• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Neocons Really Conservatives?

Are Neocons really conservatives?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 50.0%
  • No

    Votes: 14 50.0%

  • Total voters
    28
We are the natural development of Jeffersons (among so many others) conception of an Empire of Liberty. Death to tyrants, power to the people.

Of Jeffersons? Do know his position on war?

Conservatives or for that matter Neoconservatives have damn near nothing in common with Jefferson.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what "conservative" means anymore, so it's tough to compare.

Cons, neocons, and liberals all believe in big government - it's just a matter of what each says the FedGov should be doing, and who gets paid off - as opposed to ever asking the question, "... where does the FedGov have the authority to do the vast majority of what it is currently doing?"

No Democrat/liberal cares about the Constitution or the rule of law - that is obvious; as far as I can tell, neocons are with 'em in that regard; some "conservatives" on the other hand do give lip service to republican rule, i.e. the rule of law; but, for the most part, the Republican Party is no more republican than the Democratic Party.

So where does that leave those of us who desire to live in a free society, and to live our lives as free men?? The answer is - completely screwed.
 
That's a difficult thing to have me put out quickly and the list would be long. I'm only going to throw out a dozen or so names. But many of the original or 2nd generation neoconservatives are still alive and well. These names include persons that are either domestic policy, intellectual/academic neoconservatives, or foreign policy neoconservatives. No single group has to traverse into the other. Here's some.

Nathan Glazer
Michael Novak
Norman Podhoretz
John Podhoretz
Gertrude Himmelfarb
Midge Decter
Ben Wattenberg
Harry Jaffa
Harvey Mansfield
Irwin Stelzer
Paul Wolfowitz
William Kristol
Richard Perle
Francis Fukuyama (although he later disavowed them, I read closely, and I didn't get the feeling he rejected it so much as asked for a better neoconservatism)
Robert Kagan
Richard Pipes
Daniel Pipes

[...]

Would not include: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Nitze...

Why not Cheney?
 
Why not Cheney?

He doesn't fit the profile for either the original domestic policy neocons nor the early Scoop Jackson neocons. On top of that he doesn't have the concerns for democracy and human rights as a foreign policy plank to fit with the Neo-Reaganites.
He makes a long-time ally of the neoconservatives, but that's not exactly the same thing.
 
We are the natural development of Jeffersons (among so many others) conception of an Empire of Liberty. Death to tyrants, power to the people.

More like power to big banks and large corporations.
 
It use to be that way. The idea of the League of Nations and the United Nations along with being the policeman of the world and to right the wrongs were definitely liberal ideas. Wilson, FDR, Truman etc. The basic tenets of a traditional conservative are:
1. Avoiding foreign entanglements or one could say isolationism.
2. Fiscal Responsibility, balancing the budget every year with no deficits.
3. Keeping government out of a citizens personal business and lives, in other words small government.

The neoconservatives in my view have thrown the original tenets of traditional conservatism out the window. My political views fall in line more with traditional conservatism than the neoconservatism.

I would like to add that traditional conservatism places an emphasis on slow gradual change, rather than radical change.
 
Not necessarily. What if intervention is the only way to prevent something worse?

The problem with the neocon notion of preemption is that the assessment of a threat, a priori, is highly speculative in nature and therefore prone to error. As a result it can lead to unnecessary change, which is something that is quite hostile to the traditional conservative position.

Strictly speaking, Conservatism doesn't seek to prevent radical change. While Conservatism can be considered the original counterrevolutionary movement, radical changes are in fact quite acceptable in Conservatism, but should be based on common law (i.e. respected custom) in order to provide a stable foundation for said change. U.S. style revolutions makes for healthier societies than what the world got with Napoleon/Nazi Germany/the Soviet Bloc/various Third World countries. However, to a Conservative, it is evident that the more radical changes are, the more difficult they become to guide in the proper direction, wherefore change should be undertaken with due consideration if at all possible. But only if possible.

I disagree with you in the strongest terms that radical change is something that is acceptable in traditional conservatism, because in fact radical change is something that people like Edmund Burke were hostile to. Burke, while recognizing the need for change, felt that such change should be slow and incremental, rather than radical and abrupt. This is a result of the view that the traditions and hierarchical structures structures that exist in society have evolved over time and are in their current state for good reason. Because these structures have withstood the test of time, they are more likely to provide stability than those put in place by radical change. As such, radical change is shunned in favor of the preservation, conservation if you will, of the status quo. Hence the term conservative. The problem with preemption is that it naturally begs the question of the necessity of regime change, which in turn makes radical change more likely to occur. Therefore preemption, because of it's inherent nature to promote radical change, stands in clear opposition to the core principle of traditional conservatism.
 
