What is a neo-con? by JCKnife

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

What is a neo-con?

POSTED BY: JCKNIFE
UPDATED: Saturday, May 28, 2005 18:52
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1529
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 11:15 PM

I've looked up some definitions on Google, but they don't seem to match the vitriol with which I see this term used. Please tell me what it means to you?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 12:36 AM

SERGEANTX

It's my understanding that the conservative movement traditionally embodied by the Republican party has diverged somewhat into three identifiable groups. I've seen them labled in various ways, but the most common groupings are traditional conservatives, libertarian conservatives and neo-conservatives.

The first group, the traditional conservatives, is probably the most common stereotype of modern conservatives. They're concerned with the traditional values of respect for family, morals, religion and community decency. They tend toward a moderate foreign policy with isolationist leanings, but will act aggressively to deal with perceived threats to "American interests".

The second group, the libertarian conservatives, came into their own under the leadership of Barry Goldwater in the sixties. They seem to exist primarily as a reaction to the failed or overreaching liberal agendas of the Great Society. They promote laissez-faire capitalism and resist all unnecessary gov't interference in the private affairs of individuals. They promote a very small, limited government as the ideal.

Lastly, the group you've asked about, the neo-conservatives. They are closer to the traditional conservatives than the libertarian arm. They seem to be driven to counteract what they see as the America bashing embraced by the left. They see it as their mission to restore pride and patriotism and aren't afraid to stoke the fires of nationalism to reach that goal.

Their foreign policy places America as the guiding light in world affairs. They believe strongly in the righteousness of the U.S. and that our values (democracy,liberty,capitalism,etc) will win out if allowed to 'compete' with other systems. Many of them seem to think that America is destined, or even that it has a duty, to lead the rest world into a new millenium. ie the New World Order.

Anyway, that's my perception. I'll see if I can find some links if you're looking for something more thorough. I'm pretty certain many will take issue with my definitions.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 1:43 AM

EMBERS

wow, it sounds to me like the Religious Right is rewriting the definition of a conservative!
when I was young a 'conservative', a 'traditional conservative' was someone who believed in maintaining the status quo and wanted to protect
first individual rights
second state's rights (because they are the closest in a democratic society to the will of the people
and objected to all efforts by the national government to tell people how to live.

No traditional conservative would have ever supported imposing moral values by the government...that is strictly a new thing, brought on by the activist Religious Political movement that was developing in the 1970s and came to power in the 1980s.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 2:49 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Whatever happened to the fiscal conservatives?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 3:18 AM

HARDWARE

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Whatever happened to the fiscal conservatives?

Apparently that breed has gone extinct.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 4:29 AM

CYBERSNARK

Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:
Please tell me what it means to you?

To me it refers to the "new breed" (Generation 2) Decepticons led by Lord Jhiaxus, but I don't follow politics.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 6:37 AM

HJERMSTED

Neo-Cons = the American Taliban.

mattro

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 6:47 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by embers:
wow, it sounds to me like the Religious Right is rewriting the definition of a conservative!
when I was young a 'conservative', a 'traditional conservative' was someone who believed in maintaining the status quo and wanted to protect
first individual rights
second state's rights (because they are the closest in a democratic society to the will of the people
and objected to all efforts by the national government to tell people how to live.

No traditional conservative would have ever supported imposing moral values by the government...that is strictly a new thing, brought on by the activist Religious Political movement that was developing in the 1970s and came to power in the 1980s.

It sounds like you grew up in the eighties. Reagan co-opted quite a bit of the rhetoric of the libertarian conservative movement. But by time Bush senior took over the libertarian arm had been marginalized.

If you go back a few years before Reagan its not hard to find 'traditional conservatives' more than willing to impose their moral beliefs on others.

It's interesting to consider where the religious right fits into all of this. As I was thinking about it, it occurred to me how they've been courted by and variously aligned with all three flavors of modern conservatism. Over the long haul, their interests seem to most closely align with 'traditional conservatism' (by my definitions at least).

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 12:33 PM

CREVANREAVER

According to the Christian Science Monitor's Neocon 101:

What do neoconservatives believe?

"Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.

Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Hussein's ouster.

Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. Believing that authoritarianism and theocracy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the Middle East, neocons advocate the democratic transformation of the region, starting with Iraq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily hampered by multilateral institutions, which they do not trust to effectively neutralize threats to global security.
What are the roots of neoconservative beliefs?

The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world.

Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans.

What is the difference between a neoconservative and a conservative?

Liberals first applied the "neo" prefix to their comrades who broke ranks to become more conservative in the 1960s and 70s. The defectors remained more liberal on some domestic policy issues. But foreign policy stands have always defined neoconservatism. Where other conservatives favored détente and containment of the Soviet Union, neocons pushed direct confrontation, which became their raison d'etre during the 1970s and 80s.

Today, both conservatives and neocons favor a robust US military. But most conservatives express greater reservations about military intervention and so-called nation building. Neocons share no such reluctance. The post 9/11-campaigns against regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate that the neocons are not afraid to force regime change and reshape hostile states in the American image. Neocons believe the US must do to whatever it takes to end state-supported terrorism. For most, this means an aggressive push for democracy in the Middle East. Even after 9/11, many other conservatives, particularly in the isolationist wing, view this as an overzealous dream with nightmarish consequences.

How have neoconservatives influenced US foreign policy?

Finding a kindred spirit in President Reagan, neocons greatly influenced US foreign policy in the 1980s.

But in the 1990s, neocon cries failed to spur much action. Outside of Reaganite think tanks and Israel's right-wing Likud Party, their calls for regime change in Iraq were deemed provocative and extremist by the political mainstream. With a few notable exceptions, such as President Bill Clinton's decision to launch isolated strikes at suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, their talk of preemptive military action was largely dismissed as overkill.

Despite being muted by a president who called for restraint and humility in foreign affairs, neocons used the 1990s to hone their message and craft their blueprint for American power. Their forward thinking and long-time ties to Republican circles helped many neocons win key posts in the Bush administration.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 moved much of the Bush administration closer than ever to neoconservative foreign policy. Only days after 9/11, one of the top neoconservative think tanks in Washington, the Project for a New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Bush calling for regime change in Iraq. Before long, Bush, who campaigned in 2000 against nation building and excessive military intervention overseas, also began calling for regime change in Iraq. In a highly significant nod to neocon influence, Bush chose the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) as the venue for a key February 2003 speech in which he declared that a US victory in Iraq "could begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace." AEI – the de facto headquarters for neconservative policy – had been calling for democratization of the Arab world for more than a decade.

What does a neoconservative dream world look like?

Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon." In this capacity, the US would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of "failed states" or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the US or its interests. In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. This approach, they claim, is not only best for the US; it is best for the world. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong US leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants.

Any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively, not "appeased" or merely contained. The US military would be reconfigured around the world to allow for greater flexibility and quicker deployment to hot spots in the Middle East, as well as Central and Southeast Asia. The US would spend more on defense, particularly for high-tech, precision weaponry that could be used in preemptive strikes. It would work through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations when possible, but must never be constrained from acting in its best interests whenever necessary.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 8:34 PM

PIRATEJENNY

Quote:
Liberals first applied the "neo" prefix to their comrades who broke ranks to become more conservative in the 1960s and 70s. The defectors remained more liberal on some domestic policy issues.

And the main reason for the break was because of the Civil Rights and feminist movement, which goes a long way in showing the predisposition of mindset to the neoconservatives that make up the movement today!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 28, 2005 6:52 PM

JASONZZZ

What ever happened to the paleoconservatives?

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE