- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

What’s a Neoconservative?

My father suggested to me recently that it might be helpful to better explain what the term “neoconservative” means. “A lot of people don’t know,” he said. As usual, Dad was right. Though decades old, the mainstream use of the word neoconservative is relatively new. I mentally filed away my father’s suggestion agreeing that a layman’s explanation of “neoconservative” might be helpful when the time was right. The time is right—as the American intervention in Libya has drawn a clearer line between neoconservatives and conventional Republicans than any event in recent memory.

The “neocons” believe American greatness is measured by our willingness to be a great power—through vast and virtually unlimited global military involvement. Other nations’ problems invariably become our own because history and fate have designated America the world’s top authority.

Critics say the US cannot afford to be the world’s policeman. Neoconservatives not only say that we can but we must—and that we will cease to be America if we don’t. Writes Boston Globe neoconservative columnist Jeff Jacoby: “Our world needs a policeman. And whether most Americans like it or not, only their indispensable nation is fit for the job.” Neocon intellectual Max Boot says explicitly that the US should be the world’s policeman because we are the best policeman.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) heartily champions the neoconservative view. While virtually every other recognizably Tea Party congressman or senator opposes the Libyan intervention, Rubio believes the world’s top cop should be flashing its Sherriff’s badge more forcefully in Libya—and everywhere else. New York Times columnist Ross Douthat explains:

“Rubio is the great neoconservative hope, the champion of a foreign policy that boldly goes abroad in search of monsters to destroy… His maiden Senate speech was a paean to national greatness, whose peroration invoked John F. Kennedy and insisted that America remain the ‘watchman on the wall of world freedom.”

Rubio’s flowery rhetoric is worth noting because neoconservatism has always been sold through the narrative of America’s “greatness” or “exceptionalism.” This is essentially the Republican Party’s version of the old liberal notion promoted by President Woodrow Wilson that it is America’s mission to “make the world safe for democracy.” Douthat describes Rubio as the “great neoconservative hope” because the freshman senator is seen by the neocon intelligentsia as one of the few reliable Tea Party-oriented spokesman willing to still promote this ideology to the GOP base. I say “still” because many Republicans have begun to question the old neocon foreign policy consensus that dominated Bush’s GOP. Douthat puts the neoconservatives’ worries and the Republicans’ shift into context:

“Among conservatism’s foreign policy elite, Rubio’s worldview commands more support. But in the grass roots, it’s a different story. A recent Pew poll found that the share of conservative Republicans agreeing that the U.S. should ‘pay less attention to problems overseas’ has risen… In the debate over Libya, Tea Party icons like Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin have sounded more like (Rand) Paul than Rubio, and a large group of House Republican backbenchers recently voted for a resolution that would have brought the intervention screeching to a halt.”

As one of only a handful of Republicans to oppose the Iraq War, Republican Congressman Jimmy Duncan said in 2003: “It is a traditional conservative position not to want the United States to be the policeman of the world.” At the time Duncan’s party strongly disagreed with him.

But this is because most Republicans didn’t think of the Iraq War as “policing the world” but as a legitimate matter of national defense. We now know that it had absolutely nothing to do with America’s defense and we’re still bogged down needlessly in another nation’s civil war.

But this has always been the neocon ruse—if neoconservatives can convince others that fighting some war, somewhere is for America’s actual defense, they will always make this argument and stretch any logic necessary to do so. Whether or not it is true is less important than its effectiveness. But their arguments are only a means to an end. Neoconservatives rarely show any reflection—much less regret—for foreign policy mistakes because for them there are no foreign policy mistakes. America’s wars are valid by their own volition. America’s “mission” is its missions. Writes Max Boot: “Why should America take on the thankless task of policing the globe… As long as evil exists, someone will have to protect peaceful people from predators.”

Needless to say, perpetual war to rid the world of evil is about as far as one can get from traditional conservatism but it was also the mantra of Bush’s Republican Party. Boot now snidely asks the current GOP if they want to be known as the “anti-military, weak-on-defense, pro-dictator party” due to their opposition to the Libyan intervention. This argument might sound strange yet familiar to Republicans—it was exactly what they said about Democrats who opposed the Iraq War. John McCain now calls Republicans who oppose the Libyan War “isolationist.” The Senator’s use of that term is as illogical as it is illustrative—in that his bizarre definition is identical to what most of his fellow Republicans believed just a few short years ago.

The Libyan War makes clear what the Iraq War made confusing: There is a difference between conservatives who believe in a strong national defense and neoconservatives who believe in policing the world under the guise of national defense. The neoconservatives will only remain successful to the extent that they can continue to blur this distinction. Conservatives will only remain conservative to the degree that they can continue to maintain it.

 

Comments Disabled (Open | Close)

Comments Disabled To "What’s a Neoconservative?"

#1 Comment By bc3b On June 23, 2011 @ 8:51 am

Easy Jack.

Neoconservatives are primarily socially liberal hawks. Almost to a man they have done everything possible to avoid serving in the military as have their children. Next to liberals they are the greatest danger to our country.

#2 Comment By squib On June 23, 2011 @ 10:09 am

Re “American exceptionalism”. I thought America was exceptional until it started acting like any old cynical, corrupt, doomed empire. It’s silly to go about boasting of your exceptionalism even as you repeat every hackneyed error of your predecessors, and trade your true character for a handful of dust.

The problem with the neoconservatives isn’t that they flog American exceptionalism, it’s that they aren’t really Americans.

#3 Comment By Steve On June 23, 2011 @ 11:10 am

Oh, come on guys.

In 2011, a neoconservative is the person who always answers yes to the question “Are Israel’s objectives always more important than the objectives of the USA?”

Folks will say this is unfair and a gross distortion of reality, if not in fact a bigoted assertion, but can you name any current neoconservative who is oppossed to US support for Israel? Or even just wants tosee it reduced a bit. I suspect not.

On domestic issues, there’s a greater range of variation across the neocon spectrum, but, unlike the case back in the middle 70s when we first began to hear of this troubling new breed of political apostates in the making, it’s clear that foreign policy is of much greater importance to the neocons than is domestic policy.

By the middle eastern sympathiesyou shall know them.

#4 Comment By tbraton On June 23, 2011 @ 11:13 am

“My father suggested to me recently that it might be helpful to better explain what the term “neoconservative” means. “A lot of people don’t know,” he said. As usual, Dad was right.”

One of those people who didn’t know what a “neoconservative” was is our former President, George W. Bush. I remember reading somewhere that, when he was running for President in the late 90’s, George W. asked his father what a neoconservative was, and George H. W. replied that he had only to remember one word to understand what a neoconservative was: Israel.

Your piece leaves out three important threads in understanding neoconservatives. First, the movement was started by and is largely populated by Jews. The so-called “father of the neoconservative movement” was Irving Kristol, the father of William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard. Another prominent founder was Norman Podhoretz, who succeeded the elder Kristol as editor of Commentary. Many of the most prominent neoconservatives are Jewish: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, etc., etc.

Secondly, the roots of neoconservatism traces back to very liberal political leanings, bordering on socialism and even communism. The elder Kristol was a Trotskyite into his 20’s. That would explain their tendency to favor a strong central government, which, of course, allows them to exert their influence more effectively despite their small numbers. It is also consistent with the views of Leo Strauss, one of the great intellectual shapers of neoconservatism. According to an account by a former neoconservative:
” For the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting morality. Religion becomes what Plato called a noble lie. It is a myth which is told to the majority of the society by the philosophical elite in order to ensure social order… In being a kind of secretive elitist approach, Straussianism does resemble Marxism. These ex-Marxists, or in some cases ex-liberal Straussians, could see themselves as a kind of Leninist group, you know, who have this covert vision which they want to use to effect change in history, while concealing parts of it from people incapable of understanding it.”

Thirdly, as evidenced by the George H.W. Bush comment above, a strong underlying belief that seems to unite the neoconservatives is in the perceived need, above all, to make the world safe for Israel.

#5 Comment By Philip Giraldi On June 23, 2011 @ 11:22 am

Great piece Jack! Neoconservatives started out as Scoop Jackson Democratic Hawks. The several that I know well enough to know their non-war views are pretty much conventional Democrats in that they are pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-immigration, pro-big government. Their shift to the Republicans was tactical when they, led by Richard Perle, got their foot in the door of the Pentagon under Reagan. Under Bush 2, they completed the process and more-or-less took over the DoD. I expect they are now triangulating frantically to determine if it in their best interests to remain nominally Republicans or to slowly drift back to their natural habitat in the Democratic Party.

#6 Comment By ED. K. On June 23, 2011 @ 12:28 pm

Neocons are mostly Zionist who put Israel interest above that of their country the USA. The majority are chicken hawks who never served a day in the military and have no problem sending other people kids to fight their wars.

#7 Comment By eeyore On June 23, 2011 @ 2:23 pm

let us not forget the distinction of constitutional authority for past interventions and the “now in violation of the war powers act” Lybian effort. Those who call themselves conservatives, neo-con or otherwise would do well to refer to their pocket constitution they claim to follow and carry. Criticism of fellow party members who constitutionally oppose these interventions employ the same hate-mongering tactics of the left. Silence the opposition at any cost and never stop feeding the federal leviathan. Thanks to Church and Wilkow for the education.

#8 Comment By Jane Marple On June 23, 2011 @ 3:10 pm

What’s a neoconservative? An unrepentant Trotskyite, who recognized that Marxism wasn’t the viable way to take over the world and so now proudly (and openly) pledges allegiance to America but always keeps Israel first in his heart.

#9 Comment By Ben, Okla. City On June 23, 2011 @ 4:30 pm

Exceptional is something I would hope other countries would say about us without having to remind them or ourselves. It’s a form of group narcissism to keep bringing it up to convince ourselves our actions are just.

How about some American humility? More Gary Cooper and less Richard Simmons.

#10 Comment By Jack On June 23, 2011 @ 5:34 pm

What a fascinating article. The last paragraph was particularly smack on. When I spoke to a conservative friend recently, I was inflamed about our hyper-sized military and our overseas adventures as an example of very big government. The kind that he, as a conservative, should oppose. His retort, of course, was that national security is one of the constitutional purposes of our government. There it is. This friend really thinks that Iraq, Libya, our 1000’s of bases all over the world, is what national defense is all about. With his argument, there is literally no limit to the size of the military or the scope of its mission. The neocons have defined it that way. The only thing I said in response was that he should take his 18 year old son by the arm and require him to sign up for the military to fight the battles he thinks we should be fighting. His response: “but he would rather go to college”. I then reminded him that no American soldier has died for my freedom in my lifetime (I am 49 years old). That seemed to rankle him because the neocon argument concerning national defense requires that you buy into the propaganda that these soldiers are fighting for our freedom as a nation.

#11 Comment By DirtyHarriet On June 23, 2011 @ 7:44 pm

Patrick J. gave a great definition in his Whose War article:

[1]

It’s one of the best articles ever. TAC should re-run it from time to time, lest we all forget what it’s all about.

#12 Comment By Buzz Baldrin On June 24, 2011 @ 5:08 am

Wish neoconservatism was a philosophy, but its not, only a bait-and-switch sales pitch for the military industrial complex. Since Scoop Jackson, the senator from Boeing, America’s political-police-the-world crowd has been the complex’s marketing firm.

All work to keep the US government spending billions of dollars on mostly irrelevant military items. None seriously care about national defense: that’s why no heads rolled when our billion-dollar air defense was helpless to protect the Pentagon against a small group of Moslem fanatics with box cutters.

Worse, the military industrial complex will be entrenched until serious elected officials, in the tradition of Dwight Eisenhower, create a peacetime economy to replace our warfare state.

Until then, too much money, too many jobs in America depend on the complex.

#13 Comment By Nel On June 24, 2011 @ 5:10 am

A Neocon is a con artist.

#14 Comment By Robert Pinkerton On June 24, 2011 @ 5:17 am

Re “American exceptionalism:” I am sixty-seven years old. When I was a child, my Dad (A Mustang officer), told me that the United States was exceptional for reason that the privileges of aristocracy in Europe were the ordinary civil rights of common equals here.

If I believe in “national greatness,” by that I mean a nation of great-soul people, the kind Aristotle calls megalopsychic.

#15 Comment By Nebulosis On June 24, 2011 @ 5:49 am

“On domestic issues, there’s a greater range of variation across the neocon spectrum,”

True, but then domestic issues cause a dull glaze to form over neoconservative eyes. They stand ready to compromise or to countenance disagreement on almost any strictly parochial American social or economic concern, so long as their foreign policy and other “high political” objectives are met.

#16 Comment By samwitwicky On June 24, 2011 @ 6:23 am

Revolutions are internal matters of a country … the revolution in Gypto was successful internally … people were not killed, cities were not bombed, war was not raged, outside countries didn’t send their forces … whatever was done … it was within the country and by the people … without outside support … that’s a revolution.

Look at the massacre they are carrying out in Tibby … you call that a revolution man … you call that an operation for the people?

Read more:

[2]

#17 Comment By Bill R. On June 24, 2011 @ 11:44 am

Strictly speaking, a neoconservative, is a member of the traditional FDR coalition (unions, minorities – including Catholics, Jews and African Americans, even Southern whites) who flipped to the Republican party and some element of conservative ideology back in the 1970s. As a former FDR Democrat, Ronald Reagan had elements of neoconservatism in his past. And social liberalism is far from neocon orthodoxy. People like Gertrude Himmelfarb and John Neuhaus were at the forefront of neoconservatism. Jeane Kirpatrick, by no means a wobbly or wimpy neoconservative, had roots in socialist activism together with Irving Kristol and the like. Indeed, losing its conservative moral sensibilities helped drive the Democratic Party mad. It is only relatively recently that a few – but hardly all – Boom generation neocons such as David Frum and David Brooks also contracted the same form of mental illness. Otherwise, this group has become largely indistinguishable from the Republican mainstream, which draws its roots from Roosevelt, Lincoln, Henry Clay and Alexander Hamilton. Of course, with the onset of southern neocons with states rights and libertarian ideology, the demographic advances of the GOP in the late 20th century imported Civil War divisions into the party, a theme that Kevin Phillips has – sadistically – played upon. Still, one might well say that there is nothing wrong with neoconservatism except for its detractors. Down with the Traitor. Up with the Star.

#18 Comment By James deLaurier On June 24, 2011 @ 1:50 pm

Jack Hunter: 6/24/2011
A “great” power can be and is often less than a “good” power.
So,the Neoconservatives manifesto mandates foreign policy from the top – down! Who then,is there that stands – up for and represents,”We the People”?
Thank you – # 16

#19 Comment By tbraton On June 24, 2011 @ 3:45 pm

I had forgotten that I saved a copy of a book review by David Gordon that appeared in TAC this past October, entitled “Neoconservatism Defined.” Actually, it is a combined review of two books, and it is a pretty good introduction to neoconservatism.
[3] In the course of the review, Gordon makes the following observation:

“Most, though certainly not all, of the leading neocons are Jewish and the defense of Israel is central to their political concerns.”

One of the books concentrates on the intellectual founder of neoconservatism, Leo Strauss, and the review makes some consise observations about him.

#20 Comment By tbraton On June 24, 2011 @ 3:54 pm

David Gordon’s book review also contains the following observations:

“No one who absorbs Vaïsse’s discussion of this second age can harbor any illusions about whether the neocons count as genuine conservatives. [Senator Henry] Jackson made no secret of his statist views of domestic policy, but this did not in the least impede his neocons allies from enlisting in his behalf. Vaïsse by the way understates Jackson’s commitment to socialism, which dated from his youth. Contrary to what our author suggests, the League for Industrial Democracy, which Jackson joined while in college, was not “a moderate organization that backed unions and democratic principles.” It was a socialist youth movement that aimed to propagate socialism to the public.

It was not Jackson’s domestic policy, though, that principally drew the necons to him. They had an elective affinity for the pursuit of the Cold War. Vaïsse stresses in particular that they collaborated with Paul Nitze and other Cold War hawks. In a notorious incident, “Team B,” under the control of the hawks, claimed that CIA estimates of Russian armaments were radically understated. It transpired that the alarms of Team B were baseless; they nevertheless served their purpose in promoting a bellicose foreign policy.

The neocons of the second age did not quit the Democratic Party until, after prolonged struggle, they had failed to take it over. They then discovered in the rising popularity of Ronald Reagan a new strategy to advance their goals; but even when Reagan and his aides received them warmly, many found it distinctly against the grain to vote for a Republican. Once they had overcome this aversion, the neocons proved able markedly to expand their political power and influence. Nevertheless, some neocons found Reagan insufficiently militant. For Norman Podhoretz, a literary critic who imagined himself a foreign policy expert, Reagan became an appeaser reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain. “In 1984-85, however, Podhoretz finally lost hope in his champion; he … lamented the president’s desire to do whatever it took to present himself to Europeans and above all to American voters as a ‘man of peace,’ ready to negotiate with the Soviets.”

The “national greatness” neocons of our day continue the pattern of their second age predecessors in their constant warnings of peril and calls for a militant response. They do not apply the law of unintended consequences to foreign policy: skepticism about the efficacy of government action ends at the doors to the Pentagon.”

#21 Comment By Masood On June 24, 2011 @ 4:44 pm

Should “the American Policeman” police the rogue state of Israel? I wonder how many neocons will fo for it.

#22 Comment By DirtyHarriet On June 24, 2011 @ 9:17 pm

Masood, your post reminds me of an article that was published in the New York Times on September 10, 2001, of all dates.

