It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What Really is a Neo-Con?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Thrown around quite liberally
is the term Neo-Con. It's used so damn much any more that I don't think most of the people using the term really knows what exactly a Neo-Conservative is.

Firstly we need to clear something up. A Neo-Con is not a conservative. They've usurped the word "conservative" much like the word liberal is kind of a misnomer for those who lean left politcally. Nor are all Republicans Neo-Cons. It's easy to group all three together but much gets lost in doing so.

Ron Paul (R) made a speech on the floor of the House called "Neo-Conned". This excerpt is a list of what Neo-Con's believe, lets call it "how to spot a Neo-Con":



1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.
6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)
16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.


This list is very simplified but it saves you from having to read the works of Strauss, Trotsky and the Kristols. And I'd say it's pretty accurate.

Aside from possibly holding Leo Strauss in high esteem what politician doesn't hold many of these beliefs? Clinton and Kerry both took major portions of that list and put it in their playbooks. Just different enough to carry a Democratic label. Neo-Con lite. It sounds like a soda.

And I'm sure someone will tell me I'm way off base with this, but why when both sides of the mainstream political spectrum believe the same things that are for the most part are not the will of the nation do we still support those parties and politicians?





[edit on (1/3/0505 by PistolPete]

[edit on 4-10-2005 by John bull 1]




posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 12:47 AM
link   
great post

I don't consider most neocons to be conservatives.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Well thank you.


It's about damn time someone replied to this.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   
2nd


Though I'm not familiar with Leo Strauss?

I'm getting a stomach wrenching feeling
Soon, I fear, associating myself with a true "conservative" party, the Constitutionalist Party, will be akin to associating with an enemy of the State; and, subject to imprisionment under the powers of The Patriot Act.

If you vote for either the Republican or Democratic ticket offerings you are supporting the two-party monopoly. Vote, and like a Liberal with a pocket full of fake IDs, vote in all precincts
Vote third party


[edit on 13-2-2005 by Patri0t]

[edit on 13-2-2005 by Patri0t]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Funny how there aren't a lot of replies in this thread. People are so quick to label others "Neo-Cons", but it's hard to back up what they REALLY mean. Oh no, I'm starting to sound like one of those Bush-bashers that makes the millionth Bush-bashing thread then when no conservatives reply, they say "Oh, I guess they just can't defend the indefensible". Shame on me, but great post pp! (Do ya care if I call you pp?)



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 03:45 AM
link   
I've always thought of a neocon as a conservative on most issues but instead of a conservative, restrained foreign policy, they believe U.S. military power should be used freely to overturn unfriendly regimes worldwide and replace them with pro-U.S. republics/democracies. If that's the definition, then I guess I am one.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Herman
(Do ya care if I call you pp?)


No problem.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   
here is a definition of Neo-Con that I think is very fitting




In the recent weeks and months, people have been wondering what a neocon is. There's a lot of misunderstanding: some think it describes a fictional conspiracy theory, others think it's a contemptuous moniker for the "Hawks" in the US government. It's neither. Neoconservatism is a political agenda that concentrates on militarily inforcing an aggressive US foreign policy - "neoconservative" is the word used by it's adherents to describe their agenda.

Although "neo-con" sounds nasty in itself, is not a term of derision (although many deride their agenda) - it's just short for "neoconservative", a term the movement is comfortable with. Here are a few books by neoconservatives that use "neoconservative" in the title:

www.amazon.com...
www.amazon.com...

The word is also used quite comfortably at the American Enterprise Institute's website. The neoconservative writer Max Boot wrote "What the Heck Is a Neocon?" in late December 2002 - an article that interestingly starts off by saying "the term the term has clearly come unmoored from its original meaning" yet ends the article claiming that the White House's national security strategy sounds like it may have come straight from "the neocon bible."

So according to some neoconservatives, "neocon" is quite meaningless yet is a group cohesive enough to have a publication that states their position close enough to be considered it's "bible".

OK, So What Exactly is the Neoconservative Agenda?

The thrust of neoconservatism aims at US military and economic domination the world. Ooop! If you all of a sudden imagine this author wearing a tinfoil hat and being ever watchful for black helicopters, please withhold judgement until you've read to the end of this page and check enough of the cited links to be convinced this is not a page of fiction Link



Are you a Neo-Con I think I fit the catagory of a Paleo-libertarian


Source: Neo-Con



[edit on 16/2/2005 by Sauron]



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Firstly Sauron....Lew Rockwell....mad "props".


