What the Hell is a Neocon, anyway?

[Chicago Jake]

The term neocon has been used on this board recently, including by yours truly. But do any of us really know what it means? A quick Google search turned up many definitions, mostly mutually contradictory. Possibly the most cogent came from wikipedia.com:

Neoconservatism is a somewhat controversial term referring to the political goals and ideology of the "new conservatives" in the United States. The "newness" refers either to being new to American conservatism (often coming from liberal or socialist backgrounds) or to being part of a "new wave" of conservative thought and political organization.

Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives are characterized by an aggressive stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government.

Neoconservatism is a controversial term whose meaning is widely disputed. The term is used more often by those who oppose "neoconservative" politics than those who subscribe to them; indeed, many to whom the label is applied reject it. The term is sometimes used pejoratively, especially by the self-described paleoconservatives, who oppose neoconservatism from the right. Critics of the term argue that the word is overused and lacks coherent definition. For instance, they note that many so-called neoconservatives vehemently disagree with one another on major issues.

So, what do the rest of you think a neocon is? And are you one?......Jake

[Harrybutt]

One thing it means to me is a conservative who believes deficits are good or acceptable.

[Merlot Joe]

Hell if I know Jake, but I don't think neither of us fit the mold you have their.

Let's see what our Liberal friends say. Shit I am open for suggestions.(will not really but......)

I would say me, myself, and I are moderate conservatives.

Joe.

[Ardbeg... innit]

This article pretty much sums up what I think of when the term Neocon is used (except maybe the reference to Condi's boots!)

www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html

quoting from the article...

What does a neoconservative dream world look like?

Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon." In this capacity, the US would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of "failed states" or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the US or its interests.

AND

I always think of the American Enterprise Institute as the "Vatican" of the intellectual side of Neoconism...

www.aei.org/about/contentID.20031212154735838/default.asp

Gordon

[DT]

A Neocon is a Republicant war monger

[Harrybutt]

A Neocon is a Republicant war monger

Very succinct. I go with that one. ;D In keeping with the administration, they are also chickenhawks.

[Merlot Joe]

DT said:

A Neocon is a Republican war monger

DT, I don't think just one item will classify someone as a Neocon. It would be no different than saying some who agrees with Abortion is a liberal.


Joe.

[Harrybutt]

DT, I don't think just one item will classify someone as a Neocon.

Very true...not all war mongers are Neocons

[Tex]

It's a new label for the right. Racist sounded a little hollow when ragging on Condoleeza Rice and Alberto Gonzalez. It has a sinister sound (like Neo Nazi) and is vague enough to slap on anyone.

I usually dont use "conservative" and "liberal". They are used with such different meanings as their traditional dictionary definition as to be unrecognizable and paint with such a broad brush as to be usually inaccurate.

[luckyhedo]

The neocons are driven by the philosophy of Leo Stauss.

As a young man, I had the privilege of studying for three years under Stauss’ most famous student , Allan Bloom, author of The Closing of the American Mind.

"The Straussians are the most powerful, the most organised, and the best-funded scholars in Canada and the United States. They are the unequalled masters of right-wing think tanks, foundations, and corporate funding. And now they have the ear of the powerful in the White House. Nothing could have pleased Strauss more; for he believed that intellectuals have an important role to play in politics. It was not prudent for them to rule directly because the masses are inclined to distrust them; but they should certainly not pass up the opportunity to whisper in the ears of the powerful. So, what are they whispering? What did Strauss teach them? What is the impact of the Straussian philosophy on the powerful neoconservatives? And what is neoconservatism anyway?...

So, what is neoconservatism? And how does it propose to ch-ch-change the world in accordance with Straussian political philosophy? 'Neo' comes from the Greek neos, which means new. And, what's neo about neoconservatism? Well, for one thing, the old conservatism relied on tradition and history; it was cautious, slow and moderate; it went with the flow. But under the influence of Leo Strauss, the new conservatism is intoxicated with nature. The new conservatism is not slow or cautious, but active, aggressive, and reactionary in the literal sense of the term. Inspired by Strauss's hatred for liberal modernity, its goal is to turn back the clock on the liberal revolution and its achievements.

