A sidebar issue has arisen on the Terri Schiavo thread that I think needs the attention of its own separate thread.

My 1987 2nd edition of The Random House Dictionary of the English Language provides this definition neoconservatism:



The 2004 11th edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary renders this definition of neoconservative and lists neoconservatism as a derivative:



Pat Buchanan, who describes himself as a traditional conservative, had this to say about neocons:



Buchanan, Patrick J., Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency, p. 37.

I am not taking sides, but it seems Jack22 may be historically correct, while NeoCon30’s thinking may better reflect contemporary usage.

Questions for Debate:

1. What is a neocon or neoconservative?

2. Is there a difference between a conservative and a neoconservative as Pat Buchanan's book suggests? If so, explain the difference.

Edited to Modify Question

3. Do neocons tend to practice a strong denial or strong concern for the humanity and human rights of others?

4. Should AD have a new category for neoconservatives?

Just a clarification here-- I did not mean to suggest that neocons tend to dismiss someone else's humanity-- quite the opposite, my intended point was that one of the similarities between neocons and liberals is that they share a deep compassion for people-- maybe they will disagree on how best to serve humanity, but both groups seem to legitimately care about people and value people. A comment was made by someone else that seemed to imply the opposite, that neocons don't care about people, and I was reacting. I was told I had misinterpreted the statement, and an admin stepped in to guide the discussion back on track.

But my implication was the opposite-- that neocons were originally liberal because of their deep compassion for people/mankind, and then became conservative from the belief that some elements of conservatism tended to serve society better than socialism or liberalism.

So, to answer the question, I don't believe necons or liberals intentionally practice dismissal of someone else's humanity-- their various positions on abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, war, etc., might tend to lead their opponents to believe otherwise, but at their core they do not usually see themselves as dismissing someone else's humanity/human rights.

Thanks Jack.

I'm going to modify the question (No. 3) you clarified.

You know we usually invent terms to describe real, coherent political movements.

Sadly, with "neocon" this is not the case. I rarely am one to call an Orwell, I think the comparisons are overdone but for clarity I will describe the concept of "neo-conservatism" as doublespeak.

Political spin plain, simple, and frighteningly effective. Propoganda is not a conservative monopoly.

A neocon is just a new word for "hawk" that hasn't lost its boogyman appeal. Let's go back even further to get the real term, nationalist. Currently the hawks are gathered in the Bush administration, this is hardly surprising Republicans have been playing the hawk since Reagan.

Understood in this context the difference between "neo-cons" and normal conservatives (hawks, nationalists) suddenly makes sense because it's comparing apples and oranges.

Neocons have nearly zero definition beyond foreign policy. As the definitive element of neocon philosophy it is stable to the perception, when really there's nothing to be stable about. If you don't have neo-con foreign policy you're not a neocon.

On the other hand, our more traditional (read: actually useful) terminology "conservative" and "liberal" have different facets.

One could be socially conservative, fiscally conservative, legally conservative. Not to mention a whole range of foreign policy options for nationalist to (the rare, but possible) internationalist.

Neocons are not a political group perse, it's just another scarier term for "hawk."

No, a separate section is not needed for a meaningless term.

Be careful, Bill Kristol hides in every corner.

Great topic, BoF!

I am looking forward to reading what others here have to say about this, particularly those who use the term frequently in their posts. I am really curious to know just exactly they think they are describing, because I honestly don't know. Generally speaking, I don't like the term because I consider it somewhat derogatory and I'll explain why later on in this post. As far as Buchanan is concerned, well let's just say that he may describe himself as a "traditional conservative", but I would instead describe him as a "classical idiot" to be honest. Anything he ever says that happens to be somewhat insightful or semi-intelligent is completely by accident. As far as I'm concerned, it's a case of putting a monkey in front of a typewriter kind of a thing.....

On to the questions......

1. What is a neocon or neoconservative?

I honestly don't have a clue. The term Neo would indicate something recent or new, but many of those in public life who have been described as neocons have been conservatives for a very long time, long before 1972 certainly.

