Neoconservatism and Neocommunism--real labels or just namecalling

Additionally, whoever made the site does not understand what "neo-conservatism" consists of, because it has nothing to do with "family values". It is a foreign policy position, period.

Didn't you see the mention of cultural traditionalism? The primary distincition of neo-conservatives is the approach to foreign policy. Neocons seek to be much more engaged in world affairs, by using America's superpower status as an active tool to promote democracy in the world. This is different from the traditional conservative view that America should be less involved in the world. If you take a look back at George Bush's run for the president, you'll recognize that he ran as a traditional conservative, saying the US should be less involved in world affairs (pull out of Bosnia, not be as involved in Israel/Palestinian negotiations, etc). He even went so far as to say US foreign policy was "too arrogant." He has since been brought around to the neocon view after the events of Sept 11.

Last but not least, there are people on the left running around these days using this term far too repetitively, and far too inaccurately, which suggests that soemone might somehow think it would be damaging to the "right" to popularize the term.

Oh, I think there is probably some truth to the word neocon being used too often, however, I think you're having a Hilary moment with the left wing conspiracy stuff.

They probably think it's useful because someone who's completely dim-witted will think "That sounds like Neo-Nazi!" and run screaming.

Just like the dim-witted folks who believe all the talk of liberals being commies in disguise, or the media being terribly liberally biased and only foxnews is fair and balanced. Please.

The problem is that due to the true nature and origin of the term, the person using it might as well be saying "Jew", whether or not they know it. It will be extremely unfortunate if those on the left continue to insist on using this term, because it could eventually equate into anti-semitism if they're not careful.

Why is it you are always tossing out charges of anti-Semitism as a means to slur and slander those who don't share your viewpoints. It is getting extremely tiring.


Re: The David Horowitz article on neo-communism. As a former left wing radical who has come around to a new position, he feels compelled to paint those of his former movement in a particularly negative light. It's like a convert who now strongly condemns his prior life. While I'm sure there are examples of particularly left leaning tendencies in his former leftist movement, those who opposed the war aren't ALL communists, neo-communists, or anti-Americans. That he uses such a broad brush to paint all those who opposed the war as such renders his article more of a partisan rant and not a truly thought provoking piece.

 

Oh, I think there is probably some truth to the word neocon being used too often, however, I think you're having a Hilary moment with the left wing conspiracy stuff.

I didn't suggest it was a conspiracy, I suggested it was a tactic. If so, it's a very weak and misguided tactic.


Just like the dim-witted folks who believe all the talk of liberals being commies in disguise

Depends on who you're talking about. The "anti-war movement" was sponsored and organized by Communist groups. There are many "liberals" who do not associate themselves with those groups, but there are some who do.

EDIT: As it happens, Horowitz has an article on his site that addresses the realities of the situation pretty well.

or the media being terribly liberally biased and only foxnews is fair and balanced. Please.

The media is "terribly liberally biased". A number of alternatives to what has been the left wing monopoly on the media have sprung up, so there's some balance developing, but it's not there yet.

Why is it you are always tossing out charges of anti-Semitism as a means to slur and slander those who don't share your viewpoints. It is getting extremely tiring.

That's an inaccurate representation of what I said.

Re: The David Horowitz article on neo-communism. As a former left wing radical who has come around to a new position, he feels compelled to paint those of his former movement in a particularly negative light. It's like a convert who now strongly condemns his prior life. While I'm sure there are examples of particularly left leaning tendencies in his former leftist movement, those who opposed the war aren't ALL communists, neo-communists, or anti-Americans. That he uses such a broad brush to paint all those who opposed the war as such renders his article more of a partisan rant and not a truly thought provoking piece.

The organized anti-war movement, which is the same as the organized anti-globalization movement, is dominated by Marxists. That's reality. Horowitz' primary campaign is against the academic blacklist that has utterly driven conservatives out of universities. As the example above shows, there are numerous professors who are precisely as extreme as he makes them out to be. The political spectrum on most college faculties ranges from moderate socialist to hardcore revolutionary Marxist.

 

Ender

"We live in a liberal democracy, and thus anyone who is conservative is a conservative liberal, as opposed to a radical or progressive liberal."

YES!!!!! Someone else understands the true origins of liberalism, specifically American liberalism.

It is distinct from the Euro-left.

U.S. Republicans and Democrats are liberals. They are all progressive in a sense. The idea of progress permeates both parties.

The U.S., in many ways, is still a radical departure from many political traditions although much of the world is catching up.

 

JadesFire,

Well as long as he continues reporting what they are actually doing at the universities. I mean, if I hadn't read in his article on Neo-communisim about what happened during the "teach-in" I would've had no clue the professors of some of our major universities have anti-american perspectives on the war, the government and the military members. My husband is in the Air Force. I don't want him to die some humiliating death on foreign soil just so some professor at an university can feel justified in his political stance.

 

What is neoconservatism? I find it humorous that some dispell it as not a real ideology, but rather just an insult affixed to "regular" conservatives by those hateful liberals. Here is what Wikipedia (the free encyclopedia) says about the American version of the movement:
Neoconservatism

---

An excerpt from [link=http://www.emjournal.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ap03025.html]this[/link] article, regarding the "neoconservative clout seen in US Iraq policy":
[color=green]Roman Empire of 21st century?
The neoconservatives argue that we no longer live in a bipolar world, as when Russia faced off against the United States. They see a unipolar world, with America as the Rome of the 21st century, a colossus that can dictate its will to the world, noting that America spends as much on defense as the next 15 countries combined and has troops stationed in 75 countries.

"The fact is," writes Charles Krauthammer, a Washington Post columnist who espouses neoconservative views, "no country has been as dominant culturally, economically, technologically and militarily in the history of the world since the late Roman Empire."

Hulsman summarizes the neoconservative view this way: "We should acknowledge we have an empire. We have power and we should do good with it."

In essence, the neoconservatives argue that national sovereignty is an outdated concept, given the overwhelming power of America, and the U.S. should do all it can to impose democracy on countries. Some have called this approach democratic imperialism. It echoes the do-gooder impulses of Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic president who formulated the League of Nations as a solution to war, then paradoxically blends it with American military might. Hulsman dubbed it "Wilsonianism on steroids."

In a world where nuclear weapons are proliferating, the neoconservatives argue, you can no longer put the genie back in the bottle. "The hard truth is that unless you change some of these regimes, you're going to be hard-pressed to get rid of the threat," Schmidt noted. "Liberal democracies don't go to war with each other."

The theory behind this, developed by Michael Doyle, professor of international affairs at Princeton University, is that democratic governments are reluctant to go to war because they must answer to their citizens. And the history of liberal democracies, though comparatively short in the grand scheme of history, tends to buttress his point.

But for critics such as Hulsman, democracy arises from the bottom up and is "intimately connected with local culture and tradition. It can almost never be successfully imposed from the top down," he contends.

Neoconservatives cite Germany and Japan, but Hulsman noted that Japan is "98 percent ethnically homogenous," unlike Iraq, which is split among three major groups. Yet Japan still required five years of American occupation after World War II before it became an independent democracy.

The mission of democratizing the world may have no end, Hulsman says, because "there are always barbarians to convert."[/color]
[hr]
In previous boards I've posted lists of the more popular neoconservative thoughts/ideals (at least, ideals attributed to neoconservatism).
Source: [link=http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt/home.informal/bar/corsair.afdq/info/neoconservative.myths/]myths at the root of neoconservativism[/link] (The following is posted as opinion from Chris Holt about the myths believed be neoconservatives.)

[b]The USA was founded on Christian principles, by Christians, and was a Christian nation until a liberal Supreme Court took all that away.[/b]
[color=green]Yes, there were many Christians among the Founding Fathers. Somehow, though, the antiChristian stances of many of the most prominent Fathers (notably, but not exclusively, Jefferson and Franklin) keep getting forgotten, as does the fact that school prayer was a relatively recent American phenomenon. Next, the fact that most of the various Christian groups presen

 

The first section you quote is reasonably accurate. The second section is a load of left wing crap that illustrates exactly what I was talking about.

"Neo-conservative" is a label that was applied to former left-wing intellectuals who changed their views and moved to the Republican Party over the course of the past several decades. Most of these individuals are/were Jewish. As a result, using "neo-conservative" as a derogatory smear has the distinct possibility of easing very smoothly into anti-semitism, just as the ant-war movement did.

"Neo-conservatism", such as it is, is almost entirely an approach to foreign policy. As a result, the step that you then take very easily is one that has been taken by numerous left-wing individuals in recent months, which is to suggest that President Bush's foreign policy is being driven by a Jewish conspiracy. Therein lies the problem, and the reason why this term ought to be abandoned immediately by any person of good conscience.

 

I gotta agree with AJA on this one.

 

@ AJA.

E_S

 

Nice, Ender. Ridicule, but don't actually respond.

