Was thinking about the ideological label "neocon"...you barely ever hear anyone say they are a "neocon" these days, it seems to be an utterly discredited political philosophy.

Most conservatives on ATS are either libertarian or Tea Party...I don't think I've ever heard a poster say "I am a proud neoconservative and here's why." And yet of course a number of people defend neocon principles on this board, from USA-first/hawklike rhetoric to ideas about Israel and the Middle East. So these ideas are still very much alive...in fact, I would say Obama himself is simply continuing neocon foreign policy!

But is "neocon" as a label dead, or does anyone still embrace it?

Originally posted by Partygirl
Was thinking about the ideological label "neocon"...you barely ever hear anyone say they are a "neocon" these days, it seems to be an utterly discredited political philosophy.

Most conservatives on ATS are either libertarian or Tea Party...I don't think I've ever heard a poster say "I am a proud neoconservative and here's why." And yet of course a number of people defend neocon principles on this board, from USA-first/hawklike rhetoric to ideas about Israel and the Middle East. So these ideas are still very much alive...in fact, I would say Obama himself is simply continuing neocon foreign policy!

But is "neocon" as a label dead, or does anyone still embrace it?

I think "label" is a good way to put it. I find that a lot of people are quite averse to labels these days. It has become apparent that the things we identified with that had certain 'labels' attached to them have been revealed to be inaccurate. Republican, Democrat, Conservative. Liberal. What do those really mean? The people who formerly identified themselves as one of those have recently learned that they have been wrong about the people representing those labels.

This is why there is a Tea Party. This is why Ron Paul is doing so well when he would normally be invisible (as he practically was in 2008). Mass disillusionment in what people used to believe. Am I making any sense?

To answer your question, I do not consider myself a "neocon". I would say I am conservative in some respects and a bit liberal in others. Probably like a lot people, but the people in power want to present everything as black & white to foster infighting among the populace. Makes us easier to control. Man I am rambling tonight. sorry.

I find nothing to complain about regarding the wiki definition.

So the question becomes: using this definition, does anyone consider themselves to be a Neocon?

I consider myself to be a conservative by definition. The only time something should be done is when it is necessary for it to be done - resources and activity should be conserved.

It's in my very core logic - I will go through shooting games using the hand-gun to topple enemies you are 'supposed' to use the rocket launcher (or grenades) for - because I simply refuse to 'waste' a rare weapon.

That said - I don't really get where the whole "neocon" comes from. You're either conservative on a principle, or you are liberal on it. Take abortion: you either believe the government should have the right to tell a woman what medical procedures can be done to her, or not. Many "conservatives" are hideously liberal on this issue - believing it is fine for the government to interfere in personal and medical affairs. The same is true for marriage (personally - I believe the title of marriage should be reserved to religious institutions and the state simply have tax and powers of attorney-type arrangements).

That doesn't mean I agree with either. I find homosexuality repulsive (in males; disheartening in females), and believe the "I cannot support a child" line of thinking should take place well before two people tango.

I just recognize that government has no real business getting involved in it.

All issues can be broken down into a belief in the liberal application and interpretation of government authority and conservative of the same. I will admit I tend to be more liberal when it comes to matters of the military - I like explosions and am very short-tempered with little tolerance for annoyance. My solution to a diplomatic impasse tends to gravitate toward the application of many explosions.

I suppose I like to avoid labels because I just don't feel I fit many of them... spare for some of the extreme labels directly related to sociopathic, genocidal maniacs. I tend to welcome those, for whatever reason - the more extreme, the better. I suppose I like to imagine myself as having a shock-and-awe effect with my mere presence - a repressed domineering instinct.

Anyway - to answer the question - I would have to say, given the definition of Neoconservatives (war-supporters coming from the democrat party), that it is 'dead.' Unless you consider democrats in support of today's war in Iraq/Afghanistan to fit the title.... in which case - they would be the Neoconservatives.

I think the phrase got used to describe the "war hawks" and other "extreme right-wing" simply because of the Neo- prefix that is really only used in America as a prefix for the "Neo Nazis" - thus, a "Neo Conservative" is one who is like a Neo Nazi... without using the term Nazi (perhaps to avoid a discussion about Hitler and the origins of swastikas).

"Neo" simply means "new." So, I'm not really sure where its use to describe ultra-conservatives, these days, draws its justification.

Originally posted by Aim64C


Anyway - to answer the question - I would have to say, given the definition of Neoconservatives (war-supporters coming from the democrat party), that it is 'dead.' Unless you consider democrats in support of today's war in Iraq/Afghanistan to fit the title.... in which case - they would be the Neoconservatives.
.

That sounds about right to me, and I'm not getting the feeling that anyone else to respond this far would object.

So thanks for your input people...can we now conclude neoconservatism is officially dead?