WHAT EXACTLY IS NEOCONSERVATISM ?

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

[chance33_98]

shares common views with the religious conservatives (and NOT with the Libertarians) concerning moral values.

Makes one wonder what a neo-liberal is. They believe in pushing their morals upon others through legislation, labeling anyone who does not bow to their 'priests' as haters, and use concerted efforts to spread their 'gospel'.

Most conservative christians I know take a view that the way to make changes is not through government, but through changing a man's heart. Laws are mainly to punish (or chastise if you wish). Abortion can be legal, but if people see it as wrong they won't do it (same with other things as well).

The left has made out the conservative christians to be control freaks who want to force people to do something, all the while they are passing (or trying to) more and more legislation telling others how to live. If being a religious conservative means living strictly within a religious philosophy (whichever one you choose) and working to pass laws to make others do the same than the real conservatives are the liberals themselves - they just do it without using a bible, making things up as they go along.

The term 'religious conservative' has come to mean something bad to many people, as the leftists try to scare people into thinking there is a group of christians trying to control their lives and tell them what to do - and while there may be some who fit this mold (and I am not one of them, Christ told his disciples to go and tell the good news, not make laws to make people obey it) most the people who fall into this category are liberals who use fractured groups and philosophies to force their beliefs onto others.

< /end rant>

[meenie]

Scratch the empire part. We better get our ducks in a row or we will become a third world country. Why? For the simple reason that we have to have a world class economy to support a world class military structure. Russia was a threat until it overspent its military budget and did not have the economy to back up its military. China has or will have in the near future enough foreign reserves to wreck our economy. This is where our weakness lies.

[chance33_98]

apologies for the double post - admin can you removes on of my replies please?

[MayDay72]

...Bump...

[eleni121]

shares common views with the religious conservatives (and NOT with the Libertarians) concerning moral values.

Not only shares but actively promotes Judaeo Christian values in Government and the public sphere of life in America and the world.

So I guess I am NEOCON.

[Godebert]

Mr. Kristol sums up it a best when he defines a neoconservative appropriately with his own words:

"...ever since its origin among disillusioned liberal intellectuals in the 1970s,..."

Let remind members of this forum who might be lured into Mr. Kritol's socialist based philosophy, that the term "liberal intellectuals" is an oxymoron and incongruent.

............................................................

Worth repeating.

[x]

It is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic. Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked.

Looks a little childish, and more than a little superficial. What do you do with George Washington in such a simplistic "happy face" vs. "Mr. Grumpy" scenario? Sounds like Irving is responding to the surfaces of politics and not what lies beneath. A true statesman would be sanguine and cautious by turns as the situation demands. One can't be fundamentally pessimistic about one's country, but cheerleading isn't enough.

Some of what Kristol argues for is just conservative commonsense. But priorities are what's important. Most of those who've been identified as "neocons" in recent years have put foreign policy and foreign intervention first. An interventionist foreign policy looks to be the defining feature of today's neo-conservatives. The alliance with religious conservatives on moral issues, by contrast, is in the background, and may just be for show. How far the neocons would actually go to maintain the alliance is unclear. Finally, to outsiders it looks like neocons want to stay in the driver's seat more than to compromise and share real power with other conservatives from outside their faction.

[MayDay72]

'Not only shares but actively promotes Judaeo Christian values in Government and the public sphere of life in America and the world.' -eleni121

...'Promoting' is one thing...But using 'force' and 'coercion' is another matter...Individuals are free to 'promote' any ideas the wish...However the state is the only entity that can legally initiate force against an individual...This is why I would be very skeptical about the state 'promoting' anything...Unlike me or you [individual citizens] the state can 'promote' it wishes [gun control, taxes, etc.] with the use of a prison cell or gun barrel...Do you really think that the most fair and efficient way of 'promoting' religious values is by using agencies like the IRS, DMV and US Postal Service to do your bidding?

[hosepipe]

Neo-conservative = republican in name only still possesed with democrat demons...

[massadvj]

We will either dissolve, be overrun and fade away or be the next great empire, encompassing and controlling the entire world. There's no middle path.

This is an extremely simplistic and dangerous generalization. Teddy Roosevelt articulated the most sensible approach to foreign policy when he said we should "walk softly and carry a big stick." We cannot possibly control the entire world. It's typical American jingoism to think we can. At best, we can make nations who antagonize the ointment of world order pay a heavy price. Even that has its limits. World domination and control is completely out of the question.

In the war on terror, we have embarked on nation-building escapades in two countries: Afghanistan and Iraq. We are already spread too thin and we haven't yet taken on the greater long-term threats to our security. We are hoping against hope that North Korea and Iran will acquiesce based on what they saw us do to Saddam. We'll probably end up paying the North Koreans for a nuclear-free Korean penninsula. We likely have no choice but to accept a limited nuclear capability for Iran. That's hardly what I'd call "control."

