Author
|
Topic: A neo-con is? (definition)
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 06 March 2004 12:10 PM
A silly article from Town Hall to et people started. quote: Hitting at what may be a new low in the "neocon" code-word game, Business Week magazine recently ran a "news" story that practically screamed "Jew"--without saying the word at all. In an article titled "Where do the neocons go from here?" Richard Dunham attempts to explain to a lay audience what a neocon is and where the "movement" is headed.
Cueballs definition: A conservative who rejects more tradtitional nationalist-convservatives. In the US they are distinct from the old school isolationist conservatives of the last century. Aligned with capital itself not just a capital city. This is represented by two main policy directions: 1) Support for reduced trade barriers world wide -- the global economy. The international version of smaller government and less taxes. 2) Forced economic isolation and sanction against non-compliant nations/peoples or direct military intervention if necessary. [ 06 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308
|
posted 06 March 2004 08:26 PM
Hmmm, yes . . . neo-conservative vs. neo-liberal is an interesting one. I think they are not quite identical. Neo-conservative implies more things to me than neo-liberal does. So while all n-c are n-l, not all n-l are n-c. Neo-liberal to me implies pretty much solely the economic slash-and-burn class-war-from-above doctrines, with no position necessarily implied on either the military or social or religious issues. Neo-conservatives, on the other hand, have the whole enchilada; slash-and-burn economics, plus pro-military, pro-imperialism policies, plus no gays, no abortions, and a woman's place is in the home, and probably strong religious views, usually Christian but possibly Jewish (or maybe Hindu; I can envision calling those Bharatiya Jhanata bastards neo-cons).Now *in fact* I think neo-liberal economic policies depend on militarist policies to sustain them. And *in fact* I think sexism, racism and so forth are essential tools in from-the-top class warfare. So neo-liberals are going to be sort of tacitly neo-cons as well, but many of them don't admit it to themselves.
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 06 March 2004 11:33 PM
quote: Now *in fact* I think neo-liberal economic policies depend on militarist policies to sustain them. And *in fact* I think sexism, racism and so forth are essential tools in from-the-top class warfare. So neo-liberals are going to be sort of tacitly neo-cons as well, but many of them don't admit it to themselves.
That's interesting and I think true, so to represent that I parse the seperations in conservative thinking as follow: 1) (Traditional nationalist) Conservatives: In Canada this would be Joe Clark, etc. 2) Neo-conservatives: Paul Martin, and Harper. 3) Social Conservatives: Harper and some segemnts of the CPC (Harper is both Neo-con and Soc-con, while Martin just Neo-con.) I think there is some confusion about the Neo-liberal and neo-conservaitve tag, because of apparent, but unreal (as you point out above) distinctions between Democrats and Repbulicans and Tories and Liberals, econonomically speaking . Liberals like to define themselves away from the Social conservative policies of the CPC by defining themselves as liberal, while their economic policies are more or less identical. I think lumping in all of the regressive social policies and the economic policies under the Neo-con tag, undermines out ability to identify the likeness of their economic policies to what is being called neo-liberalism. When they are in fact the same. At the same time, even in the new CPC, there are splits over the social policies, while there is a uniformity of economic policy that runs straight through the CPC and deep into the Liberal party and even into the NDP (Bob Rae!?) One is reminded of Tony Blair's 'Third Way,' which has had no problem snapping into line with the American Neo-conservative agenda. It seems to me convenient to note this uniformity of economic views, and identify it with the same label to avoid confusion, and then seperate that from the regressive social policies of the Social Conservatives. So, I see your point but... quote: Neo-liberal to me implies pretty much solely the economic slash-and-burn class-war-from-above doctrines, with no position necessarily implied on either the military or social or religious issues.
You see when I think about this, I think Condeleeza Rice, who in my mind doesn't give a rats as in hell about the social issues such as religion, but is very much concerned about the economic policies. She'll go along with it, sure, but I don't think she cares one way or the other about such thinks. So is she a neo-liberal, therefore? [ 07 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 07 March 2004 03:19 PM
quote: Originally posted by Rufus Polson: Hmmm, yes . . . neo-conservative vs. neo-liberal is an interesting one. I think they are not quite identical. Neo-conservative implies more things to me than neo-liberal does. So while all n-c are n-l, not all n-l are n-c.
I prefer to use the terms interchangeably, since their economic doctrines largely motivate their social doctrines. For example, the desire to return women to second-class social and economic status motivates the desire to not expand the legal definition of marriage, and which also motivates manipulating the tax system to favor heterosexual married couples and to be biased against gay couples or singles. It also motivates creating a tax system that reflects their fundamentally Darwinist philosophies in regard to success or failure as well as who should be rewarded in society.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Palmerston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4901
|
posted 07 March 2004 03:24 PM
I think there's a difference in usage in the US and Canada. In the US, it means former liberals turned rabid conservatives - that would make Wolfowitz, Kristol, Podhoretz and Kirkpatrick neoconservatives, but Bush (I and II), Cheney, Rumsfeld, Baker and Kissinger would just be old-style conservatives.In Canada, neoconservative seems to imply the conservatives who emulate the American right rather than traditional "Canadian" conservatism: this would include Frum, Harris, Klein, Campbell, Harper, Manning, etc., as well as the National Post editorial board.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 07 March 2004 03:36 PM
quote: Originally posted by Lord Palmerston: I think there's a difference in usage in the US and Canada. In the US, it means former liberals turned rabid conservatives - that would make Wolfowitz, Kristol, Podhoretz and Kirkpatrick neoconservatives, but Bush (I and II), Cheney, Rumsfeld, Baker and Kissinger would just be old-style conservatives.
Lord P (my, but you are well preserved! ), the most interesting reviews of the current Perle/Frum book linked to on that thread -- two fine commentaries -- both make the distinction you do there, but they consider the latter group to be neo-libs, much as limned above by Rufus, and that would be my sense of them too. How could we ever describe Kissinger, especially, as a conservative?!?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|