Most conservatives I know don't understand the term either. Some think it's a "code word" by the tin-foil left crowd that really means "Zionist" or "Jew-lover". Others think it's a political term designed to invoke images of Neo-Nazi's. There may be an element of truth to those terms and that's why I personally find them offensive. But, that's just me. Truth be known, a neoconservative may well simply be a conservative who knows how to win an election.

I describe my political "niche" as being a "Reagan Conservative" which in truth is probably a de facto "Goldwater Conservative" (except Ronnie won and Barry didn't). I consider my closest political allies to be what I would describe as "FDR Democrats" aka "Reagan Democrats". These would be people who would list the top two Presidents of the 20th century to be Reagan and FDR (not necessarily in that order). These two groups are not so-called "moderates" though, not in my opinion at least. They are groups who hold strong views on issues and will not compromise their basic values.


2. Is there a difference between a conservative and a neoconservative as Pat Buchanan's book suggests? If so, explain the difference.

In my mind there is. I consider myself a conservative and I've been a conservative pretty much for as long as I can remember. Unfortunately, at the age of 52 there are few things about me that most would consider "neo". I still like fast cars, good scotch and loud music (from the 60's).


Edited to Modify Question

3. Do neocons tend to practice a strong denial or strong concern for the humanity and human rights of others?

I honestly don't know the answer to this one either. I don't think that those who have been labeled as neocons are the monsters some seem to think they are. This is yet another reason I consider the label to be offensive, and as a sidenote, I tend to be sceptical of those who adopt this label on themselves.

4. Should AD have a new category for neoconservatives?

I don't see the need for that quite frankly. Anyone here can claim to be pretty much anything they want to claim. I chose to place myself as a Conservative Republican because that's the closest thing to what I consider myself to be. Seems to work ok, nobody has ever questioned that.

1. What is a neocon or neoconservative? Neocons generally seem to be IMO what would have been called conservative Democrats up until the 60's. Many of them resemble--for a comparison-- JFK. Conservatives classically tried to stay within our borders but have always been strong on defense. The Necons seem to have a militant Liberal streak in that they preach actively pursuing actions to bring democracy to the world. When the Left really gained control of the Democrats in the 60s-70s Many of these Neocons left the party because it no loger fit their views of America. They seemed to have a disdain for the counterculture but couldn't quite go over to the Republicans who thanks to Goldwater--who is desperatly needed these days--were trying to break the centralized government path. I find Zell Miller seems to be the political equivalent of the neocons today--which shows just how far away the Dems are today from what they were in the 60s.

2. Is there a difference between a conservative and a neoconservative as Pat Buchanan's book suggests? If so, explain the difference.
Again classic conservatives generally fall towards the Libertarians side of politics and are generally of the more methodist/baptist style of Christian. Neocons just seem to me to be militant democrats who want to actvely follow a path to try and establish democracy on a global level. I am not sure about Aquilla's claim of anti semitism when it comes to neocon label although old conservatives--who I beleive initiated the neocons label-- like buchannon just can never seem to get away from their bedsheet roots..

Aquilla I would also argue that todays moderates are-- like neocons-- out of place in their surroundings. we dont really fall into either camp enough to pick a side and really just dont care much for the so called solutions either side tries to promote. Some of us just refuse to wait in the pot until the water boils.

Edited to Modify Question

3. Do neocons tend to practice a strong denial or strong concern for the humanity and human rights of others?
I think they claim to be more concerned but seem to trivialize the "collateral damage' of people a little too casually.

4. Should AD have a new category for neoconservatives?No.

A most interesting thesis, Christopher. Most interesting indeed.

Under your model, one could make a strong case that the "father" of the Neo-Conservative movement was indeed Ronald Reagan and that movement became "official" on 27Oct1964. That was the date of "The Speech" which launched Reagan's national political career and ended up with him in the White House 16 years later. I would urge people to read that speech and see if it fits the mold for what they consider a "neoconservative" to be. From that speech.....



and at the end.....



Sound familar? Kinda sounds a whole lot like President Bush to me...

