What are the Differences btwn Neo-Cons and Conservatives?

[Homer12]

I've been thinking about this for awhile, and I know for at least the past 3 years the lines have been blured by Bushco.

I also see a lot of the Media Whores and Politicians lining up behined Bushco as semi-opportunist vultures (i.e. Chris Matthews, Ann Coulter, etc...), and it would be more correct to call Coulter an insane facsist anyway.

Occasionaly, we see an old-line conservative question Bushco (James Sensenbrener on the Patriot Act for instance), but the critisizm from them is to few.

So what are the major differences?

[ixion]

1. neocons believe in Imperialism vis a vis Pax Americana

conservatives are just stingy and closed-minded. :-)

[zonmoy]

16. actually

neocons are corrupt, imperialistic, fascistic puppets of theocratic forces that are out to turn our country into a theocratic fascist empire.

[cprise]

2. Packaging

It's kinder, gentler, you know.

[proud patriot]

3. Conservatives actually love the Country and want it to do well

I may disagree with them on how to go about making it better ,
but I don't doubt for one second their love of America .

Neo-cons however do not have any love of country all they
love is Power ...They will sacrafice America for POWER .

that's my opinnion :shrug:

[drewb]

18. Reasoned responce...

How refreshing!

[bloom]

4. Here is a 'quiz' with accompanying info on neo-cons

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html

they break in down into:

isolationist

liberal

realist

neo-conservative


My guess is that Democrats would be liberals & realists, while Republicans would be anything but liberals. (Isolationists being libertarians).

[Homer12]

6. Took the Quiz....I'm a Liberal.

[Breezy du Nord]

10. Whoo! Go Liberals!

:)

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

13. I guess I'm a realist..

who supports Israel, and is concerned about the Patriot Act.

[sabbat hunter]

15. one more

one additional catagory. paleo-conservatives. people like pat buchanan are in that class. very conservative socially. think we should drop out of NAFTA, WTO, NATO. stop all international aid and intervention except where our country is directly at risk. (no more foreign aid, no more foreign allies)


peace
david
:hippie:

[zonmoy]

17. took the quiz

ended up in isolationist even though I said that the un was important.

[Options Remain]

5. well from my own pov.

neo-con refers to the militant america first rhetoric. empire building and pnac. thats a generalization but hits most of it. Its also used as a derogatory term for politics first - conservative ideals second.

Conservatism in the "classic" sense is more an ideal based on personal responsibility and economic conservatism. Note that this is the classic definition which is more akin to the libertarian outlook now than the "moralist" outlook of the religious right. The ideals of conservatism tend to rely on using tried and tested methodologies rather than rules changes or revisions as a liberal ideal would propose.

And yes there is little "classic" conservatism in modern republicanism.

Sad huh. Most conservatives who think in these terms are independant not party aligned.

You can get a whole lot more granular by adressing economic conservatism as well. (which is the largest single voting block in america imo.)

and this definition has a lot of the extra "political" crap snipped off so as to give a clearer message.

TearForger

[suegeo]

7. Cold-war liberals

I read a book, copyright 1995 or something, that said the neo-cons were actually once cold-war liberals. Their anti-communist zeal set them apart from other types of liberals (such as the progressive strain of liberals).

The label "neo-con" was given to them as an insult.

The neo-cons totally broke with the democratic party around the time New York Senator D. Patrick Monihan (SP?) -- a democrat who sometimes sided with the neo-cons, perhaps before they were known as neo-cons --told the neo-cons that they were kooks, and their anti-communist beliefs were blinding them to other, "more real" threats.

Several writers (Kristol?)--the guy who founded the Weekly (Taliban) standard--took up the neo-con torch, and have been wreaking havoc ever since with their horseshit ideas. (I may have my names screwed up, but Kristol's pappy was a "famed" writer around the time of W-W-II. His son wanted to re-live the glory days of writing, and become as "influential" as his pappy. Unfortuneatley, the writings and wind-bag views of these guys might get alot of people killed.

Many of these boobs trace their roots to Columbia University.

