When you are discussing a touchy subject with libertarians or hard-line conservatives, and express a strong opinion they feel violates a conservative mantra, they retaliate with the dreaded N-word: neoconservative.
At the moment that dire word enters the discussion, your opponent will assume he has won the argument. Trying to explain why you are not one will get finger-waggling condescension. If you ask for a definition, you’ll get a short speech about George W. Bush and the military industrial complex.
Therein lies the problem: no consistent definition for the term exists.
The only people who attempt to define “neoconservative” are its self-styled opponents and their definitions diverge wildly. Many who apply the term to themselves are not sure what it means, and while they cannot tell why it is bad, they know they are called that an awful lot by bad people and it has something to do with liking America.
When someone uses the term “neoconservative,” he is alluding to the split within conservatism that occurs every generation. Some embrace the new and the others hold on to the old, or at least as much of it as they can envision could return some day.
As a result, when France was split after its revolution, a “right-wing” and “left-wing” were created. Among the right wing, there were the hardline monarchists and then the “new” right-wing, who accepted some of the liberal ideas that has just thrown the country into turmoil.
In the United States, with each conservative idea that becomes a focus of the liberal-friendly media and mass culture, another layer of conservatism is demonized. Each of these quickly becomes a point of division that will define what the next generation sees as conservative, versus what it defines as “neoconservative.”
The prefix neo after all means only “new.” The implication of it is that while there may be a more ideologically pure movement somewhere, there’s a new movement now, and that’s where the action is. Not surprising in that it is closer to the mainstream norm. Neoconservatives are conservatives who accept that liberalism is more popular, and thus speak in liberal terms, with liberal goals, and try to use those to justify conservative policies. As in, “We’re invading Iraq for democracy… and it just so happens to fulfill our foreign-policy objectives too. How about that.”
All anti-neocons seem to disagree on what exactly happened and what change took place. As a result, I have been called a neoconservative for, among other things, opposing the war of 1812, denying that the Israeli right controls American foreign policy, saying 9/11 may have been executed by Muhammadans, supporting sodomy laws, supporting tariffs (back when I did), opposing tariffs (now that I do) or denying that the federal reserve is some sort of private company.
Here are some of the more common definitions I deduced for “neoconservative” and the groups of people who spout them, though never offer a direct definition:
- Paleoconservatives: This is a very incoherent group with a lot of different factions but for our purposes, we can divide them into Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians. Neither represents the relevant founder.
They share in common a belief in conspiracies, that wealth is too concentrated, that the state is too big, America is too adventurous abroad, and that conservatives once understood this but now do not because something happened to the movement.
They tend to be religious and see Christianity as declining and that as bad. They also tend to be pro-white or race-neutral but blame all problems on a specific white ethnic group. It is easy to get them confused because both are silly.
- Hamiltonians. The Hamiltonian sees the story like this: During and before the war between the states, both sides in all debates were good. After that war, the Republicans were the good guys.
They understood a nation needs a small state but interventions to ensure industrialization (railroads, tariffs ext) and our foreign policy was designed to pursue the national interest although, some times, we would bungle it.Democrats in those days did not understand these things.
In the 1960s, this group believes, the GOP became corrupted by special interests. It remains that way. They see no hope of compromise.
They see neoconservatism not as an ideology to be combated but as a secret plot to be exposed. Exempt from the charge of “neocon” are only leftists and libertarians.
- Jeffersonians. The Jeffersonian is even sillier. He sees the story as beginning in the American revolution. The embryo of the Neocon movement are the Torries then the federalists, then the Lincoln republicans, and now just about everyone but especially Republicans (the Democrats having long since been taken over by Communism).
The idea is that there is a tiny elite of Anglo plutocrats. They manifest themselves in Victorian England. In anything English, in the high church, in Calvinism, in monarchy and most of all in greed and pretensions. Our revolution in 76 was both libertarian, equality and for suffrage and the three always go together somehow. White nationalists and Left-distributists are often extreme variants of this.
- Hamiltonians. The Hamiltonian sees the story like this: During and before the war between the states, both sides in all debates were good. After that war, the Republicans were the good guys.
- Democrats. To a Democrat, anyone further right than Che Guevara is probably a neoconservative, unless they’re helping out the Democratic party, at which point they are bipartisan liberals. Democrats come in two types.
- Pragmatists. Your pragmatist Democrat is basically a moderate who is more interested in the political process than in political dogma. They are wily, of course, and still have their ideological roots, but they are willing to see these as open to compromise in favor of slow, steady change which over the course of generations helps people. These are well-intentioned, but most of them were abused as children.
