Yeah I’m not sure what “neocons” are either.
I’ve debated a few on here. I think you have to be high school age, socially uber liberal, and fiscally conservative.
Neocon stands for neoconservative. “neo” stands for new. If I wanted to refer to “old” conservatives, I would say “paleoconservative.” The difference between neos and paleos is typically thought of as a difference in foreign policy theory, with neos having abandoned the more ancient noninterventionist policy called the Monroe Doctrine, which pretty much said, if the attack is not against US on our own soil, we will do nothing to interfere in other nation’s conflicts, other than diplomatic contributions.
By contrast, neos try to look at the whole array of geopolitical circumstances and weigh whether a foreign intervention might make sense in terms of US interests. If so, the theory goes, we have to find a way to get involved, whether openly or clandestinely, formally or informally, militarily or otherwise.
That’s another point of friction. The Constitution requires a declaration of war, so paelos would say you have to have a formal declaration by Congress before you can make a major commitment of military resources. A neo might be inclined to use a more “creative” approach to constitutional construction to bring about the desired intervention, whether by hook or by crook.
Thus, very often a libertarian will stand on constitutional principle in denying the validity of a specific war, whereas the left will simply deny the validity of all wars by any construction available, constitutional or otherwise. This is rejected as dangerous by self-conscious neos, and is generally confusing to other, less informed observers, because superficially, libertarians and libs can look like they are ending up in the same place. But the driving principles really are different.
Yeah I’m not sure what “neocons” are either.Think William Kristol and his Weekly Standard Magazine.