# Is this a fair definition of neoconservatism? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 26, 2006, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-fair-definition-of-neoconservatism/354282 "2006-04-26T12:52:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Mal\_Adroit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df788c/32.png) [@Mal\_Adroit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mal_Adroit)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2006, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-fair-definition-of-neoconservatism/354282/1 "2006-04-26T12:52:46Z")
This is for an introductory political science course I’m editing–in his manuscript, the author often comes across as a frothing leftie and, though I freely admit to being a tree-hugging pinko myself, I’m trying to temper his more blatantly liberal colorings of the text (even as I’m enjoying them). But I need to add a general definition of neoconservatism, and I want to offer one to our students that’s relatively even-handed. This is what I have written at the moment: _The term neoconservatism has evolved considerably since the 1970s, when it was most often used in reference to members of the political left who had adopted rightist principles (neo = “new”). Today, it refers to a school of American conservativism that, broadly speaking, advocates exceedingly prodemocratic efforts in other parts of the world. Neoconservatives maintain that the active pursuit of freedom and democracy in territories outside the U.S. is crucial to U.S. interests—mainly national security in the post-9/11 era of global terrorism. Critics assert that this strategy translates into a belligerent, unliateral foreign policy, one that de-emphasizes international agreement and brazenly abuses the option of military intervention. Opponents of neoconservatism cite the controversial U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 as the quintessential example of a reckless and ultimately harmful dialog with the world. For their part, neoconservatives argue that the Iraq invasion and other offensive measures, such as an attack on the terrorist-aiding government of Afghanistan in the fall of 2001, have been crucial in making the U.S. and its allies both stronger and safer._ Is this a fair overview of the philosophy? Accurate, even? Would appreciate any thoughts. \*More a question than a debate topic (ostensibly), but felt more appropriate to GD than GQ. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2006, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-fair-definition-of-neoconservatism/354282/2 "2006-04-26T13:41:38Z")
_“advocates exceedingly prodemocratic efforts in other parts of the world.”_ It’s hard to sound even-handed when you include the word “exceedingly.” And what is this part saying? That they advocate governments for other countries which have too much of a democratic component? ---
**Author:** ![Mal\_Adroit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df788c/32.png) [@Mal\_Adroit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mal_Adroit)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2006, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-fair-definition-of-neoconservatism/354282/3 "2006-04-26T13:50:55Z")
[QUOTE=CurtC] It’s hard to sound even-handed when you include the word “exceedingly.” And what is this part saying? That they advocate governments for other countries which have too much of a democratic component? [/QUOTE] Yes, I was unsure whether “exceedingly” lent too judgemental a vibe. I’m trying to say that they advocate a very hands-on, proactive effort to promote democracy. Perhaps adjectives like those two would be better? Hands-on, proactive. . . ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2006, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-fair-definition-of-neoconservatism/354282/4 "2006-04-26T15:06:10Z")
What **CurtC** said. Also, the word “brazenly” doesn’t belong in this “neutral” definition. I would also delete the first sentence to paragraph two. As it comes right after a statement of what “critics assert”, it is not needed, and skews the definition too much into what others think it is NOT. Given the length you’re working with, a greater percentage should be communicatiing what it IS. The one line nod to the “critics” is sufficient. It helps give real-world form to the concept while allowing the definition to come off as more neutral. ---
**Author:** ![Mal\_Adroit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df788c/32.png) [@Mal\_Adroit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mal_Adroit)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2006, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-fair-definition-of-neoconservatism/354282/5 "2006-04-26T15:28:00Z")
Yep- just a tiny half-step ahead of you. “Brazenly” is gone. So paying the critics too much ink within the definition tends to undermine the neutrality of it. Yeh, I see it. Current revision: \*The term neoconservatism has evolved considerably since the 1970s, when it was most often used in reference to members of the political left who had adopted rightist principles (neo = “new”). Today, it refers to a school of American conservativism that advocates \*\*\*\*\*decisive prodemocratic efforts in other parts of the world. Neoconservatives maintain that the active pursuit of freedom and democracy in territories outside the U.S. is crucial to U.S. interests—mainly national security in the post-9/11 era of global terrorism. Critics assert that this strategy translates into a belligerent unliateralism, one that de-emphasizes international consensus and abuses the option of military intervention. \*\*\*\*_For their part, neoconservatives argue that the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and other offensive measures, such as an attack on the terrorist-aiding government of Afghanistan in the fall of 2001, have been crucial in making the U.S. and its allies both stronger and safer._ \*thanks \*\*CurtC \*\* and **magellan** ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2006, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-a-fair-definition-of-neoconservatism/354282/6 "2006-04-26T15:48:48Z")
[QUOTE=Mal Adroit] Yep- just a tiny half-step ahead of you. “Brazenly” is gone. So paying the critics too much ink within the definition tends to undermine the neutrality of it. Yeh, I see it. Current revision: \*The term neoconservatism has evolved considerably since the 1970s, when it was most often used in reference to members of the political left who had adopted rightist principles (neo = “new”). Today, it refers to a school of American conservativism that advocates \*\*\*\*\*decisive prodemocratic efforts in other parts of the world. Neoconservatives maintain that the active pursuit of freedom and democracy in territories outside the U.S. is crucial to U.S. interests—mainly national security in the post-9/11 era of global terrorism. Critics assert that this strategy translates into a belligerent unliateralism, one that de-emphasizes international consensus and abuses the option of military intervention. \*\*\*\*_For their part, neoconservatives argue that the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and other offensive measures, such as an attack on the terrorist-aiding government of Afghanistan in the fall of 2001, have been crucial in making the U.S. and its allies both stronger and safer._ \*thanks \*\*CurtC \*\* and **magellan** [/QUOTE] Sorry, I can’t help myself. Maybe these changes would help. Changes in bold. I also reordered it slightly. I think it flows better. I’ll shut up now. Good luck with your project. > [@](#): > > The term neoconservatism has evolved considerably since the 1970s, when it was most often used in reference to members of the political left who had adopted rightist principles (neo = “new”). Today, it refers to a school of American conservativism that advocates **actively encouraging** prodemocratic efforts in other parts of the world. Neoconservatives maintain that **this** pursuit of freedom and democracy in territories outside the U.S. is crucial to U.S. interests—mainly national security in the post-9/11 era of global terrorism. They see the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and other offensive measures, such as an attack on the terrorist-aiding government of Afghanistan in the fall of 2001, as crucial in making the U.S. and its allies **safer.** > Critics assert that **such a** strategy translates into a belligerent unliateralism, one that de-emphasizes international consensus and abuses the option of military intervention. For some reason, I can’t make the last sentence appear as a seperate paragraph. It should be.