To them, the term “neoconservative” means a fellow moderate who has strong opinions on defense, social conservatism or economic conservatism. They love neoconservatives because when they run into these it’s let’s-make-a-deal time. Since both are moderates, it’s a matter of quid pro quo and suddenly a deal is made. Neither group believes in radical change, and both agree on the essentials of liberal democracy.
- True believers. A true believer is someone whose allegiance to liberal dogma is greater than all other considerations. They are not interested in making deals; they are interested in sabotaging current political process until they can take control and make a liberal wonderland. To them, anyone to the right of Michael Moore is “far-right” or “extreme right,” and all Republicans are not only racists but closet monarchists.
To a true believer, neoconservative is more of an insult than it is to paleoconservatives. To the true believer, a neoconservative is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a conservative fascist pretending to have common ground with the liberals. A chekist. They look forward to meeting neoconservatives so they can bash them with pro-Communist protest signs.
- Pragmatists. Your pragmatist Democrat is basically a moderate who is more interested in the political process than in political dogma. They are wily, of course, and still have their ideological roots, but they are willing to see these as open to compromise in favor of slow, steady change which over the course of generations helps people. These are well-intentioned, but most of them were abused as children.
- The Media.To our media, anyone to the right of Karl Marx is a Republican unless they are officially a Democrat, and anyone to the right of Jimmy Carter is a far-right extremist. Our media likes to use neconservative to label anyone who is of any political stripe and believes in a strong foreign policy or defense; the media sneer likes to imply that “war hawk”,”sociopath” and neoconservative overlap by no small margin.
You can see, perhaps, why we do not get far in American politics. No one agrees on what a neoconservative is, or even what a liberal or conservative is. Because politics is a spectrum, from wherever you are the definitions change. If you’re an anarchist, liberal Democrats are conservatives just like Republicans or The John Birch Society. If you’re a paleoconservative, everyone else is a liberal.
I have a suggestion or two for the people who want to use the term “neoconservative.” First, agree on a definition. Second, stop calling me one because I’m not left or right enough for you. If you do that, we might even be able to have a whole conversation without realizing we have no idea what the other is trying to communicate.
45 queries. 1.236 seconds
No, he’s not. Neoconservative refers to a relatively well-structured school of thought with specific policies and proponents. It reached its apex at the height of the build-up to the Iraq War and has since outlived its usefulness as a school or a label.
Herp derp. Either you’re entirely unfamiliar with the origins of the neocons or you’re an apologist for the Jewish oligarchs.
Challenge accepted.
Definition: Anti-White, anti-Christian apologists for Jewish elites and their globalist trade policies and imperial military policies.
Challenge accepted.
You’re an apologist for the sworn enemies of my nation. You have been duped into adopting a political platform which is antithetical to the survival of my people and to the peace and prosperity of the entire human race. I do not quibble with you because you’re too far “left” or “right” or any other boring abstract semantic games you wish to play.
This isn’t a debate or a misunderstanding about semantics. This is a struggle for the survival of my tribe, traditions, and transcendent ideals. You will lose.
“Definition: Anti-White, anti-Christian apologists for Jewish elites and their globalist trade policies and imperial military policies.”
You have reversed the order. Neoconservatives are liberal conservatives, therefore they join our obtuse little liberal friends in opposing all that is healthy and strong.
National socialists like yourself should give up on the Jewish angle. It is simply not true. The real elite is the liberals themselves, and they will not hesitate to kill off the Jews at any time they become inconvenient.
Declaring that the neoconservative movement is a generally Jewish one is not anti-semitic speculation. Seriously, read the wiki before calling me a Nazi, dawg.
Ironically, earlier today I received this comment on an article of mine…
I should clarify, lest I be misconstrued, that neocons are the sworn enemies of my nation and not necessarily “Jews”. While the overwhelming majority of Jews are indeed my enemies, it is possible to be a Jew who is not set against the survival of my people.
Ethnic nationalists of all stripes (and stars, as it were) are my allies against the globalist machine.
That’s a strange thing…
I read both of your replies over, twice, and although they seemed well constructed, I still had no idea of what you were talking about.
Try again?
Crow,
The author of this article had apparently not bothered to go so far as to briefly scan the wiki article on the topic. Political schools are admittedly vaguely defined by nature and “neocon” has been thrown around as a pejorative by those who don’t know the definition; however, Haney’s treatment betrays either an inexcusable ignorance of the topic or an intentional effort to obfuscate the topic.
My position, in summmary, is that Haney is that:
1. Neocons are integrally opposed to my tribe, traditions, and ideals; and…
2. Haney’s constellation of political positions is appropriately classified as “neocon”; therefore…
3. Haney’s an enemy.
He asserts that it’s easy to get me confused because I’m supposedly “silly”. Challenge accepted.
I challenge Mr. Haney to debate me on a topic of his choice in a context of his choosing. If I’m as silly as he purports that I am and he’s as sensible as he presumes himself to be, my beliefs will be exposed as ignorant and silly.
