# Ask the Neo-Con **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 28, 2004, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-neo-con/257306 "2004-07-28T18:57:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2004, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-neo-con/257306/61 "2004-07-30T14:40:27Z")
That’s a better answer than “it’s the right thing to do”. Still nonsense obviously and not responsive to my question, which as a reminder focussed on: - the hard-headed benefits to the US balancing out the obvious detriments & - the especial level of unequalled importance attached to that country. Still though, I’m merely asking and summarizing, not debating. More or less. I’m not the one with insights into the neo-con mind. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2004, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-neo-con/257306/62 "2004-07-30T15:11:44Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by sevastopol > > Cpt A’s waffle about self-evident truths notwithstanding, the answer seems to be “because they’re Jewish.” And here we see a prime example of what led to the much publicized recent intelligence failures…someone reading an explanation and seeing only what they want to see. Did you even read the rest of my post, sevastopol? The US didn’t send any aid to Israel until Carter’s Camp David peace agreement. We now send them aid as a result of that peace agreement. As for why neocons attach a special level of importance to Israel, I have to ask the same question of you. Why does Israel loom so large in your mind? Why do you nurture this special dislike of Israel as opposed to, say, Burma? Foreign policy doesn’t get written and re-written in a vacuum, using only today’s cost-benefit calculations. There is a historical component to it. And a human component to it. The US has closer ties with Canada than with Mexico. Why is that, do you think? Could it be our (mostly) shared language, culture, and history? Why is it so surprising and revolting to you that Jewish people feel a similar tie to Israel? ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2004, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-neo-con/257306/63 "2004-07-30T15:31:54Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Did you even read the rest of my post, sevastopol? The US didn’t send any aid to Israel until Carter’s Camp David peace agreement. We now send them aid as a result of that peace agreement. And do you even check to see if facts exist before just pulling them out your ass? Why take part in a debate if all you are going to do is spout misinformation? [US Aid to Israel by Year since 1949](http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html) ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2004, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-neo-con/257306/64 "2004-07-30T15:38:37Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > And, I don’t know that supporting Israel does hurt us that much. It makes the Arabic world like us a little less, but they’re not going to like us very much anyway, because right now, the Arab countries don’t tend to be liberal democracies. Ironically, this is the #1 reason given for antipathy to the US- US foreign policy, specifically foreign policy re Israel. It’s dramatic irony that you’d say, “…I don’t know that supporting Israel does hurt us that much.” This antipathy toward the US isn’t _really_ because these countries “don’t tend to be liberal democracies.” The US is friendly (a little too friendly IMHO) with a number of countries that do not “tend to be liberal democracies.” This demonstrates that the lack of a tendency toward liberal democracy does not always correspond with a country or region not ‘liking us anyway.’ Since there’s not even a sure correspondence, it seems unlikely that it’s meaningful or useful to ascribe ME antipathy toward the US to a lack of this tendency toward liberal democracy. On the contrary, those who actually make up the ME cite American foreign policy as the source of their antipathy. Perhaps you are right about their motivations and they are wrong. Generally, though, the relations between countries proceed based on the intersts of the governments in question rather than on the basis of the exisence of tendencies toward liberal democracy. The idea of this sort of litmus test havuing much influence international politics is overly simplistic, unrealistic and unrealist. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2004, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-neo-con/257306/65 "2004-07-30T15:52:56Z")
> [@sevastopol](#): > > **Cpt A’s** waffle about self-evident truths notwithstanding, the answer seems to be “because they’re Jewish.” Again, do you have a reason why we _shouldn’t_ support Israel? Do you think we should support someone else? Should we support no-one? What alternatives do you propose? Many people are blinded by party labels into lumping people together which really don’t fit. Much of the root of the division between old-line conservatives and the neos is that the latter _don’t_ think in terms of immediate, concrete benefit to the US; rather they think in rather idealistic terms about using American power to advance democracy and freedom. It is very idealistic and, one could argue, tremendously naive. In fact, I for one _would_ say that. But it seems like many on the left are unwilling to even allow good motives, and instead insist with an infantile mania that anyone with an R after their name is evil. Or Jewish, which is worse. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2004, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-neo-con/257306/66 "2004-07-30T16:04:52Z")
