WHAT EXACTLY IS NEOCONSERVATISM ?

The Neoconservative Persuasion - The Weekly Standard - From the August 25, 2003 issue. ^ | Explained by Irvin Kristol

[Eva]

Like I said, the neo-cons are traditional liberals who have fled the socialism of the Democrat party for the free-markets and more fiscally conservative Republican Party. The Democrats are not liberals and the neo-cons are not conservative.

[Eva]

Here is the dictionary defintitin of liberalism. Tell me if this doesn't also fit a neo-con.

Liberalism - The state or quality of being liberal. - A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
- often, Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
- An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.
- Liberalism, A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
- A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.

[BplusK]

I believe that you are right. Conservatives (in general) and probably most neoconservatives, cannot consiser FDR as a "hero", although maybe, some people can appreciate some of his views, decisions or actions. I certainly would like myself to understand better why Irving Kristol put FDR among these heroes.

[WhiteGuy]

Here's the readers digest version of definitions of the two dominant political ideologies:

Progressive - If they had the votes, would scrap the Bill of Rights, effective immediately....for the children.

Neo-conservative - Would view the "progressive" proposal to immediately repeal the Bill of Rights as "extreme" and would instead offer their own plan to phase it out over a 5 year period...for the children.

AND

An almost fanatical devotion to The Bush Family

[BplusK]

I did not know myself that I was a neocon until I took this quizz at http://www.selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client=zeron.
I realized then that many of my views are more neoconservative than anything else, one view being the one you have just mentioned (promotion of Judeo Christian values around the world).

[BplusK]

Well said !!!

[BplusK]

Well said !!!

[BplusK]

I noticed that you added the word "central" in my sentence. I said "supports strong government" and you wrote "supports strong (central) government". It seems that you go a little beyond what I said. Certainly, neocons appreciate a good central government (meaning a government in Washington that is not "aloof"). However, they also want to promote local initiatives in the different States of the Union and in local communities. They certainly want to encourage private enterprises as it is done in any capitalist / free market society. It is only Communism that wants the almighty government controlling everything everywhere.

[x]

Neoconservatism is not conservative in any sense. It is perpetual war or "creative destruction" as Michael Leeden likes to say in his fevered screeds.

Good point. Kristol's de facto acceptance of some sort of welfare state is shared by almost everyone in politics today. But his slighting of older conservative traditions of reverence and loyalty is disturbing. It's hard to trust the neo-conservatives. They make use of conservative or traditionalist or populist or democratic ideas and rhetoric when it suits their purposes and drop such things when it doesn't. Judging from how Kristol treats some of those he's been allied with, getting too closely involved with neoconservatives looks like a risky proposition. There may be something more to neoconservatism than the naked pursuit of imperial power, but sometimes it's hard to think that there is.

[x]

Neoconservatism is not conservative in any sense. It is perpetual war or "creative destruction" as Michael Leeden likes to say in his fevered screeds.

Good point. Kristol's de facto acceptance of some sort of welfare state is shared by almost everyone in politics today. But his slighting of older conservative traditions of reverence and loyalty is disturbing. It's hard to trust the neo-conservatives. They make use of conservative or traditionalist or populist or democratic ideas and rhetoric when it suits their purposes and drop such things when it doesn't. Judging from how Kristol treats some of those he's been allied with, getting too closely involved with neoconservatives looks like a risky proposition. There may be something more to neoconservatism than the naked pursuit of imperial power, but sometimes it's hard to think that there is.

[goldstategop]

Its an acceptance of political reality. No use fighting a lost battle. Conservatives are better off winning what they can win. Q.E.D.

[u-89]

Kristol from the above article: "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"

Kristol from his book Reflections of a Neo-Conservative: "a conservative welfare state... is perfectly consistent with the neo-conservative perspective." He also wrote elsewhere: "[We] are conservative, but different in certain respects from the conservatism of the Republican Party. We accepted the New Deal in principle, and had little affection for the kind of isolationism that then permeated American conservatism."

Mark Gerson in his 1996 book entitled The Essential Neoconservative Reader: "The neoconservatives have so changed conservatism that what we now identify as conservatism is largely what was once neoconservatism. And in so doing, they have defined the way that vast numbers of Americans view their economy, their polity, and their society."

For those on FR who are anti-anti-neocons they should examine what philosophy they truly believe in - conservatism or neoconservatism i.e. limited government and maximum liberty or activist government and the high taxes required to fuel it. Despite the rosy rhetoric it can be seen through their own words neoconservatism is actually liberalism in disguise.

Kristol above: "But they are impatient with the Hayekian notion that we are on "the road to serfdom." Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. "

Please note Kristol rejects traditional conservatives/libertarian heroes like Hayek and also from the article Russell Kirk, Coolidge, Goldwater. He says neocon heroes are TR and FDR i.e. activist presidents who believe in a meddling government and central planning.

Then there is Kristol's take on foreign policy:
- "for a great power, the "national interest" is not a geographical term"
-"A smaller nation might appropriately feel that its national interest begins and ends at its borders, so that its foreign policy is almost always in a defensive mode."
- "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."

What Kristol is clearly saying here is that he rejects the advise and wisdom of the founding fathers about free trade and peaceful relations with all and not to go out into the world seeking monsters to destroy. He compares us to the Soviet Union - conquering the world through ideology. This is why critics of neoconservatism emphasize their Trotskyite origins. It is clearly seen here that these people still believe in world revolution. They do not wish their country to merely be free and to prosper in the world they want to recreate the world into their vision of utopia. This transformation requires coersion, bribery and even force. These people may have abondoned communism but not their revolutionary zeal. To sum it up these people are not conservatives at all, they have manufactured a NEW conservatism which is the antithesis of the traditional American variety.

[MayDay72]

'...I apologize for tangential posting.' -NutCrackerBoy

...No need to do that...I'm the one that started it...

'You are [...] quite daft.' -MayDay72

'Guilty as charged. Not to mention obscure.' -NutCrackerBoy

...Don't be so hard on yourself...I'm still not sure that I agree with you definition of 'the state'...But it gives me something to think about...Thanks again...

[x]

But to win you have to be able to convince voters that you are working and winning not just for yourself, but for them. Neocons may well find this hard to do, if they keep slamming other conservatives, and if they aren't team players.

Also, there's a major difference between accepting that the size of government won't drastically be reduced any time soon, and letting government grow larger. When the dust clears we'll find that while some of their assumptions weren't wrong, the neocons overplayed their hand both at home and abroad.

I doubt the neocon approach is a recipe for future success. Their success has been due to the fact that they knew what they wanted and were willing to work hard enough to get it, at a time when both major parties were confused about what they wanted and what they could achieve. But that confusion won't be permanent.

[goldstategop]

Americans like effective government. They don't like an intrusive government. There's no confusion here as long as our government does a few things and a few things well. Lord knows we don't need the government to do everything!

[jackbob]

I also, have not 'abondoned' my 'revolutionary zeal.' That asside, your comment hit the nail on the head. Here's a tripple bump to you at 3 in the morning.

BUMP, BUMP, bump.

[Eva]

Then, we also have Rinos, like Arlen Specter and Susan Collins who are further left than liberal or neo-con, they are socialists.

[Consort]

They are useful in keeping control of the Senate. They have to be used effectively so as to not become two more Jeffords.

[Eva]

Did you see the article that was posted yesterday about Specter being in line to head the judiciary committee in 2005?

[Consort]

I didn't see that. Maybe he demanded that in return for not jumping. RINOs are in a position of power right now with control of the Senate at stake.