[Millennium]

This is posted mostly out of curiosity. The term "neoconservative" seems to be a very ill-defined one at best. It also seems to have a cousin out there, "neoliberal" (a term I have not heard used in about a year) which, from all I can tell, seems to mean exactly the same thing.

So I'm posting this out of honest curiosity: what do people think a neoconservative is? What do people think a neoliberal is, for that matter? What is it that these groups want?

I'm only looking for a definition at this point, because so far I haven't found any. I've found a few "so-and-so is a neocon" examples, but that's just that: an example, not a definition.

[voodoo]

Neocons are the Americans calling themselves conservative and yet are progressive. They are the kind that thinks the 'old' conservatism isn't working there is so little to conserve. People have human rights, education, healthcare - many have sustanable income..

This is nothing to hold on to - rather they seek new ways to oppress, divide and conquer.

They are in a way the yuppies of conservatives.

[SimeyTheLimey]

It beats the heck out of me. It was originally coined to describe conservative democrats who broke with thier party in the 1970s over defense policy. Those were people like Jeane Kirkpatrick.

The group who are currently wearing the label are for the most part not the original neocons. Richard Pearl is the exception. He was a staffer to the late Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson. But people like Wolfowitz are Republicans.

Basically, neo-con has just become a meaningless label. We know roughly who is meant when people use it, and that is its only definition.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It beats the heck out of me. It was originally coined to describe conservative democrats who broke with thier party in the 1970s over defense policy. Those were people like Jeane Kirkpatrick.

The group who are currently wearing the label are for the most part not the original neocons. Richard Pearl is the exception. He was a staffer to the late Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson. But people like Wolfowitz are Republicans.

Basically, neo-con has just become a meaningless label. We know roughly who is meant when people use it, and that is its only definition.

Meaningless as the post you made on the subject?

[Spliffdaddy]

Nah, that would be your post.

[OreoCookie]

I think Voodoo got a good point.

They pick some conservative points and put it together in a new mosaic of things that previously didn't fit together.

For me, neoliberalism, as it was used like up until the Bush administration, meant that this movement supports further deregulation and free market economy beyond what we have now.

Less safety regulations, cartel regulations (Bell, Microsoft), etc.

As we can see, neoconservativism has elements of neoliberalism (see the development of the MS trial after Bush took office).

[davesimondotcom]

Neo-con n. Creative term to describe some sort of conspiratorial "boogiemen" bent on world domination. These "neo-cons" have an incredible ability to shape-shift from bumbling idiots to diabolical new world order schemers in the space of a few sentences written by those who believe in them, depending on which description best fits the agenda of the writer. They are known to plot decades ahead of time to place themselves in positions where they can funnel money to mega-corporations by creating false circumstances for war (yet somehow forgetting to plan ahead to "plant" evidence for after the war.) Even though they have no plans to do so, they are accused of planning to rid the world of elected officials, instead planting their own lackey in offices of power. They are known to have an instantaneous effect in destroying the environment, causing joblessness and homelessness as soon as put into elected office, without even so much as passing a single bill. See also: chupacabra, yeti, sasquach.

[Timo]

"Neo-cons", well, that's just rhetoric. "Paleo-cons", on the other hand...

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Neo-con n. Creative term to describe some sort of conspiratorial "boogiemen" bent on world domination. These "neo-cons" have an incredible ability to shape-shift from bumbling idiots to diabolical new world order schemers in the space of a few sentences written by those who believe in them, depending on which description best fits the agenda of the writer. They are known to plot decades ahead of time to place themselves in positions where they can funnel money to mega-corporations by creating false circumstances for war (yet somehow forgetting to plan ahead to "plant" evidence for after the war.) ...

Haha. That's awesome.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Neo-con n. Creative term to describe some sort of conspiratorial "boogiemen" bent on world domination. These "neo-cons" have an incredible ability to shape-shift from bumbling idiots to diabolical new world order schemers in the space of a few sentences written by those who believe in them, depending on which description best fits the agenda of the writer. They are known to plot decades ahead of time to place themselves in positions where they can funnel money to mega-corporations by creating false circumstances for war (yet somehow forgetting to plan ahead to "plant" evidence for after the war.) Even though they have no plans to do so, they are accused of planning to rid the world of elected officials, instead planting their own lackey in offices of power. They are known to have an instantaneous effect in destroying the environment, causing joblessness and homelessness as soon as put into elected office, without even so much as passing a single bill. See also: chupacabra, yeti, sasquach.

Funny. Did you write that?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Funny. Did you write that?

