• 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!

Who do neocons want?

Who do neocons want?

  • Trump

    Votes: 3 21.4%
  • Clinton

    Votes: 11 78.6%

  • Total voters
    14
Trump- doesn't support iraq and called neoconservative hero Bush a liar, failure and blamed him for 9-11(a pivotal event in neocon history). He does seem more hawkish then clinton though.

Clinton. Voted for iraq. I think she also supported libya and syria.

Who you got neocons?
Your lean says "Very Conservative", so you should be able to answer this yourself.
 
A neconservative is one of a group of former Marxists who switched to the conservative side in the 1970s. They were mostly Jewish, and Norman Podhoretz wrote the definitive book (literally) on the movement.

They are called "neoconservative" because they became "newly" conservative.

Generally, they favor big central government and muscular foreign policy.

The term "neocon" has come to mean, among those who don't know what it actually means, "really conservative," or, more accurately, "whatever I don't like about conservatives." It's also used as a dog whistle for "Jews." And some people use it interchangeably with "neo-Nazi."

Many were not Jewish. Ben Wattenberg brought on James Q Wilson to his show Think Tank a couple of times and they laughed about that association. James Q Wilson, Michael Novak, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and countless others were not Jewish. Given the contributions of Protestants and Catholics, Irishmen, and all flavors of Europeans alike, They settled on their colleagues being "disproportionately" Jewish. Furthermore, though there were a sizable number of socialists in the bunch, that was largely (though not completely) isolated to the later generations of the much-venerated New York Intellectuals of the pre-WWII era.

Norman Podhoretz, while being the author of many books, was not the one who "literally" wrote the book on it. You may be thinking of Irving Kristol who published an anthology of his essays in 1995 with such a title. In the 1990s Podhoretz also published more conclusive memoirs than he had in the past, however. But Kristol himself, though having his own opinions and origins, nevertheless relied heavily on the contributions of those with more formal backgrounds on the social sciences: Moynihan, Glazer, Wilson, and so on.

Much of neoconservatism didn't wait to be published in book form (though, there are many, thanks to the largely academic background of its membership), but rather it was to be found in quarterly policy journals and weekly magazines.
 
Last edited:
Your lean says "Very Conservative", so you should be able to answer this yourself.

I am not a neocon though. I am more of a traditional conservative.
 
Many were not Jewish. Ben Wattenberg brought on James Q Wilson to his show Think Tank a couple of times and they laughed about that association. James Q Wilson, Michael Novak, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and countless others were not Jewish. Given the contributions of Protestants and Catholics, Irishmen, and all flavors of Europeans alike, They settled on their colleagues being "disproportionately" Jewish. Furthermore, though there were a sizable number of socialists in the bunch, that was largely (though not completely) isolated to the later generations of the much-venerated New York Intellectuals of the pre-WWII era.

Norman Podhoretz, while being the author of many books, was not the one who "literally" wrote the book on it. You may be thinking of Irving Kristol who published an anthology of his essays in 1995 with such a title. In the 1990s Podhoretz also published more conclusive memoirs than he had in the past, however. But Kristol himself, though having his own opinions and origins, nevertheless relied heavily on the contributions of those with more formal backgrounds on the social sciences: Moynihan, Glazer, Wilson, and so on.

Much of neoconservatism didn't wait to be published in book form (though, there are many, thanks to the largely academic background of its membership), but rather it was to be found in quarterly policy journals and weekly magazines.

You are correct; it was Irving Kristol. That was my mental short-circuit.

I still contend that they were mostly Jewish, but it's not really a point worth worrying about EXCEPT that "neocon" is indeed used as a dog whistle for "Jews." It's simply WHY it is.
 
We seem to be stuck on who the country doesn't want and they're the only two in the poll. I've long wished there was a mandatory "None of the Above" on all ballots and this really does show why.
 
And why is that?

Your public display of conservatism (of whatever flavor) is much like Will McAvoy's conservatism in the series "The Newsroom": occasionally stated, never taken seriously. In fact, this is perhaps the first time I have seen such a proclamation.
 
You are correct; it was Irving Kristol. That was my mental short-circuit.

I still contend that they were mostly Jewish, but it's not really a point worth worrying about EXCEPT that "neocon" is indeed used as a dog whistle for "Jews." It's simply WHY it is.

It took on a disproportionate Jewish influence, but in that end what made that stand out was that a lot of conservatives distrusted the grouping on the basis that a number of them were Jewish or came from Ireland, and Eastern Europe (many of them were not religious, but religious utilitarians anyway). Nevertheless, neoconservatism had within it a great many religious and ethnic backgrounds, much to the irritation of many conservatives who, may be Catholic, but were largely in the old WASP grouping, ancestors of earlier American generations or, if not, from more "respectable" countries of origin. A lot of the earlier neoconservatives were first generation immigrants or the children of immigrants during the last big burst of immigration to the U.S. In the early 20th century.

But yes, neocon has also been a dog whistle to inculcate anti-Semitic sentiment. However, at the same time, a number of neoconservatives (Podhoretz and some members of the Podhoretz-Kagan clan) have dramatized such issues to such an extent that they couldn't separate criticisms of, for instance, the Scoop Jackson style of foreign policy, from true anti-Semitic attitudes.
 
It took on a disproportionate Jewish influence, but in that end what made that stand out was that a lot of conservatives distrusted the grouping on the basis that a number of them were Jewish or came from Ireland, and Eastern Europe (many of them were not religious, but religious utilitarians anyway). Nevertheless, neoconservatism had within it a great many religious and ethnic backgrounds, much to the irritation of many conservatives who, may be Catholic, but were largely in the old WASP grouping, ancestors of earlier American generations or, if not, from more "respectable" countries of origin.

But yes, neocon has also been a dog whistle to inculcate anti-Semitic sentiment. However, at the same time, a number of neoconservatives (Podhoretz and some members of the Podhoretz-Kagan clan) have dramatized such issues to such an extent that they couldn't separate criticisms of, for instance, the Scoop Jackson style of foreign policy, from true anti-Semitic attitudes.

Generally agree.
 
Ignore him, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

There were Neocons in the Bush Administration.
The Neocons were an informal group of professionals and academics that participated in the discourse after the Soviet fell of what the consequences were and how the US response to these results should be. The members of the group were generally very well educated and had had a lot of experience. Many published quite a bit and took differentiating but not always the same views as others in the group.
The general public did not follow the discussions at all closely and had very simplistic ideas at best of the debate and differing opinions and groups held.
that's more clear....

thanks for the responses guys!
 
Could you explain to me what a neocon is?

It's basically a conservative that believes in a very interventionist foreign policy. Traditional conservatism tended to be isolationist. Some neoconservatives are moderate on social issues, but by and large the movement is pretty conservative across the board. This is evidenced by their strong support among evangelicals.

The Project for a New American Century was their most influential think tank. Bush's foreign policy was very much a neoconservative one.
 
The obvious answer is Trump.

Trump would have us get into so many wars you can't even fathom it.
Trade war with China, Holy War with all Muslims, intent on using Nuclear Weapons if he feels like it... His weakness on Russia will lead to massive problems and more war. Ground troops in Iraq and Syria.
And of course now Trump wants to be a "Pirate" and attack Nations for loot.

Trump would turn out to be more of a NeoCon than anyone who ever lived.
 
It's been pretty clear for quite a while now that they want to get on board with Hillary.
 
Back
Top Bottom