Aha! Well done and thank you, Matt.
It was early, and I’d had no coffee yet.
All becomes clear now :)
Good point. It’s important to mention that the globalist machine exists because it pacifies our fears with liberal dogma, and pre-empts our objections with political correctness based on civil rights.
The ultimate goal is world revolution in the model of 1789 France, complete with the guillotine for those who do not have the “right” opinions.
Oh…we are all marginalized or exploited by someone, aren’t we? And since we are marginalized and exploited don’t our oppressors need a name so we can rail against them? When you bitch you can’t just say those people who are oppressing us or just call them tyrants or despots. Those descriptions are to vague. Hence we use verbal constructs to give them personality and a life all their own. This is the tool of activists, on the left as well as the right.
From what I understand, the Neoconservative philosophy emerged in the 1970s as a hodge-podge of ex-Trotskyites, New Philosophers (critics of communism), Strausserites, and Israeli and Christian groups who became disillusioned with what they saw as the failure to uphold Western ideals around the world. Obviously there was no widespread agreement on what exactly those ideals were, so it was a grab bag of democracy, capitalism, anti-communism, Christianity, Greco-Roman heritage, and Zionism. Unlike the Reaganites, the Neocons believed big government had a role in shaping the moral path of society as well as providing arms and soldiers for a democracy crusade. The issue of bailouts, Mexican immigration, No Child Left Behind, Israel-first policies, Christian lobbying, and two wars seemed to upset many in the rightwing who feel that the neocons, especially GWB, ruined the reputation of the Republicans.
Iraq became a target primarily because of the failure to defeat the Baath Party in 1991 and the failure of the US to support Kurdish and Shiite rebellions despite Clinton’s stated commitment to toppling Saddam. Oh yeah, and he tried to kill GWB’s dad. I guess I’m a heretic in some far right circles because I frankly I don’t see anything wrong with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars aside from the expenses- better dead terrorists and deposed anti-Western dictators than having them around.
The expenses of those wars are quickly dwarfed by our social entitlements spending, which is 50% of our budget.
I agree they were good wars, not only for the reasons you mention, but because by taking out the organized enemy, we returned them to neutralized market-driven nations or third-world oligarchies, and removed the powerful leaders who had the organizational skill to make these nations produce WMD and delivery system.
I am also a heretic on the right; while most of my views are paleoconservative or new rightish, I view American hegemony as a positive thing on the whole. I don’t believe our salvation is in Eurasia; in fact, to anyone who has understood history over the past 5000 years, that’s a laughable idea. I don’t think Americanization is unique to the USA or has come about because of the USA. Finally, I think our enemy is liberalism itself, which is a psychological problem not a political one. These are all heresies on the right as well as the left, which should tell any thinking person they need greater exploration.
This should clarify things:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2011/11/bad-rachel-how-neocons-really-feel.html?showComment=1321319372222#c2712839871373717502
I just want to live in a nation that works.
Despite watching people vote over everything under the sun for several decades, this has not been realized.
Thus, I give a crap about the politics of today like most of you folks probably give a crap about plasma physics.
As it happens, I have an interest in Plasma Physics.
Ionization, particularly of gases and quantum charged particles is something I get quite excited about.
This being the case, and there possibly being other visiors to this site, that feel a similar interest, you probably do give something of a crap about politics.
Besides: why else would you be here?
Unless it is for the frequent references to taoist views, that, surprisingly, also appear quite frequently, along with conservative politics, hereabouts.
As for just wanting to live in a nation that works: well, don’t we all?
You’re not the only one who might like plasma cosmology.
I admit I do like reading about the million ways the west is failing, because it reminds me I’m not crazy, but every time solutions are alluded to I roll eyes.
This place is nice and many of the authors are amazingly astute, but I don’t find any merit in the solutions they propose. I can see easily that no matter how good they sound on paper, the human nature of today would ruin them.
That isn’t to say that I am a defeatist who thinks we’re all screwed no matter what, I just place no faith in political solutions. I believe other solutions exist, and I’m certain I know what the source of that solution will be, but I’m equally certain that no solutions to society’s problems will come from either the mainstream or fringe political realms.
You’ve piqued my interest. Where will the solution come from?
…Dammit, there were supposed to be quotation marks around that first line. Friggin’ HTML.
Yeah, I laughed when I read this because it sounded like:
I’m certain *I* know, but tell me what you think it is first ;)
The solution will come from YOU!
Yes.
It will.
The restored gospel of Jesus Christ, through which the gift of the Holy Ghost and the Priesthood of God are restored to the earth for the first time since the time of Christ.
Nations that disobey the commandments of God are cursed to fail, while nations that keep the commandments and manage to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost are blessed to succeed and flourish.