Isolationism is used as a dirty word. Even though, no strict constitutionalist or libertarian type, or classical liberal for that matter, have any interest in isolationism. There are a host of ways the US can and should engage in world affairs. It's the intrigue and covert (which by definition have little or no oversight) that cause so many heartburn. Since when would avoiding 'entanglements' be a negative. And then of course avoiding pre-emptive, and otherwise, wars of choice must be a positive position, and wars like our exploitive banana wars in Latin America are the type of thing that those labeled as isolationists wish to avoid. Any resource wars, for that matter. Like the one Chuck Hagel was speaking of here,

People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs.

Chuck Hagel 2007

We have the resources right here to become energy self sufficient in 10 years if we had the political will to become so. That would mean we could let the middle east implode on itself and as far as our national interests, especially security wise it would have little effect. But we rely on its oil and thus it is in our national interest to keep it flowing.
 
I would like to add that traditional conservatism places an emphasis on slow gradual change, rather than radical change.

Which, I might add, became a thing that domestic policy neoconservatives began to appreciate over time (starting in the 1950s and really taking shape in the 1960s and 1970s). The difference with the "new conservatives" of the 1950s (your Buckley, Goldwater conservatives), however, was that the 1960s-1970s neoconservatives argued that the welfare state was both a political reality and a necessity. What domestic policy neoconservatives saw, however, was that many of the expansions of government policy, or attempts to radicalize public policy (through the Community Action programs) often worked counter-intuitively in at least some instances and that it was much harder to change society for the better than many liberals (or even conservatives) could appreciate.

The thing to understand about this whole conservative divide thing is that neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, whatever, emphasize different parts of Edmund Bourke, but they still have a place in his intellectual lineage. Many times, for instance, paleoconservatives or traditionalists idealize the past, even though they thought the past was no longer recoverable. Southern agrarians facing a more industrialized south in in the first half of the 20th century wanted a return to what it saw as traditional values: free from the fast-paced world of industrial commerce and travel, free from the materialism of capitalism, and so on. Religion also struck with unrecoverable traditionalist tones at times, because Americans were so distanced from the greatness of European religious institutions of centuries past. Many conservatives wanted a U.S. free from the concerns of the welfare state, even though it was here to stay in Eisenhower U.S. society. There was even a desire to jam back near the end of the 1980s, because of the climbing influence of neoconservatives and the post-industrial society.

To seek an unrecoverable past is often a dramatic, radical act, because it refuses to acknowledge the status-quo and the gradual nature of change. It wants the change now. So to is the push from free-marketers. There is an idealism that seeks to eschew the status-quo and slow change in favor of dramatic, radical change, with an often-times utopian vision.

I think the problem with the Neo-Reaganites is that while they proclaim to be a hard-nosed Wilsonianism, it's too misty-eyed about America's ability to change global affairs and institute complimentary political institutions internationally.
 
Last edited:
The problem with the neocon notion of preemption is that the assessment of a threat, a priori, is highly speculative in nature and therefore prone to error. As a result it can lead to unnecessary change, which is something that is quite hostile to the traditional conservative position.
If you changed that to "harmful change", I would agree.

I disagree with you in the strongest terms that radical change is something that is acceptable in traditional conservatism, because in fact radical change is something that people like Edmund Burke were hostile to. Burke, while recognizing the need for change, felt that such change should be slow and incremental, rather than radical and abrupt. This is a result of the view that the traditions and hierarchical structures structures that exist in society have evolved over time and are in their current state for good reason. Because these structures have withstood the test of time, they are more likely to provide stability than those put in place by radical change. As such, radical change is shunned in favor of the preservation, conservation if you will, of the status quo. Hence the term conservative. The problem with preemption is that it naturally begs the question of the necessity of regime change, which in turn makes radical change more likely to occur. Therefore preemption, because of it's inherent nature to promote radical change, stands in clear opposition to the core principle of traditional conservatism.
I'd say a revolution that overthrows the rule of monarchy by force and replaces it with a republic, is a radical form of change.
If one considers Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France" in isolation, your point would not seem wholly unreasonable, but if you add his thoughts on the American revolution, it doesn't add up.
Removing tyrants by force has always been quite acceptable to Conservatism, hence interventionism is not anathema to it. What matters is how it is done, and there it differs considerably from your average revolutionary movement.
 
