socialist Jews became disenchanted with socialist governments when they became friendly to Arab governments in the years between the 50's and the 70's.

If someone wants to advance Israel's interests, OK, BUT --- don't do it on my dime, don't tell me that "we" are fighting a "war on terror," and don't you fucking dare send American soliders to die in the sands of the Middle East in the name of "spreading democracy" and wrap yourself in the American flag when the only flag you care about has a six-pointed star.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You're not the only one.

Here's a thoughtful treatment of the Jewish motivations of "neocons":

http://www.vdare.com/misc/macdonald_neoconservatism.htm

Neocons are hawkish on foreign policy because they want Israel's interests advanced. They are for big government and liberalism on social issues because they never were conservatives and never cared for that anyway. In fact, many neocons trace their lineage to the socialist/Jewish intellectual scene in New York City back in the 50's, which was hardly "conservative." But many of these once-socialist Jews became disenchanted with socialist governments when they became friendly to Arab governments in the years between the 50's and the 70's.

If someone wants to advance Israel's interests, OK, BUT --- don't do it on my dime, don't tell me that "we" are fighting a "war on terror," and don't you fucking dare send American soliders to die in the sands of the Middle East in the name of "spreading democracy" and wrap yourself in the American flag when the only flag you care about has a six-pointed star.

THe tax cuts are conservative. Health Savings Accounts are conservative. WE also have an interest in fighting islamofascism. Get a new routine.

 

[no1tovote4]

I've been thinking about that for a long time. Basically, it's been slung around as a derogatory term for anyone siding with the Republicans. It sounds negative, especially since, with the prefix "Neo," people think "Neo-Nazi." However, a neocon is an otherwise conservative person who believes in big government. George Bush is a neocon. I, however, am not a neocon. So now that we have that out of the way, can we start using that word for what it really means?

I figure instead of worrying about NeoCon (it was first coined in the 80s and they were people who left the Dem Party because of Reagan.). Just take a page from them and call them NeoProgs...

 

[007]

This is about the most indepth description and analysis I could find...

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

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

It used to be that "left" meant that you were for all sorts of progressive intervention, in the economy and an aggressive foreign policy abroad. In this sense, FDR and Wilson were both perfectly left-wing in both meanings of the term, and it was the right-wing who recognized the threat to liberty posed by the perpetual welfare/warfare state.

But then the meanings of right and left and liberal changed; William F Buckley and others steered the right towards foreign interventionism, former communists joined the movement, embracing capitalism but still holding on to the idea that we have a mandate to push our system forcibly onto the entire world, etc. So now the "right" embraces out-and-out scumbags like Wilson and Roosevelt, embraces perpetual foreign wars, only defends civil liberties when the democrats abuse them, and timidly pays lip service to lukewarm economic reforms--slight decreases in taxes and "privatized" (ie, "differently socialized") social security.

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/2_1/2_1_7.pdf

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It used to be that "left" meant that you were for all sorts of progressive intervention, in the economy and an aggressive foreign policy abroad. In this sense, FDR and Wilson were both perfectly left-wing in both meanings of the term, and it was the right-wing who recognized the threat to liberty posed by the perpetual welfare/warfare state.

But then the meanings of right and left and liberal changed; William F Buckley and others steered the right towards foreign interventionism, former communists joined the movement, embracing capitalism but still holding on to the idea that we have a mandate to push our system forcibly onto the entire world, etc. So now the "right" embraces out-and-out scumbags like Wilson and Roosevelt, embraces perpetual foreign wars, only defends civil liberties when the democrats abuse them, and timidly pays lip service to lukewarm economic reforms--slight decreases in taxes and "privatized" (ie, "differently socialized") social security.

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/2_1/2_1_7.pdf

There's no threat to liberty here. You libs just don't want the administration to be effective against the terrorists.

We cannot ignore geopolitics in this nuclear age. It would be nice if we could, but we can't. Totalitarians know their system will never be as robust as our individual/freedom oriented system, so they will always seek to destroy us, so our our freedom doesn't make the tyranny they love look so bad. Evil despises goodness.

Privatized does not mean "differently socialized", fyi.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

We cannot ignore geopolitics in this nuclear age. It would be nice if we could, but we can't.

Could you explain why?

While you're at it, why do we attack and threaten some countries who don't have nukes (Iraq, Iran), while we look the other way as other countries develop them (Pakistan, India). Why do we actively support the hated regimes of Saudi Arabia, Libya, Egypt, etc.? Evil tyrannical regimes don't give two shits about attacking us, because if they do it's their ass. There is no benefit to them, only a long list of downsides.

