I am, and I'm proud of it. Seriously. I dont understand the stigma attached to neo-conservatism. I've said it before. I have no problem whatsoever making a value judgment on other cultures and saying "Yes, despite its flaws, our system is better than theirs". How can you not? Womens rights is clearly better than subjugating women. How can you really defend forcing women to wear burkas. Women should be allowed to vote, work, go to school and do everything a man can do. This is clearly better then treating a person as a second class citizen. Allowing a free press is clearly better than having a state run press. You guys can complain all you like about how the Press in America aren't tough enough, but lets be real, there are places in the world where a free press is simply not tolerated. Look at Iran, North Korea, and other countries in the developing world and Gulf States. Those are places where if you say something negative about a government official, you are thrown in jail. These are places where the information the public gets is severely restricted and censored completely. Once again, I dont see how someone can look at a country like that and not make a value judgment. Gay rights. Theres another thing. There are people here and everywhere for that matter who feel very strongly that gays should be allowed to marry, be free of discrimination, and not have to fear for their lives. We have a ways to go on some of those issues, but clearly, it is a better system than brutally executing a person who is discovered to be a homosexual. Thats not a tough thing to understand, am I wrong? Religious freedom. Thats a biggie. It's one of the founding principles that our country was built on. You have the right to believe and practice whatever religion you want. Other places in the world, its simply not the case. Apostasy is a capital crime in some countries. If you do not practice the state religion, you are put in jail or executed. I have no problem looking at a country that does that and saying, "Yes, we clearly have a better system here, and it would be better for everyone if they didnt do that". I dont see how anyone can really deny that statement. What it comes down to is that I strongly disagree with the idea of cultural and moral relativism. Just because a practice is a societal norm in some small corner of the globe, does not mean it is OK. 200 years, slavery was a societal norm in the United Sates. I think we can all agree that it was an absolutely disgusting practice and we are better for having gotten rid of it. How is that any different from some of the other things I've listed here? Also, I dont see how some people can argue that neo-conservatism and traditional conservatism are mutually exclusive ideologies. I suspect the people who make such statements dont truly understand what either concept mean.
And for those who are still unclear on neo-conservatism. This quote by Joshua Muravchik sums it up pretty succinctly. He's one of the original neoconservatives and academic who writes about it: "As for the neoconservatives, they have taken their lumps over the war in Iraq. Nonetheless, the tenets of neoconservatism continue to offer the most cogent approach to the challenge that faces our country. To recapitulate those tenets one last time: (1) Our struggle is moral, against an evil enemy who revels in the destruction of innocents. Knowing this can help us assess our adversaries correctly and make appropriate strategic choices. Saying it convincingly will strengthen our side and weaken theirs. (2) The conflict is global, and outcomes in one theater will affect those in others. (3) While we should always prefer nonviolent methods, the use of force will continue to be part of the struggle. (4) The spread of democracy offers an important, peaceful way to weaken our foe and reduce the need for force."
Let me give you a quote that will explain that stigma. Joshua Muravchik says: "(1) Our struggle is moral, against an evil enemy who revels in the destruction of innocents. Knowing this can help us assess our adversaries correctly and make appropriate strategic choices. Saying it convincingly will strengthen our side and weaken theirs. (2) The conflict is global, and outcomes in one theater will affect those in others. (3) While we should always prefer nonviolent methods, the use of force will continue to be part of the struggle. (4) The spread of democracy offers an important, peaceful way to weaken our foe and reduce the need for force." 1. The struggle is not moral, but is based upon self interest. 2. Absolutely true. An the screw ups the US has made across the decades have generated the global distaste for your bullying tactics. 3. And unfortunately the use of force by self indulgent politicians, pursuing ill conceived plans, with improperly trained personnel will result in what is whimisically called collateral damage, but is actually the lives of sons and daughters,, husbands and wives. And is there not the remotest possibility that the survivors might get a little upset about this and look for someone to blame? 4. It might help if you introduced democracy and freedom to your own country first instead of playing lip service to the concepts via a corrupt government and prejudiced judicial system. On a personal note, nice post. Well structured, nicely argued, just a shame the axioms are flawed.
Neo-cons like Bush are disgusting, they're what messed up traditional conservatives... Neo-cons aren't real conservatives, they believe in bigger government and more government intervention on somethings and less on others, more spending on this and less on others (instead of just overall lower spending) They kind of remind me of the liberal Democrat Woodrow Wilson
I disagree. Neoconservatism has nothing to do with a bigger federal government or more government intervention in peoples lives. Its primarily a school of though concerning Foreign Affairs. Since when have traditional conservatives not been in support of a strong military? Personally, I see no conflict between my neo-conservative views and my traditional conservative views. I support lower taxes, smaller federal government, I have a very traditional view of morality and social issues (although they really aren't big voting issues for me). I also happen to support a strong and aggressive foreign policy modeled on the neo-conservative ideas. I am going to make a big assumption here, and I apologize if I am wrong, but would you consider yourself more a Republican or Democrat? I notice that its the Democrats who generally try to attack neo-conservatism with the argument that it "messed up" or "hijacked" traditional conservative values. I find they are generally wrong because they really dont understand conservatism. Also, President Bush really isn't the prototypical neo-conservative or conservative for that matter. So it really doesn't work to use him as a model or example. Hes very much his own thing.
I'm basically a conservative but I do have more than a few problems with the religious wing. Intelligent design? And you do make a point about freedom of religion but doesn't that strongly imply freedom from religion?
How do you have both lower taxes and a strong aggressive foreign policy without continuously increasing the national debt? Remember that the traditional conservative position is very much opposed to such a foreign policy.
No. I am not a neocon. I am so far to the right of neocon, I'm in a whole other catagory. But you'd never know it if you met me. I'm very funny, polite, engaging, charasmatic, and modest. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Most conservatives I know have all those qualities. Yet we are accused of having none of them. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Not only do those personality traits not have anything to do with conservatism, no one brought up the accusation you mentioned in this thread, aside from you.
Trashing traditional institutions and customary norms of behavior, handing over control of family and community life to corporate interests with international base, aggressive, unprovoked military action in response to other people's problems half way around the world and in furtherance of greed and power at home, inordinate accumulation of wealth in the hands of people subject to no societal obligations or curbs, the whole paid for with borrowed money hardly resembles what most people used to call "conservative" views. Unless you are going back a few generations, and identifying "conservative" with "feudal". I would challenge you to find a large area of agreement between neo-con and traditional conservative ideology, carefully examined. Neo-con ideology is the underpinning of fascism - conservative ideology is not.
Stupid question: What does the "neo" before "conservative" mean? I consider myself mildly conservative, but what is exactly a "neo-con"...or is it just another buzzword to make a group sound bad?
It was a label designed to make a group sound good. The name acquires the attributes of the thing, in a free market.
So when are you enlisting? The Neo-cons pushing this war could use your enthusiam on the front lines in Iraq.