I don't know, maybe I don't really know what a "neocon" is cause I are one. If that puts me in Reagan's camp, I can live with that. But what bothers me a little bit is that if this so-called movement has been around since 1964, how come we really didn't hear much about it until George W. Bush became President? I don't ever recall the term "neocon" used during Reagan's 8 years in office. That is a curious thing.

If this were a strictly Republican kind of thing being discussed in primarily Republican circles, I could understand it a little better from a historical perspective at least. Reagan Republicans have a term (actually several terms, some unrepeatable here) to describe the "Country club" wing of the Republican Party, the so-called Rockefeller Republicans. They are the status quo types who dominated the party until Reagan came along and wrested control from them. There are still some of them around, often referred to as RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) and maybe that's what this is all about.

Here's a resource to start with. I don't claim it's an authority -- it's just Wikipedia -- but it seems to make some sense.

Neoconservatism (United States)

I think we can all agree with this statement:



Given that proviso, and the fact that the term "neoconservative" appears to be used more often by those who reject such a philosophy than by those who accept it, I think we can say a few things.

First of all, I see at least two meanings for this term.

1. The political philosophy of someone who has changed her opinions from (self-described) liberal to (self-described) conservative. Frankly, I think this is a trivial use of the term, so I'll ignore this.

2. A political philosophy which is most characterized by the belief in the United States taking a very assertive -- some would say aggressive -- role in foreign policy. A simplistic way to look at this might be to call neoconservatives Super-Hawks. On issues other than foreign policy, there might be a very wide range of opinion among those who would fit under this term.

In practice, the current administration is clearly dominated by a marriage made in Hell. The unholy alliance of the Religious Right and the Neoconservatives has all but driven out the libertarian aspects of American conservatism.


I hope this answers questions one and two fully. I don't know what to say about number three, to be honest. Everybody claims to be in favor of humanity and human rights; the debate is what works best.

I don't see a particular need to have a special Neoconservative category here.

When the term 'neocon' is used in the UK, it is ususally used to refer specifically to the political philosophy espoused by various academics and a few members of the US administration in that the US should assert its military might (or indeed, every tool at its disposal) to encourage the spread of democracy and to ensure the US remains the pre-eminent power in the world.

Whilst the term neoconservative has been used before, to mean different things, I would certainly say that nowadays it is used almost exclusively to refer to the political philosophy.

Generally I think neoconservatives have as much respect for humanity as anyone else does - and that their philosophy is based on the assumption that ultimately the assertion of democratic values will benefit humanity in the long run. (IMO this may lead to the trivialisation of the short term problems of the necoconservative philosophy - that war may well be a result of American assertion).

As for 4, Neoconservatism seems to be a sub-grouping of conservatism, and presumably should be treated as such, rather than as a category in its own right. For one thing, there are different types of neoconservative, including those who are (comparitively) hawks and doves - so where do you stop creating new categories?

Oh I agree all right. The problem comes when we realize that the basic meaning of this term is in so much dispute that it really ceases to be a truly descriptive term at all. It is more of pejorative, a label, a buzz-word.


An understatement, it is used almost exclusively by opponents of the administration. It's like "Feminazis" for the left.





The problem here is that this is a belief that hardly arose with the people many think of as "neocons" as I explained earlier it has basically been the belief of most hawks (conservative or otherwise) for decades.

Who was it that first made regime change in Iraq official US policy?

I'll give you a hint, it wasn't a conservative.


Neoconservatism has nothing to do with conservatism or liberalism for that matter. It is purely a foreign policy affair: conservative (resistant to change) and liberalism (reliant on change) have no bearing.

Again, this term is pure buzz. I really wonder how long people will continue to swallow this baloney

What is a neocon or neoconservative?


Like any newly-invented word, it has no real definition until something finally sifts down through all the chaff. The word itself ostensibly refers to someone who is conservative now but wasn't before. But most people currently being referred to as "neocons" don't have many conservative characteristics - they are basically liberals who have become disenchanted with the hard-left slide of the Democrat party and have joined the growing not-quite-so-liberal wing of the Republican party. They are as liberal now as they were before, so the "conservative" part of their new name is a misnomer at best.

