Can PeleoConservatives take over the Republican Party?

[Elok]

Uh, can anybody point me to a definition of "Neo-Conservative" that's agreed on by more than two people? As it's currently used, the word has little more meaning than a letter used as a mathematical variable. The only thing everyone agrees on is that a significant percentage of the Bush White House (not everyone agrees on which specific people) is N-C, and because the ideology supports invading foreign lands and turning them into democracies, "Neo-Conservatives" are responsible for the mess in Iraq.

But then, how is that "Neo" anything? We spent, like, a decade in Vietnam for more or less the exact same reason...contain evil unwashed foreign ideology. Except the Viet Cong were definitely Communists, whereas Saddam was a secular ruler not apparently affiliated with al-Qaeda. So, a working definition of Neo-Conservative: "Like paleoconservatives from forty years ago, only lacking in critical thinking abilities." Does the English language really need yet another word for "moron?"

[Sava]

Elok

[GePap]

Neo-conservatism is new. Paloe-conservatives never believed, nor do they believe, that the US can export values. IN Vietnam we were trying to uphold an authoritarian regime that was anti-communist. We simply did not want Vietnam to be fully communist, but no one had any plans to turn Vietnam into a modern liberal regime. That would occur on its own time, after defeating the commies.

Neo-conservatives do think the US can spread its values, and can do it through direct force of arms. Its a notion of nationa building that old conservatives pale at.

[Elok]

Bit of a fine distinction, isn't it? We mucked around in somebody else's government, we assumed the country would naturally tend to a modern democracy provided we kept out the commie scourge...but because we didn't supervise the process back then, it's a whole new ballgame now? "No, officer, I didn't run over that man, I just removed the stop sign and gave another guy the keys."

I suppose as a measurement of stated intentions there's a difference, but since it appears neither system works worth crap anyway, and the two tend to produce very similar results (feeble, crooked puppet state with no real muscle, popular support, or authority, which eventually collapses), there's little practical difference.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok
Bit of a fine distinction, isn't it? We mucked around in somebody else's government, we assumed the country would naturally tend to a modern democracy provided we kept out the commie scourge...but because we didn't supervise the process back then, it's a whole new ballgame now? "No, officer, I didn't run over that man, I just removed the stop sign and gave another guy the keys."

Actually, no, its a radical difference. IN one instance you assume that values must be built- perhaps you even assume that some people and cultures might not be ready, or able, to share your own values.
In the other view, you assume your values to be universally applicable to everyone, and you assume that you can transplant them by forcibly taking over a spot and building the insitutions you think will inevitably lead to the desired result.

I suppose as a measurement of stated intentions there's a difference, but since it appears neither system works worth crap anyway, and the two tend to produce very similar results (feeble, crooked puppet state with no real muscle, popular support, or authority, which eventually collapses), there's little practical difference.

Vietnam is a singular case. You could look at South Korea as another example- communism was kept at bay, then over the next 40 years S.Korea went from an authorittarian regime to a democracy, thought after its own internal struggles.

The fact is that there IS a significant difference between old conservatives and neo-conservatives on the notion of spreading values.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The definitions of both neo-conservatism and paleo-conservatism given in the opening post are laughable...

Then enlighten me, Drake, and free me from my ignorance.

[Drake Tungsten]

Others have done a pretty good job of correcting you on the definition of neo-conservatism. Paleoconservatism is a little harder to succinctly describe, but the use of "paleocon" as a catch-all term for traditional conservatives isn't very useful, IMO. They're best described by what they are against, as the Wikipedia entry on paleoconservatism does...

Paleoconservatives are most easily distinguishable from other conservatives in their emphatic opposition to illegal immigration, their strong opposition to affirmative action, and their general disapproval of U.S. intervention overseas (These issues do not exhaust the paleoconservative philosophy but merely represent distinctive stands that Paleocons take on hotly contested issues.)

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

In general, I find your ideas about paleoconservatives taking the Republican Party back from the neoconservatives to be a little facile. It's not like the GOP is firmly divided into two competing camps, one of which has dominance over the other at the moment. There are hardcore paleocons/neocons in the Republican Party, but the mainstream conservative is somewhere in between those two camps, swaying one way or the other based on the circumstances. The mainstream may have swung a bit towards the neocon side of the spectrum post-9/11, but the neocons were never a dominant force that relegated the paleocons to the wilderness.

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Can PeleoConservatives take over the Republican Party?

More importantly, can they spell their own name?