I thought I new what a neocon was before reading this thread. I thought I’d go to t the dictionary, look up neocon, and it would read “see Bush, George W.” Now I’m not sure. Now I want to know exactly what the definition of a neocon is and what are the core values. What differentiates neocons from traditional conservatives? What on earth are paleocons? Are there neandercons? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2004, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-neo-con/257306/67 "2004-07-30T16:11:03Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > Most of what a neocon administration would do would probably be similar. There would be some differences. . . . The administration wouldn’t have worried so much about getting UN approval. Why? Are American neocons go-it-alone unilateralists? If so, why do they think that way? In this modern world, what could be stupider than that kind of thinking? Seems they have more in common than I thought with moronic paleocons like Buchanan (who wants the U.S. to pull out of the UN entirely). ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2004, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-neo-con/257306/68 "2004-07-30T16:27:45Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Why? Are American neocons go-it-alone unilateralists? If so, why do they think that way? In this modern world, what could be stupider than that kind of thinking? Seems they have more in common than I thought with moronic paleocons like Buchanan (who wants the U.S. to pull out of the UN entirely). How do you get ‘go-it-alone unilateralist’ from ‘The administration wouldn’t have worried so much about getting UN approval’? Those two things aren’t the same, BG. One means we WANT to go it alone with no help…the other means that if we are balked by the UN we will make our own decision and see who else we can get on board with us. They don’t equate. As to equating Buchanan and the isolationists with neocons, thats nuts…they are almost exact opposites (as opposite as you can be and still be in the same ‘party’), at least from a foreign policy perspective. Buchanan and the isolationists want us to withdraw from the UN and ALSO from pretty much the world. They want us to go back to a pre-WWI US foriegn policy of strict neutrality and let the world take care of itself. No more over seas troops, no more monetary handouts to other nations, no more involvement of the US in anything but trade. Neocons want just the opposite…they want to use US power (military and economic) and influence to make the US stronger and the help establish and nurture democracies in other countries. They feel (at least I THINK they do) that democracy is the ultimate stabalizer for peace in the world and its there goal to spread it (forcefully if necessary) throughout the world. Those two things are almost exactly opposite. In addition, as has already been stated, the (purist) neocons aren’t as concerned with the paleocon ‘traditional’ quasi-religious/moralistic issues, nor are they adverse to things like larger government or deficits…they aren’t fiscal conservatives in other words. Of course, the actual people who are labled ‘neocon’ are just that…people…and they cross between the various lines depending on the issues. I have no idea exactly what GW is, but he’s certainly not a neocon in the strict sense. He’s more like a paleocon (at least in the quasi-religious/moral issues) who has some neocon issues as well (and he’s certainly no fiscal conservative by any measure). -XT ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2004, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-neo-con/257306/69 "2004-07-30T18:27:24Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I thought I new what a neocon was before reading this thread. I thought I’d go to t the dictionary, look up neocon, and it would read “see Bush, George W.” Now I’m not sure. Now I want to know exactly what the definition of a neocon is and what are the core values. What differentiates neocons from traditional conservatives? What on earth are paleocons? Are there neandercons? The wikipedia entry was linked earlier in the thread. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2004, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-neo-con/257306/70 "2004-07-30T19:42:12Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > How do you get ‘go-it-alone unilateralist’ from ‘The administration wouldn’t have worried so much about getting UN approval’? A difference in degree, **x,** not in kind. The one is the first step down the path to the other – and the Bush Admin has already leaped over all those intermediate steps and committed us to a full-speed-ahead unilateralist fuck-the-world foreign policy. Are you suggesting that this, too, is not genuine neocon thinking? > [@xtisme](#): > > As to equating Buchanan and the isolationists with neocons, thats nuts…they are almost exact opposites (as opposite as you can be and still be in the same ‘party’), at least from a foreign policy perspective. I **know** that, **x,** I was using hyperbole to make my point. And what makes you think neocons and paleocons are still in the same party? Are you aware that Pat Buchanan has turned his back on the Pubbies and started his own America First Party? It’s marginal for now, but if Bush gets another four years, I think he can expect to see a lot of his party’s paleocon base draining off in Buchanan’s direction. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2004, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-neo-con/257306/71 "2004-07-30T20:03:27Z")