Allan Bloom, author of The Closing of the American Mind, Strauss's best known student, was a professor at the University of Toronto. His best selling book demonised the sixties - the age of civil rights for black Americans, and greater freedom and equality for women. Irving Kristol also demonised the sixties. And Francis Fukuyama, student of Allan Bloom, and vanguard of the neoconservative intellectuals, refers to the sixties as "The Great Disruption," the title of his recent book. Supposedly, all these Strauss-inspired writers believe that the new found freedoms of the sixties are the root of all evil, because freedom invites licentiousness, and licentiousness is a harbinger of social decay - divorce, delinquency, crime, and creature comforts. And there is a sense in which they are right - freedom is a treasure that is quickly lost if it is not wisely used. The trouble is that neoconservatives have zero tolerance for human vices or follies, and as a result, they are unwilling to give liberty a chance.

So, what is to be done? How can America be saved from her dangerous fascination with liberty? Irving Kristol came up with the solution that has become the cornerstone of neoconservative policies: use democracy to defeat liberty. Turn the people against their own liberty. Convince them that liberty is licentiousness - that liberty undermines piety, leads to crime, drugs, rampant homosexuality, children out of wedlock, and family breakdown. And worse of all, liberalism is soft on communism or terrorism - whatever happens to be the enemy of the moment. And if you can convince the people that liberty undermines their security, then, you will not have to take away their liberty; they will gladly renounce it."

SEE:

evatt.org.au/publications/papers/112.html

LOU

See I am not that liberal. ;D

[Tex]

I look at my dad who didn't ch-ch-change his philosophy too much in his life but:

1) campaigned hard for FDR in 1940
2) supported the use of the A bomb on Japan
3) regularly debated in favor of civil rights legislation on Austin radio in the late 1940's and early 1950's
4) took a lot of heat in the small town where I grew up for supporting integrated facilities for blacks, publishing black wedding & funeral announcements in the local paper (he got this changed) and admitting blacks to the local community college (he got this changed).
5) thought we abandoned Vietnam and left in disgrace
6) thought socialism was a solid loser and destroyed the human will
7) campaigned hard for Ronald Reagan and Bush 41 and 43 (the first term)
8) thought women should be treated equally as men in business and government.
9) thought gays were deserving of the same respect and opportunities as everyone else.
10) would feed or buy a room for the night or clothing for anyone that asked or looked like they needed it.
11) could hardly tolerate a whiner
12) thought abortion was not a good answer but nonetheless should be the decision of the mother
13) liked to drink, gamble, and hang with wild women
14) could smell bullshit at ten miles
15) knew no physical fear or hid it well

Now put a label on this guy. Some of this stuff must be genetic or cultural because I am cut off the same bolt of cloth. Many of the old labels (white collar, blue collar, for example) don't accurately described the world we live in. IMHO, many of the labels are used by those that are too lazy to address the many issues one by one and those that want to smear their adversaries without addressing the issues that separate them.

[Merlot Joe]

Tex said:

IMHO, many of the labels are used by those that are too lazy to address the many issues one by one and those that want to smear their adversaries without addressing the issues that separate them.

I stand guilty as charged, as do many of us here on this board. It's the easy way do things.

There is one difference here on this than there is out on the streets. There is not the hate here, maybe a little getting po'd now and then. We are all just trying to find someplace to express are opinions good, bad or indifferent and this happens to be a great gathering place for us, since we mostly have one thing in common.
However many of us (me for one) are lazy in the way we address the issues, and I sure we will continue to do so out of habit, again good, bad, or indifferent.


There is no way to label your dad. If anyone would try the are nuts. It looks like he did whatever he personally thought was right for him, and that's all that matters. Sounds like a great gentleman.

By the way I really like # 13. ;D My type of guy.

Joe.

[Tex]

In some contexts, the labels have validity. If you said liberal or conservative in the context of the Iraqi War or tax cuts vs. more social programs, most listeners would read the same meanings, but of the twenty or thirty (and hundreds of minor ones) major issues lurking around, how many people are going to be consistent on all of them? Then comes the exceptions to the rules (shades of gray to HB). For every general rule you can come up with, there will be situations where that rule doesn't work.

Maybe the labels are handy shorthand when disccusing a single issue to describe where one stands on the issue (without a paragraph), but when one attempts to apply the same labels to groups of people globally it just doesn't fit well. I use "left and right" occasionally as shorthand, but will readily admit that these terms are imprecise.