No, I typed it. My handwriting isn't nearly that neat. And it's not sans serif.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Neo-con n. Creative term to describe some sort of conspiratorial "boogiemen" bent on world domination. These "neo-cons" have an incredible ability to shape-shift from bumbling idiots to diabolical new world order schemers in the space of a few sentences written by those who believe in them, depending on which description best fits the agenda of the writer. They are known to plot decades ahead of time to place themselves in positions where they can funnel money to mega-corporations by creating false circumstances for war (yet somehow forgetting to plan ahead to "plant" evidence for after the war.) Even though they have no plans to do so, they are accused of planning to rid the world of elected officials, instead planting their own lackey in offices of power. They are known to have an instantaneous effect in destroying the environment, causing joblessness and homelessness as soon as put into elected office, without even so much as passing a single bill. See also: chupacabra, yeti, sasquach.

Not really what I was hoping for, but awesome all the same.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Not really what I was hoping for, but awesome all the same.

Sometime when I'm in a less sarcastic mood I'll write what I really think "the definitition" of neocon is...

[voodoo]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
No, I typed it. My handwriting isn't nearly that neat. And it's not sans serif.

Don't tell me.. you'll be here all week right?

[BRussell]

What's the matter, Millennium, is Google down? There's a ton written about this on the internet. BRussell's definition: A neo-conservative is a militaristic American Jew.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by BRussell:
What's the matter, Millennium, is Google down? There's a ton written about this on the internet. BRussell's definition: A neo-conservative is a militaristic American Jew.

is that like the short short version

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by voodoo:
is that like the short short version

No, mine is.

Neoconservatives: Bastards.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by BRussell:
What's the matter, Millennium, is Google down? There's a ton written about this on the internet.

Yes, I am fully aware of the myriad articles on the subject. So far, in those articles I've found a lot of vitriol, and a lot of examples, but no definitions.

Also interesting to note is that I have yet to see anyone describe himself or herself as a neocon. I suspect at this point that it's nothing more than an insult.

[lil'babykitten]

The more serious definition of neoconservatism is as follows:

"An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s: “The neo-conservatism of the 1980s is a replay of the New Conservatism of the 1950s, which was itself a replay of the New Era philosophy of the 1920s” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)."

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Yes, I am fully aware of the myriad articles on the subject. So far, in those articles I've found a lot of vitriol, and a lot of examples, but no definitions.

Also interesting to note is that I have yet to see anyone describe himself or herself as a neocon. I suspect at this point that it's nothing more than an insult.

I think I've only seen a handful of the hardcore rightwingers here describe them as 'right wing' or 'conservative'. Most go all like 'oh but I am liberal on so many things ... blah blah' and totally won't let themselves be categorized.

[boots]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
See also: chupacabra, yeti, sasquach.

See chupacabra:



I've always loved this myth.

Anyway, the meaning of words change over time. LBK has a good definition, but it seems to have changed somewhat in usage to include the idea of projecting US hegemony. It is this added meaning that has many upset with the "neocon" agenda.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Yes, I am fully aware of the myriad articles on the subject. So far, in those articles I've found a lot of vitriol, and a lot of examples, but no definitions.

Also interesting to note is that I have yet to see anyone describe himself or herself as a neocon. I suspect at this point that it's nothing more than an insult.

You're just not doing enough research. Come on, in about 4 seconds I found a couple dozen articles written by conservatives talking about the history of the movement. Prior to about two years ago, it was mostly conservatives writing about neo-cons and paleo-cons. It wasn't an insult at all. It's only been an insult since liberals discovered them as a result of this war in Iraq.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I think I've only seen a handful of the hardcore rightwingers here describe them as 'right wing' or 'conservative'. Most go all like 'oh but I am liberal on so many things ... blah blah' and totally won't let themselves be categorized.

So, if you honestly feel your political leanings don't fit the bill, then you are just trying to avoid being characterized? The fact that I wholeheartedly thought that military action in Iraq was the right thing, I am a neocon? And the fact that I equally wholeheartedly want people to have access to health care, a right to a quality education, and a desire to see large corporations stop raping the environment and their employees, is just an attempt to avoid being pigeonholed? Ah, if only life were that black and white.

[zigzag]

I think this definition is pretty funny: "A neocon is a liberal with a daughter in junior high school."

This seems as good a discussion of the topic as any (I just googled it):

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/180

[BlackGriffen]

Interesting. I thought that it was a fairly restrictive term applied to the PNAC folks.