Consider as an example, a teenager who wasn't very politically aware until now, and who has started to study what various political factions do. He has decided that he favors tax cuts, minimal legislation, strong and uncompromising national defense, leaving citizens to be responsible for their own actions, and general freedom. This teenager would be a conservative, but is definitely not a neoconservative the way so many people called "neocons" are. For one thing, he's not liberal enough to be a neocon.

IMHO the term "neocon" was invented by hard-left liberals for the purpose of pretending that conservatives favor liberal policies such as government entitlements, increasing regulations, and deficit spending. It was done in an attempt to get American citizens to vote against conservatives, in the mistaken belief that all conservatives are the "wolves in sheeps' clothing" that the neocons are.

Good analysis. The Oxford English Dictionary first included the term neoconservative in 1964, but antedates it to 1938:

http://www.oed.com/newsletters/1999-01/antedating.html

I think the reason we haven't heard much about neoconservatism until the past five years or so is in part due to the buzz phenomenon, which is probably changing its meaning from "newly conservative" to a list of the distinctive traits of the current Bush administration as itemized by its opponents.

The former meaning (perhaps pre-1964) was not without significance, describing people who did not change their utopian motives and goals, only perhaps shifting their trust from government to individuals. The more recent modifications, however, are probably the ones that are going to stick. I'm not so sure this is just a fad.

Should AD include neocon as an alternate label?

Under the old definition, it described people who switched from some degree of liberalism or socialism to some degree of conservatism, so it should probably be sufficient to classify themselves as conservative, unless a huge number of them strenuously object with good reason. It might be useful to break down the conservative-liberal spectrum for foreign policy, domestic social policy and domestic fiscal policy-- but the old definition of neoconservative really doesn't decribe a point on the liberal-conservative spectrum, just a change from one side of the spectrum to the other.

As for the new definition of "neocon," I personally use the term "Bushie," and I think the new "neocon" and "Bushie" are in a similar category as the terms "Clintonista" or "New Democrat" or "RINO" or "Rushie" or "Limbaughsites". Such terms might be fun to throw around, and useful for casually identifying a particular school of thought, but probably not really worthy of being made official. I don't think such terms are particularly harmful or offensive-- they are common in modern political discourse to add a degree of entertainment value to dry topics-- but I wouldn't use them in a dissertation or thesis paper, except maybe by their OED definitions, if they have any.

Neoconservative is partly what you say it is turnea, a foreign policy ideology. Pat Buchanan has described himself as a "traditional conservative." What that really means is he is an isolationist, where neo-conservatives are former isolationists who became interventionists. That's where I place myself. Someone who used to think that we should leave everyone alone and worry about ourself, but now that is not possible I believe interventionism is our only remaining option. But it also has a domestic meaning as well; one that is difficult to elucidate. I support gender and racial equality but I strongly oppose affirmative action. I believe in helping the less affluent of society but I don't believe that giving money away reduces poverty; giving opportunity away does. I believe everyone has the right to health care but I don't think that means that everyone has to be subjected to the quality of health care found at free clinics. I know America has done many egregious things to its own citizen and to others but I don't think that means we have to suffer a similar fate to 'learn our lesson.' Ideas and movements that are associated with liberals are things such as affirmative action, Title VII, higher taxes, social programs, sympathy for America's opponents, be it communists, Muslims, what have you. Those ideals force centrists to choose a side and those that oppose left wing extremism greater than they oppose right wing extremism are neoconservatives.

1. What is a neocon or neoconservative?

2. Is there a difference between a conservative and a neoconservative as Pat Buchanan's book suggests? If so, explain the difference.

I'll combine those two questions because the answers are related. Pat Buchanan has the history of it right, though of course he puts his own spin on it.


Pat is himself not in the mainstream of the conservative movement (Bill Buckley and Ronald Reagan are), but more of an Old Right isolationist. He tries to spin that as being what real conservatives are, but they stopped being that long before the neocons; the last Old Right conservative besides Buchanan to run for President was Robert A. Taft.

The two fathers of the neocon wing were Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, both former Trotskyist IIRC. Their intellectual home was Commentary magazine and they were essentially domestically moderate but hawkish Cold War Democrats who become politically homeless as the result of the Democratic party's shift to the left as the result of the fallout from Vietnam. The late Senators Pat Moynihan or Henry "Scoop" Jackson could have been among them, but chose not to leave the party. Maybe they would have later, had they lived, but we'll never know.