[Harrybutt]

Tex, he does seem like an intriguing man. Butt, it also sounds like he did have a philosphical ch-ch-change of hear in the '70's or '80's or just didn't really understand Reagan and the Bush's. I say it must be one or the other cause Reagan and the Bush's are diametrically opposed to the political leanings you stated for him through the '60's.

[Chicago Jake]

Harrybutt said:

..... Reagan and the Bush's are diametrically opposed to the political leanings you stated for him through the '60's.

Harry, if you really believe that, then you are falling for your own demagogery. Conservatives are not opposed to civil rights or equal opportunity. They are just opposed to stacking the deck in favor of minorities and disincentivizing folks who work hard......Jake

[Tex]

HB, you may want to consider that all of the civil rights legislation of the sixties passed the Republican caucus with greater majorities than on the Democratic side. Republican Eisenhower sent the troops into Little Rock. Every sheriff that sent out the dogs, every governor that stood in the doorway or refused to enforce the law was a Democrat. Having said that, LBJ probably did more to get the civil rights legislation passed than anyone else.

[luckyhedo]

Chicago said:

Conservatives are not opposed to civil rights or equal opportunity. ....Jake

You are correct Jake! The neocons are opposed to this. They also do not want too much advancement of the masses. They need the “grunts” in the army and they join "to be the best they can be" because they can't get it anywhere else. Continuous war breeds "virtue" in the masses, according to them.

LOU

[Merlot Joe]

The said:

They need the “grunts” in the army
LOU

Lou, you can't really believe that the Republicans(neocons) deprive the minorities just so they have a field to draw from for military useage?

That could be taken as a racist remark against them

Joe

[luckyhedo]

Joe I do not equate necons just with Republicans. Most Republicans are for civil rights and minority rights since most are classical (small c) conservatives as defined in my first post in this thread. Lincoln (a Republican) was such a man.

Also nowhere did I mention race!

Jake speaks of the lazy that wait for handouts. Some do. I say most do not. They have not the opportunity for advancement: tuition fees of bankruptcy proportions, 43 million without medical coverage, rampant crime in the poorer parts of the cities (i.e. Washington D.C. respectfully is a disgrace in this regard).

These people in many cases only have the military as a way out, and the neocons feed on this. It is one part of the puzzle on how to control the masses while convincing them that they are the vanguards of the State. Everybody wins: the neocon intellectuals control the power and the masses are willing fodder for their canons.


Lou

[Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III]

The said:

Jake speaks of the lazy that wait for handouts. Some do. I say most do not. They have not the opportunity for advancement: tuition fees of bankruptcy proportions, 43 million without medical coverage, rampant crime in the poorer parts of the cities (i.e. Washington D.C. respectfully is a disgrace in this regard).

First of all, KUDOS to a great thread and great responses from all sides. With that said......

Lou, have you ever lived in the US and tried to get a college loan, or any loan for that matter?

There are NUMEROUS programs here in the States for ANYONE who wants a college education. All you have to do is apply. It simply requires MOTIVATION on your part to do so. Some folks just want everything given to them without any effort on their part. Life doesn't work that way.

Pardon me for suggesting that there is crime in Canada as well as Washington, DC. No?

..............Bob

[Merlot Joe]

Lou, well Bob answered some of my response to you since he beat me here, but I will put a mandate towards you.

If you feel that our people are so deprived in thes eareas you mentioned, in my country and since apparently Canada does not have these problems since you always only mention the ones we have here, and never mention any of these problems in Canada. Why don't you protest to your government to come and help us.


Joe.

[Tex]

Lou, you make these neocons sound like the Black Dragon Society pulling the levers in the back room. Who are we talking about here, Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice?

[Harrybutt]

There are NUMEROUS programs here in the States for ANYONE who wants a college education. All you have to do is apply. It simply requires MOTIVATION on your part to do so. Some folks just want everything given to them without any effort on their part. Life doesn't work that way.

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

I, did go through the student loan and grant process during my schooling and that is bullshit. Maybe it depends on the state in which you were a resident, butt it never was so easy as signing your name and all the money you needed was handed to you. NEVER did a loan or grant cover what it cost to go to school. It helped, butt that is it. During that time, and in my family's darkest financial year.....couldn't get shit. Why? Because the previous year, we had all been working.