Here’s what I don’t understand. Is “neoconservative” a term that people self-identify with, or more of a term that some people use to label other people with whom they disagree? Is there a “neocon” newsletter, periodical or some sort of association that puts out position papers? Who gets to decide what a neocon policy is and, for that matter, who can wear the label “neocon”? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2004, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-neo-con/257306/72 "2004-07-30T20:29:24Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 1. What exactly are these “classic liberal values” that you say motivate the neocons? > [@Captain Amazing](#): > > Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, free markets, democratic government, pluralism, etc. Oh, really? Since occupying Iraq, the Bush Admin has shut down at least one leading dissident newspaper; rejected demands that the Interim Government be an elected one, and installed a government of what amount to U.S. appointees which obviously lacks any legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqi people; and awarded no-bid sweetheard reconstruction contracts to Halliburton, etc. – contracts which the Interim Government and any succeeding government are expressly barred from repudiating or altering. That’s not “free-market” economic policies, it’s economic imperialism, plain and simple. Now, you might deny that the Bush team is a “real” neocon administration, and maybe it isn’t. But I haven’t heard of Bill Kristol or any other leading neocon thinker publicly **criticizing** any of these abominable, dishonest, and anti-democratic decisions. You know something I don’t? > [@Captain Amazing](#): > > China. Most American business interests want the US to have strong relations and full trade with China. It’s a major market and a cheap source of labor. The neoconservatives want the US to reject free trade with China and take a hard line against it, until China improves its human rights record, commits to nonproliferation, and recognizes Taiwan. Good example! Now please tell us why the neocons are right on this point and the business conservatives are wrong. Do you really think U.S. economic pressure would get the stubborn Chinese government to yield on any of these points? (Bill Clinton also said the U.S. should sanction China – when he was running for president in 1992. And then when he became president he reversed his position. I’ve always wondered why.) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2004, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-neo-con/257306/73 "2004-07-30T20:42:26Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Here’s what I don’t understand. Is “neoconservative” a term that people self-identify with, or more of a term that some people use to label other people with whom they disagree? Is there a “neocon” newsletter, periodical or some sort of association that puts out position papers? Who gets to decide what a neocon policy is and, for that matter, who can wear the label “neocon”? Apparently, some embrace the label, some reject it. From the Wikipedia ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism\_(United\_States)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_%28United_States%29)): > [@](#): > > **Neoconservatism** refers to the political goals and ideology of the “new conservatives” in the United States, characterized by hawkish views on foreign policy and a lesser emphasis on social issues and minimal government than other strains of American conservatism. The “newness” refers either to being new to American conservatism (often coming from liberal or socialist backgrounds) or to being part of a “new wave” of conservative thought and political organization. In both meanings the term is sometimes used pejoratively. This criticism has grown due to the increased controversy over an alleged major neoconservative initiative, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. > > More specifically, the term refers to journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and institutions affiliated with policy think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and periodicals such as _Commentary_ and _The Weekly Standard._ The neoconservatives, often dubbed the neocons by supporters and critics alike, are credited with (or blamed for) influencing U.S. foreign policy, especially under the administrations of Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) and George W. Bush (2001-present). > > The term neoconservative is somewhat controversial, with many to whom the label is applied rejecting it. It has become increasingly popular in recent years, to the point where many say it is becoming overused and lacking any coherent definition, especially since many so-called neoconservatives vehemently disagree with one another on major issues. > > \ > > The term was coined by socialist Michael Harrington, who wanted a way to characterize former leftists who had moved significantly to the right – people he had been deriding as “socialists for Nixon.” > > Many of the men and women to whom the neoconservative label is applied to reject the title, arguing it is an artificial and abstract creation. The fact that its use has rapidly risen since the 2003 Iraq War is cited by conservatives as proof that the term is largely irrelevant in the long-term. David Horowitz, a purported leading neo-con thinker offered this critique in a recent interview with an Italian newspaper: > > > [@](#): > > > > “Neo-conservatism” is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America’s liberation of Iraq. There is no “neo-conservative” movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan’s Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today “neo-conservatism” identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists. > > Similarly, many other supposed neoconservatives believe that the term has been adopted by the political left to stereotype supporters of U.S. foreign policy under the George W. Bush administration. Others have similarly likened descriptions of neoconservatism to a conspiracy theory and attribute the term to anti-Semitism. Paul Wolfowitz has denounced the term as meaningless label, saying: > > > [@](#): > > > > “[If] you read the Middle Eastern press, it seems to be a euphemism for some kind of nefarious Zionist conspiracy. But I think that, in my view it’s very important to approach [foreign policy] not from a doctrinal point of view. I think almost every case I know is different. Indonesia is different from the Philippines. Iraq is different from Indonesia. I think there are certain principles that I believe are American principles – both realism and idealism. I guess I’d like to call myself a democratic realist. I don’t know if that makes me a neo-conservative or not.” > > Other “traditional” conservatives (e.g., Jonah Goldberg) have rejected the label as trite and over-used, arguing “There’s nothing ‘neo’ about me: I was never anything other than conservative.” Other critics have similarly argued the term has been rendered meaningless through excessive and inconsistant use. For example, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumseld are often identified as leading “neocons” despite the fact that both men have been life-long conservative Republicans. Such critics thus largely reject the claim that there is a neoconservative movement separate from traditional American conservatism. > > Other traditional conservatives are likewise skeptical of the contemporary usage term, and may dislike being associated with the stereotypes, or even the supposed agendas of the “neocons.” Conservative columnist David Harsanyi wrote, “These days, it seems that even temperate support for military action against dictators and terrorists qualifies you a neocon.” > > On the other hand, some of those identified as neoconservatives embrace the term. For example, Irving Kristol (who once famously defined a “neoconservative” as “a liberal who got mugged by reality”) published a collection of his essays under the tile _Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea_ (paperback ISBN 1566632285, hardcover ISBN 0028740211). Use of the term enables neoconservatives to distinguish themselves from conservatives when they find it advantageous to do so. In addition, neoconservatives who were once leftists can soften the implication that they have “defected” to the side they once opposed. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2004, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-neo-con/257306/74 "2004-07-30T21:13:44Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > A difference in degree, x, not in kind. The one is the first step down the path to the other – and the Bush Admin has already leaped over all those intermediate steps and committed us to a full-speed-ahead unilateralist fuck-the-world foreign policy. Are you suggesting that this, too, is not genuine neocon thinking? Well, I’m no conservative (either paleo or neo…possibly fiscal, but thats another matter) so I can’t speak for them, but no, I don’t think that Bush’s policies were necessarily neocon policies or ‘genuine neocon thinking’. Certainly I don’t think the execution was what the neocons would call ideal. Also, I think you are playing up the unilateralist aspects too much. The Bush administration did make at least a token effort (and I think actually more than just a token effort) to enlist the UN and get it on board before we invaded Iraq. A true unilateralist wouldn’t have even bothered. In addition, its not like we went it alone even after they failed to get the UN on board. Again, not the action of a unilateralist IMO. More like hard core pragmatism. They tried to get the UN et al on board, failed, and moved on with whoever WOULD join. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I know that, x, I was using hyperbole to make my point. And what makes you think neocons and paleocons are still in the same party? Are you aware that Pat Buchanan has turned his back on the Pubbies and started his own America First Party? It’s marginal for now, but if Bush gets another four years, I think he can expect to see a lot of his party’s paleocon base draining off in Buchanan’s direction. Hyperbole is always difficult for me to detect for various reasons I won’t go into. As far as party goes, I DO think that the majority of the paleo-cons are still onboard with the Republican party…a party supposedly currently controlled by the neocon faction. So, that would make them ‘both in the same party’. There really isn’t a viable alternative 3rd party for the quasi-religious/moralist paleo’s out there that I’m aware of (America First Party isn’t anywhere close to a ‘viable alternative’ as its barely on the radar), so they are kind of stuck with the Republicans, even if the party has de-emphasized them recently. Yes, I’m well aware that Buchanan split from the 'Pubs and established his own party. There was quite a bit about that in the past election, especially in Florida, no? 