Do you even know what a Neocon is?
 

Thom used this term in another thread and it got me wondering. Those of you on the left throw this term around as a synonym for fascist, or almost nazi, but I wonder if you even know what it is. Heck I hear it in the mainstream media and they don't seem to get it either. Heck I didn't know till late last year when I researched it because I was being called one:) I see this as a tired attempt to associate a negative with an otherwise benign term (like we did with liberal) Don't want to be one of those now.:D

But seriously what do you guys think it means?

Neo Conservative aka "new conservatives"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)

In short, Project for the New American Century (PNAC) founders, members, and their groupies (like you, Lendaddy)

On a recent show, Rush said that whenever liberals spout "neocon" they really mean Jewish conservative, but of course they wouldn't say that...

Sounds like he's trying to paint the aggressor as the victim.

It doesn't really mean anything. Like you say it is only a negative stereotype to apply to anyone who disagrees so that nothing needs to be substatiated. (Well at least its used by people who are not comfortable with applying the 'liberal' stereotype to someone who disagrees with them)

I think ubiquity has it right. It is simply a word used by some to dismiss the arguments and viewpoints of those with whom they do not agree. Both sides do it when their own arguments hold no water. As for Rush, one has to remember he is simply an entertainer with no depth. Like so many so-called "commentators". Folks like him do nothing to clarify and profit at the angst they produce by their devisive words. Those who are true believers of folks like Rush (and others on both sides of the fence)who take advantage of the public's fears need to get a life and start thinking for themselves.

That ain't gonna happen.....

Sorry guys, but NeoCons do exist. If you're ashamed to be counted among them, that's a different story.

He's right, they do exist, it's a real movement. Still haven't seen it described properly as I understand it. Hint, It started back in the 60's.

Hillary must be a Neo-Lib.

. . .oh, and Hillary, the vast-parinoia-peddling Neo-Lib -- Not that there's anything wrong with that. :rolleyes:

It seems to me it came to forefront in last ten years. It has a socially conservative part based upon local morals which in most areas means Christian fundamentalists promoting their view of life, marriage and family to the exclusion of other peoples civil rights.

On the foreign policy side, it has gone beyond the Kennedy era viewpoint of defending liberty where it exists, and has injected a moralistic view to promoting the violent overthrow of regimes deemed evil. While liberals like myself would deem these regimes that violate their peoples civil rights as abhorent, I would prefer peaceful means to achieve the desired goal of liberty.
I think neo-cons would say the ends justify the means, whereas liberals want the same ends but are not willing to accept the same means.

I think the term came about because "conservative" simply does not inspire fear and loathing in anyone. There is no threatening or radical undertone lurking in the background. The "neo" prefix adds that connotation. Notice no such prefix is required for "liberal"; it stands alone as a term that inspires fear and loathing. It has all the threatening and radical undertones it needs to survive on its own.

wikipedia rocks

There is no threatening or radical undertone lurking in the background. The "neo" prefix adds that connotation.

How about neo-Liberal or über-Liberal. No, the über makes it sound 31337, which we can't have... I do like 'neoliberal' though.

True: Fascists, communists, and Nazis have always feared liberals. Fascism, in many respects, is an ideology of negativism: anti-liberal, anti-socialist, anti-Communist, anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian, etc., and in some of its forms anti-religion. As a political and economic system in Italy, it combined elements of corporatism, totalitarianism, nationalism, and anti-communism.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist)

Liberals challenge the status quo for the better of all. Anti-liberals wish to maintain the status quo to cement and protect their power.

Thanks, that is cool.

Right! . .how else can we have government studies, of government studies, that chase their own tail?

. . . but at least it's expensive.

edit: thing is; challenging EVERY "status quo" is just a mark of a neophyte. . .or is that neoLib?

If that were all ther were to it, I think many more of us would be behind them. Unfortunately, it's not. See Slacker's post on the bastardization of the term "liberal"; it captures where they have gone awry and how many of us perceive modern liberalism.

Re: Do you even know what a Neocon is?
 

New conservatives. Those who like to mix religion with state, are vitriol, and think SOP Americans can't make decisions on their own, godlessly or otherwise.

But I don't worry. Like wedgie shoes, Neocons too will have their day of fading fashion. SmileWavy

You're half-right IMO. Liberals haven't truly changed their stance since the 60s, so there's no need for a name change. Conservatives, on the other hand, have traditionally been the party of small government and of government staying out of affairs not relating to itself. Since about the time of Newt Gingrich (going back to Reagan would be stretching it), a new approach has come about with the conservatives, where they want the government to meddle around in personal freedoms and ideologies. Not all of this can be blamed on conservatives. I think a rise in the global economy has plenty to do with neo-conservatism on many levels. In fact, globally, I would expect the Democrats - not necessarily diehard liberals, to adopt an attitude much like conservatives given circumstances like threats to our int'l interests.

The influx of the religious right concerns me more as its agenda is aimed at truncating personal liberties of a woman's right to choose, gay marriage and certain lessons taught in public school, to name a few. To date, I have never seen religion so intermixed with politics as it is now. It's as if the separation of church and state has been completely disregarded in the last 10-15 years.

A few responses to a few random posts ...

First, I'm not a particularly religious person, and much of what I believe would rankle those people frequently painted with the "religious right" brush. However, to speak of their "ascension" or having "gained power" is to turn the situation on its head.

The political and sociological history of this country, in large part, has been founded in judeo-christian belief. Most of these people who you'd dismiss as "religious right" aren't the newcomers to the party, you and your secular ideas are.

These "personal liberties" of abortion and gay marriage were not personal liberties until the "religion" of this country loosened enough for these issues to become part of a national discourse. Were these "personal liberties" in the 1920's or 1930's? No. It's not that discourse and toleration of these issues is a bad thing, but it's not as though some paleolithic "right-wing religious nut" just jumped out of the ground and opposed it, either; rather, he represents the position much closer to the historical (and perhaps) current political mean.

It's not an ascension of the religious "right", therefore, it's that they're not going away fast enough... they're not compromising their principles quickly or sufficiently enough to please the secularists.

To the extent that they promote their ideas to the "exclusion of other peoples [sic] civil rights", it may be because such "civil rights" aren't civil rights. Murder of a fetus -- civil right? Well, if you believe it's murder, it's not a civil right. Gay marriage -- civil right? Well, gay unions may be one thing, but the Sacrament of Marriage is another.

Some Leftoids decry an indigenous culture's loss of its identity when new/foreign elements are introduced. Preservation of two millenia of culture and ethos -- which were a pillar of this country's founding -- is somehow not lamentable, but instead contemptible, when the Left disagrees with the parties at issue.

Separation of church and state has also been twisted to mean what it was not meant to mean -- freedom from forced, governmental religion, not freedom from mention or influence of religion in personal, social and/or political life.

Neoconservatism began as an exercise more in economic policy than foreign relations; though the former certainly affects the latter. Many of the early (late 50/early 60's) "neoconservatives" were indeed Liberals who had been mugged by reality.

JP

I guess you'd bring back slavery, take away a woman's right to vote. So how far back do you want to retreat?

If I don't want your religion influencing my children in their school, you would deny me that?

Marriage became a civil act as soon as "marriage" was required for health benefits. Change that discrepancy and maybe the Sacrament of Marriage can be restored to the church which also means doing away with civil marriages and any government marriage licenses.

The ever evolving boundaries of civil liberties is the strength of this nation and it is the effort to retreat that I find contemptible.

Always moving forward is not necessarily a good thing--especially when one finds the direction taken not to be the right one. Always staying where one is is no better. I propose better planned moves rather than standing still or blindly running in one direction.

Just a little history to mix with your vitriol, steve.

It was largely a Republican movement to end slavery ... and you're again off your meds if you believe I even obliquely implied that it should be brought back. Suffrage is a questionable call, IMHO; but not as bad as letting them drive!!

Would you deny me the right not to have my child indoctrinated in secular ideas that may run contrary to my/my child's beliefs? How far do you want to push this "influencing" thing, anyway? No mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance? Delete all references in historical texts to the references by our politicians and our fundamental documents to the almighty?

The ever-evolving boundaries will soon push your "civil liberties" into mine. You cannot be so blind as to miss that. There are enough of us (a majority I'd say) who will not be so relativist as to say "you know what, Steve's got a problem with God, so redact all that; but he's OK with Wiccanism (let's just say) so that can go in to the curriculum."

Civil act de facto becomes a civil liberty? Wow. That's all I can say in such a forum as this about an idea so stupid as that. Wow. You've succeeded to 350's throne and scepter. Though not for long, I suspect.

Nobody "takes away" from the church what constitues a Sacrament and it's wihtin nobody's (no secularbody's) power to define what one is, much less restore what they couldn't have taken in the first place.

If you can't (or refuse to) understand that, you skipped more Sunday school than I did. So you can have my throne and scepter on that front.

JP

You do reallize that your post have become so absurd, that they are beyond provoking, and fall in the "dismiss" catagory. (?)

I think most NeoCons with the religious bent, and their groupies, want to return to the days when only white, male, landowners could vote.

legion -- agreed. And that's what, at it's heart, conservatism of any stripe is about. Not stagnation, not unchanging forever, but about incremental change. Decidedly not "let's change due to whatever the fad is today!" Some mistakes can't be unmade; and entitlements, once bestowed, are nearly impossible to correct, let alone repeal.

Our allegiances first and foremost are to our forebears and their political/philosophical legacy; not to what France (or Canada, etc.) might think.

JP

See. . now THAT's provoking! :D way to go thom

I guess you'd bring back slavery, take away a woman's right to vote. So how far back do you want to retreat? . ..

You do reallize that your post have become so absurd, that they are beyond provoking, and fall in the "dismiss" catagory. (?)

Nothing absurd about it at all. Had this conversation taken place in the 1850's, you would have heard the conservatives decrying the end of slavery and the horrible economic impacts. Every social change the liberals have brought about was fought tooth and nail by the conservatives at the time. Eventually, they accepted it and re-established a new defensive perimeter around the next cause. Slavery, women's sufferage, civil rights. You name it, they decried it, usually in the name of god and morality. There was even a time when the conservatives fought against the idea of the colonies throwing off British rule.

I'm trying to be apathetic about this thread...and it's working!

I guess I'll be joining you, island911

Sheesh, you're tellin' me! I mean, now that broads and blacks can vote, look at this mess! I bet you miss the good old days of sippin' mint juleps on the veranda at the plantation, don'tcha colonel.

talk about " ends justify the means" .. . . the equivocation from the lib's here is stunning.

I'd be more apathetic if I wasn't so lethargic...

So, you're saying that suffrage is a mistake? I'm not; but you can't make an argument with your own "mouth" so you put one in mine. Weak.

I do miss mint juleps, though. Mmmmmm minty bourbony goodness.

JP

Neocoservatism covers a lot of ground regarding conservatism's new-found status. Economics? I think that's an excuse or an attempt to shelter the real purpose behind today's neoconservatist views. If neoconservatism began with economics, it no longer concerns itself as much with economics. Conservatives back then are not the same conservatives now. Their entire political platform has evolved into different concerns, and religion is at the forefront from generals telling the media "God wants the U.S. to win,"(sic) in Iraq, to Bush having regular communications with an "the almighty." Yes, as you state, abortions and homosexuality has been around longer than the idea of neoconsevatism. But these issues are what neoconservatism has based itself on, and is now known for. In the last two decades, both issues have found themselves at the forefront of a conservative agenda that actively and openly puts its wisdom and strength in God's hands, which is a new approach, and thus gives the addage "neocon."

I am saying is conservatism and economics have not been as much in the forefront as has conservatism, its coalition with the religious right, and both joining to voice opinion on Terri Schiavo, evolution vs. creationism and a woman's right to choose.

"Conservative" is just a mindset at a given period in time, as is "liberal". By the same token, the "Republicans" of Lincoln's day are very different than they are today, as are the Democrats. In the year 2020, the ideas I espouse today will probably be called conservative. Or loony; depends on whether Hillary gets a 2nd term in the White House or not.

I think the disconnect from reality OS alluded to is interesting. Libs actually and honestly believe the "religious right" has more influence on their lives than say 40 years ago. Hell we were praying in class when I was in school and I'm only 31. The movement to secularism is ripping along quite nicely in reality. Now this is, in some respects, fine by me as a non religious person. But......we must be careful that our moral compass as a country doesn't get jacked in the process.

As a side note, I cannot help but laugh when libs try to take credit for civil rights, especially regarding slavery! Hillariously backwards.

Also, don't let the moniker fool ya. Conservatives are not "always for the status quo", so looking back at ALL change saying "the liberals did that" is bunk.

FWIW, dd; I didn't mention the religious right ab initio, I was responding to its mention.

You can be sold on the notion that the RR is driving the conservative bus; in fact you evidently are ... and you're scared. Which is how you're supposed to be. Rather than look into detail, which you're never presented, you see the superficial and often fatuous overlaps of the RR and conservatism and told that's a reason to fear and loathe them. You're being duped.

As a conservative, I can assure you that the RR is nothing new and is not driving the conservative bus. Republican bus, maybe moreso. But we neocons are a cryptofascist conspiracy -- run mostly by Jews -- who have the Christian RR guiding our every move. Do you not see how lame this is? Whatever the uncompromising principle in the path of secularists today might be, well that is what's really behind conservatives!!!! It's really pathetic on so many levels.

Neocons WERE founded principally as an economic school; like it or not, believe it or not, it's true. Conservatives now are not the same as conservatives then, but NOT EVERYONE HAPHAZARDLY BRANDED AS A NEOCON BY OUR MEDIA OR LOCAL PINHEADS ACTUALLY IS A NEOCON. Please re-read the prior sentence. Your etymology of neocon is just wrong. It's the current media spin, but it's wrong.

It's getting so tiresome to have to repeat the fact that b/c it's now supposed to be a pejorative, it's become a proxy label to slap on anyone with whom MSM, Lefties, etc. disagree, so as to preclude a debate such parties are unfit to win.

If our Presidents/Commanders-in-Chief having communications with the almighty is deviant to you, I suggest you don't know or choose not to believe in the piety and devoutness many of our Presidents have had. It's simply that it was commonplace and did not receive the kind of derogation it does today. In that blinkered context, you might as well condemn W for sleeping in a bed with sheets! Or brushing his teeth! Or eating red meat!!!

JP