Are you old enough to remember the Clinton years firsthand, and how the right reacted? Waco, Ruby Ridge? The right-wing concern over the expansive police state (and the liberals gushing love of it not surprisingly)? Remember G. Gordon Liddy's "They're wearing bulletproof vests, shoot them in the head" comment about the ATF? Take the anger generated during the Clinton years, and now imagine the same type of faceless bureaucrats running amok overseas, only without even the pretense of obeying the constitution. Government officials lie their asses off about poverty, illiteracy, health care, and other "crises" in order to get more funding. The same type of people tell the same type of lies about the causes of anti-american anger.

Or, imagine if say...China were to engage in what our government has, here in america. Ousting elected presidents (even if he were a democrat), parking the Chinese army in our backyard, passing brutal sanctions against us, flattening cities to get at insurgents, making up fairy tales as a pretext for war; and then proclaiming that it's all in the name of promoting global equality or some other vague goal. Even if you hated the president who held power, you'd still hate the Chinese even more, and you'd probably at least give some thought towards sabotaging their occupation.

Pre-emptive strawman strike: I'm well aware that Islam is a filthy, repressive, detestible religion. All the more reason why we should stay out of their affairs.

And "Privatized" is not a government program administered by a private company. That's merely "outsourcing" or "economic fascism" or some other description. Private means that individual citizens choose to voluntarily invest their retirement funds as they see fit without big brother. Wake me up when Bush decides to cancel SS and pay off obligations to existing seniors by auctioning off federal land and assets. Then I'll be applauding him.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Could you explain why?

It used to be that our distance from things could protect us from invasion, so it didn't really matter what people were doing within their own countries. But now, with ICBMS, suitcase nukes, etc we MUST pay attention to the technology our enemies are developing. BTW, people who say you should be wiped off the earth or destroyed or subjugated to a wacky desert cult, are your enemies.

While you're at it, why do we attack and threaten some countries who don't have nukes (Iraq, Iran), while we look the other way as other countries develop them (Pakistan, India). Why do we actively support the hated regimes of Saudi Arabia, Libya, Egypt, etc.? Evil tyrannical regimes don't give two shits about attacking us, because if they do it's their ass. There is no benefit to them, only a long list of downsides.

It has to do with alliance building. It's too complex for you.

Are you old enough to remember the Clinton years firsthand, and how the right reacted? Waco, Ruby Ridge? The right-wing concern over the expansive police state (and the liberals gushing love of it not surprisingly)? Remember G. Gordon Liddy's "They're wearing bulletproof vests, shoot them in the head" comment about the ATF? Take the anger generated during the Clinton years, and now imagine the same type of faceless bureaucrats running amok overseas, only without even the pretense of obeying the constitution. Government officials lie their asses off about poverty, illiteracy, health care, and other "crises" in order to get more funding. The same type of people tell the same type of lies about the causes of anti-american anger.

The clintons REALLY WERE using state power explicity against the citizens and for their own political purposes. FBI Filegate? Remember that?

Or, imagine if say...China were to engage in what our government has, here in america. Ousting elected presidents (even if he were a democrat), parking the Chinese army in our backyard, passing brutal sanctions against us, flattening cities to get at insurgents, making up fairy tales as a pretext for war; and then proclaiming that it's all in the name of promoting global equality or some other vague goal. Even if you hated the president who held power, you'd still hate the Chinese even more, and you'd probably at least give some thought towards sabotaging their occupation.

If china were bringing freedom and opportunity and relieving me of my dictator, I would be all for it.

Pre-emptive strawman strike: I'm well aware that Islam is a filthy, repressive, detestible religion. All the more reason why we should stay out of their affairs.

No. Wrong. We should be IN their affairs. They cannot be allowed to get nuclear.

And "Privatized" is not a government program administered by a private company. That's merely "outsourcing" or "economic fascism" or some other description. Private means that individual citizens choose to voluntarily invest their retirement funds as they see fit without big brother. Wake me up when Bush decides to cancel SS and pay off obligations to existing seniors by auctioning off federal land and assets. Then I'll be applauding him.

It's privatized in the sense that it's invested in companies, not put into the government ponzi scheme coffer.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

It used to be that our distance from things could protect us from invasion, so it didn't really matter what people were doing within their own countries. But now, with ICBMS, suitcase nukes, etc we MUST pay attention to the technology our enemies are developing.

It used to be that our non-interventionist foreign policy kept us from invasion. It worked fine, until it was abandoned in the 1890's and especially after WWI. It's fine to keep an eye on what others are doing with nukes. That's what spy satellites and inspectors are for. But lying about the evidence and then invading because of imaginary facts is just plain foolish.

