Posted on 06/23/2011 7:01:43 AM PDT by Hawk720
My father suggested to me recently that it might be helpful to better explain what the term “neoconservative” means. “A lot of people don’t know,” he said. As usual, Dad was right. Though decades old, the mainstream use of the word neoconservative is relatively new. I mentally filed away my father’s suggestion agreeing that a layman’s explanation of “neoconservative” might be helpful when the time was right. The time is right—as the American intervention in Libya has drawn a clearer line between neoconservatives and conventional Republicans than any event in recent memory.
The “neocons” believe American greatness is measured by our willingness to be a great power—through vast and virtually unlimited global military involvement. Other nations’ problems invariably become our own because history and fate have designated America the world’s top authority.
Critics say the US cannot afford to be the world’s policeman. Neoconservatives not only say that we can but we must—and that we will cease to be America if we don’t. Writes Boston Globe neoconservative columnist Jeff Jacoby: “Our world needs a policeman. And whether most Americans like it or not, only their indispensable nation is fit for the job.” Neocon intellectual Max Boot says explicitly that the US should be the world’s policeman because we are the best policeman.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) heartily champions the neoconservative view. While virtually every other recognizably Tea Party congressman or senator opposes the Libyan intervention, Rubio believes the world’s top cop should be flashing its Sherriff’s badge more forcefully in Libya—and everywhere else. New York Times columnist Ross Douthat explains:
“Rubio is the great neoconservative hope, the champion of a foreign policy that boldly goes abroad in search of monsters to destroy…"
(Excerpt) Read more at amconmag.com ...
Someone needs to point out that the goal of the elitists, be they leftists or neocons,
is “neo-feudalism”,
a system in which they control all the wealth, resources, means of travel, etc,
and the “serfs” are denied all of these freedoms.
A war mongering socialist?
To Pat Buchanan and his “American Conservative” magazine thugs, a neoconservative is anyone who thinks that the Jews should be able to stay alive.
Jew baiters need to go straight back to Hell where they came from.
I always find it interesting when someone tries to define terms like this. It would be nice if there was a universally accepted definition, but there isn’t.
This article is silliness. No rational Conservative opposed the containment policy during the Cold War, only liberals did. The implication is that there is less need for foreign involvement now, but how can this view be justified? Are we in less peril now because its a bunch of radical islamists and Chinese imperialists that hate us, as opposed to the Russkies?
Indeed, “Neo-con” is code for Jews.
Indeed, “Neo-con” is code for Jews.
Da Jooooos!
"Neocon", "antisemite", "homophobe", "racist", and a host of other, similar, hackneyed pejoratives are code-words for "people I disagree with and dislike". They may once have meant something (not always), but any objective meaning they may once have had has been obliterated by over-use, misuse, and abuse.
Pretty much whatever the person using the word wants it to mean, and not much else.
A newer generation of so-called neo-liberals rose to influence. They included Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek. Though, insisting that the markets be left free to set prices and determine production, they believed that it was the role of government to consciously create an environment that would allow business to flourish while controlling what they saw as capitalism's potential flaws.
I see neo-cons in the same light. Though agreeing with many conservative principles, they espouse a larger role for government than traditional conservatives. This is true both in foreign policy and domestic economic policy.
When I hear "neo", I think big government.
The difference is that the Soviet Union was a monolithic expansionist power with the capability and opportunity to become a continental hegemon. Had we not intervened in Europe they would have attained it with negative results for us.
China is not yet to that point. But I fear that if we follow the neoconservative path, we will be exhausted as a nation when the time comes that we have to do serious balancing against China as we did against the USSR.
Radical Islam and the Middle East is not a monolith but a mix of often competing groups. Between Israelis, Persians and Arabs, Sunni and Shiite, the locals of the Middle East are quite capable of finding and sustaining a balance of power while requiring a whole lot less intervention from the USA.
Exactly.
There is no body of neocon doctrine to which aspiring members must pledge themselves before being allowed to join.
Back in the 80s and 90s, if I recall correctly, neocon referred to a considerable group of ex-liberal pundits who had switched sides, many if not most of them Jewish. Their focus was largely on failed domestic policies, especially with regard to crime. I don’t remember any particular foreign policy or interventionist slant.
It would be interesting to see how the perception of a desire to be global policeman became associated with “neocon.”
You make some good points. I would dispute your last paragraph especially, though. How can Israel, for instance, create a workable balance with its regional enemies when those enemies are irrational and developing nukes? Imagine Iran without a US presence in Iraq and Afghansitan currently.
Also, one cannot forget that during the Cold War not only did we contain from a military/strategic standpoint, but we also contained an idealogy — or perhaps more accurately — we introduced and buttressed freedom in regions that previously had not had it, and in so doing developed long term allies.
Timeline slightly off. At least in the USA, "progressives" who explicitly stated the Constitution had failed and we needed to replace it with more rational government mechanisms, got a tremendous amount of influence in the 1890s and first part of 1900s.
TR was the first Progressive president, Wilson was the second.
Neoconservatives are primarily socially liberal hawks. Almost to a man they have done everything possible to avoid serving in the military as have their children. Next to liberals they are the greatest danger to our country.
Quit playing the “race card.”
Get real. Buchanan put USA's interests before every country including Israel. To some that's anti-Jewish.
And even Iran has positive effects they can provide us. They are no friends of al-Qaeda and the Taliban and they are a whole lot closer to Afghanistan than we are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.