"Neoconservative" is not a new term made up by liberals to divide and attack conservatives, though they have siezed upon it for that purpose. It was an object of discussion within Young Americans for Freedom in 1973, when I was active in that organization, and also in conservative magazine articles. The consersus was generally to welcome our new allies, but to realize that they were different. Chiefly, they had no instinctive antipathy to big government, unlike most strains of American conservatism.

Today's neocons have to a large degree assimilated within the conservative movement and often think of themselves just as conservatives, but it's still a distinctive strain of thought, enough so that certain individuals and magazines can be identified as neocon without fear of contradiction: The Weekly Standard, Jeane Kirkpatrick, William Kristol (son of Irving Kristol), Fred Barnes, Charles Krauthammer, etc. All of them are hawkish on foreign policy and broadly sympathetic to PNAC goals, pretty much moderate on social issues, and while they want to use big government for conservative ends, they're not hostile to big government per se as American conservatism traditionally has been.

3. Do neocons tend to practice a strong denial or strong concern for the humanity and human rights of others?

I challenge the premise. I don't think that question serves to differentiate between liberals and conservatives at all, let alone between cons and neocons. Conservatives are just as concerned with humanity and human rights as liberals, but define them differently and see differrent means as effective in attaining them. Of course, liberals deny that and insist on posing the question just that way, but that's a problem liberals have, difficulty with being able to to grant the sincerity and good intentions of anyone on the Right.

But to answer the question as posed, I'd say yes, neocons are very concerned with humanity and human rights, perhaps too much so because their concern leads them on crusades to promote human rights around the world, a laudable aim, but perhaps beyond our means.

4. Should AD have a new category for neoconservatives?

No. While neoconservatism is a distinct strain within conservatism, we don't give other distinct strains such as libertarians, religious social conseratives, Buchananite Old Right isolationists or Kirkean traditionalists their own categories. Nor do we give the various strains of liberalism their own categories.

And before the other libertarians jump on me, I'm well aware that libertarianism is not just a category within conservatism, but it exists there as well as being a separate movement. If we were going to make a new category, it should be for libertarians, as I have previously advocated.

P.S.: Though Ronald Reagan started out as a Democrat, as did the original neocons, I cannot consider him one, because he came to fully embrace conservative ideas on domestic policy and the role of government. You might say, he fully assimilated whereas they never did.

It depends on how one defines "neoconservative." BofF has posed the subject for debate by defining "neoconservative" with the quotes that utilize the labels “liberal” and “conservative” the meaning of which, when framed in a pejorative context, can be twisted. For example, consider this statement: “The difference between a liberal and a conservative is that a liberal is one who is too liberal for his own good, while a conservative is one who is only liberal for his own good.” Notice that the meaning of the word “liberal” (which is good) in juxtaposition to the word “good” has a bad connotation. This is done by framing the subject with the modifiers “too,” “own” and “only.” (It is like saying, “He is too good” - meaning he is bad.)

Pat Buchanan’s definition is likewise slanted, albeit with an historical reference point In this, it would be more precise to define neoconservatism in terms of differences from traditional conservative principles rather than liken them to past political ideologies not associated with conservative philosophy.

As to debate topics, 3 and 4, until there is some consensus on the definition of “neoconservative” they are problematic. (Indeed, even the dictionary definition would hardly suffice for common usage on this discussion forum!)

Liberals and conservatives are all of a piece. We all bring our own biases and prejudices, our own political philosophy, so to speak, to the public forum. To be disposed one way or the other depends on many things; to be indisposed one way or the other depends on only one thing - ourselves. We would do well to examine ourselves - our own dislikes and preferences - before we start labeling others.

..but these are all things which are already found in mainstream conservatism, again "neoconservatism" has zero defined domestic policy objective.


Of course. The best propaganda terms use an obscure, outdated, word and change its meaning. It's so the pushers won't have to invent a history when people start asking questions about where this all started...

