Create/officially designate America as a Neoconservative country. For those of you who dont know just google neoconservative and you will get the basic beliefs.
Challenge: Neo-Con World
- Thread starter Arch-Angel
- Start date
Leo Caesius
Banned
Just go to the Project for a New American Century's website. It is pretty much the last word on what it is to be a neoconservative.
Raymann
Banned
actually their just regular conservatives not imparied with having to listen to liberals. My point is that there really isn't a difference between conservatives and your supposed "neo-cons", one is just more religious then the other. Both the Left and the Right would be much futher to the left and the right if they wern't compeating with each other. All these non-governmental groups are just what the left and right want without interference from the other side. PNAC is pretty mainstream from the conservative standpoint while the ACLU is pretty mainstream from the left.
Leo Caesius
Banned
Not true.
Neoconservatism is a very specific phenomenon that applies particularly to individuals such as the PNAC folk. Whether they coined the term or not (I'm not sure about that myself), they have most certainly appropriated it for themselves. As I understand it, it had its origins among disillusioned liberal intellectuals towards the end of the 1970s. Self-proclaimed neoconservatives include Leo Strauss, Donald Kagan, and the dean of them all, Irving Kristol.
Neoconservative policy focuses largely on the economy. They are strongly in favor of tax cuts to spur economic growth and development. They also support increasing the power of the state to create a stronger government, particularly in the sphere of the military (rather than the "welfare state").
They are also socially conservative - not necessarily religious, but supportive of "traditional morals" in a way that makes neoconservatism palatable to religious groups. Included with these "traditional morals" is the concept of patriotism, which they feel should be encouraged by the state as a way of counterbalancing the centrifugal tendencies inherent within a society of immigrants. Proceeding from this is an innate distrust of world government, and a distinct "us versus them" mentality.
Finally, neoconservatives differ from traditional conservatives in believing that national interests do not end with the borders. They believe strongly in intervention, even military intervention, wherever our (loosely defined) national interests are at stake.
Obviously, there's quite a few things here that "traditional conservatives" of different stripes would find objectionable.
Neoconservatism is a very specific phenomenon that applies particularly to individuals such as the PNAC folk. Whether they coined the term or not (I'm not sure about that myself), they have most certainly appropriated it for themselves. As I understand it, it had its origins among disillusioned liberal intellectuals towards the end of the 1970s. Self-proclaimed neoconservatives include Leo Strauss, Donald Kagan, and the dean of them all, Irving Kristol.
Neoconservative policy focuses largely on the economy. They are strongly in favor of tax cuts to spur economic growth and development. They also support increasing the power of the state to create a stronger government, particularly in the sphere of the military (rather than the "welfare state").
They are also socially conservative - not necessarily religious, but supportive of "traditional morals" in a way that makes neoconservatism palatable to religious groups. Included with these "traditional morals" is the concept of patriotism, which they feel should be encouraged by the state as a way of counterbalancing the centrifugal tendencies inherent within a society of immigrants. Proceeding from this is an innate distrust of world government, and a distinct "us versus them" mentality.
Finally, neoconservatives differ from traditional conservatives in believing that national interests do not end with the borders. They believe strongly in intervention, even military intervention, wherever our (loosely defined) national interests are at stake.
Obviously, there's quite a few things here that "traditional conservatives" of different stripes would find objectionable.
I'm in agreement with Peter on this one. There are two factions in the conservative movement--"Paleocons" and "Neocons."
The neocons, being former Democrats (Pat Buchanan calls them "the boat people" that resulted from the farther-left takeover of the Dems in 1972), are far more inclined to support "big government" than true Paleocons are.
Pat Buchanan is a PaleoCon and he opposed the Iraq War. David Frum is a Neocon and he supported it (and advocated expanding it to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc--read An End to Evil).
The neocons, being former Democrats (Pat Buchanan calls them "the boat people" that resulted from the farther-left takeover of the Dems in 1972), are far more inclined to support "big government" than true Paleocons are.
Pat Buchanan is a PaleoCon and he opposed the Iraq War. David Frum is a Neocon and he supported it (and advocated expanding it to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc--read An End to Evil).
Yeah, basically what Peter and Matt said.
Besides, neocons are the ones that call people like FDR "socialists" to begin with. Hah, I'm a socialist, and I'm offended that someone like FDR would be placed in my camp.
Besides, neocons are the ones that call people like FDR "socialists" to begin with. Hah, I'm a socialist, and I'm offended that someone like FDR would be placed in my camp.
If FDR isn't a socialist, then what is he? I don't think he's a Fascist, although some have said the New Deal was basically corporatistic.
