What is up with the term "Neo-Conservative"

[Sava]

When someone is terminally ill, can't control their bodily functions, in terrible pain, and some holier-than-thou douchebag says they don't have the right to die, it is hypocritical. What is life when the sanctity and dignity is gone? And just because your heart is beating and you're sitting in a hospital bed sh1tting yourself, doesn't mean you are alive.

[Timexwatch]

Originally posted by Sava
if I may add to this discussion, Imran has provided the best description, although chegitz was also on the right track with the whole "pro-corporate" thing. "Neo-Conservative" was coined also because the Neo-Cons are big-government... which is in contrast to the more libertarian style of less-government which used to be the mainstream conservative ideal. These Neo-Cons are also hypocritical in other ways. Ashcroft is supposedly "pro-life" but supports the death penalty and is against assisted suicide for the terminally ill. So basically its about being authoritarian rather than any real moral code. They often use morality as an excuse for executing their agenda. That's basically the method-operandum of Neo-Cons. They lie, twist and distort... and manipulate to get what they want... which is mostly driven by money i.e. corporate pork behind the Iraq war, etc.

Again, people are confused about who's a Neocon and who's a regular conservative. Ashcroft is NOT a Neocon. St. Leo is wrong in calling Lott and Thurmond Neocons. They're all vanilla conservatives/bible thumpers. Wolfowitz is a Neocon. Bill Kristol is a Neocon.

I also fail to see the connection between a "moral code" and Neoconservatism. If you read the rest of the thread, Neocons are a foreign policy group with varying views on domestic and social issues (they often trend moderate, like Imram said). I believe that hardcore Neocons are driven more ideology then by economics. Think of hardcore Neocons as "drunk on America". The oft-derided Halliburton/Bechtel/et al. schnenagans are perpetrated by the non-ideologues and opportunists.

I'm feeling more and more right by saying that some leftists like to throw around the term without knowing what it means, Sava case in point....

Also:

Please stay on topic, Sava's trolls not withstanding.

[Sava]

Ashcroft agrees just about 100% with Wolfowitz, yet they are different?

[Timexwatch]

Originally posted by Sava
Ashcroft agrees just about 100% with Wolfowitz, yet they are different?

Can you provide any evidence to support that?

[Sava]

Since neither Asscroft or Wolfowitz are going to come on here and give us their thoughts, I'll ask you to point out one instance where the two disagreed with each other.

You said my statement was wrong... prove it.

[Timexwatch]

Sava:

Since you asked, I'll state one instance where the two disagree in defense policy. That instance is NATO expansion.

Ashcroft voted against NATO enlargement in the Senate in 1998 when the treaty came up for a vote (Warner Amdt. #2322; Bill NATO Expansion Treaty #105-36 ; vote number 1998-112 on Apr 30, 1998 if you care to look it up).

Wolfowitz, on the other hand, sees NATO expansion as critical for the strengthening of European Security, with the integration of Russia into European secuirty bodies being particularly important. See his speech at the Munich Conference on European Security Policy in February of 2002 for proof.

You may wonder why I didn't point out inconsistancies on Domestic issues. There's a probably a good reason for that Wolfowitz is extremely silent on domestic issues (He most likely disagrees on a number of them).

I am not saying that they are polar opposites. I'm saying just because they're in the same Administration or that they hold some of the same views doesn't mean that they're all Neocons.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: What is up with the term "Neo-Conservative"

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
I hear this term being thrown around by the left around to describe our current administration. It seems kind of a pointless term to me, as I really don't see any type of distinguishing between it and plain old standard conservative. It's a term mainly used by people who hate the Bush administration, the only time I heard it used by an actual conservative was as a way of reffering to conservatives who were liberal during the Civil Rights movement. Also, I don't really see how it differs from what the left calls "Neo-Liberalism" Can't the left stick to labeling it's own ideologies?

Can't the right do the same?

Neo-cons differ from "standard" cons (take Goldwater cons as an example of the honorable breed of conservatives) in a number of respects.