"Neo-cons" has come to simply be a spooky way to refer to people close to the Bush administration. The current Republican hawks.

Nothing in their actions or writing however, makes them distinct from any other nationalists-interventionists.

The level of misunderstanding around this term is telling. Whether or not it started as such, the term "neocon" is a tool used to vilify opponents of the Bush administration.

I may not like him, I didn't vote for him but I have to call a foul when I see it. This kind of propaganda is unhealthy in a democratic society and we shouldn't stand for it.

Wow, what a wonderful topic!

This has without a doubt been educational. I think what blurs the line for a lot of folks, as has been illustrated a few times, is the distinction between foreign, domestic, and social policy as it relates to an evolutionary construct like neoconservatism. It seems everyone is in agreement that from the foreign policy perspective, a neocon likely subscribes at least in part to PNAC's vision of the US as it relates to the world.

Outside of foreign policy, the lines blur greatly, at least in the contemporary context. To read Izdaari's excellent history and analysis, it seems like neoconservatism as a philosophy, isn't fully assimilated anywhere within the Republican party. At least not in significant numbers. Yet, the label seems to get used pretty frequently with the likes of most senior members of the Bush Administration. Is that fair? Maybe, maybe not. Unfortunately in the era of sound byte retention for most folks, these types of labels are quite pervasive. But as this history lesson has taught (at least for me), the label really isn't accurate. So in this construct, at least today, it's used to mark a negative connotation more than anything to draw the darker sides of the GOP. Just as many conservative pundits attempt to demonize the "liberal" label. Neither is fair, but it certainly dominates the vernacular depending on which side of the fence you sit.

So where does a neocon sit as far as domestic or social policy? That probably runs the spectrum. Arguably if you put our sitting president in the Neocon category then you could argue he is conservative from a social & domestic perspective. Opposition to abortion and gay marriage and support for cuts in social programs (NCLB notwithstanding) would support this characterization. Abstracting the president, you could likely find neocons that flip that bit so its hard to say if anything conclusive could be reached from using that example. This would seem to jive with Turnea's perspective that this label can only be applied in foreign policy positions and does not represent a comprehensive (or complete) political philosophy.

In the end I don't think it deserves a separate section. And frankly, in today's political system, I think its an outdated term. But in the media's desperate search for labels, it certainly seems to have staying power for the moment.

Doc

Thank you, Doclotus. That made my day.


Sometimes it is. Many of the officials commonly described as neocons are in fact full blown neocons: Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, etc., and they have the connections with neocon organizations to prove it. For the reasons you cite, among others, I would say President Bush himself is not, nor are Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, who would more properly be classified as "assertive nationalists" (to which label I would cop myself, though it may be rare among libertarians).

There should be nothing pejorative about it. Neoconservatism is a valid and intellectually respectable strain within conservative thought, and if I adhered to it, I'm certainly not be shy about saying so.

And even though I often disagree with it, I very much look forward to each new issue of The Weekly Standard, which IMHO is one of best written and most insightful political magazines out there. To those who say the term "neoconservatism" is too nebulous to get a handle on, I recommend reading a few issues. I think you'll find a sufficiently distinctive flavor of conservatism.

However, using it as a pejorative is not helpful and usually not even accurate since those who so abuse the term are not aware of neoconservatism's history or characteristics, and so have no real idea who is a neocon and who isn't.

That is the first concept to come to terms with when trying to understand neocons, yes.

To clarify: a political position that "runs the spectrum" is, of course, simply a lack of a position.

That nulls neoconservatism as a full political stance.

I am about to attempt to show that it is a null (or at the very least redundant) term even in the realm of foreign policy.

That would make it perfect as negative buzzword. Let's start here.

Well that is true. The problem is two-fold.
1. Most people don't have the slightest clue as to what PNAC's vision of US foreign policy is.

2. Just about everyone agrees with the PNAC vision in part. Some of it's underlying principles are pretty broad. Who wouldn't like to see human-rights and democracy brought to suffering millions?

Sure some may disagree with the methods, but even PNAC itself isn't clear on that.

Instead the view of the goals and methods of PNAC is formed largely on hearsay, per the propaganda MO.