The fact is that too many here -- including (and especially) you -- have decided to use "neoconservative" as a slur. Never mind the fact that most of things you label as "neocon" have been upheld by William F. Buckley and others who have been leaders of the conservative position since the 1960s. The label sounds menacing, and it allows you to demonize the enemy without having to explain why we're wrong; it's convenient, hence your use of the term.


EDIT: Seriously, there's a good rule of thumb for the label "neocon." If the editors of National Review or Bill Buckley personally assert some position X, that position is not strictly neoconservative. It's plain, old, run-of-the-mill conservative.

For example, NR's first post-9/11 issue had a really simple cover:

AT WAR

NR (and Rush Limbaugh and likely more Americans than you'd like to admit) recognized that 9/11 was an act of war, so there's no basis for calling this "saber-rattling" a neoconservative position.

The only possible way you can demonstrate otherwise is to show that NR is a puppet of neocons; and the onus is on you to demonstrate it, not us to disprove it.

 

Sorry, I didn't realise I had your standards to live up to.

I've often stated, ad nauseum, how amusing I find his whole "the world is anti-Semitic..."

And to suggest that the phrase neo-conservatism is immoral is funny.

E_S

 

No, the term isn't immoral; your use of it as a slur is immoral. There is a difference.

It's immoral because it's dishonest; most positions that you and your ilk are labelling as neocon apply to most of conservatism, but it's clear you don't care. You like the term, the way it sounds and looks on paper, the way it makes the enemy look dark and conspiratorial, so you will continue to use it, regardless.

 

You like the term, the way it sounds and looks on paper, the way it makes the enemy look dark and conspiratorial, so you will continue to use it, regardless.

Pffft Me thinks they duth protest too much.

The term neoconservative is neither a slur nor an imaginary, liberal-created name. It's a word. I would think a word would hold no power of the likes of you, Bubba. But go figure. I see it as no more an "insult" than being called conservative, liberal, socialist or narcissistic (ok, that's sociological/psychological, not political, but you get the point). Any derogatory sentiment one feels from the term comes from themselves and themselves alone... unless it's used in line with a real derogatory word, such as, "those neocon blubberbutts". That would be offensive, yes.

The only people complaining about the term are those who seem to have the same ideals/convictions expressed by the neocon movement. And they are complaining because they don't think they can be classified as neoconservative? Therefor, it is being argued that those in higher circles than ours are mistakenly defining the word, including neoconservatives?

That's funny.

 

Words are meaningless, they mean something to everyone.

 

'Neoconservative' is an insult in much the same vain as 'reactionary' used to be used.

But lefties don't use 'reactionary' as much any more, as it has communist connotations - and who likes using words that have connotations to their own failures, hmm?

- Scarlet.

 

'Neoconservative' is an insult in much the same vain as 'reactionary' used to be used.

Communism is reactionary??

Reactionary is associated with the Right, not the Left.

Radical is far-left economically, as is the theory of communism.

So, you interpret "neoconservatism" as an insult? Is it because you disagree with the viewpoints taken by the neoconservative movement? If you do not subscribe to these viewpoints, then you are not a neoconservative. Makes sense, don't ya think?

 

I've often stated, ad nauseum, how amusing I find his whole "the world is anti-Semitic..."

I'm not making that comment randomly, and it also helps to pay attention to what I actually said, rather than generalizing it.

Here's an article from the left-wing UK Guardian, in case you think I'm delusional.

Chevyo, I'm objecting first and foremost to the misuse of the term. It simply doesn't mean what you think it means. Secondarily, I'm pointing out that it has a very real possibility of leading down a road that no one should want to go down.

The only people complaining about the term are those who seem to have the same ideals/convictions expressed by the neocon movement.

Going back to your previous post, the first section, which was reasonably accurate, addresses the correct issues with respect to "neo-conservatism". The second section is utterly devoid of a realistic basis, and illustrates exactly how the term seems to have become misunderstood and even mythologized by hysterical leftists looking for a bogeyman to blame their failures on. That is why I'm pointing out that there's a very real danger here if this misappropiation of the phrase spreads.

From the article above:

"The cabal that I referred to was in the US," (Dalyell) said. "That is the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. I was thinking of [Paul] Wolfowitz, [deputy defence secretary], [Richard] Perle, [John] Bolton, assistant secretary of state, [Douglas] Feith, [Ken] Adelman, [Elliott] Abrams and [Ari] Fleischer, [Mr Bush's press secretary.] Those people drive this policy."

You're woefully under-informed here.

On a side note, what is equally as disturbing as this gentleman's remarks is the fact that the UK has a "Commission for Racial Equality" with the power to prosecute people for speech.

