• 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

MildSteel

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
4,974
Reaction score
1,047
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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:

.........
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) heartily champions the neoconservative view. While virtually every other recognizably Tea Party congressman or senator opposes the Libyan intervention, Rubio believes the world’s top cop should be flashing its Sherriff’s badge more forcefully in Libya—and everywhere else. New York Times columnist Ross Douthat explains:

“Rubio is the great neoconservative hope, the champion of a foreign policy that boldly goes abroad in search of monsters to destroy… His maiden Senate speech was a paean to national greatness, whose peroration invoked John F. Kennedy and insisted that America remain the ‘watchman on the wall of world freedom.”

Rubio’s flowery rhetoric is worth noting because neoconservatism has always been sold through the narrative of America’s “greatness” or “exceptionalism.” This is essentially the Republican Party’s version of the old liberal notion promoted by President Woodrow Wilson that it is America’s mission to “make the world safe for democracy.” Douthat describes Rubio as the “great neoconservative hope” because the freshman senator is seen by the neocon intelligentsia as one of the few reliable Tea Party-oriented spokesman willing to still promote this ideology to the GOP base. I say “still” because many Republicans have begun to question the old neocon foreign policy consensus that dominated Bush’s GOP. Douthat puts the neoconservatives’ worries and the Republicans’ shift into context:

“Among conservatism’s foreign policy elite, Rubio’s worldview commands more support. But in the grass roots, it’s a different story. A recent Pew poll found that the share of conservative Republicans agreeing that the U.S. should ‘pay less attention to problems overseas’ has risen… In the debate over Libya, Tea Party icons like Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin have sounded more like (Rand) Paul than Rubio, and a large group of House Republican backbenchers recently voted for a resolution that would have brought the intervention screeching to a halt.”

As one of only a handful of Republicans to oppose the Iraq War, Republican Congressman Jimmy Duncan said in 2003: “It is a traditional conservative position not to want the United States to be the policeman of the world.” At the time Duncan’s party strongly disagreed with him.

But this is because most Republicans didn’t think of the Iraq War as “policing the world” but as a legitimate matter of national defense. We now know that it had absolutely nothing to do with America’s defense and we’re still bogged down needlessly in another nation’s civil war.

But this has always been the neocon ruse—if neoconservatives can convince others that fighting some war, somewhere is for America’s actual defense, they will always make this argument and stretch any logic necessary to do so. Whether or not it is true is less important than its effectiveness. But their arguments are only a means to an end. Neoconservatives rarely show any reflection—much less regret—for foreign policy mistakes because for them there are no foreign policy mistakes. America’s wars are valid by their own volition. America’s “mission” is its missions. Writes Max Boot: “Why should America take on the thankless task of policing the globe… As long as evil exists, someone will have to protect peaceful people from predators.”

Needless to say, perpetual war to rid the world of evil is about as far as one can get from traditional conservatism but it was also the mantra of Bush’s Republican Party. Boot now snidely asks the current GOP if they want to be known as the “anti-military, weak-on-defense, pro-dictator party” due to their opposition to the Libyan intervention. This argument might sound strange yet familiar to Republicans—it was exactly what they said about Democrats who opposed the Iraq War. John McCain now calls Republicans who oppose the Libyan War “isolationist.” The Senator’s use of that term is as illogical as it is illustrative—in that his bizarre definition is identical to what most of his fellow Republicans believed just a few short years ago.
....

So, to quote a message board MC, what say ye? Are the neocons really conservatives?
 
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.
 
Define neocon, there is more than one conception as the term has twisted and turned through history. Personally, I prefer the term 'geolib'.
 
Last edited:
Nationalists who wish to secure American dominance abroad (even if to promote a sort of benevolent hegemony through the free market and notions of liberal democracy) are conservative. The American Conservative has had a tendency to promote the notion that paleoconservatism is mostly the only acceptable grouping that can be defined as conservatism.
 
Nationalists who wish to secure American dominance abroad (even if to promote a sort of benevolent hegemony through the free market and notions of liberal democracy) are conservative. The American Conservative has had a tendency to promote the notion that paleoconservatism is mostly the only acceptable grouping that can be defined as conservatism.

I don't accept nationalism as an aspect of neocon, as I interpret it to mean geolib and a fundamental internationalism conflicts with nationalism; patriotism (subjective) perhaps. Of course, I don't consider Bush2 a neocon domestically (maybe from an international perspective).

I would be willing, nonetheless, to engage in the thread topic under a definition of neocon specified by the OP poster or another. You see I need that definition to establish a meaningful parameter.
 
Last edited:
Define neocon, there is more than one conception as the term has twisted and turned through history. Personally, I prefer the term 'geolib'.