What does the hearsay say you might ask?

Why the PNAC believes in the US asserting it's influence including through military force, in order to insure it's dominance in world affairs.

If there is anything neoconservative it must be that right?

Wrong. That stance is as old as dirt and twice as cheap. It is textbook nationalist interventionism. I think it was invented somewhere in Ancient Mesopotamia.

So why the new terminology?
Well is you want to know the purpose of a word, look at it's usage. As I've said before it is used almost exclusively by those wishes to criticize the administration.

It is a media-friendly slur. Really no better than running about calling communists "reds."


Couldn't have said it better myself.

A neo-conservative is:
1. A substitute for the word fascist when used by Democratic politicians. They have invented a new definition for it in an attempt to make it a legitimate political term, but it is merely a slur.
2. A term used by some who desire an enormous US military presence...everywhere. There are less of these people because most who follow the "neo-con ideology" [which doesn't exist] don't want to be known as a neo-con for reasons mentioned above. Who would want to be known as a political slur?

Yes it is...It's a legitimate ideology with several branches, one happens to want a strong US military presence across the globe. Others don't.

CP

I'll agree that as a media-friendly slur it deserves to die.

But for analyzing intellectual trends within the conservative movement, which admittedly the mass media would not be capable of doing even if they tried, the term is necessary.

Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz started something. Commentary stood for something (maybe still does, I don't know, haven't read it in years). The Weekly Standard stands for something. The American Enterprise Institute stands for something. If not neoconservatism, what do you call that something?

I agree completely...But who labeled that something? When you hear that something, who talks about it...When you hear about that something, is it ever used positively? Kristol and the rest do stand for something, but until that something is defined by them, anything else that defines them is a slur. Liberals defining conservative ideologies and vice versa seems doesn't make sense to me.

CP

Just so, CP, but "neoconservatism'' is not a term invented by liberals. Irving Kristol regularly used it to describe himself and those who thought like him.

Perhaps this article might prove helpful: The Neoconservative Persuasion: What it was, and what it is by Irviing Kristol.

I agree that neoconservatism had, at one point, a perfectly respectable definition, but like many poor unfortunate words it has been irretrievably lost.

Kristol would do well to abandon it, especially since none of it is new. It's just old political doctrines stiched together around the remains of the Reaganites.

This is simple Reaganomics coupled with the decades old stance of economic conservatives.


Again basic conservatism. Kristol goes on to explain that the difference lies in the calm attitude neocons take towards Americas progression away from such ideas.

This is a distinction without difference, a well-adjusted conservative is still a conservative.

Here Kristol acknowledges there is not distinction from social conservatism. What, then makes a person a neo-conservative?

Nationalism, anyone? Still nothing unique.

Is this what all the fuss is about? The essence of neoconservatism. Because if it is they might be disappointed

Because this again is not unique in the least.

Meanwhile, despite any good intentions over this "movements" founders, the term has undergone a transformation. It is now toxic to anyone it touches.

It really is time to drop it.

You've convinced me, Turnea, but sadly and reluctantly.

There is nothing sufficiently distinctive about it for even such a sophisticated popular audience as we have here to be able to grasp it, and it is mostly used as a pejorative by those who don't understand it.

Henceforth let the word be retired to the musty halls of academe, where it shall be reserved for Ivory Tower-types studying the intellectual history of American conservatism, and let those formerly known as "neoconservatives" now be called simply "conservatives."

But still...

Those individuals, magazines and think tanks whom the word formerly described had something in common, and I feel the poorer for no longer having a word for it.

The clear cut difference between neo-conservatives and paleo-conservatives is foreign policy. Paleo-conservatives tend to be isolationists while neo-conservatives are Wilsonites. Paleo-conservatives tend to be guided more by the philosophies of Morgenthau when they are engaged in foreign policy.

...but it's not like this is some distinctly neocon concept. After all, Clinton had his share of interventions on this model as well, goodness this goes back to Eisenhower and the "domino theory" and even further.

An interventionist can be found at either end of the political spectrum and there is no reason to call such a person a "neocon."

We already had a perfectly fine word for this outlook, one that doesn't lend itself to smear tactics.

