Posted on 05/30/2004 11:02:40 AM PDT by Willie Green
What's the difference between "conservative" and "neoconservative"? Who are the "neocons," anyway? And were they, as some charge, an unduly influential cabal of intellectuals who talked President Bush into going to war in Iraq after 9/11 as part of their long-planned crusade to plant democracy in the Middle East?
To seek enlightenment on things neoconservative, I rang up four of the biggest names in the punditry business and asked them the same questions. Rich Lowry is editor of National Review. Paul Weyrich is chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation. Paul Gigot is editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. And George Will is the famous syndicated columnist:
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
NeoCons: those who aspire to achieve socialism via the Republican party?
NeoCons: those that think that we can win the war on terror by leaving our borders unsecured.
I saw the term "mesoconservative" the other day.
I am expecting anyday soon Jerassicon, Futuracon and Retrocon and Condacon.
A derogatory term usually used by liberals an RINO's to attack anyone who supports President Bush.
Thanks for posting the article. It is clear from the discussion involving prominent Conservatives (as in your article) that no one quite agrees,
Short list.
All the attention on the Neocons allows the Paleoconservatives to kick butt. Gotta have a smokescreen, ya know. ;-)
The difference in the presidential candidates this election are so stark that a vote for Kerry is an admission of a sick mind or a treasonous heart.
I usually call them "neo-Libs" right back. Tends to cause confusion and anger.
Neocons: How dare you think we need secure national borders? All we need is to hire countless more rude illegals to do security checks at our airports.
Guess that makes me an Ultraretrocon.
I like 'retrocon' myself.
Now that you mention it, Retrocon is pretty good.
I better copyright it before The Donald gets there!!
I think George Will's response was the closest to accurate.
BTTT!!!!!!!
I was told the bad guys would never enter through our bleeding borders. They would only enter legally on jet planes, as tourist or visitors on visas etc.
I guess we didn't learn much after the morning of 911.
True enough, and well said. Lowry's National Review led the way on this. A little more skepticism and openness to opposing opinions would have been advisable. Maybe they wanted to get out far ahead and give clear indications of the way for others to follow, lest they be left behind and lose their influence or the country miss the big opportunity to change the world.
It would be surprising if some of the big war pundits (Hanson, Peters, Price-Jones, Steyn) will have as much influence in the future as they had over the last two years or so. National Review will probably do some backpedaling to disassociate itself from the more determined and impassioned neocons, but they've lost some credibility in recent months.
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.