Jeane Kirkpatrick (ick) was once a democrat, but became a leader for the neo-con base when she (he?) joined team Ronnie Reagan as a UN admbassador. Her writings got the neo-cons whipped up and thinking that neo-con ideas were superior. Her beliefs got lots of people killed in Nicaragua (sp?)

From what I can tell, Pat Buchanan is a Paleo-conservative and he more represents the ideas of conservatives until their movement was hi-jacked by the freaks in the neo-con movement.

(Confession: Buchanan sometimes makes sense to me. But then he loses me completely when he goes on and on with his Hitlerian-horseshit blather about whites v. browns.)

[pa28]

8. Good question

I think true Conservatives are ideological in nature and Neo-Cons are political in nature with few moral underpinnings. The primary goal of all their policies is political advancement.

[leftyandproud]

9. ONE DIFFERENCE...

The neo-cons are HONEST about their intentions.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

12. You mean the paleo-cons, right?

Neo-cons are never honest about their real agenda. At least with the Buchananites and capital L libertarians, you know what you're getting.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

11. Neo-cons want an interventionist foreign policy

while paleo-cons (Pat Buchanan) favor a more hands off approach. The thing is, their whole philosophical framework is shaky and inconsistent, because they'll support having wars in foreign nations, but many of the same folks will oppose U.S aid to impoverished nations. Sometimes I wonder if the neo-con global program is not based on compassion and freedom, but their own political aims. At least the old-school conservatives are honest about it.

P.S. This post comes from a supporter of the Iraq war. Flame away.

[Lefty48197]

14. Neo-Cons want to abandon the Conservative social policy

that drives so many people away from the Republican party, so that they can stay in power and implement the Facist economic agenda.

[solinvictus]

19. Differences in a nutshell...

Neo-cons: In favor of unlimited corporate authority with no regard to national sovereignty or the impact of actions on American workers. Tend to favor Federalism in every aspect except regulations of corporate actions and has no qualms about a police state. Limits free speech, particularly opposition to current junta in power. Will start wars to benefit profit margins. Have aligned themselves with the Fundamentalist Right by paying lip service to their social concerns and taking symbolic actions to accomodate the theocracy. Unless it cuts into someone's profits, is in favor of a Taliban-style Nanny Nation that opposes all perceived vices on a local level. Will mask tax breaks for the wealthy as relief for the middle class by giving them, on average, a few bucks per week of relief as opposed to the tens of thousands averaged by the upper 10%.

Paleo-cons: Fundamentally, believe that the most sacred right of an American is to mind their own business and expect likewise from others. Minimal government intervention at home and abroad, but in favor of tariffs and trade policies that benefit American workers, these days to even include unions. Isolationist in foreign policy, but believe in using the big stick when perceived threat. Individualist and favors decentralizing Federal power to the states and cutting back the bureaucracy. Favors lower income taxes.

Modern Liberals: In favor of largely unlimited, centralized authority on the Federal level with varying tendencies toward a police state. Can often favor limits of individual freedoms such as speech and gun ownership. Has typically (or even stereotypically) not met a Federal program that they did not like and if a given plan does not work, insists that the failure is due to underfunding. Will often profess to be pro-worker, and then vote for international pacts that transfer jobs abroad. In many cases, will act as if they are neo-cons with the right corporate donors. Have been known to cave like wet toilet paper on important issues to the point that there is little tangible difference between the neo-cons. Much like the neo-cons, they have seen the light about campaign funds and know who butters their bread. The so-called "nut" version of the modern liberal is a vanishing species and as such, is not around to counterbalance the neo-cons. Are often accused of controlling the media, but I really can't see it.

[Homer12]

20. Your Definition of a Modern Liberal

I don't agree with it at all.



I do not see my views and my POV of this country and the world in your definition.

How did you come to derive your definition of "The Modern Liberal?"
Or, do you mean a "Modern Liberal Politican?"

Just so you know, I'm not flaming you.

[solinvictus]

21. Politician

Yeah, I should've clarified that distinction. I've become disgusted with the entire one party/two faction system as there is really not a lot of difference in their actions at the Senatorial level. Corporations own both parties, period. There are a few candidates who seem to balk the system, but I don't think that they have a real chance. The entire rotten system disgusts me to the core.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.