What is up with the term "Neo-Conservative"

[monkspider]

Immerz and Che pretty much hit the nail on the head.

[Imran Siddiqui]

monkspider: Che was trolling... and is wrong, btw .

[Timexwatch]

The term Neoconservative is two things:

A) Leftist Boogeyman terminology. It's essentially a way of calling someone (mainly the Bush Administration) a fascist/corporate whore while avoiding the negative flak when someone compares them to a real fascist (i.e. Hitler/Stalin).

B) It's a strange strain of "activist" conservatism that calls for America to use its strength in the world to actively and blatently push for the strengthening of America's international power. Call it "Pax Americanization".

As far as I can tell, Neoconservatives don't have a domestic agenda aside from the standard conservative economic "pro-corporation" faire. I don't see most Neoconservatives as overly religious. I think that they are a faction within the administration concerned with foreign, not domestic policy.

[GePap]

Neo-cons aren't liberals mugged by reality, they are liberals who failed so miserably that they deicded to turn over to the dark side...

Old fashioned conservatives were much more isolationists vis a vi foreign policy, and much more "realist' centered.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
monkspider: Che was trolling... and is wrong, btw .

I'm not wrong, just incomplete.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Old fashioned conservatives were much more isolationists vis a vi foreign policy, and much more "realist' centered.

Yep.

The difference is evident in the two Bush administrations. Bush I fought against Iraq for realist reasons. One, because of oil, Two, because backing an ally is good PR, Three, because it gives the US more power and a better 'in' in the middle east.

Bush II fought against Iraq to spread democracy and Western ideals.

As far as I can tell, Neoconservatives don't have a domestic agenda aside from the standard conservative economic "pro-corporation" faire. I don't see most Neoconservatives as overly religious. I think that they are a faction within the administration concerned with foreign, not domestic policy.

You are correct, though as former liberals (the founders of the movement) they are generally more pro-choice, pro-environment, and more tolerant of the welfare state.

Basically liberals should like them MORE than traditional conservatives instead of less . The neocons (if they were a force back then) would have agreed with you against Kissinger!

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm not wrong, just incomplete.

No, you are totally wrong .

Conservatives are the ones more concerned with pro-corporate agendas. Neo-conservatives believe more spreading the ideals of democracy and freedom, etc.

[Odin]

The consider a Neo-conservative as a person who follows the Ideals of the New World Order, is a rich supporter of the raping of the world by corporations, and has no personal ethics whatsoever (but that goes hand in hand with liking corporations ).

[GePap]

The problem is that neo-cons are activist, like old fashioned liebrals: that makes them a bigger threat than slowwitted old fashioned conservative dinosaurs.

And since they have no say in internal politics, who give a rats butt about them then?

[Imran Siddiqui]

And Odin is an example of Timexwatch's (A) definition .

[Odin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Neo-conservatives believe more spreading the ideals of democracy and freedom, etc.

THATS sig material.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Conservatives are the ones more concerned with pro-corporate agendas. Neo-conservatives believe more spreading the ideals of democracy and freedom, etc.

Consider the Enron case. Consider Kyoto. Consider your words.

Are you really sure the Bush admin wants to spread US values and not just line their pockets?

[Dis]

so by these definitions neo-conservatives are a good thing for the country

excellent!

[Shi Huangdi]

Imran: So would you say a neoconservative is a standard conservative except they go by Liberal rather than Realist IR theory?

[Timexwatch]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ah, this Wall Street Journal editorial makes my point as well:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002840

"Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad."

Ack! I sound like I copied my post from the article.

Anyway...the part about the article.

So why do I, and others of my ilk, get tagged as "neocons"? Some of the labelers have obvious ulterior motives. Patrick Buchanan, for one, claims that his views represent the true faith of the American right. He wants to drive the neocon infidels from the temple (or, more accurately, from the church). Unfortunately for Mr. Buchanan, his version of conservatism--nativist, protectionist, isolationist--attracts few followers, as evidenced by his poor showings in Republican presidential primaries and the scant influence of his inaptly named magazine, the American Conservative. Buchananism isn't American conservatism as we understand it today. It's paleoconservatism, a poisonous brew that was last popular when Father Charles Coughlin, not Rush Limbaugh, was the leading conservative broadcaster in America.

I take small issue with Mr. Boot's belittling of "Paleoconservatives" and placing most mainstream Republicans in the Neocon camp IRT international politics. I think that most Republicans, for all their disdain of the UN, are more in line with the Liberal Institutionalists of the Democratic Party than the "go-it-alone" activism of Neoconservatives. Most people, IMHO, see international institutions as a more "just" means to achieve America's goals. Witness the tepid support for attacking Iraq without UN approval until the eve of the war.

When Buchananites toss around "neoconservative"--and cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohen--it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is "Jewish conservative." This is a malicious slur on two levels. First, many of the leading neocons aren't Jewish; Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, Father John Neuhaus and Michael Novak aren't exactly menorah lighters. Second, support for Israel--a key tenet of neoconservatism--is hardly confined to Jews; its strongest constituency in America happens to be among evangelical Christians.

Boot is right on this account; for some on the left (Indymedia types), Neocons have become synonymous with Jews and "zionists". At least from what I've seen in my experiences in many DC protests is that opposition to Neoconservatism and mild anti-semetism come hand in hand for some people.

So is "neoconservatism" worthless as a political label? Not entirely. In social policy, it stands for a broad sympathy with a traditionalist agenda and a rejection of extreme libertarianism. Neocons have led the charge to combat some of the wilder excesses of academia and the arts. But there is hardly an orthodoxy laid down by Neocon Central. I, for one, am not eager to ban either abortion or cloning, two hot-button issues on the religious right. On economic matters, neocons--like pretty much all other Republicans, except for Mr. Buchanan and his five followers--embrace a laissez-faire line, though they are not as troubled by the size of the welfare state as libertarians are.

Imram:
You are correct, though as former liberals (the founders of the movement) they are generally more pro-choice, pro-environment, and more tolerant of the welfare state.

On this point, I think it has to be said that there is a definite split between conservatives and neoconservatives. If you listen to leading conservative mouthpieces like Limbaugh, the biggest sticking point between Cons and Neocons is what each believes is the appropriate size/role of government. I believe that you're right that neocons are move amenable to big government/nanny statism as long as it serves foreign policy goals whereas conservatives oppose big government on principal. There is a fight between the two factions in the administration for Bush's favor, and it appears that the Neocons have it.