That's one of my favorite sites.

And for the paleo-libertarianess - come to the states! We need more people that think that way, I'd consider myself a paleo-libertarian by the definition. Even though at times I'll defend Bush I try not to stray too damn far.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Here is a great article: www.theamericancause.org...

After Ronald Reagan's death, many neoconservatives in the Republican party have attempted to claim his legacy. Also, many try to liken George Bush to a contemporary version of Reagan. This article deals with whether or not Reagan really was a "neocon." I'd like to hear what you guys think about this..



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Wolfowitz=neocon
rumsfield=neocon
pearl=neocon
GeorgeH Bush=neocon
georgew Bush=neocon wannabe
hitler=neocon



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by kazi
Wolfowitz=neocon
rumsfield=neocon
pearl=neocon
GeorgeH Bush=neocon
georgew Bush=neocon wannabe
hitler=neocon


Teddy Roosevelt=neocon
Wilson=neocon
FDR=neocon
Clinton=neocon

Irregardless?



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Thanks for this post. I am a Republican and a conservative. With leanings towards the Libertarians. (I also pray and go to church)


Neo con seems to be the new "buzz" word, and it does seem to be thrown loosely around. I wanted to know why this word was being used, and there you are with your post.


According to your explanation it would seem as though we have a large problem. I do not like to think of the administration of my country having the attributes you use for Neo Con's.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 01:03 AM
link   
I wish we "libertarian-minded" conservatives were the controlling force behind the Republican party. Oh well.....It has been hijacked and turned into a party of globalism, big government, and interventionism....funny I remember a time when Republicans criticized Clinton for using the military to police the world (Haiti, Bosnia, Somalia).



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 01:12 AM
link   
I took the test posted in one of the posts above, and I'm a paleoconservative. And I don't really think that the republican party has turned into a party of globalism imho.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by HALLOWEEN78
I took the test posted in one of the posts above, and I'm a paleoconservative. And I don't really think that the republican party has turned into a party of globalism imho.


I took the test as well and Im the thrid way which pretty much reflects my political views so I cant be labled a evil liberal anymore.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
I fit paleo-conservative. Some questions I wasn't sure about...like should gambling be regulated. Regulated? Get rid of it!


BTW I nominated PistolPete for the Way Above thing. About time someone addressed this. I looked down the list of Neocon Symptoms and not one of them fits me. I'm an isolationist. I believe in just letting other countries alone, and if some country doesn't like their leader, they can get rid of him themselves.

There is a difference between conservative and neocon. That's why I left my Peroutka bumper stickers on--I have Choose Life license plates on my van.


Constitution Party or even America First Party are good conservative alternatives. Last year the AFP didn't have a presidential candidate, so they endorsed Michael Peroutka. I even got a brochure from the America First Party that said, "What Democrats promise--Republicans deliver!"

Too true!



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by XX_SicSemperTyrannis_XX
great post

I don't consider most neocons to be conservatives.


They are not.

A lot of people refuse to see the 'Neo' part of 'Neo Conservatives'. [Neo Cons].

Or New Conservatives...it will just be a long while till the average joe in the street does as well.



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Neo Conservatives are like a "tougher version" of Conservatism. I would not use the word "extreme", but there tends to be a blend of Nationalism and Patriotism surrounding policy making.

like Neo-Liberalism and the New Labour movement, its a tougher version of a traditional ideaology.



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I would also add that the Neocons dont believe in the Constitution, they see it as outdated.

I have never seen the neocons as conservative, they have a very radical agenda. They have hijacked the Republican party but they are not Republicans. Nor was Reagan, he believed in the Constitution and he was an old-fashioned Republican, like Barry Goldwater. I liked the old Repub party, even though I never voted for a Repub, but I think Goldwater would have made an excellent president. REagan and Goldwater have nothing in common with neocons, IMO.

Also, neocons are in both Repub and Dem parties, think both Clintons, Diane Feinstein, Joe Lieberman and alot of other Dems. It's a third party, based on Trotsky's ideas for crying out loud. How American is that?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join