I prefer working in their realm. In the late 1990s, many of the neoconservatives people now recognize as being neoconservative actually sought to differentiate themselves from both the domestic policy neoconservatism and the foreign policy neoconservatives since the 1960s. In the post-Cold War world, the goal was to take advantage of the unipolar moment in global affairs by going after rogue states that both oppose American values (liberal democracy) and harm the national interest. They took it upon themselves to define themselves in relation to what they thought was a key feature of the Reagan administration's foreign policy, but redefined for the new age. Hence, "Neo-Reaganite" was born. The term did not stick, because many neoconservatives themselves were Neo-Reaganites, were actually related to neoconservatives, or were seen as a new or odd amalgam in the conservative world. Neoconservative thus had yet another general mold to add to its already confusing history.
 
I prefer working in their realm. In the late 1990s, many of the neoconservatives people now recognize as being neoconservative actually sought to differentiate themselves from both the domestic policy neoconservatism and the foreign policy neoconservatives since the 1960s. In the post-Cold War world, the goal was to take advantage of the unipolar moment in global affairs by going after rogue states that both oppose American values (liberal democracy) and harm the national interest. They took it upon themselves to define themselves in relation to what they thought was a key feature of the Reagan administration's foreign policy, but redefined for the new age. Hence, "Neo-Reaganite" was born. The term did not stick, because many neoconservatives themselves were Neo-Reaganites, were actually related to neoconservatives, or were seen as a new or odd amalgam in the conservative world. Neoconservative thus had yet another general mold to add to its already confusing history.

How about a definition in a sentence or two.

If I were to set the definition, it would be: A hawk libertarian. (See edits to my post you quoted)
 
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.
Compassionate Conservatives.

They were so not conservative, they had to make up a new name.

The rapid expansion of government tipped their hand.
 
I don't accept nationalism as an aspect of neocon, as I interpret it to mean geolib and a fundamental internationalism conflicts with nationalism; patriotism (subjective) perhaps. Of course, I don't consider Bush2 a neocon domestically (maybe from an international perspective).

I would be willing, nonetheless, to engage in the thread topic under a definition of neocon specified by the OP poster or another. You see I need that definition to establish a meaningful parameter.
Instead of insisting others provide you with the definition (which you can then deny infinitely), go ahead and find a definition you agree with.
 
How about a definition in a sentence or two.

If I were to set the definition, it would be: A hawk libertarian.

A definition of these foreign policy neoconservatives in the late 90's? A rough conceptualization:

Neo-Reganite Conservative (or Neo-Reaganite Neoconservative): A conservative primarily concerned with maintaining American hegemony with free markets while simultaneously promoting liberal democratic values in rogue states, through force if necessary to secure the national interest.
 
How about a definition in a sentence or two.

If I were to set the definition, it would be: A hawk libertarian. (See edits to my post you quoted)
That is not a definition.
 
Instead of insisting others provide you with the definition (which you can then deny infinitely), go ahead and find a definition you agree with.

I already did, extensively; perhaps re-read the thread. I'm offering to engage in the topic of the OP give another's definition.

Do you have anything to offer?


A definition of these foreign policy neoconservatives in the late 90's? A rough conceptualization:

Neo-Reganite Conservative (or Neo-Reaganite Neoconservative): A conservative primarily concerned with maintaining American hegemony with free markets while simultaneously promoting liberal democratic values in rogue states, through force if necessary to secure the national interest.

Free markets contradict liberal democratic values?
 
Free markets contradict liberal democratic values?

Markets is an important component, but attached is concerns of genocide, imprisonment, closed borders, free speech, and so on.
 
That is not a definition.

Yes, it is. It's mine. I do not demand you accept my conceptualization of 'neocon'. Are you here to complain or debate?
 
Compassionate Conservatives.

They were so not conservative, they had to make up a new name.

The rapid expansion of government tipped their hand.

It's similar to One Nation Conservatism of Benjamin Disraeli, Progressive Conservatism, and so on.
 
Markets is an important component, but attached is concerns of genocide, imprisonment, closed borders, free speech, and so on.

Is economic freedom not speech?
 
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?

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.
 
I already did, extensively; perhaps re-read the thread. I'm offering to engage in the topic of the OP give another's definition.

Do you have anything to offer?
All you have done is to demand other cite definition, offer catchy terms (geolib!) and single aspect descriptions. If you consider yourself a neocon, yet cannot offer a self definition.....don't talk to me about offering something.

DEFINE IT, STOP THE GAME OF OTHERS GIVING YOU SOMETHING FOR YOU TO SHOOT DOWN.
 
Yes, it is. It's mine. I do not demand you accept my conceptualization of 'neocon'. Are you here to complain or debate?
one or 3 word catch phrases ARE NOT "conceptualizing" or defining. All you have done is engaged in semantic nonsense.

You have not offered anything of substance to debate, only hypocritically whined about other not offering definition.
 
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 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.
 
Oh look, a No True Scotsman thread. Ever notice how liberals don't go in for this kind of thing? We'll criticize each other for compromising on specific issues, but we're very seldom trying to prove that a whole segment of our constituency aren't really liberals.

Also, trying to describe neo-cons as liberals requires several fundamental misunderstandings of what liberals actually support. Unless you're just using liberal to mean "not my specific view of conservative", in which case it's simply being used wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom