Are NeoCons really Conservatives? And why. On another thread I read NeoCons as Conservatives and Moi maintains they are not. You want "Conservative" I did not appreciate AuH2O in '64 because of Vietnam. Then Lyin' Baines Johnson followed the other guys plan. All In. NeoCon? Nothing Neo about thievery Nothing Con about expanding the powers of the Federals. Usually I avoid uploading Moi's opinion on a #1 upload in an opinion poll I initiate but the Devil made me do it. Moi Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
Correct, they are a political movement, not an ideology. They were born out of the democratic party in response to the increased pacifism of their liberal wing.
Truly. Don't Republicans believe in smaller gov't? What did the NeoCon Republicans do to make gov't smaller. This was written to me in a "private" message. The identity of the writer will remain confidential in keeping with the time Neoconservatism only deals with one issue really, foreign strength particularly in the use of the military. It was born out of the 1960's during the Vietnam War. Many in the democratic party, especially the more progressive liberal faction, were getting fed up with the pacification of the left and their protesting of foreign intervention so they formed the group know as neocons. They eventually moved over to the republican party. Conservatism is a broad ideology encompassing a large number of issues so a neocon could be a conservative but they don't necessarily have to be one. Technically a liberal could be a neocon also. Conservatives do not have to share the belief of the neocons either, in fact, many don't. Bush wasn't a neocon and neither were Cheney or Rumsfeld but they relied on neocons for advice during the decision to go to Iraq. That entire war was pushed for by neocons and the Bush administration went with their recommendation. In another note the anonymous author wrote These guys started out on the left if you look at their history back in the late 50's and 60's and were strong supporters of the civil rights movement and all of that. When the left started embracing groups like the Black Panthers, going against the troops in Vietnam, and began protesting to end the war, these people broke off from the liberals. Since then many have found more success with their beliefs in the republican party so that is where most of them ended up. Their other views can share beliefs with conservatives or not but like how the Tea Party formed, they are usually single issue people. ] Promoting US strength internationally, by any means, to increase our national security and this usually involves pushing for military action. They are more militarism than conservatism. Well in fact, that's exactly what they are. "They are more militarism than conservatism." Makes a lot of sense to Moi considering their deeds. Why does it take so many words to get to the obvious? Moi Protects sources until not needed no more
Certainly not in the traditional conservative sense. But then, the so called religious conservatives, the religious right aren't traditional conservatives either. Part of the traditional conservatism is small government, keeping government out of a citizens private business and lives. Goldwater once told LBJ to either win that damn war or bring our boys home. The need for constant wars is certainly not something a traditional conservative supports. I do think traditional conservatism is on the wane, much like the classic liberal, it may soon end up on trash heap of history replaced by what some will call a conservative ideology which has nothing in common with traditional conservatism or their principles.
And when kicked out, they happily moved over to infect the GOP as pretend conservatives. They uber nationalists, nativists, racialists, ethnocentric, often racialistic, and they hate democracy.
The fact that they tacked on "Neo" to "Conservative" is a clue. They're not conservative, they're reactionary.
I regard Hillary Clinton as a neo-con. She's never seen a war she didn't like. "We came, we saw, he died. Hahahahaha!" - Hillary Clinton speaking of Muammar Ghaddafi of Libya. The country has been lawless and a haven for ISIS and Al Qaeda ever since.
No, neocons are liberals who came from the Democratic party. Neoconservatives were liberals in the Democratic party who were very anti commie and big supporters of winning the Cold War against the USSR. When the radical leftist who supported the USSR and North Vietnam started to slither into the Democratic party and eventually hijack the Democratic party, the patriotic liberals started to leave the Democratic party starting in the early 1970's and were welcomed by the GOP because conservative Republicans with in the GOP needed the neoconservatives to help win the Cold War. One of the last patriotic liberals to leave the Democratic party and come under the GOP tent was back in the early 1980's, Dr. Jean Kirkpatrick. ( Notice the phrase "San Francisco Democrats" below, This was the "New Left" the radical left during the countercultural movement during the 60's who would become the liberals and eventually the progressives if today. )
It was the "New Left" who shorten neoconservative to neocon. Neocon was suppose to be a derogatory term for liberals who left the Democratic party and came under the GOP tent.
That's irrelevant. That's politics. However, I can think of one well known poster here on PF who claims to be a Republican who voted for Hillary Clinton and who hates Trump with a purple passion. You said neo-cons are Republicans. People who want to use force to try to mold the world into our likeness are neo-cons. Barrack Obama fits into this category, i.e. Libya and Syria.
Republican ideology is one of self serving economic and political treason. Its historic support for the likes of Bolsheviks, Hitler, Saddam, and ISIS prove that point quite readily.