We are the world's largest economy. But, relative to the economies of the rest of the world, we have been shrinking for decades. So economically, our power is actually diminishing over time. This may be a good thing as markets open up for our goods and services, but it gives us diminished clout in terms of our ability to dictate economic matters to the rest of the world.

Militarily, we are way out ahead, but military advantage has its limitations. At most, the military can be used to facilitate a stable environment for global trade. It can't realistically control the world.

Generally, neocons tend to accept and promote the role of America as keeper of world order. To claim Reagan as a standard-bearer for their philosophy is somewhat of a stretch, since Reagan tended to shy away from conflicts in which we had no compelling national interest. Reagan cut and ran in Lebanon, which may have been the first in a string of actions that led the terrorists to conclude we were weak and indecisive.

As far as government spending is concerned, Reagan supported tax cuts for the two-fold purposes of limiting politicians' ability to spend and stimulating the economy. Today's neocons simply cut taxes and increase spending, which makes them bigger panderers than the liberals, and fiscally more irresponsible than any political ideology on the scene today.

[eleni121]

The "state" is nothing more and nothing less than a collection of individuals elected by their constituents - hopefully the more neocons the better.

[witnesstothefall]

Far as I can see, neoconservatism is a codeword for subversion of traditional conservatism by so-called "former liberals".

Read or listen to William Kristol, the neocon par excellence. I don't trust that man one little bit.

[MayDay72]

'The "state" is nothing more and nothing less than a collection of individuals elected by their constituents...' -eleni121

...True...But 'promoting' your ideas by the use force and coercion isn't any more justified just because those ideas are supported by a democratically elected body...Hitler was elected by a democratic process...We have natural individual rights enshrined in the founding document of this country [the 'Declaration of Independence'] and limitations of the power and scope of the federal government enumerated in the 'Constitution' and its ammendments...Would a complete disarming [i.e. a ban on all firearms] of the American public be okay if it were democratically supported? Don't you think that some of our rights are 'inalienable' and should not be taken away simply by the whims of bureaucrats, politicians, or even the majority of the voting public? Using the powers of the state for your own ends may be justified...But you should always be wary that powers that you give [away] to the state now may be used by others against you later...

...Don't get me wrong...I do respect your wish to promote such things as morals and religious values...I just believe the the state is a poor tool to use for this purpose...It would be best to channel you resources into voluntary/private organizations [churches, private schools, non-governmental charities, etc.] for that purpose...These institutions would be much more efficient at these tasks anyway...

[The Mayor]

Me too....

How are ya

Rus

[FourPeas]

I agree with your tag line completely.

[NutCrackerBoy]

The "state" is nothing more and nothing less than a collection of individuals elected by their constituents - hopefully the more neocons the better.

I don't agree at all. The state is a contract between generations, past, present, and future. The elected representatives at any given time are mere custodians.

[NutCrackerBoy]

The NeoConservatives, as far as I can tell, want to intervene anywhere there is a dictatorship - again that is NOT conservative.

First, a dictatorship is not bad in and of itself, unless it is brutal and repressive.

Second, neocons, like anyone else, have no desire to intervene anywhere unless necessary.

A world order is seen in which freedom-loving nations preserve their own against such Hitlers and Stalins and bin Ladens and Saddams who arise from time to time. Holding power by depriving freedom is regarded as illegitimate.

Free nations, for pragmatic reasons, won't oust dictators who do not threaten their interests.

[Orangedog]

Glad I'm not the only one who sees the big picture.

[goldstategop]

Yes I do count myself in this school of thought. We must have an American, optimistic, politically appealing, patriotic, and national security minded conservatism. One that accepts the need for economic growth and the existence of the welfare state, though not in its liberal incarnation. This is the essence of conservatism in the Republican Party today. It used to be called "neo" and due to the way things have become, the prefix no longer matters, justifiably so since conservatives stand opposed to liberals in the view of America, its prospects, love of country, and on national security. Our enemies and opponents inside the conservative movement express alarm at the triumph of "neoconservatism." All conservatives should in fact rejoice since its made this country stronger and healthier. Europe has nothing like it. And its in no small part thanks to conservatives that as Martin Seymour Lipset has noted, America is "the exceptional nation."

[GOPcapitalist]

"Neoconservatism is the first variant of American conservatism in the past century that is in the "American grain." It is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic. Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked." - Irving Kristol

Pardon my asking but does anybody else see something seriously wrong with who Mr. Kristol defines as a conservative hero?