[Merlot Joe]

Harrybutt said:

butt it never was so easy as signing your name and all the money you needed was handed to you.

Unfortunately yes it is. Our youngest daughter just finished college. When we went to sign her up they asked if we wanted a student loan. My question was how much will they pay, there answer to me was how much do you want to pay out or your pocket, thats what it depends on. You can get up to 100% of your tuition fees and book fees paid. They would prefer you use a student than pay for it yourself. The schools are guaranteed payment that way. Fortunately we are able to pay for it ourself.

Example #2. My wife's bosses daughter 3 years ago was going to UCLA Law school $80,000 for 3 years. She got on her own an $80,000. 100% of the tuition student loan.

I don't know if it has anything to do with the state you live in but today right now anyone can get a student loan for their education 100% of it. It doesn't have to be a major university, it can be a small trade school. Your grades even don't count as long as you are excepted to the school.

The school that you go to will set up the whole thing, do all the paper work for a student, all you have to do is sign your name.

You start repayment 18 months after you graduate from school and have 10 years to repay the loan. The interest rate depends on the current rates at the time.

You can believe or not Hb, but what I am telling you is the truth. No Bullshit!!!

Joe.

[Merlot Joe]

The said:

Also nowhere did I mention race!

Jake speaks of the lazy that wait for handouts. Some do. I say most do not. They have not the opportunity for advancement: tuition fees of bankruptcy proportions, 43 million without medical coverage, rampant crime in the poorer parts of the cities (i.e. Washington D.C. respectfully is a disgrace in this regard).



Lou

Lou, first of all for someone who does not live in the United States you seem to deem yourself an expert on what takes place in my country no matter the subject. You seem to be more up to date with criticism than most people who live here. Funny how that is?

Like it or not, you opened the racism box when you replied to Jakes' sentence about or minorities. Just by mentioning or referring to the word minority and hello racism card was just played.

He stated and I quote" They are just opposed to stacking the deck in favor of minorities and the disincentivizing folk who work hard."

Then you continued on with your rant about the masses bullshit.

Please stop with they line that the militray is the only way out, thats first class crap and you know it. I would think that someone as informed as you are about issues and the way of life in the United States would be aware of such!

As in my previous post to you, my mandate to you still stands, or will this be another of the ones you sweep under the rug and never really give an answer to.?

Joe.

ps. By the way to clarify something, I am not saying don't post it's our business, I am just saying that well you know.

[Harrybutt]

Thanks jd. There is hope for my kids, then ;D

Next problem I encountered when I was in school....I kept running into expenses over and above tuition and books......things like, food, gas, clothing, utilities, insurance, other assorted school supplies and school related fees, eg."activity fees" which the grants/loans wouldn't cover back then...do they now?

[Ardbeg... innit]

Tex said:

In some contexts, the labels have validity. If you said liberal or conservative in the context of the Iraqi War or tax cuts vs. more social programs, most listeners would read the same meanings,

Tex... (I agree with your perception on labels) ALSO interesting is the use of comparisons indescribing labels, such as the use of "tax cuts vs. more social programs"... there are and number of comparisons like that, that you could have made, yet your choice was predisposed, subtlely, to give an edge to your preference... I might have said (and this is for example only, not pushing a particular thread drift)

"tax cuts vs balenced budget"
"fewer social programs for the poor vs maintaining social programs"
"wealth redistribution to the rich vs cost of living relief for mimimum wage earners"

OK, I am stretching, but the implication made by the choice to compare implicitly places a tone on the label being used... just an observation.

Gordon

[DT]

DT, I don't think just one item will classify someone as a Neocon. It would be no different than saying some who agrees with Abortion is a liberal.


Joe.

ok JD, a neocon is a closed minded, holier than thou, socialist, radical, chickenhawk, war monger........



psssst.... and its a good thing the majority of the conservative folks see they ain't worth two dead flies, cause all the liberals do

[DT]

By the way I really like # 13. ;D My type of guy.

Joe.

Me tooooooooooo



psssst.......its called *LUCKY 13*

[Tex]

bornagaindruid said:

..."tax cuts vs balenced budget"
"fewer social programs for the poor vs maintaining social programs"
"wealth redistribution to the rich vs cost of living relief for mimimum wage earners"...

Gordon

Gordon, you may have a career in marketing. ;D