How is a neoconservative different from a run-of-the mill conservative in the US?
How are they alike?
Are neocons a subset of conservatives? Or a mutation?
Are neocons defined primarily by their outlook on foreign policy?
It’s simply a label used as polemic. It has no clear meaning (despite the wiki entry).
Dare I ask…
Are neocons Jewish conservatives who believe US support of Israel should be strong?
Is it a label to designate a backlash against the likes of Patrick Buchanan, who at the time might have been regarded as representative of ‘Conservatives’? He had what was viewed as a highly anti-Israel position.
A neoconservative votes Republican because he thinks they’re fiscally responsible and he’s in vague agreement with a significant portion of the social agenda… A paleoconservative votes republican because he knows if he doesn’t, God will punish the planet.
It all boils down to the source of motivation.
Neocon came about from a group of people who were new to conservatism. It’s used to describe these folks in particualr, and it’s also used to describe some who subscribe to views like “big-government conservatism,” and those who don’t like the limitations of Realism- reality.
They aren’t concerned with the US’s national interest when it comes to foment wars and expending her blood and treasure.
Conservatives think that US national interests come first and that the lives of our military personel and our hard earned tax dollarts should only be expended to when it’s vital to our national interests.
This is why neocon has come to be used by some as an insult roughly meaning treacherous, un-American politician.
*cribbed from here*
[INDENT]
**The Neoconservative Persuasion**
Neoconservatism is what the late historian of Jacksonian America, Marvin Meyers, called a “persuasion,” one that manifests itself over time, but erratically, and one whose meaning we clearly glimpse only in retrospect.
…the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.
…an attitude toward public finance that is far less risk averse than is the case among more traditional conservatives.
Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state… seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his “The Man Versus the State,” was a historical eccentricity. People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today’s America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not.
The upshot is **a quite unexpected alliance between ** neocons, who include a fair proportion of secular intellectuals, and religious traditionalists.
**Because religious conservatism is so feeble in Europe, the neoconservative potential there is correspondingly weak. **
And large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns. Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal.
No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.
Irving Kristol is author of “Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea.”
cribbed from here
What the Heck Is a Neocon?
Max Boot
The original neocons were a band of liberal intellectuals who rebelled against the Democratic Party’s leftward drift on defense issues in the 1970s. At first the neocons clustered around Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson, a Democrat, but then they aligned themselves with Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, who promised to confront Soviet expansionism.
So is “neoconservatism” worthless as a political label? Not entirely. In social policy, it stands for a broad sympathy with a traditionalist agenda and a rejection of extreme libertarianism.
On economic matters, neocons…embrace a laissez-faire line, though they are not as troubled by the size of the welfare state as libertarians are.
But it is not really domestic policy that defines neoconservatism. This was a movement founded on foreign policy, and it is still here that neoconservatism carries the greatest meaning…
The National Security Strategy that he released in September – which calls for “encouraging free and open societies on every continent” – sounds as if it could have come straight from the pages of Commentary magazine, the neocon bible. [the monthly of the American Jewish Committee]
One group of conservatives believes that we should use armed force only to defend our vital national interests… The idea of bringing democracy to the Middle East they denounce as a mad, hubristic dream likely to backfire with tragic consequences. This view…[called] “realism,” is championed by foreign-policy mandarins like Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and James Baker III.
…[Neocons] think…“realism” presents far too crabbed a view of American power and responsibility. …[suggesting] we need to promote our values…[because] liberal democracies rarely fight one another, sponsor terrorism, or use weapons of mass destruction. If we are to avoid another 9/11, they argue, we need to liberalize the Middle East…
…[Neocons] embrace Woodrow Wilson’s championing of American ideals but reject his reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish our objectives.
There’re the neocons who’re those that the persuasion’s named for, and there’re the more recent converts to this peculiar persuasion.
I suspect that the originals are are more secular than not. The neo-neocons are a more mixed bunch. Certainly there’re a number of people who’ve came to neoconservatism (of a sort) through their local church.
Agressive wars in the name of Democracy seem to be one of the several hallmarks of neoconism. IMHO, none of it seem particularly conservative.[/INDENT]
Ample discussion of this myth in this thread
"Neo-Con" is a code word for Jew
search for my user name + neocon for more info
No, they’re not, Krok. The neocons are for “national greatness,” U.S. hegemony in the world, and the massive military establishment that requires – whatever the cost!
To me, Neocons are people who want to build a new empire. They want to bring back Rome, with themselves as the Caesars. They are willing to use force to do so. They are the New Fascists. So here is my admittedly biased “reinterpretation” of a few snippets.
“convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills” – So much for freedom, liberty, rule of the people yada yada yada
“No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.” – Why have a reason or have to explain it when slogans and banners will suffice. Rallies and book burnings are next? We will flush our own country down the toilet in the name of freedom and patriotism and “values”.
“encouraging free and open societies on every continent” – Read that to mean handpicked puppet governments
“reject his reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish our objectives” – Brute force is easier and quicker.
“Agressive wars in the name of Democracy” – Right. Democracy at gunpoint, but only as democratic as they are told to be. Read that as conquest.