Posted on 10/10/2022 8:46:26 AM PDT by Nik Naym
Good examples.
I see many responses that allude to “wanting open borders for America.” I guess there aren’t any neocons here on FR, then, because no one here ever posts in support of that.
That’s why trump gave lethal aid to Ukraine right?
“From what I can tell it seems to be anyone who doesn’t think Putin is the greatest thing since sliced bread.”
_______________________________________________________
Judging from your forum posts, you’ve probably and justifiably been called a neocon many times.
Hope that helps you, sarcastic Democrat neocon.
When I use it, it describes people that call themselves conservatives, in order to fool Republican voters, when their real goal is to enrich themselves through Defense Contractors, etc. with constant global military endeavors.
In other words, war is good business to them. They’ve never met a military action they don’t like.
Most of the neocons have now been chased over the Corporate Democrat side of the aisle (aka Never Trumpers). This is part of the great shift taking place in the two parties.
There was something of a battle in the Reagan administration between the neoconservatives and paleoconservatives for control of its policy. The neoconservatives won that battle.
Commentary is, or at least was, one of the primary journals of the neoconservatives. If you are able to read some of the essays from back issues you will get an idea of what neoconservatism consists in.
With regard to domestic policy, neoconservatives took a more statistical approach in criticizing liberal social programs. Rather than making the valid paleoconservative claim that social programs encouraged sloth, envy, etc. they "did the math" and pointed out how most of the programs of the Great Society had the exact opposite effect of that intended. Ben Wattenberg was very good in this department.
With regard to foreign policy, they took a more aggressive line of trying to bring democracy to the world, even if at the point of a gun.
This was an understandable position because before the rise of the neoconservatives there was a consensus among social conservatives, libertarians, and national defense conservatives that we needed to fight the worldwide spread of communism. Once communism was defeated (at least temporarily) it was only natural for some people to ask "Instead of fighting against the evils of communism, why not fight to spread the wonders of free market democracy?"
But this was a step too far for more traditional conservatives who wanted to limit our "entangling alliances" and let foreign countries determine their own fate so long as they didn't threaten the US.
Like US involvement in Syria, the involvement of the US in the war in Ukraine has once again stirred up the fight between traditional conservatives and neoconservatives.
Traditional conservatives tend to believe that we should not get involved. Neoconservatives, like those at the IWS, see this as another defining moment for the West and that we must do everything we can to support Ukraine.
There are some traditional conservatives who also support US involvement in Ukraine. They are the same people who went all in for the war in Iraq cuz terrorists, freedom, democracy, sovereignty or something. They spout the neoconservative talking points without admitting to being neoconservatives. They try and make out that the situation in Ukraine is unique, just like every other prior situation that the neoconservatives got us involved in.
Very confusing.
Yes, Trump gave aid to Ukraine, but he didn’t try to bait Russia by encouraging Ukraine to join NATO or talking about stationing nukes in Ukraine. That’s on Biden.
Trump said we should try to work with Russia, that you don’t have to like people to strike agrteements with them to keep the peace. It’s because Trump said this on the campaign trail that McCAin and many other Neocons declared themselves nevertrumpers.
Neocons are foreign policy interventionists. W, McCain, Cocaine Mitch, the Cheneys… are all of the neoconservative school of thought
The reason Trump did that was to prove he wasn’t a Russian spy, and because he realistically had about 30% of the power a president normally has due to DC sedition, just like they refused his order to get out of Syria.
Didn’t the word magically come into vogue when Bush 2 was elected?
This is a great example of a neocon post:
“Apparently per a vocal handful around here as of late anyone who doesn’t support an evil regime run by a madman who starts a pointless war. And of course if you don’t support that you are also a Biden supporter.”
So “Republican Wildcat” is a neocon. Real examples make definitions easier. To a neocon, focusing on America, instead of Ukraine, automatically means you support Putin. Which is factually dishonest of them.
Welcome to FR.
Perhaps it’s an older picture.🙂
Bill Kristol comes to mind.
Neocons are also Never Trumpers. Shows us they were never conservatives.
You’re right, what does it really mean?
Literally, it would mean “new conservative”.
But it’s used all ways as to become meaningless.
Some imply it’s a super conservative, which is really right-leaning (whatever THAT means).
Some imply it’s a RINO!
Just can’t tell.
On Free Republic, it’s anyone who doesn’t love Putin.
Trump armed Ukraine but he wanted to talk to Putin. I don’t understand how Hillary and Obama talking to Putin is acceptable but Trump was selling out America. There was no evidence of Trump Russia collusion. None. If Putin wanted Trump in there it’s because he thought he could take advantage of his political and foreign policy inexperience.
Someone who thinks Reagan wasn’t conservative enough because he “did amnesty”.
Actually, neocons love amnesty and open borders.
No one thinks Putin is a good guy. Stop that shyt.
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.