But what? I didn't say they were being insincere. I said they had a very indirect (or what they might call a long-term) approach. Iraq is a bad example to examine, because there was a direct national-security aspect to the conflict (or at least so there seemed). But there are highly influential conservatives - whom I and others identify as being of the "neo" variety - who've openly stated that regime change in many other places is a desirable goal even when the connection to national security is much less direct than it was in Iraq. Note that in no sense am I accusing them of being insincere or misrepresenting their views.
I take it this means you disagreed with some other anti-"neocon" posters on this thread, who dislike "neocons" partially because, in their eyes, their evangelism lessens their zeal for fighting socialism at home.
Uh, no, I don't disagree with them. In fact, I made the same point on this thread. There's beliefs, and then there's commitment to those beliefs. That they're still conservative doesn't necessarily mean they push the fight against socialism with the same fervor as those who don't share their globalist ideology. So they're conservative in that they're decidedly not liberal, which was my point about Wilson and Clinton. As I see it (and this is just my take - you can take it or leave it), they've transferred their liberal inclinations to the international sphere. The general paleo criticism of their position (which I share) is that when nations become imperialistic abroad, even for "good" reasons, they tend to become less free at home.
Again, how'm I supposed to tell whether a conservative hawk is a "neocon" without consulting your opinion about the situation in question? (Even if he says he's hawkish for national security reasons, that may not be enough. He may only be saying it after all, and secretly just wants to MTWSFD...)
We're back to the business of me allegedly imputing secret motives to their stated beliefs, which I have not done. I wouldn't really know how to identify a closet neocon. I only know how to identify open ones. Look for "brother's keeper" type of arguments. And signs of being a conservative otherwise.
Ok, great. So, they say that they advocate their positions for nat'l security reasons. And you believe them. You just think their reasoning is "long term". But, that's not relevant to the question of whether they're (a) nat'l security hawks or (b) democracy evangelists, now is it? Whether they're short or long term, they're still nat'l security hawks, because that's what they say they are, and you don't doubt them. So uh but then what pray tell is the difference between them and other, Regular conservatives?
The time-scales involved in the foreign policy strategizing? is that all?
But there are highly influential conservatives - whom I and others identify as being of the "neo" variety - who've openly stated that regime change in many other places is a desirable goal even when the connection to national security is much less direct than it was in Iraq.
Direct, to whom? To you? Or them?
If the connection with national security is direct to them (the so-called neo-cons), and this informs their opinion, then they are (drumroll) hawks. The only difference between you and they is that they think doing X is more directly related to national security than you do. You have a fundamental disagreement with them about the facts of the matter, not about ideology. (And instead of arguing with them on the facts - whether doing X is in the national interest - you dress up the whole thing as some kind of ideological difference - "you're all neocons")
[do you disagree w/anti-neocons who complain that neocons don't fight socialism] Uh, no, I don't disagree with them. In fact, I made the same point on this thread.
Ok, then well you lied or erred when you stated that neocons were just like other cons in all things. And as a result, my assertion that people like Bill Clinton fit your definition of "neocon" stands unchallenged.
Is anyone else you can name besides Clinton, Blair, and xxxxxtz a "neocon"? (a real neocon, not a phony one like George Will)
So they're conservative in that they're decidedly not liberal, which was my point about Wilson and Clinton.
Liberal (I assume you mean "leftist") is as liberal does. Clinton signed welfare reform, maybe he's not so "liberal" after all, maybe he's just one of these "neocons" you're talking about. Like I said.
As I see it (and this is just my take - you can take it or leave it), they've transferred their liberal [leftist] inclinations to the international sphere.
Possibly, so Clinton still stands as our #1 "neocon" example. I'm with you.
The general paleo criticism of their position (which I share) is that when nations become imperialistic abroad, even for "good" reasons, they tend to become less free at home.
Perhaps. This isn't a criticism of much of anything said by people like Krauthammer or Rush Limbaugh or George Will however, since they don't advocate "becoming imperialistic abroad" in the first place. (You can try to parody their views in this way, but your saying it doesn't make it so.) I guess they're not "neocons" after all then. But perhaps more purely democracy-evangelist/anti-national-interest types like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair are, why not direct your ire (and "neocon" label) at them? By your description of the term, it fits them much better.
We're back to the business of me allegedly imputing secret motives to their stated beliefs, which I have not done.
Au contraire. You said they had a passionate belief in MTWSFD, that indeed this was the salient characteristic of the neocon. So unless/until you dig up that old Krauthammer column in which he says "I have a passionate belief in MTWSFD", you do seem to have divined a motive in him which is, as of now, hidden to the rest of us laypersons. "Secret", if you will.
I only know how to identify open ones.
Not really. You bogusly identified Krauthammer as one and meanwhile a true "neocon" (by your def.), Bill Clinton, has been staring you in the face for eight years.