 

Here's some more on the history of Neoconservatism, including a snippet about this alleged anti-semetism:

Written by Suzanne Fields
Washington Times

Politics is all about polarities. Republican vs. Democrat, conservative vs. liberal, right vs. left, hard thinking vs. soft thinking. The labels are pervasive, but the ground frequently shifts, requiring a new prefix to freshen up the label.

The word neocon, for example (short for neoconservative), was born of such a shifting of the ground. Coined in the 1970s, the label stuck to Democrats who had watched the Scoop Jackson anti-Communist wing of the Democratic party evaporate before their very eyes. They saw the War on Poverty become a losing battle. On the domestic front, they observed the death of morality as it had been defined for thousands of years in the Judeo-Christian tradition. These Democrats finally concluded that liberalism, as they had known it, was dead.

Irving Kristol, father of the neocons, defined his band of brothers and sisters as "liberals mugged by reality." That reality was the "evil empire" as defined by Ronald Reagan, the leader they championed. The reality extended to a concern for crime and education and what came to be called "family values." A subdivision of the neocons, the "cultural conservatives," were wryly defined as liberals with daughters in junior high.

Jews were prominently identified with the neocons, largely because Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine, made the magazine a sounding board for neocon criticism. But Jeanne Kirkpatrick, a Baptist, and William Bennett, a Roman Catholic, were prominent neocon voices from the beginning. So were other Christians. "What are we," they might ask, "chopped liver?"

-So, 2 myths identified as false:
1) Neoconservatism is not just about foreign policy.
2) Neoconservatism is not a (solely) Jewish movement.


Side note: I'm wondering if the cry of anti-semetism is in itself a type of anti-semetism. After all, so many who are outraged at being labelled a neocon quickly say it is a Jewish movement. As if being Jewish was a bad thing.

Something to think about.

 

Notice what the substance of that article points out: that "neo-conservatives" are people who were previously liberals. Those on the left who've been throwing around the term seem to think it means "extreme" conservatives, which is in fact the opposite of reality. As for the social components, they clearly exist, because otherwise they wouldn't be conservatives, but the context in which the subject has "raised eyebrows" is foreign policy, and the implication is that U.S. foreign policy is being manipulated by people whose first loyalty is to Israel.

Side note: I'm wondering if the cry of anti-semetism is in itself a type of anti-semetism. After all, so many who are outraged at being labelled a neocon quickly say it is a Jewish movement. As if being Jewish was a bad thing.

Wrong. The problem, as illustrated by the statements of Mr. Dalyell, is that these individuals are being singled out for being Jewish, rather than simply having their positions debated on the merits.

I'm not saying, nor have I said at any point, that anyone who uses the term "neo-conservative" is automatically anti-semitic. What I'm saying is that it is somewhat dangerous language, because on the one hand, "neo-conservatives" are coming under attack from some quarters as a "Jewish cabal" manipulating U.S. foreign policy for Israeli purposes, while at the same time, far-leftists are misguidedly using the term as a catch-all ad hominem that (to them) means "everything that's wrong and evil in conservative politics and must be destroyed". The two viewpoints may be mutually exclusive in many cases, but if they come together, you have a recipe for an all-out anti-semitic witch hunt on the part of the left. Is that too complicated for you understand?

 

Neoconservatism and Neocommunism--real labels or just namecalling


well, labelling may be an unavoidable part of political discussion, but it's a also a shortcut to real dialogue. it usually leads to a polarization and creates a poor environment for fully expressing one's thoughts. the problem with labels as i see it is this: the lack of consensus on enough issues to qualify as falling into a particular category. too any people will have exceptions to the criteria laid forth by whatever pundit comes along and creates whatever label they'd like. most people who register to either major political party in the United States have perhaps one or two discrepancies. their beliefs are not carbon copies of the platform of a particular party. if a person is willing to classify THEMSELVES as either liberal, conservative, neo-conservative or (insert label here), that's fine. but attaching labels is generally used as a method of discourse reserved for people who are too lazy or unable to explain their own views and why they believe them to be valid. it's much easier to just say, "well, i'm right, of course. others who don't agree with me are just (insert label here)." it's actually a kind of tactic used by children. and i'm just as guilty of doing it as anyone. but i'd like to try to avoid it.


that being said, here is a brief reaction in terms of what i believe in terms of the aforeposted list of "what defines a neo-conservative."

The USA was founded on Christian principles, by Christians, and was a Christian nation until a liberal Supreme Court took all that away.


many of the people who founded the U.S. WERE in fact Christian. but this criteria is, i believe, there to identify neoconservatives as wishing for an increased role of Christian principles in government places. i strongly disagree with those ambitions. i hate seeing instances of church and state no longer being separated and having it passed off as, "but, well.....we're just TRYING to do something good."