Remember the old bit (in several Republican party platforms) about getting rid of the Departments of Education, Commerce and Energy? And the general notion of reducing the size of Federal government? Ending unfunded mandates? Balanced budgets? Limited roles for Federal government?

Neocons are quite happy to ignore many of the traditional elements of American conservative politics, in favor of forcible power projection and imposition of American will where American economic interests or strategic interests (read: economic + power projection) may be benefitted (at least in the neo-con vision).

Kissing China's ass while the PRC becomes the next superpower is A-OK, as long as they promise to give us access to their markets in return for all the billions thrown in their direction. Deficits are OK, unfunded mandates continue to be the norm, and instead of focusing on reducing government at the Federal level, you get an expansion of Federal power in the area of law enforcement (WoD, WoT, PATRIOT, etc.) and intelligence.

Virtually everything that is anathema to old-line conservatives is OK if it serves the goal of imposing US power and enforcing our will overseas.

(edit - typos)

[Ben Kenobi]

When someone is terminally ill, can't control their bodily functions, in terrible pain, and some holier-than-thou douchebag says they don't have the right to die,

That doesn't make it right to shoot the person to put them 'out of their misery.'

There are other ways to make dying less painful, palliative care is an excellent example. We have no need for physician assisted suicide.

Back on topic, thanks for the better explanation of neo-conservative, MtG.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

MtG beat me to it: the easiest way to see the difference is to look at today's bunch and compare them to classic mid-century conservatives like Goldwater or Robert Taft. Today's neo-cons are far more interventionist and also far more concerned about "values" issues than traditional conservatives. In part, this can be attributed to a shift in the Republican base from the Northeast and Midwest to the South and Southwest. And neo-cons aren't new. I remember the term showing up in the 80s to describe Reagan devotees (to that point, essayist Joan Didion describes being raised as a traditional Republican, but abandoning the party once it traded the true conservativism of Goldwater for the ersatz conservativism of Reagan. Based on her writings, it's clear she has less respect for Reagan than for any other president of her lifetime, including Clinton [I haven't seen her work on Bush II yet], but still claims that she would have voted for Goldwater over any candidate who actually ran for president from 1968 onward. So, clearly, some feel the differences to be pretty sharp).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ashcroft

... who is NOT a neocon, Sava. Timexwatch pointed out one inconsistancy between him and Wolfowitz. But also he was one of those Senators who was looking at 'what was our interest'. That ain't a neocon.

Neocons are quite happy to ignore many of the traditional elements of American conservative politics, in favor of forcible power projection and imposition of American will where American economic interests or strategic interests (read: economic + power projection) may be benefitted (at least in the neo-con vision).

Aren't those realists instead of Neocons? Neocons want to spread values instead of just going in for interests. That's the main thing that seperates IR realists from neocons (who could be considered IR liberals, with a greater tendancy towards force).

[MichaeltheGreat]

"spreading Amerkin values" is nice spin for "install pro-US leadership"

[Imran Siddiqui]

Neocons are former liberals, remember. They actually do want to spread democracy and freedom, and believe they can do it. The ideology takes liberal idealism and combines it with conservative force. They believe that by having democracies around the world will decrease wars and terrorism because democracies are more 'civilized', so to speak. The neocons seemingly aren't very interested in American 'interests'... and they apparently have a great dislike for the Kissinger school of American foreign affairs.

After all, remember the other name for neoconservativism is 'Hard Wilsonianism'.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I just call 'em rabid *******s, myself.

And when was Big Bad Wolfowitz ever a liberal?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I dunno.. but he took on an ideology that was created by former liberals designed to spread democracy by US military might. If you accept an ideology, necessarily you accept the basic tenants of it, don't you? And the basic tenants of neoconservatism was set by former liberals who didn't care about 'interests'.

[DinoDoc]

It's also seen in the appointments of racist Federal Judges like Charles Pickering

Pickering isn't racist.