Which, I might add, became a thing that domestic policy neoconservatives began to appreciate over time (starting in the 1950s and really taking shape in the 1960s and 1970s). The difference with the "new conservatives" of the 1950s (your Buckley, Goldwater conservatives), however, was that the 1960s-1970s neoconservatives argued that the welfare state was both a political reality and a necessity. What domestic policy neoconservatives saw, however, was that many of the expansions of government policy, or attempts to radicalize public policy (through the Community Action programs) often worked counter-intuitively in at least some instances and that it was much harder to change society for the better than many liberals (or even conservatives) could appreciate.

The thing to understand about this whole conservative divide thing is that neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, whatever, emphasize different parts of Edmund Bourke, but they still have a place in his intellectual lineage. Many times, for instance, paleoconservatives or traditionalists idealize the past, even though they thought the past was no longer recoverable. Southern agrarians facing a more industrialized south in in the first half of the 20th century wanted a return to what it saw as traditional values: free from the fast-paced world of industrial commerce and travel, free from the materialism of capitalism, and so on. Religion also struck with unrecoverable traditionalist tones at times, because Americans were so distanced from the greatness of European religious institutions of centuries past. Many conservatives wanted a U.S. free from the concerns of the welfare state, even though it was here to stay in Eisenhower U.S. society. There was even a desire to jam back near the end of the 1980s, because of the climbing influence of neoconservatives and the post-industrial society.

To seek an unrecoverable past is often a dramatic, radical act, because it refuses to acknowledge the status-quo and the gradual nature of change. It wants the change now. So to is the push from free-marketers. There is an idealism that seeks to eschew the status-quo and slow change in favor of dramatic, radical change, with an often-times utopian vision.

I think the problem with the Neo-Reaganites is that while they proclaim to be a hard-nosed Wilsonianism, it's too misty-eyed about America's ability to change global affairs and institute complimentary political institutions internationally.



What do we need? Patience. When do we need it? Now!

Destroying ISIS and doing a few other things will take a little time.

It will all get done, but not today.
 
1. Who cares?

2. You gotta love the insane level of neocon hatred exhibited by some people. It's a political ideology, just like libertarianism, paleoconservatism, liberalism, and socialism. I don't necessarily agree with what they advocate - aggressive promotion of American values and interests via unilateral military force - but I feel no need to see those beliefs as somehow evil.
 
Here's an interesting piece from the American Conservative:

What’s a Neoconservative? | The American Conservative

According to this author, the neoconservative view of America policing the world to rid it of evil is not really traditional conservative value, but rather a liberal one:



So, to quote a message board MC, what say ye? Are the neocons really conservatives?
I guess I never felt it necessary to dive into all the sub-lables to begin with. I'm unclear on what a 'neoconservative' is actualy supposed to be, but I know I support American economic dominance yet oppose wars all over the place. To me, 'conservative' more regards domestic policy anyway. The label means diferent things in diferent places. In the UK I would be considered a Liberal just for my support of lose gun laws.
 
Last edited:
The thing that differentiates the neocons, with regards to policing is that they take it to an extreme level, e.g. the doctrine of pre-emption, which is a very dangerous way of formulating foreign policy as it's paranoid approach which tends to create new threats and increase the level of threat of existing ones.

Admittedly preemption bears risks. The problem is that international security is alway fraught with danger and waiting can be more dangerous than preemption. That is why preemption is legal and legitimate. (The same goes for r2p, which makes the game more dangerous a priori. It is necessary, however, if you want a system that reduces risk by internalization.)
So, it might make sense to use that type of criterion as a differentiator. But it is the difference between rational and peacenick and not between neo con, liberal and conservative policy.
 
Of course they are. Just because the NeoCon label has become negative because of Iraq, Bush, the crisis, does not change the fact that they are conservatives... fallen conservatives maybe, but never the less conservatives.

Say the pretend centrist. :lamo
 
Say the pretend centrist. :lamo

He is from across the oceans. His area's centrism is likely very different. After all, Denmark moderates are not much different from our stringent Democrats. ;)
 
He is from across the oceans. His area's centrism is likely very different. After all, Denmark moderates are not much different from our stringent Democrats. ;)

You're a neocon centrist and he's a Democrat centist. :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom