• 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
No, they are not and I've been saying it for a long time. They do not follow any of the traditional conservative values. They are not fiscally conservative, they spend money like drunken sailors, just like the liberals. They are not for small government, government has grown under neo-con control, just like it has under the liberals. They are not interested in keeping the government out of the lives of the public, just like the liberals. There is nothing conservative about the neo-cons, which isn't surprising because they came from disenfranchised Southern Democrats!

The neo-cons are just as liberal as the liberals are, they just wear a different hat.

Aside from you being completely wrong, I need to add that neoconservatism has typically been a northern conservatism, rather than a southern conservatism.
 
This author is really confused, since the Vietnam war was foreign policy, and protest against it were protests against FP, how in the world could any of it be associated with "domestic policy"?

Good grief, AR.....do you think at all about what you quote?

If you weren't around or are uninformed, in 1972 the "New Left" (radical leftist associated with splinter groups of CPUS like the SDS) had entered the Democrat tent and gained control of the party. This is when liberal democrats who opposed communist expansion in the world started to leave the Democrat Party and were welcomed by the conservative base in the GOP because these liberals wanted to continue fighting the Cold War while the new liberals (New Left) or those hiding behind the liberal label in the Democrat Party wanted to surrender and not continue the Cold War.

One of the last true liberals to leave the Democrat Party and come on board with the GOP and becoming part of the Reagan administration was Jeane Kirkpatrick.
Every politico remembers Jean Kirkpatrick's speech during the 1984 GOP Convention, especially San Francisco liberals.

1984 Jeane Kirkpatrick

The speech:

>" Thank you very much for that warm welcome.

Thank you for inviting me.

This is the first Republican Convention I have ever attended.

I am grateful that you should invite me, a lifelong Democrat. On the other hand, I realize that you are inviting many lifelong Democrats to join this common cause.

I want to begin tonight by quoting the speech of the president whom I very greatly admire, Harry Truman, who once said to the Congress:

"The United States has become great because we, as a people, have been able to work together for great objectives even while differing about details."

He continued:

"The elements of our strength are many. They include our democratic government, our economic system, our great natural resources. But, the basic source of our strength is spiritual. We believe in the dignity of man."

That's the way Democratic presidents and presidential candidates used to talk about America.

These were the men who developed NATO, who developed the Marshall Plan, who devised the Alliance for Progress.

They were not afraid to be resolute nor ashamed to speak of America as a great nation. They didn't doubt that we must be strong enough to protect ourselves and to help others.

They didn't imagine that America should depend for its very survival on the promises of its adversaries.

They happily assumed the responsibilities of freedom.

I am not alone in noticing that the San Francisco Democrats took a very different approach..."<

Continue -> AllPolitics - San Diego Convention - Famous Convention Speeches
 
Domestic policy neoconservatism: James Madison Program

For a good synopsis, check out the last video at about 7 minutes, 30 seconds.
 
If you weren't around
Actually, I was around....but your response is nothing more than a long winded non-sequitur. You still cannot see that the author of the piece you previously quoted did not know the difference between foreign and domestic policy.
 
Actually, I was around....but your response is nothing more than a long winded non-sequitur. You still cannot see that the author of the piece you previously quoted did not know the difference between foreign and domestic policy.

Take it up with him.

All I know is that neconservatives are not true conservatives but just patriotic liberals, like JFK type of liberals.
 
Take it up with him.
I took it up with YOU when I asked YOU if you even think about the things you post.....and then you post a response that had NOTHING to do with my counter (again proving my point) and now you want to shift the blame to the author....as if he is responsible for you not reading his work!
Amazing!

All I know is that neconservatives are not true conservatives but just patriotic liberals, like JFK type of liberals.
As pointed out by another poster earlier, this is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
 
I took it up with YOU when I asked YOU if you even think about the things you post.....and then you post a response that had NOTHING to do with my counter (again proving my point) and now you want to shift the blame to the author....as if he is responsible for you not reading his work!
Amazing!

As pointed out by another poster earlier, this is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

The topic is, "are necons really conservatives ? "

Only a conservative can answer that question, the answer is no.

Anyone who thinks they are is probably so far out in left field, that any thing to them seems to be conservative.

You always hear the Democrats claiming that the GOP has moved to the right. But in reality it's the Democrats who have moved so far to the left that the GOP looks further away.

Before the New Left took control of the Democrat Party name just one Democrat who ever blamed America ?
 
Well, given the number of left leaning (therefore presumed "communist") democracies (mostly in Latin America) that the US toppled and replaced with right wing dictators, its hard to imagine a goal to defend democracy around the world. American (business) "interests" around the world is what drives most foreign policy.

Good points!
 
The topic is, "are necons really conservatives ? "

Only a conservative can answer that question, the answer is no.
Bullchit, anyone can show by argument that they are.

Anyone who thinks they are is probably so far out in left field, that any thing to them seems to be conservative.
I know, like the Encyclopedia Britannica....damn leftwingers!

You always hear the Democrats claiming that the GOP has moved to the right. But in reality it's the Democrats who have moved so far to the left that the GOP looks further away.
Sure, the Dems have there own bagger cult pulling them left, what blindness!

Before the New Left took control of the Democrat Party name just one Democrat who ever blamed America ?
Ah, rhetorical questions substituting for debate.

You still haven't addressed my original point. Just non-sequiturs and diversions.
 
I really do not think the terms are sufficiently robust to operationalize that point. All three would concede that the policing is required. It is more a question of who and how at present. But even in a longer term perspective they would tend to converge.

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.
 
As it relates to foreign policy, believes that free markets mixed with the spread of a western (and specifically american) stylized brand of democracy to chaotic/antagonistic states is tantamount to the security of the United States.

I could be corrected on this, but in my view, this idea of spreading democratic values is not something that I associate with traditional conservatism. Rather traditional conservatives tend to lean towards traditional values as stabilizing, rather than the chaotic nature of democracy.
 
What a surprise to see most of the comments come from died-in-the-wool socialists...considering it's about conservatives I wonder if they can know what they're talking about.

The problem with this piece is very simple. it's wrong. Dead wrong.

It uses the views of ONE self-described neo-con as the base of whether necons are really conservative?

I mean really, a base of one?


Since the phrase was coined in the late 70's, it has taken on confusing meanings, usually driven by people who are NOT neocon to the point it has become meaningless to me.....

When the Amerikcan left responds to my criticisms of Obama by accusing me of being a "Necon" in one sentence, and "Teabagger" in the next, then the word should lose all concept of even having a meaning.

When someone can document that Mr. Rubio speaks for a majority of "neocons" then I will give credence to what I see as another attempt to distort the term

To be honest with you, the labels of liberal and conservative have become very confusing, and are typically tossed about for political advantage, rather than to give a strict intellectual analysis of a position.
 
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?

The right has the tendency to attribute everything bad in their wing of thinking to the left and pretend like it's all pretty rainbows and unicorns on their end. Neoconservatism, whether the new Tea Party/Ron Paul types want to it admit it or not, is a conservative philosophy. In fact, it's actually hyper-conservative. Neocon policies are conservatism taken to the extreme.

Claiming that neoconservatism is a "liberal" philosophy is the epitome of stupid. It's completely ignorant of liberalism, both classical and modern. But, of course, anything that does not fit in the tiny little purist box of the new far-right is "RINO", "Liberal", and "Leftist." :shrug:
 
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.

Exactly!!
 
Neocons are not conservative in terms of foreign policy since they are in the business of trying to liberalize illiberal people. Multiculturalists are not liberal because they are in the business of preserving illiberal values.

Whereas one is attached to the right and the other the left, in many ways they represent the opposite of what we have come to expect in terms of mission.
 
It's completely ignorant of liberalism, both classical and modern.

I'm curious how you would defend that statement, given you considered neoconservatism "hyper" conservative.
 
Last edited:
Fiddy's really the best to speak to this, though I think he generally (rightly so) focused primarily on the foreign policy views of Neo-Conservatives.

Yeah, mostly because that was what The American Conservative was doing by critiquing Max Boot. Otherwise, I would be going into other aspects of it.
 
The right has the tendency to attribute everything bad in their wing of thinking to the left and pretend like it's all pretty rainbows and unicorns on their end. Neoconservatism, whether the new Tea Party/Ron Paul types want to it admit it or not, is a conservative philosophy. In fact, it's actually hyper-conservative. Neocon policies are conservatism taken to the extreme.

Claiming that neoconservatism is a "liberal" philosophy is the epitome of stupid. It's completely ignorant of liberalism, both classical and modern. But, of course, anything that does not fit in the tiny little purist box of the new far-right is "RINO", "Liberal", and "Leftist." :shrug:

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with you here. Although a strong defense has been associated with the Goldwater strain of conservatism, I think this business of running around the globe, overthrowing regimes and ESPECIALLY this attempt to change whole cultures, is something that is radical and is the antithesis of the traditional conservative position. Traditional conservatives tend to be of the view that change should be slow, which is a result of their belief that traditions have formed over time for a good reason. As such they tend to favor the preservation of the status quo. I would argue that the attempt to radically alter the nature of societies and cultures that have been that way for hundreds of years is in no way conservative, at least not in the traditional sense, and is rather born of a rather naive type of idealism that falsely believes that the world can be transformed, to borrow your words, into a beautiful world of unicorns and rainbows, when in fact the cold reality is that people have various natures, some which are just not suited to Western values.
 
Last edited:
Neocons are not conservative in terms of foreign policy since they are in the business of trying to liberalize illiberal people.

I agree with you here, and that is pretty much the essence of what I put forward to Telekat.
 
I'll be honest with you, I really don't have too much of a problem with conservative ideology, intellectually speaking. My problem mostly centers around how conservative ideology has manifest itself, in practical terms, in modern society. In particular, I think it is sad that the Republican party has allowed the principles of conservatism to be associated with racism, religious fanaticism, and the outright greed of the wealthy. How can you expect that type of stuff to be appealing to people who want to live their lives freely?
 
I'm sorry, but I don't agree with you here. Although a strong defense has been associated with the Goldwater strain of conservatism, I think this business of running around the globe, overthrowing regimes and ESPECIALLY this attempt to change whole cultures, is something that is radical and is the antithesis of the traditional conservative position. Traditional conservatives tend to be of the view that change should be slow which is a result of their belief that traditions have formed over time for a good reason. As such they tend to favor the preservation of the status quo. I would argue that the attempt to radically alter the nature of societies and cultures that have been that way for hundreds of years is in no way conservative, at least not in the traditional sense, and is rather born of a rather naive type of idealism that falsely believes that the world can be transformed, to borrow your words, into a beautiful world of unicorns and rainbows, when in fact the cold reality is that people have various natures, some which are just not suited to Western values.

Words change meaning. Conservatism, traditionally speaking, was quite isolationist. I acknowledge that. Almost Tigger style isolationism. Closed borders, no overseas intervention, limited trade, self-sufficiency. However that's not what conservatism is anymore. Conservatism has taken it's nationalistic principles and applied them in a more militant approach. Neoconservatism.

Liberalism has changed meaning too. As has libertarianism. Liberalism was the libertarian of today, and libertarianism actually used to be left-wing (socialist/communist) anarchism. We can sit around and argue about what words used to be mean...but that's not what they mean now. It sucks that people feel the need to constantly change definitions, I get that, but it's what has happened.
 
Words change meaning. Conservatism, traditionally speaking, was quite isolationist. I acknowledge that. Almost Tigger style isolationism. Closed borders, no overseas intervention, limited trade, self-sufficiency. However that's not what conservatism is anymore. Conservatism has taken it's nationalistic principles and applied them in a more militant approach. Neoconservatism.

Liberalism has changed meaning too. As has libertarianism. Liberalism was the libertarian of today, and libertarianism actually used to be left-wing (socialist/communist) anarchism. We can sit around and argue about what words used to be mean...but that's not what they mean now. It sucks that people feel the need to constantly change definitions, I get that, but it's what has happened.

I would argue that when words change their meaning so much that their original intent is lost, the words themselves become meaningless because the interpretation of such words becomes difficult for someone who has a probing mind. In particular, I think your position that militant nationalism is somehow conservative, renders the term meaningless because, in that case, it is so far from it's original meaning, that conservatism, as a concept becomes difficult to interpret in any precise sense. It's something like trying to say that there is really no difference in a dog and a cat, and that now a dog, for all practical purposes can be said to be a cat.
 
I would argue that when words change their meaning so much that their original intent is lost, the words themselves become meaningless because the interpretation of such words becomes difficult for someone who has a probing mind. In particular, I think your position that militant nationalism is somehow conservative, renders the term meaningless because, in that case, it is so far from it's original meaning, that conservatism, as a concept becomes difficult to interpret in any precise sense. It's something like trying to say that there is really no difference in a dog and a cat, and that now a dog, for all practical purposes can be said to be a cat.

US politics is ****ed up. What can I say? Legitimate political philosophies are used as buzzwords rather than what they were originally intended to be.

Words like socialist, communist, and fascist really have no meaning anymore. Conservatism and liberalism are going down that road as well.
 
US politics is ****ed up. What can I say? Legitimate political philosophies are used as buzzwords rather than what they were originally intended to be.

Words like socialist, communist, and fascist really have no meaning anymore. Conservatism and liberalism are going down that road as well.

You are so right. The problem is that people toss about terms like liberal and conservative to scare people, rather than to have a serious discussion of the issue at hand. But that's a lot easier than trying to convince people on an intellectual level, because quite a few people don't want to do the work of serious thinking. But that is sadly the way it is.
 
They are staggeringly ignorant and, imo, do more harm to America then ISIS could ever dream of.

Are they cons?

Don't know.

But I guarantee you there are Neocons in the Obama White House.
 
Back
Top Bottom