Bush, yes. I'm not so sure about Trump. Afghanistan is being slowly retaken by the taliban, and I don't hear Trump talking about reintroducing a combat mission for U.S. troops in Afghanistan. We'll see how that turns out. ISIS had to be crushed, and I supported that effort. But what we do about Syria remains to be seen. Trump has said he would like to get out of Syria, and I hope he does. I'm sure there are voices in his administration who are advising him not to, so we'll see. Hillary wanted to declare "no fly zones" over Syria, effectively turning us into the Syrian Rebel Air Force, a move Trump has not taken. Trump has continued our quiet war against Al Qaeda, mostly in Yemen and Somalia, and occasionally in Pakistan and Afghanistan. But he has not engaged us in any new wars, and he jumped at the chance to try to end the North Korean nuclear threat and to turn away from war. So no, I don't think Trump is acting like your typical neo-con. It's only two years into his term, and time will tell. But so far, no. He's not acting like a neo-con. Seth
They are nationalists, that's the only thing you got right. They were actually huge supporters of the civil rights movement which they brought with them to the republican party who is actually responsible for the majority of our civil rights legislation. After the Vietnam War the left had proven that they no longer cared about American values or putting the nation first, there was no way the neocons could stay with that group at that point. They didn't leave, they were driven out.
GOP apologists ignore the very ideological elements of ethnocentrism, racism, and antidemocracy among the virulent components of the neo-conservatives. The neo-cons left the Dems because their core ideology fit better with the Republicans' more fervent traditional pre-Civil Rights elements.
They're Trotskiites. Wolves in sheepdogs clothing. They pretend to love political conservativism as a means to infiltrate it on behalf of communism, which itself is merely a means to acheive neofeudalism. They're the tools of old rich royalty of the Vlad the Impailer caliber that want their kingdoms and slaves from the dark ages back. F them to hell.
No change of values at all, just a new home and platform. These were the warmongers in SE Asia, picking up for the French.
Neocon 101: “Neocons” believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action. Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Hussein’s ouster. Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. Believing that authoritarianism and theocracy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the Middle East, neocons advocate the democratic transformation of the region, starting with Iraq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily hampered by multilateral institutions, which they do not trust to effectively neutralize threats to global security. What are the roots of neoconservative beliefs? The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left’s social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union’s fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America’s defense spending and its role in the world. Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They’ve always been “Reagan” Republicans. ‘Moderate Mitt’: Neocon Trojan Horse What is the difference between a neoconservative and a conservative? Liberals first applied the “neo” prefix to their comrades who broke ranks to become more conservative in the 1960s and 70s. The defectors remained more liberal on some domestic policy issues. But foreign policy stands have always defined neoconservatism. Where other conservatives favored détente and containment of the Soviet Union, neocons pushed direct confrontation, which became their raison d’etre during the 1970s and 80s. Today, both conservatives and neocons favor a robust US military. But most conservatives express greater reservations about military intervention and so-called nation building. Neocons share no such reluctance. The post 9/11-campaigns against regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate that the neocons are not afraid to force regime change and reshape hostile states in the American image. Neocons believe the US must do to whatever it takes to end state-supported terrorism. For most, this means an aggressive push for democracy in the Middle East. Even after 9/11, many other conservatives, particularly in the isolationist wing, view this as an overzealous dream with nightmarish consequences. How have neoconservatives influenced US foreign policy? Finding a kindred spirit in President Reagan, neocons greatly influenced US foreign policy in the 1980s. But in the 1990s, neocon cries failed to spur much action. Outside of Reaganite think tanks and Israel’s right-wing Likud Party, their calls for regime change in Iraq were deemed provocative and extremist by the political mainstream. With a few notable exceptions, such as President Bill Clinton’s decision to launch isolated strikes at suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, their talk of preemptive military action was largely dismissed as overkill. Despite being muted by a president who called for restraint and humility in foreign affairs, neocons used the 1990s to hone their message and craft their blueprint for American power. Their forward thinking and long-time ties to Republican circles helped many neocons win key posts in the Bush administration. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 moved much of the Bush administration closer than ever to neoconservative foreign policy. Only days after 9/11, one of the top neoconservative think tanks in Washington, the Project for a New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Bush calling for regime change in Iraq. Before long, Bush, who campaigned in 2000 against nation building and excessive military intervention overseas, also began calling for regime change in Iraq. In a highly significant nod to neocon influence, Bush chose the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) as the venue for a key February 2003 speech in which he declared that a US victory in Iraq “could begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace.” AEI – the de facto headquarters for neconservative policy – had been calling for democratization of the Arab world for more than a decade. What does a neoconservative dream world look like? Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a “benevolent global hegemon.” In this capacity, the US would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of “failed states” or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the US or its interests. In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. This approach, they claim, is not only best for the US; it is best for the world. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong US leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants. Any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively, not “appeased” or merely contained. The US military would be reconfigured around the world to allow for greater flexibility and quicker deployment to hot spots in the Middle East, as well as Central and Southeast Asia. The US would spend more on defense, particularly for high-tech, precision weaponry that could be used in preemptive strikes. It would work through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations when possible, but must never be constrained from acting in its best interests whenever necessary. https://www.globalresearch.ca/neocon-101-what-do-neoconservatives-believe/6483
