In a nutshell, what are the main differences between a "Goldwater" conservative, and a neo-conservative?

Answer 1

Gee I never knew that a neo -conservative and a liberal were exactly the same. According to most answers here - A liberal wants bigger government and a neo-conservative wants bigger Government. Glad to see no one knows the answer

Answer 2

Goldwater or Reagan conservatives are true conservatives. As others here have said they believe in smaller government, less government intervention in personal lives, and a strong military. I am not exactly sure what neocons are as in many ways they are closer to liberals in government and government spending yet they are also very hawkish.
I'm a Reagan - Goldwater conservative so I don't really understand what they other type is they dont really fit with what I think of as conservatives.

Answer 3

In a nutshell, a Goldwater or Reagan conservative believes government inherently creates problems with its power, its cost, its unresponsiveness, its sheer size.

A neo-conservative tends to believe government can and should be an activist force. Its size and power and and expense is not the problem--the problem lies in mismanagement. Government can be a force for good if the right people are doing the right things with it. What separates them from a traditional liberal is HOW government power is used. What separates them from a traditional conservative is the question of WHETHER government power should be used.

Answer 4

A Goldwater conservative is a regular republican. A neo-conservative also studied extra policies and techniques in several specialties. See my link.

Answer 5

Nobody really knows what a neo-conservative is.

For that matter I doubt most people know what a Goldwater conservative is either. Reagan was a lot like Goldwater... those were the day.

Answer 6

Goldwater less gov. Neo More Gov.
Because of the Neo cons The Dem's are in power.

Answer 7

A Goldwater Republican is a realist, they value Diplomacy over military action.
There are two Basic kinds of Republicans basically (whether they realize it or not) The realist and the Neoconservative...rival schools of political thought.


Considered as a group, the neocons have a fairly concrete identity -- they are intensely hawkish Democrats (or the offspring of intensely hawkish Democrats) who bolted the party in the late '60s/early '70s after it turned against the Vietnam War. They tend to be Jewish, urban and intellectual. Many of them worked for Scoop Jackson (the hawkish Democratic Senator from Washington State.) Some of them started out on the far left fringe of American politics (Trotskyists, etc.) then moved right and kept going. Some are admirers of the late University of Chicago professor and philospher Leo Strauss.

These are all generalizations, but there are enough people who fit enough of the points to make the profile valid.

Ideologically, though, neocon is a much more nebulous term. It's not like there's some kind of neocon Politburo that lays down a rigid party line on any and all points -- although the Project for a New American Century probably comes closest to filling that function.

It's easy enough to point to some common themes that are generally identified with the neocons: contempt for international organizations and the concept of multilateralism; impatience with traditional balance-of-power diplomacy; a cultish devotion to the use of military power; an outspoken belief in the superiority of Western culture and political institutions; a messianic vision of America's mission to "civilize" the world, which at times (Max Boot) makes them sound like caricatures of old-fashioned European imperialists. And of course: an intense identification with the state of Israel, and a willingness, even eagerness, to use American power to protect and further Israeli security interests.

But there are nuances on all these points. Some neocons support the maximum Likud position -- one state (Jewish) between the Jordan and the sea. Some don't. Some are more willing to use multilateral institutions to pursue American interests. Some aren't. Some are more cynical about the "spreading democracy" meme than others.

Personally, I would not describe Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld as neocons. Certainly not on the first count (personal biography). And not on the second (ideological affinity), either. At the end of the day, Cheney and Rumsfeld are politicians and bureaucrats. They are not intellectuals -- not by a long shot. They are consumers of ideology, not producers.

To me, the neocons and the realists are rival schools of foreign policy intellectuals, competing for the patronage of political leaders such as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Delay, etc. With a few exceptions, they are servants of power -- not holders of power.

Since most American politicians (like most American voters) know very little about the rest of the world, they usually don't have detailed positions on the kinds of foreign policy issues the neocons and the realists spend their professional lives debating. Instead, politicians have belief systems, typically reflecting some fairly basic value judgments: America must always be the strongest nation on earth, or America should try to cooperate with its allies, or whatever.

Answer 8

The most obvious difference is that Goldwater believed in smaller government that stayed out of peoples personal business while the Neocons only want to increase the size of government for the sake of dictating and legislating morality. Also Neocons believe that war is a captilistic venture while true conservatives beleive that war is a necessary evil.

Answer 9

The Goldwater (AuH2O) conservatives actually go for smaller government and fiscal responsibility. Neocons want to get into everyone's personal lives and legislate morality. They build larger government, and drive up the national debt and are an insult to true conservatives.

Answer 10

Goldwater conservatives love their country and neo-cons love themselves and their bank accounts.