😉 However, I think the majority of the paleocons (and even the isolationists which is really another subfaction separate from the others) are still in the Republican party. I don’t see the America First Party draining off significant numbers of either paleo or isolationist conservatives to be honest…certainly nothing like Naders draining off of left wing conservationists anyway. THis all might chance as the Republicans continue to de-emphasize (and rightly so IMO) the quasi-religious/moralist positions near and dear to the paleocon crowd, but so far a major Nader type splinter faction hasn’t really emerged that is going to draw enough of them off to make a real difference. Perhaps someday…but not this election. Then again, perhaps someday a non-nutball Ross Perot will emerge and sieze the center from BOTH parties and spank them hard. I can dream anyway… -XT ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2004, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-neo-con/257306/75 "2004-07-30T21:37:30Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > More like hard core pragmatism. 😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛😛 > [@xtisme](#): > > Yes, I’m well aware that Buchanan split from the 'Pubs and established his own party. There was quite a bit about that in the past election, especially in Florida, no? 😉 Buchanan ran on the Reform Party ticket in 2000 (essentially, he used Perot’s centralizing rules to hijack it), and founded the America First Party afterwards. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2004, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-neo-con/257306/76 "2004-07-30T21:52:12Z")
Glad I could amuse you anyway with my ‘pragmatic’ comment. 🙂 > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Buchanan ran on the Reform Party ticket in 2000 (essentially, he used Perot’s centralizing rules to hijack it), and founded the America First Party afterwards. Well, ok…I stand corrected in the details, I wasn’t really thinking about this too hard. Buchanan in fact left the party with his following to join Ross Perot’s old party and get their nomination. Doesn’t change what I was saying. He didn’t really draw off a significant number from the Republicans last time, nor is he likely too this time…I’ve hardly even heard anything about him and his party this time in fact. Certainly less than Nader. -XT ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2004, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-neo-con/257306/77 "2004-07-30T22:13:32Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > [Buchanan] didn’t really draw off a significant number from the Republicans last time, nor is he likely too this time. No, he isn’t. But we haven’t heard the last of him. Wait until 2008. BTW, the Wikipedia also provides a list of prominent neoconservatives (so-called): > [@](#): > > This is a list of prominent public figures frequently referred to as neoconservatives. Classifications of this sort are often disputed and so any listing here should not be taken as definitive. > > Elliott Abrams > > Stephen Cambone, first Defense Undersecreatry for Intelligence, a position created by Donald Rumsfeld in his bureaucratic struggle for control of foreign policy against the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of State > > Linda Chavez > > Richard Cheney, United States Vice President since 2001, former Secretary of Defense, former CEO of Halliburton > > Lynne Cheney, wife of Richard Cheney, a critic of academic critics of the second Bush administration > > Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy since 2001, responsible for planning the unsuccessful Occupation of Iraq > > David Frum, Canadian expatriate, newspaper columnist, and speechwriter > > Francis Fukuyama, author of _The End of History,_ current member of the President’s Council on Bioethics > > Christopher Hichens, author and columnist enthusiastic about the Occupation of Iraq. Like many neo-conservatives, Hitchen’s foreign policy views developed from a rejection of the amorality of Kissingerian Realism. > > Samuel Huntington, author of _The Clash of Civilizations_ > > Jeanne Kirkpatrick, former Ambassador to the United Nations, famous for asserting the existence of a meaningful difference between totalitarianism and authoritarianism; an obvious exercise in ideological apology for U.S. support for dozens of conservative authoritarian regimes by the Nixon, Reagan and first Bush administrations > > Irving Kristol > > Michael Ledeen > > I. Lewis Libby > > Philip Merrill, Chairman of the Export-Import Bank since 2001 > > Oliver North, convicted felon and conservative talk show host > > Richard Perle, Chairman of the Defense Policy Board > > Norman Podhoretz > > Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor since 2001 > > Ronald D. Rotunda, conservative law professor at conservative George Mason University, apologist for denying Prisoner of War status under the 1949 Geneva Conventions to the prisoners from the War in Afghanistan held at Guantanamo Bay > > Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense since 2001, responsible for the Occupation of Iraq > > Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense since 2001, a major advocate for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent unsuccessful Occupation of Iraq And a list of prominent neocon institutions and publications: > [@](#): > > American Enterprise Institute > > Bradley Foundation > > _Commentary_ > > _Front Page Magazine_ > > Heritage Foundation > > Jamestown Institute > > John M. Olin Foundation > > _Policy Review_ > > Project for the New American Century > > _Public Interest_ > > Smith Richardson Foundation > > _Washington Times_ > > _Weekly Standard_ Does anyone on this thread care to dispute the classification of any of these persons, think-tanks or publications as “neoconservative”? If so, please explain your reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2004, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-neo-con/257306/78 "2004-07-31T01:05:37Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > And here we see a prime example of what led to the much publicized recent intelligence failures…someone reading an explanation and seeing only what they want to see. > > Did you even read the rest of my post, sevastopol? The US didn’t send any aid to Israel until Carter’s Camp David peace agreement. We now send them aid as a result of that peace agreement. The error is truly named, but it’s your error. Your explanation was largely why the US has a history of military aid to that part of the world. My question on the other hand, was directed to the large increment in importance the neo-cons peculiarly assign. My summary then, included only that part of your answer which was relevant to the question. > [@](#): > > As for why neocons attach a special level of importance to Israel, I have to ask the same question of you. Why does Israel loom so large in your mind? Why do you nurture this special dislike of Israel as opposed to, say, Burma? It’s not me that raises the issue. Observe **Capt A’s** early posts in this thread. Does he or she refer to support for Taiwan, the Balkan republics or Panama as a pillar of neo-con faith? Likewise which country merits a heading in Wikipedia’s entry on neo-cons? Minds are moved to inquiry. There’s nothing rancorous about it. > [@](#): > > Foreign policy doesn’t get written and re-written in a vacuum, using only today’s cost-benefit calculations. There is a historical component to it. And a human component to it. The US has closer ties with Canada than with Mexico. Why is that, do you think? Could it be our (mostly) shared language, culture, and history? Why is it so surprising and revolting to you that Jewish people feel a similar tie to Israel? We aren’t concerned with ethnic ties. We are concerned with paid officials of the US administration charged with forming foreign policy. One might expect that the only principle is to better the condition of the United States. In the case of the neo-cons, it’s hard to reconcile the ideology with that principle. > [@furt](#): > > But it seems like many on the left are unwilling to even allow good motives, and instead insist with an infantile mania that anyone with an R after their name is evil. Or Jewish, which is worse. I would your grace would take me with you: whom means your grace? Anon, hasn’t it been a selling point of the Right that they are comfortable doing evil? The other interesting debate on this forum (if I may be so bold) talks of new Bush voters. What it intimates, is that the man is unafraid to act as if the struggle is for dominance between Christian world and Muslim. The oppresive weight of Liberal Media means he cannot articulate the view publicly. But people know what he means. The D’s by contrast are mired in moral distinctions, nuances of culpability and by nicety of conscience, cannot act like they should to show who’s boss. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2004, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-neo-con/257306/79 "2004-07-31T01:33:35Z")
Substantiating quotes: > [@](#): > > Wikipedia **Neoconservatives and Israel** > > …The neoconservative influenced Project for a New American Century called for an Israel no longer dependent on American aid through the removal of major threats in the region. > > The interest in Israel, and the large proportion of Jewish neoconservatives has led to the question of “dual loyalty.” A number of critics, such as Pat Buchanan, have accused them of putting Israeli interests above those of America. > … > > The partisan support for Likud suggests that their support for Israel is not merely motivated by blind ethnic loyalty, and their critics’ criticism of American politicians judged to be too friendly to Britain or the Soviet Union suggests that dual loyalty is a genuine fear amongst Old Right conservatives. Irony: > [@](#): > > neoconservatives [have argued] that the United States, like Israel, should act in its national interests, regardless of international law. **Captain Amazing’s** response to Wikipedia: [I think it’s reasonably accurate](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=268701&page=1) And: > [@](#): > > In terms of what issues I find most important in a candidate, I’d like to see one committed to a strong defense and increased military spending, **support for Israel** , and a principled and tough foreign policy. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2004, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-neo-con/257306/80 "2004-07-31T01:38:01Z")
> [@sevastopol](#): > > The other interesting debate on this forum (if I may be so bold) talks of new Bush voters. What it intimates, is that the man is unafraid to act as if the struggle is for dominance between Christian world and Muslim. The oppresive weight of Liberal Media means he cannot articulate the view publicly. But people know what he means. The D’s by contrast are mired in moral distinctions, nuances of culpability and by nicety of conscience, cannot act like they should to show who’s boss. Are you suggesting, **sevastopol,** that some Americans who did not vote for Bush in 2000 will vote for him this year, because they see him as leading a Christian crusade against Islam and they are so insane as to **welcome** that? If so, who are these “new Bush voters”? Christian conservatives? I think Bush got most of that vote in 2000. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-neo-con/257306.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-neo-con/257306.md?page=5)