Edited to Add: Eisenhower, I meant Eisenhower...

I was so impressed with the replies on this thread, that I almost forgot to give my own answer.

I particularly liked Aquilla’s description of Pat Buchanan:



About the best I can say for Buchanan is that he is marginally better than his stable mate Joe Scarborough. While, Buchanan may be the “monkey in front of the typewriter” Scarborough is more like a grasshopper that jumps up and lands on a key. Oddly enough, I’ve heard the term “neocon” used negatively by more conservatives than liberals. Included in that list would be Buchanan, Scarborough and the intellectually superior Robert Novak. I’ve also heard it from “Motor Mouth” Chris Matthews, a man I cannot describe as either liberal or conservative.

Like others, I tend to associate the word "neoconservative' with foreign policy. I tend to think of the cast of characters in James Mann’s Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet—Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld.

I'm a bit late to this topic, but oh well.

1. What is a neocon or neoconservative?
Personally, I thought the best explanation as to what a "neocoservative" is that I have read was the article "The shadow men" in The Economist of 24-Apr-2003.I strongly urge everyone to read the whole article.

I strongly agree with various other posters who have noted that the term "neocon" has been widely abused, especially by opponents of the course US foreign policy has taken over the last few years. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard Rumsfeld and Cheney referred to as "neocons," which they patently are not. But I do not believe that is sufficient reason to discard the term altogether; rather, I think it would be beneficial to foster a better understanding of what a neocon actually is. After all, all sorts of political terms--"socialist" and "fascist" come readily to mind, though there are many others--have been (and continue to be) used pejoratively and incorrectly, but that does not negate their valid meaning.

3. Do neocons tend to practice a strong denial or strong concern for the humanity and human rights of others?
Neither, really. The neocons tend to believe that spreading democracy is the best way to keep America safe, and in doing so, they in effect support human rights globally. The problem is that, by claiming "moral clarity" and framing their policies in terms of "good vs. evil," they don't leave much room for dissenting viewpoints. It's rather hard to have a productive discussion with someone who paints you as being morally deficient simply because you disagree with him.

1. What is a neocon or neoconservative?

When I use the word, I mean: Pro big business, pro big brother, pro free trade, pro social darwinist policies (whether they think of these policies in those terms or not). Anti-socialism, anti-civil liberties, and anti-individual (they tend to be oriented toward their own social class and powerful conglomerates with rigid hierachies).

2. Is there a difference between a conservative and a neoconservative as Pat Buchanan's book suggests? If so, explain the difference.


I haven't read Pat's book, but yes, I respect and get along with many conservative views, especially the ones leaning libertarian. I am pro privacy rights, pro 2nd Amendment, and anti big brother government laws that restrict personal freedom. I have little respect for and nothing in common with the neocon view.


3. Do neocons tend to practice a strong denial or strong concern for the humanity and human rights of others?

Neocons might express this, when it serves their ends, especially policymakers, but they are concerned only with their own kind, the wealthy and the powerful. PNAC's writings are always good for an eye opener if someone wants to know the face of a neocon.

4. Should AD have a new category for neoconservatives?

I'm sorry if there are any neoconservatives by my definition on this board. I'll use the terms rightist, leftist, republican, democrat, conservative, lefty, righty, and centrist, and the context will tell the reader whether I'm being friendly or not about it. But I never use the term neocon in a friendly manner.

1. What is a neocon or neoconservative?

From my understanding, the distinction between a paleoconservative and a neoconservative is as follows:

Paleoconservatism is state moralism and capitalism.
Neoconservatism is state moralism and corporatism (socialism for the rich.)

Certainly, neoconservatism is anti-humanist. They forward the third most horrendous ideology ever conceived (after fascism and communism,) advocating that human life is the property of society, and government must help the rich by starting wars. It is authoritarianism. It is inegalitarianism. It is elitism.

And the worst part, while being the greatest traitors to Jeffersonian democracy America has ever seen, they dare claim to support freedom! Oh, they support freedom - the kind of freedom you get by submitting to the authorities and doing everything they say.

They might as well pervert freedom even more by spelling it "phreedom."