I don’t believe that any earthly force can restore failing nations because it is the word of God that nations that reject the gospel and disobey the commandments are doomed to failure. It is also the word of God that the world will become progressively worse until the second coming of Christ.
The will of the Lord cannot be outsmarted. I know there are enough smart and well meaning people on earth today that if it could be done, it would have been done. The opposition of the Adversary is too great for man to overcome by his own power; his finest work will be infiltrated and corrupted by the influence of the Devil and turned on its head.
The only solution to this comes from the restoration of the fullness of the gospel, which is the restitution of all things. This restoration comes from the Book of Mormon, an ancient testament of Jesus Christ written by ancient prophets on the North American continent. This book was given to the prophet Joseph Smith by the guidance of the Lord. Through the prophet Joseph Smith, the gospel is restored. There is a prophet on the earth today, one of many which will comprise an unbroken succession of prophets directly representing the will of God on the earth until the Lord descends from the heavens to rule the earth directly.
That prophet’s name is Thomas S. Monson, and he is the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The true church of the Lord is restored, and through the influence of the messengers of God all things will be made right in due time. This world and its concerns of politics are the least of what are NOW being restored – culture, family, labor, welfare for the poor, education, justice – all of this and more will be made not only acceptable but perfect in the sight of the Lord.
The Lord chose to create this world, and now He chooses to breathe into it new life. Through the influence of God, entropy is undone, and life trends towards the amazing and satisfying rather than towards the profane and miserable. Hearken to his word and secure not only salvation of soul, but satisfaction in family, community and intellectual curiosity. Christ is the light and the way.
Learn more: http://lds.org/plan/our-eternal-life?lang=eng
While I have my suspicions about Mormonism, I have to say: when it comes to restoring the West, Christianity is aawwwright. :)
I’d always encourage you to learn more about the Church and I’m always open for questions.
Make your own decision, but do yourself the favor of making it an educated decision.
One tidbit of caveat: the idea of tradition is that religion, culture and learning are in unity, not any one leading the others.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at because all Latter-Day Saints are individuals, and right to individuality and free choice are cornerstones of our faith.
Your fabled organic self-assembling ethnoculture already exists in full bloom on this earth. Are you going to partake of it or pick it full of holes and speculate about it?
Good comment. I imagined it published in a respectful magazine looking like:
“”Nations that disobey the commandments of God are cursed to fail, while nations that keep the commandments and manage to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost are blessed to succeed and flourish”, Gannibal said.”
Or:
“According to LOLocaust, “Christ is the light and the way.”"
It would be an interesting article.
NeoCon = Goldstien in 1984.
They are THE ENEMY. They are SAAAAA-TAN!1!1.
But what are they? Define Neocan. Don’t you know what one is?
They are THE ENEMY. They are SAAAAA-TAN!1!1.
Yes, but what do they think? What do they advocate?
They are THE ENEMY. They are SAAAAA-TAN!1!1.
In otherwords, the term has degenerated to the level of enlightened polemic. You stick it in a campaign add against some Republican or Moderate Dem that you hate and hope that everyone in the audience attachs the worst definition they can personally imagein tot he term. It’s a use of the language to deliberately make the conversation less, not more, enlightened.
[...] Day in the Life”Joshua L. Roberts – “The Price”Patrick Haney – “Neoconservative”Bronan the Barbarian! – “Bronan’s Guide to Proper Childcare”Delusion [...]
Neoconservatives, at least in the period 1980-2008, were conservatives who embraced an extroverted foreign policy, free markets, and our cultural inheritance — it was a moral and classical, as opposed to a neutral and modern, worldview. They differ from paleoconservatives, who favor an introverted (what is known as realist) foreign policy, nationalistic economic policies, and look at culture more in tribal, if not racial, terms.
Neos and paleos share a common conservatism in believing in original sin — man has an inclination to evil, and institutions (families, schools, businesses, churches, etc.) make him somewhat good. This is why neos are conservative, unlike, say, libertarians, who, like all liberals, believe man is born good, a robotic, rational calculator. How is evil explained by liberals? For libertarians, the boogeyman who makes us bad is the government, and for the welfare-statists, the boogeyman is the corporations. All flavors of liberalism are at a loss to explain why terrorism, crime, exploitation, decadence etc. exist; the most they can say is things would be more rational only if we spontaneously decide to be more rational. It really is that shallow.
Neoconservatism has the potential for genuine reactionary change, unlike paleoconservatism, which tends to accept stasis for the sake of stasis. This doesn’t mean we should dismiss the paleo critique, for understating factors such as the stickiness of cultural inertia, the fragmentation that can be caused by too rapid a change, etc. etc. can lead to colossal policy blunders.