Leo Caesius
Banned
I think the terms of FDR's New Deal were largely dictated by the economic situation at the time. I don't think FDR himself could be characterized as a socialist - basically every government in the western world was adopting "socialist" measures at the time to deal with the Depression. They really didn't have much choice in the matter.Matt Quinn said:
So FDR didn't really have an "ideology"?
Hmm...come to think it, could he perhaps be described as a Populist of the old school? Many of his policies are akin to theirs, and his comments about "economic royalists" echo the Populists' complaints about "the interests."
Hmm...come to think it, could he perhaps be described as a Populist of the old school? Many of his policies are akin to theirs, and his comments about "economic royalists" echo the Populists' complaints about "the interests."
Matt Quinn said:
Well I guess he is a socialist to you... But not to a European!
And the people that calls Kerry left just freaks me out. If he lived in Sweden he would probable be a member of the right wing party.
The American neocons seem to have more in common with the conservatives of old in Europe then traditional American conservatives.
Leo Caesius
Banned
That's certainly how the Republicans at the time considered the Democrats. Sinclair Lewis described them as such. It is not, however, an area of history that I pretend to know much about, so I'll defer judgment until I know more about the populists and how they relate to FDR. Calling him as a socialist, however, seems to me to be a bit of a misnomer. By the same standard, you might as well classify LBJ as a socialist.Matt Quinn said:
LBJ could be considered an "old-style" socialist (as opposed to the post-1972 flacking-for-the-USSR "socialists" like William Blum). He supported "social-justice" type programs at home, but was very anti-Communist (escalating the Vietnam War).
Leo Caesius
Banned
My problem with the use of the term socialist is that, for me, it presupposes a firm belief in Marxist economic theory. Both FDR and LBJ were true Adam Smithians like most American politicians.
Leo Caesius said:
Oh, my God! FDR and LBJ were NOT devotees of Adam Smith. An "Adam Smithian" believes in minimal government interference in the economy. That was the whole point of Adam Smith's book, THE WEALTH OF NATIONS. Both FDR and LBJ were Keynesians who increased government's role in the economy, espousing the theory of John Maynard Keynes that government spending spurs economic growth. They may not have been "socialists" in that they didn't espouse Marxist theory, but the economic theories they espoused were "kissing cousins" of socialism at the very least.
Leo Caesius
Banned
I personally don't see how you can compare economists espousing a free market with government influence to those espousing a centrally-controlled, planned economy and claim that they're "kissing cousins." Also, Marx's views of history, to which most socialists subscribe today, are most definitely not a feature of Keynesian economics as I understand them. Socialism entails a whole host of things beyond the relation of the government to the economy. The major difference that you seem to be indicating is relative to how one defines "minimal" government interference. With the latitude that you're giving for the term "socialist," it loses all meaning and just becomes an epithet.
That being the case, who (in your opinion) is a strict, unadulterated devotee of Adam Smith today?
That being the case, who (in your opinion) is a strict, unadulterated devotee of Adam Smith today?
Leo Caesius said:
A "free market with government influence" is not a free market. Minimal government interference means just that...minimal. As in, as little as humanly possible.
There are many varieties of socialist. The problem with the term "socialist" is that all these different types of socialist believe that theirs is the only "true" socialism and that the others are not socialists at all. Socialism is almost like a religion in that regard. However, there are two major groups (each of which has subgroups, of course).
--Those espousing a centrally-controlled, planned economy and which espouse the whole of Marxist economic and historical theory are more properly called "Communists." I don't think that anyone beyond a few extreme right wing whackos would call FDR or LBJ communists.
--The more garden variety of socialist does not necessarily believe in Marxist historical theory or in central planning of the economy, but does believe that government should play an active role in the economy to "curb the excesses of capitalism." They will espouse things like universal government-sponsored health care, social security, government regulation of business, etc. etc. FDR and LBJ fell into this second group, as do most of the Social Democratic Parties in Europe.
The above is admittedly simplistic. But still accurate.
Leo Caesius said:
There is no politician I can think of who is a true devotee of Adam Smith today. Representative Ron Paul of Texas probably is the closest. Among economists, those of the the Austrian School come closest to it.
Leo Caesius
Banned
I suppose that's accurate, but I'd argue that Communism differs from Socialism in the abolishment of private property. Private property is still possible under a socialist system, even though a strictly socialist government would control the means of production.
I'd also note that George W. Bush falls solidly in your second category, but I suspect that you wouldn't argue with me there.
I'd also note that George W. Bush falls solidly in your second category, but I suspect that you wouldn't argue with me there.