The media exhibit a liberal bias.

depends on the particular media. some lean towards the right. some to the left. more than anything, the media exhibit a liberal bias towards the principal of free speech. that's because, well, their friggin'g jobs depend on it. but as a whole, does ALL the media show a bias towards the left? no.

Dissent is disloyal, unAmerican, and possibly treason.

absolute garbage.

Owning a gun adds a measure of safety to one's life and property.

guns suck. i have friends who hunt. i don't have any more interest in taking away their hunting rifles than i do in owning them myself.

Homosexual orientation is a matter of choice.

absolute garbage.

Welfare mothers get rich by having more kids.

pretty much unfounded, but welfare reform is still a much needed thing. too many abuses of the welfare system are tolerated. those who can work....should.

Affirmative Action is discrimination.

legislating diversity is unneccesary. (note: diversity ITSELF is very important. but much like morality, it should happen on its own. not because the governmant SAYS so) enforce the laws regarding discrimination equally and AA is unneccesary.

We need a bigger defense budget.

defense is very important. i'm not an accountant. and frankly, i don't understand all the aspects of the U.S. government's budget. but LOTS of things are important in terms of where the U.S. allocates it's tax money resources. not just the military.

Environmentalists are extremists.

as ludricrous as the notion that some (though certainly not all) republicans are not themselves very active on the environmental front.

Raising the minimum wage will destroy the economy.

the minimum wage needs to be raised IMMEDIATELY!!! far too many hard working folks are having an ever increasingly difficult time making ends meet. and it's totally unneccesary fo

 

The point is that they need to come up with another label, because "neo-conservative" is already taken, and it doesn't mean what they think it means.

 

yeah, but in the bigger picture, my point was that the whole PROCESS of labelling needs to stop because it gets us nowhere.

 

@ Bubba.

You just don't read that much of what others post, do you bub?

I mean, just on this thread alone, I admitted I'd been wrong on the use of the term neoconservatism. Which is inconsistent with what you're claiming.

Hmmmmm.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Hmmm. This is what I'm sure we should call a conundrum.

Either you're simply not a genius as you claim.

Or you are and this is some bizzare Machiavellian machination designed to consolidate your power and kill us all!
again

AJA, you are right that it's pretty much an IR theory - except we tend to call it neo-realism.
E_S

 

In its current use, it's primarily relevant to foreign policy. However, it originated as a description for former Democrats who fled the party when it was overtaken by the far left in the 1960s.

 

Communism is reactionary??

Reactionary is associated with the Right, not the Left.

Radical is far-left economically, as is the theory of communism.



I said that 'neoconservative' was an insult in the same vain as 'reactionary' used to be used - i.e., left-wingers use it as an insult against conservatives. That was my point, and I thought I'd developed it enough that it was fairly obvious. Anyhow.

So, you interpret "neoconservatism" as an insult? Is it because you disagree with the viewpoints taken by the neoconservative movement? If you do not subscribe to these viewpoints, then you are not a neoconservative. Makes sense, don't ya think?

Not really, because it seems no one can define what neoconservatism is. How can I very well claim to be one, if every interperetation I've heard of it is basically just a mixture of different varieties of normal conservatism? It's just a name that became popular with the anti-war rallies. You know, people getting into a frenzy over 'neoconservatives' who 'control' the United States administration, and, through the 'Project for the New American Century', are trying to build an American Empire?

Neoconservative, as I stated earlier, is just another word in the same style as 'reactionary.' It means nothing. It has a whole pile of different interperetations, from a bunch of disaffected right-wing Democrats, to imperialist-in-foreign-policy-conservatives, to a sinister Jewish cabal (thanks, Tam) seeking to influence American policies.

Ridiculousness.

- Scarlet.



Play nice

 

Bill Clinton is a perfect example of a true neocon.

As is made abundantly clear by this rather interesting bit of neocon foreign policy...
Public Law 105-338

The Iraqi Liberation Law of 1998
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to
remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to
promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

If you believe that the policy of regime change in Iraq is the work of a neocon administration, then you're 100% correct. But that policy and that neocon administration was the one in office in 1998.

But, that's just one small example. Bill Clinton, as a long-time liberal was ultimately "mugged by realism" and found himself having to co-opt a lot of the conservative platform. He's a neocon in the truest sense of the word, not the incorrect, bastardized, or anti-semitic one being bandied about by the petty liberal democrats and far-right-wingers today.