I constantly see Republicans, and/or Conservatives referred to as "Neo-Cons" By our local Libs/Socialists/Communists... Both here, and on other forums.
This is always funny, as even Wikipedia defines it like this:
"Neo- is Greek for "new." Conservatism is new in two ways: first, many of the movement's founders, liberals and people from socialist backgrounds, were new to conservatism; second, it was a fairly recent strain of conservative socio-political thought. Its intellectual roots are from the decades following World War II, including the literary criticism and social science movements."
Or, in other words...A "Neo-Con" is a "New-Conservative". A >Convert< from the Socialist/Liberal ranks.
>NOT< someone who has always been a Conservative, or a republician....But someone who has Become a "New-Conservative", AFTER being a Socialist/Liberal.
But, as usual....I must re-educate those who have been spoon fed this by the Intelligentsia in our society, for so many years
TS
2007-05-15
03:42:47
·
16 answers
·
asked by
electronic_dad
3
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
(ETA:)
To all of those who are upset at my "Lumping" Liberals with the Socialists/Communists....
Today's Liberalism = Socialism Lite (and not by much!)
Socialism = Communism Lite (or a "Stepping stone to Communism)
I have no problem with the "Old" Democrats. We differed on some issues, but we still believed in Our country, and it's people.
Todays Liberal Democrats are simply a whole different animal.
That I >Do< have a problem with, and will do my best to oppose them, and their "vision(s)" for this country's future.
T.S.
2007-05-15
04:17:53 ·
update #1
Why do they not understand? Because so many believe what the liberal media tells them, which is rarely correct when it comes to anything conservative, neo- or otherwise.
2007-05-15 03:46:55
·
answer #1
·
answered by ItsJustMe 7
·
2⤊
5⤋
No, actually neo-conservatives are liberal, not conservative, by all previous measures.
They are fiscally irresponsible - recall that Bush never vetoed a single pork barrel spending bill.
They are pro growth of social programs, so long as they involve a corporate giveaway - recall the massive and reckless growth of the prescription medicare bill (also known as the No Pharmaceutical Company Left Behind Bill).
They are anti states rights - look at No Child Left Behind, the biggest federal intrusion into local government in history.
And they favor aggressive use of our military for nation building and where it is not in the defense interest of the United States - recall that real conservatives opposed our entry into Somalia and the Balkans but our nation building exercise in Iraq is a far more egregious burden on our military with no security benefit.
For policies of this type, conservatives railed against liberals. A neo-conservative is just a liberal in Republican's clothing.
Why do they do it? Because the more you spend, the more money you can raise for political campaigns. More wars are good for the military industrial complex, and it creates a convenient excuse for running massive budget deficits while distracting the people from what the rest of the government is doing. It's just selfish, lazy, irresponsible, corrupt, and greedy government.
2007-05-15 04:00:17
·
answer #2
·
answered by Mark P 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
First of all, Wikipedia is not the best source of information in this case. You're trying to prove that people are wrong, but Wikipedia is often wrong, and sometimes, by their own admission, a victim of unprofessional or unsupported submissions. Wikipedia is a great place to start, but a poor place to rest your argument.
Second, linguists will tell you that definitions are pretty tricky. People will come up with new meanings and uses of words faster than dictionaries can print them. In the case of "Neo-Con," for example, it might start out as an insult hurled by liberals, then get adopted by conservatives, then start to fall out of favor for other terms. Every time, the definition and the connotation changes slightly.
Third, I don't think you're right anyways. How many boring conversations can we have about a person's political history. "Neo-Con" is used as short-hand for a certain type of conservative, as opposed to a "Country Club" Republican (who may or may not be a member of a Country Club,) or a RINO (who isn't really a Republican IN NAME ONLY.)
Is it really an important to make a distinction? I mean, shouldn't you think we Liberals are stupid in other ways, instead, like how we want to raise taxes, over-extend our nation's responsibilities through single payer-universal health care, or being too soft on terrorism?
2007-05-15 14:01:50
·
answer #3
·
answered by Mr. Bad Day 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
they have not got a clue, or they p.c. to reject the certainty. A neo-con is somebody who holds old liberal ideals, yet has fallen out of prefer with present day liberals for one reason or yet another. They have been predominately Democrats in the old days, and that they began flooding the Republican social gathering in the Seventies. right this is a quote from between the 1st present day-day neo-conservatives, Irving Kristol: "My Republican vote (in the 1972 presidential election) produced little ask your self waves in the vast apple psychological community. It did no longer take long - a three hundred and sixty 5 days or 2 - for the socialist author Michael Harrington to come again up with the term "neoconservative" to describe a renegade liberal like myself. To the chagrin of a few of my acquaintances, i desperate to settle for that factor era; there advance into no factor calling myself a liberal whilst no one else did."
2016-10-05 02:46:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
You can't define a group just by looking at the name's etymological roots. Read further in the wikipedia article that you referenced and examine the foreign policy, domestic affairs and economics entries.
Neo-conservatism is a different strain of conservatism because it emphasizes a more robust foreign policy. Traditional American conservatism emphasizes a minimalist foreign policy. This is perhaps the biggest difference between the two.
2007-05-15 03:54:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by mike225 2
·
3⤊
0⤋
That's a good explanation. It usually is a convert. I would add that the Far Left in this country has run a bunch of Liberals into the Conservative ranks. Being Liberal used to be a good thing. Now you can't get a politician to admit he's one. They're all Moderates. Yeah, right!
2007-05-15 03:52:17
·
answer #6
·
answered by Matt 5
·
4⤊
2⤋
How about the definition of liberalism now, skippy, since you lumped them in with socialists and communists.
2007-05-15 03:47:10
·
answer #7
·
answered by BOOM 7
·
4⤊
1⤋
Actually Neo Con is a thinly veiled anti Semitic slur. It refers to Jews who failed to stay locked into one dimensional socialist thinking.
I can only imagine what they will call Blacks who leave the liberal thought plantation.
2007-05-15 03:48:15
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
At least we know the difference between a liberal, a socialist and a communist.
2007-05-15 03:47:50
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
See! I'm not a neo-con you twits!
I still have my Nixon Now button!
2007-05-15 04:21:01
·
answer #10
·
answered by FOA 6
·
0⤊
0⤋