[marden]

When you say, "NeoCon," please give more thought to the NEO part!

With all the talk and criticism of the Neo Cons most people emphasize the CONservative part.

But I think they should give more thought to the NEO part.

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...2/#post3206592

[Sky Captain]

Neocon is meant to be derrogatory, or shamful.
The users equate Neocon to NAZI.
Plain and simple.

[Kevin]

neo-con is comparable to "cracker" in it's effectiveness.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Neocon is meant to be derrogatory, or shamful.
The users equate Neocon to NAZI.
Plain and simple.

It's not the term that bothers or thrills me. It's what it actually means.

To some it is used as a curse, as you say.

But when you realize how the term came to be, NEO CON (New Conservative) you gain insight into the whole dynamic that has escaped me these last several years.

As our good friend Aberdeenwriter used to say, libruls are hard wired to be fuzzy brained and they can't help themselves. That's just the way they are.

So what do you get if a librul ever wakes up to the truth that conservatism is the better way to be?

You get liberals who do their best to behave and think like conservatives. But because they aren't REALLY conservatives they only do a fair imitation of being conservative.

They do conservatism the way a Cantonese chef in China might do bistecca alla fiorentina. Maybe well enough to be tasty, but you can't expect to get the real thing unless the chef was born or trained in Tuscany. You can only fake so much.

The Neo Cons in Washington used their liberal qualities to come up with some interesting ideas but they were liberal ideas in service to their interpretation of a conservative ideology and they used their liberal charm to sell the idea and the rest is made plain at the link.

[Dakar²]

You know, if neoconservatives used to be liberals, do you have any actual examples of people who did this?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

You know, if neoconservatives used to be liberals, do you have any actual examples of people who did this?

http://www.daanspeak.com/TranscriptP...ghtmares1.html

IRVING KRISTOL: If you had asked any liberal in 1960, we are going to pass these laws, these laws, these laws, and these laws, mentioning all the laws that in fact were passed in the 1960s and ‘70s, would you say crime will go up, drug addiction will go up, illegitimacy will go up, or will they get down? Obviously, everyone would have said, they will get down. And everyone would have been wrong. Now, that’s not something that the liberals have been able to face up to. They’ve had their reforms, and they have led to consequences that they did not expect and they don’t know what to do about.

VO: In the early ‘70s, Irving Kristol became the focus of a group of disaffected intellectuals in Washington. They were determined to understand why the optimistic liberal policies had failed. And they found the answer in the theories of Leo Strauss. Strauss explained that it was the very basis of the liberal idea—the belief in individual freedom—that was causing the chaos, because it undermined the shared moral framework that held society together. Individuals pursued their own selfish interests, and this inevitably led to conflict. As the movement grew, many young students who had studied Strauss’ ideas came to Washington to join this group. Some, like Paul Wolfowitz, had been taught Strauss’ ideas at the University of Chicago, as had Francis Fukuyama. And others, like Irving Kristol’s son William, had studied Strauss’ theories at Harvard. This group became known as the neoconservatives.

WILLIAM KRISTOL: Well, many of them couldn’t get academic jobs, and the political science and philosophy faculties were not terribly friendly to those of a conservative or moderately conservative disposition. And the truth is that a lot of people who ended up in Washington started out as academics. I did; Paul Wolfowitz did; and decided they probably didn’t have very good prospects in the academy. What we all had in common, I think, was a certain doubt about what once seemed a kind of great certainty and confidence in liberal progress. The philosophic grounds for liberal democracy had been weakened. So I think Straussians who came to Washington, they didn’t think of themselves as Churchill or Lincoln, let me assure you, but they did that, you know, there’s something noble about public life, and about politics, and they tried to make a contribution in many different areas.

VO: The neoconservatives were idealists. Their aim was to try and stop the social disintegration they believed liberal freedoms had unleashed. They wanted to find a way of uniting the people, by giving them a shared purpose. One of their great influences in doing this would be the theories of Leo Strauss. They would set out to recreate the myth of America as a unique nation whose destiny was to battle against evil in the world. And in this project, the source of evil would be America’s Cold War enemy: the Soviet Union. And by doing this, they believed that they would not only give new meaning and purpose to people’s lives, but they would spread the good of democracy around the world.

Professor STEPHEN HOLMES, Political Philosopher: The United States would not only, according to these—the Straussians, be able to bring good to the world, but would be able to overcome the fundamental weaknesses of American society, a society that has been suffering, almost rotting, in their language, from relativism, liberalism, lack of self-confidence, lack of belief in itself. And one of the main political projects of the Straussians during the Cold War was to reinforce the self-confidence of Americans, and the belief that America was fundamentally the only force for good in the world, that had to be supported, otherwise evil would prevail.

[Dakar²]

So which one of these names you've dropped are you saying was a liberal?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

So which one of these names you've dropped are you saying was a liberal?

There you go, looking for someone to blame.

[Dakar²]

No, I'm looking for an ounce of truth on your claim that the neoconservatives of today were liberals previously in their lives.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

No, I'm looking for an ounce of truth on your claim that the neoconservatives of today were liberals previously in their lives.

Look at the term. Why would it exist if these folks had always been conservative?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by marden 

Look at the term. Why would it exist if these folks had always been conservative?

Maybe they used to be 'traditional conservatives' and now they're 'new conservatives'?

Nah, that would make too much sense...

[marden]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Maybe they used to be 'traditional conservatives' and now they're 'new conservatives'?

Nah, that would make too much sense...

I'm tired of this game. Here.

The original neocons were a band of liberal intellectuals who rebelled against the Democratic Party's leftward drift on defense issues in the 1970s. At first the neocons clustered around Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Democrat, but then they aligned themselves with Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, who promised to confront Soviet expansionism. The neocons, in the famous formulation of one of their leaders, Irving Kristol, were "liberals mugged by reality."

Well, I haven't been mugged lately. I haven't even been accosted. I like to think I've been in touch with reality from day one, since I've never been a Trotskyite, a Maoist or even a Democrat. There's no "neo" in my conservatism. I don't deserve much credit for this, I might add, since I grew up in the 1980s, when conservatism was cool. Many of the original neocons, by contrast, grew up in the days when Republicans were derided as "the stupid party." Some of them remain registered Democrats. But I've always identified with the Grand Old Party. The same might be said of the other Standard-bearers, even those (like Bill Kristol and John Podhoretz) who are the offspring of famous neocons. They, too, have been right from the start.

OpinionJournal - Featured Article

[Dakar²]

So Scoop Jackson is the only example of a politician you can come up with?

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Neocon is meant to be derrogatory, or shamful.
The users equate Neocon to NAZI.
Plain and simple.

Well after reading the wiki, Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I can understand why most keep 'in the closet'.


That said, the definition fits marden's talking points almost exactly! Its uncanny really, almost like he was making study notes or something.

[Troll]

When you see the New iPod or the New Cadillac, please give more thought to the new part. The New iPod is much more a New than it is an iPod and the New Cadillac itself is less Cadillac than it is a New. Except when it wins car of the year; then of course it is a Cadillac first and foremost.

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by Troll 

When you see the New iPod or the New Cadillac, please give more thought to the new part. The New iPod is much more a New than it is an iPod and the New Cadillac itself is less Cadillac than it is a New. Except when it wins car of the year; then of course it is a Cadillac first and foremost.

Hahahaha!!!

PB.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Well after reading the wiki, Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I can understand why most keep 'in the closet'.


That said, the definition fits marden's talking points almost exactly! Its uncanny really, almost like he was making study notes or something.

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

As usual.