Can you enlighten me on PaleoConservative and NeoConservative ideals?

Namely. In terms of society what year do PaleoConservatives see as ideal?

What year do NeoConservatives see as ideal?

  1. Pre-WWI. When the US was isolationist.
  2. WWII and later. When the US was more interventionist.

Thank you very much.

NeoCon 1950.

PaleoCon 1900.

Liberal 1700 – before Freedom of Speech.

Say what now?

28% of Americans are against Free Speech. Most of them are Liberal.

In 1700 it was understood that freedom to criticize the King or Queen does not imply a freedom from punishment for that crime.

28% of Americans are idiots. Some of them belong to political parties.

Since this is a political question, let’s move it to Great Debates.

General Questions Moderator

You asked for a definition of two conservative ideologies and received a non-partisan reply.

Why did you feel the need to respond with an off-topic partisan shot against liberals? Were you hoping for a fight and annoyed you didn’t get it?

Have you heard that correlation does not equal causation? The article seems to suggest that age is the common factor causing both (but then they aren’t operating from data either, but it’s a plausible hypothesis).

But even then so, I skimmed it and all it says is that 35% of Democrats (not liberals) and 18% of Republicans support it, but not about the relative numbers of each. Furthermore, it says nothing about whether the independents are center, far left, far right, or something harder to describe. In short, you can’t draw conclusions. And I think only a very, very, small minority of Americans would identify as either neo- or paleoconservative. Some of their ideas may have taken fruit, but very few people follow all those beliefs, or else Pat Buchanan would be winning elections.

For kicks, I read your cite. 28% of Americans would favor limits on speech offensive to minorities. 35% of them are Democrat, 18% are Republican, and 27% are Independent. Most are therefore not “Liberal”.

I’m not sure that I fully follow what you are saying. It seems that you are arguing that “Free Speech” is not invalidated by the fear of criminal penalties. In fact, I would argue that “Free Speech” is invalidated by the very types of penalties that existed in 1700. Furthermore, if “Free Speech” is not invalidated by government limits, then why are modern examples (like hypothetical, non-real limits discussed in a survey) an affront to “Free Speech”?

I am sorry. In USSR disagreement with the mainstream leftist ideology was punishable by Article 70. In 1700, those who insulted the Queen or King could lose their tongue.

I thought Republicans are Conservatives.

Somewhat jokey answer for Neo-Cons: 1100 AD or so, during the Crusades. Or maybe slightly less-jokey, the US’s brief foray into overt overseas Imperialism during the 1890’s.

The Neo-Cons as a faction of the modern conservative movement are defined by hawkish foreign policy and strong defense. People who have been identified as prominent Neo-Cons fall all over the conservative spectrum in terms of domestic, economic, and social policies, it’s only foreign policy that unites them. So the “ideal year” analogy is kind of difficult to say. The Neo-Cons believe that the US should be using its military might to spread its ideals around the world, which is something of an extension of the Cold War mindset, but is otherwise a fairly novel development in US political history.

As for Paleo-Cons, the old American Right fought the good fight against the whole idea of the welfare state and big government in general, but by the 1950’s they’d emphatically lost and so reworked their platform to one that grudgingly accepted things like social security and the more popular New Deal programs. The Paleo-Cons are kind of like the Japanese soldiers hiding out in caves for decades after the war was lost, although since the 60’s their “libertarian-lite” brand has waxed and waned. They’re certainly popular in conservative rhetoric at the moment, although less so in actual conservative policies. For them, the good years of the 1920’s were really the “just right” period of barely-there government regulation and such. They tend to handwave away the hangover after the party that was the 1930’s, though.

If you are directly responding to the part you quoted: there are more than two flavors of conservative. For example Big Business conservatives, who may overlap with neocons but aren’t the same. Or the Religious Right.

Thank you – my PhD in Math does not mean I am literate in Political Science.

If I had to guess, would conservatives of any kind see some arbitrary past year as the best year, after they’ve mentally blocked out all everything bad about it? I mean, 1958 was probably a great year, if you overlook failed rocket launches and Fidel Castro.

There are a lot of different groups under the conservative umbrella. The Paleoconservatives and the Neoconservatives are two relatively small ones.

Francisco France had political dissidents imprisoned. Quashing dissent is a feature of dictatorships, not of liberals, whatever you think that means.

And conservatives are significantly more likely to support limiting pro-gay speech, pro-communist speech, or blasphemous (or otherwise anti-religious) speech. This tells us nothing about whether liberals or conservatives are more likely to favor or oppose free speech – just that liberals are more likely to favor restricting ideas opposed by liberals, and conservatives are more likely to favor restricting ideas opposed by conservatives.

The idea that neo-cons or paleo cons ever thought there was a ideal year is odd and totally wrong. One of the first credos of early conservatism was “Don’t Immanentize the Eschaton”.