BG

[vmarks]

Originally posted by BRussell:
What's the matter, Millennium, is Google down? There's a ton written about this on the internet. BRussell's definition: A neo-conservative is a militaristic American Jew.

(SARCASM) Because G-d forbid, a Jew actually think about his country's defense! (/SARCASM)

[gadster]

Here, I found something that may enlighten you.

A PNAC Primer:How We Got Into This Mess
by Bernard Weiner

June 2, 2003


Recently, I was the guest on a radio talk-show hosted by a thoroughly decent far-right Republician. I got verbally battered, but returned fire and, I think, held my own. Toward the end of the hour, I mentioned that the National Security Strategy – promulgated by the Bush Administration in September 2002 – now included attacking possible future competitors first, assuming regional hegemony by force of arms, controlling energy resources around the globe, maintaining a permanent-war strategy, etc.

"I'm not making up this stuff," I said. "It's all talked about openly by the neoconservatives of the Project for the New American Century – who now are in charge of America's military and foreign policy – and published as official U.S. doctrine in the National Security Strategy of the United States of America."

The talk-show host seemed to gulp, and then replied: "If you really can demonstrate all that, you probably can deny George Bush a second term in 2004."

Two things became apparent in that exchange: 1) Even a well-educated, intelligent radio commentator was unaware of some of this information; and, 2) Once presented with it, this conservative icon understood immediately the implications of what would happen if the American voting public found out about these policies.

Bernard Weiner, Ph.D., has taught government & international relations at various universities, and was a writer/editor with the San Francisco Chronicle for nearly 20 years. He now co-edits the progressive website The Crisis Papers.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by gadster:
Here, I found something that may enlighten you.

Nah, I don't feel like getting out my hip-waders to slosh through that nonsense.


MacNStein <- Wants to see the Bull-Moose Party make a comeback.

[Sven G]

NeoCon = NeoCoin!

In other words, a "neo-con" often seems to be one who essentially values the "power" of money (i.e., "neo-liberalism" only on the economic front!) more than liberty, equality and solidarity. How that can happen, is a mystery - or, rather, an unavoidable consequence of the failure to realize one's human potential...

[gadster]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Nah, I don't feel like getting out my hip-waders to slosh through that nonsense.


MacNStein <- Wants to see the Bull-Moose Party make a comeback.

It's just information, nothing personal.

[theolein]

Originally posted by gadster:
It's just information, nothing personal.

When you've finished that VB, I should tell you that hereon MacNN, information is personal. In fact everything is personal, from religion to bar maids.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by gadster:
It's just information, nothing personal.

Actually, it's "mis"-information... and it's getting old.

[theolein]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Actually, it's "mis"-information... and it's getting old.

Why? I didn't think it was getting old. I have no idea how much of this neocon business (i.e. PNAC) is bull and how much is true, probably somewhere in the middle, but I don't see any reason to react so testily to that unless you exlpain why you think it's getting old.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by theolein:
Why? I didn't think it was getting old. I have no idea how much of this neocon business (i.e. PNAC) is bull and how much is true, probably somewhere in the middle, but I don't see any reason to react so testily to that unless you exlpain why you think it's getting old.

I dunno.
Some people who agree with the present policy appear to prefer to think there are no neocons (or the PNAC, whatever) who developed it. They somehow prefer to think that strategic policy arrives out of thin air instantly. why, I don't know. If they agree with a policy, as they keep saying they do, then whether it was dreamed up in Bush's head that morning or was secretly drawn up as an agenda over decades should make no difference.

If you agree with the policy, where it comes from should not offend you personally.
However, if you DISAGREE with it, as I do, then where it comes from has more weight, but even so, the end result is the same.

The only reason I am concerned if it comes from the neocons, is that the remainder of their agenda as alleged is repugnant to me. If instead, it does not come from the neocons, and it is a case by case decision based on credible information, then I can disagree with it, but I find it less distasteful or dangerous. At least then, there is some oppportunity to influence them in a better direction in the future.

But, again, why someone who completes supports present policy decisions should feel offended if its suggested to be part of an established policy strategy is confusing.
If anything, if you agree with it, I would think you would feel BETTER to think it had been percolating for decades than that it had been instantly dreamed up.

[clarkgoble]

I think the simplest explanation is that neo-cons are people highly influenced by the philosophy of the existentialst Leo Strauss. I find Strauss' philosophy deeply troubling myself and consider myself more of a Reagan Republican. (And have thus frequently been distraught by choices of the two Bushes)

The following is a "positive" story on it from a basically neo-con site.

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Art...le.asp?ID=1233