It has to do with alliance building. It's too complex for you.

Try me. Explain why we ally with non-democratic and/or nuclear-equipped allies who have violated anti-nuke proliferation treaties, and are known terrorists like Khadaffi. You're a smart guy, I'm sure you can put it in terms I can understand.

On the one hand, I hear people say that the root cause of terrorism is brutal repressive dictatorships, but then on the other hand we form alliances with brutal repressive dictatorships. I don't understand.

The clintons REALLY WERE using state power explicity against the citizens and for their own political purposes. FBI Filegate? Remember that?

Of course. And I'm merely pointing out that a change in leadership doesn't really change the bureaucracy's drive to push people around and make up flimsy excuses for more funding.

If china were bringing freedom and opportunity and relieving me of my dictator, I would be all for it.

Even if they adopted the tactics of your dictator, and violated every single item in the bill of rights? Or, what if it wasn't a dictator. What if it was a popular, elected president?

No. Wrong. We should be IN their affairs. They cannot be allowed to get nuclear.

It is exceedingly unlikely that Iraq or Iran would hand out nukes to terrorists.
You do not hand over your ultimate trump card to someone you have no real control over. You hold onto it--like every single nuclear power has--as a deterrent. To put it another way:

Holding a nuke = serious power

Giving out nukes = no ultimate trump card, and if it goes off you're looking at massive retaliation.

In other words, the only way to HOLD power is to HOLD onto your nukes. Kind of like all the communists have, and like muslim Pakistan has.

It's privatized in the sense that it's invested in companies, not put into the government ponzi scheme coffer.

It's invested in private companies by the government. I wonder what would happen if the democrats regained power? I can see it now. The government withholds SS funds from companies who don't hire the correct number of short, hispanic, hindu, french-speaking, physically handicapped, communist gay black women. Or from companies that outsource too much. Or from companies that don't pay high enough wages, or who don't hire union workers. Well, whatever it is...you can be sure Big Brother will be the the corporate backseat driver.

 

[dilloduck]

It used to be that our non-interventionist foreign policy kept us from invasion. It worked fine, until it was abandoned in the 1890's and especially after WWI. It's fine to keep an eye on what others are doing with nukes. That's what spy satellites and inspectors are for. But lying about the evidence and then invading because of imaginary facts is just plain foolish.



Try me. Explain why we ally with non-democratic and/or nuclear-equipped allies who have violated anti-nuke proliferation treaties, and are known terrorists like Khadaffi. You're a smart guy, I'm sure you can put it in terms I can understand.

On the one hand, I hear people say that the root cause of terrorism is brutal repressive dictatorships, but then on the other hand we form alliances with brutal repressive dictatorships. I don't understand.



Of course. And I'm merely pointing out that a change in leadership doesn't really change the bureaucracy's drive to push people around and make up flimsy excuses for more funding.



Even if they adopted the tactics of your dictator, and violated every single item in the bill of rights? Or, what if it wasn't a dictator. What if it was a popular, elected president?



It is exceedingly unlikely that Iraq or Iran would hand out nukes to terrorists.
You do not hand over your ultimate trump card to someone you have no real control over. You hold onto it--like every single nuclear power has--as a deterrent. To put it another way:

Holding a nuke = serious power

Giving out nukes = no ultimate trump card, and if it goes off you're looking at massive retaliation.

In other words, the only way to HOLD power is to HOLD onto your nukes. Kind of like all the communists have, and like muslim Pakistan has.



It's invested in private companies by the government. I wonder what would happen if the democrats regained power? I can see it now. The government withholds SS funds from companies who don't hire the correct number of short, hispanic, hindu, french-speaking, physically handicapped, communist gay black women. Or from companies that outsource too much. Or from companies that don't pay high enough wages, or who don't hire union workers. Well, whatever it is...you can be sure Big Brother will be the the corporate backseat driver.

It is exceedingly unlikely that Iraq or Iran would hand out nukes to terrorists.
You do not hand over your ultimate trump card to someone you have no real control over. You hold onto it--like every single nuclear power has--as a deterrent. To put it another way:

Holding a nuke = serious power

Giving out nukes = no ultimate trump card, and if it goes off you're looking at massive retaliation.

In other words, the only way to HOLD power is to HOLD onto your nukes. Kind of like all the communists have, and like muslim Pakistan has.

Right---I'm willing to bet the lives of Americans on that probability and your assessment of the Iranian war machines' plans.