[4]

“U.S. troops would enforce peace under Army study”

Excerpt:

The exercise was done by 60 officers dubbed “Jedi Knights,” as all second-year SAMS students are nicknamed.

The SAMS paper attempts to predict events in the first year of a peace-enforcement operation, and sees possible dangers for U.S. troops from both sides.

It calls Israel’s armed forces a “500-pound gorilla in Israel. Well armed and trained. Operates in both Gaza and the West Bank. Known to disregard international law to accomplish mission. Very unlikely to fire on American forces. Fratricide a concern especially in air space management.”

Of the MOSSAD, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers say: “Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.”

#23 Comment By Henry Drummond On June 25, 2011 @ 5:59 am

This would have had some point 200 years ago. Unfortunately,cannon now shoot more than three miles, the 3 mile limit on national soverignty is obsolete. You cannot distinguish between an offensive and defensive opponent.

#24 Comment By tbraton On June 25, 2011 @ 9:48 am

“You cannot distinguish between an offensive and defensive opponent.”

If military hostilities were actually going on in Libya, it certainly would be easy to distinguish between the offensive opponent (all the foreign countries operating under the NATO umbrella and firing all the missiles into Libya and dropping all the bombs on Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi) and the defensive opponent (the Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi, the nominal leader of Libya).

#25 Comment By Gil On June 26, 2011 @ 7:46 pm

Nice article! I believe that what constitutes a neoconservative has changed over the years. Sure, in an academic sense, a “neoconservative” is someone who might have supported Scoop Jackson in Washington or Strauss at U of Chicago in the 70’s- in essence, someone with democratic roots who became more hawkish on foreign policy. However, most conservative pundits- Rush, Hannity, Beck, etc, support projecting US power in order to achieve Democracy overseas. As do Bachmann, Palin, Romney, Gingrich, Boener, Perry and most other establishment Republicans. They all supported war in Afghanistan and Iraq, all support Saudi Arabia, Israel, Kuwait, Bahrain, and big oil, and all fundamentally decry any attempt to cut the US military budget. What troubles me is that “Neoconservatism” has become mainstream Republicanism. In fact Ronald Reagan was perhaps the first Neocon president. And it looks as if the Tea Party has been hijacked by Palin, Bachmann and Rubio et al . Trying to change the Republican party from within simply will not work- for Neocons don’t just control the Republican party, they ARE the Republican party. We need a third party that overtly champions fiscal and social conservatism and international isolationism as its three main pillars!

#26 Comment By Steve in Ohio On June 27, 2011 @ 11:04 am

Gil, the GOP leadership may be neocon, but the grassroots are more or less non-interventionist. We see the same split on immigration. I think its too early to give up on the party.

By the way, I don’t consider RR a neocon President. Along with Eisenhower, he was the most non interventionist prez in recent history.

#27 Comment By Allen On June 28, 2011 @ 5:32 am

WE HAVE A WINNER!;
‘Steve, on June 23rd, 2011 at 11:10 am Said:
Oh, come on guys.
In 2011, a neoconservative is the person who always answers yes to the question “Are Israel’s objectives always more important than the objectives of the USA?”

#28 Comment By Gil On June 28, 2011 @ 11:42 am

Steve-

Sure, much of the grassroots is non-interventionist, although many, many Evangelicals support the Likud party in Israel for biblical reasons, and those Republicans who listen regularly to Neocons like Hannity and Limbaugh and Dennis Miller, or watch Krauthammer, Kristol and O’Reilly are influenced to support an interventionist foreign policy. Here is the problem! How can you change the Republican party from within when the Tea Party Caucus is headed by an interventionist Neocon like Michelle Bachmann?

Ronald Reagan was a semi-isolationist. Except, of course, for bombing Libya, stationing troops in Lebanon, and docking the 6th fleet in Israel. Sorry, I know many people consider him a saint, and on both fiscal and social issues he was wonderful. But let’s face it- Reagan was a former democratic Union head who became a conservative later on in life and projected US power overseas when it wasn’t necessary. A Neocon? At least 75%

#29 Comment By Wesley Mcgranor On June 29, 2011 @ 11:54 am

A neoconservative as an actual social phenomenon–free from intellectual definition–is from the social upheavel of the ‘spirit of the 60’s’. With all their socialism and revolution against white-western-protestant civilization.

#30 Comment By Gil On June 29, 2011 @ 2:01 pm

Wesley,

You are fundamentally correct with respect to the origins of most Neoconservative “intellectuals.” However, definitions morph and change over time until their origins become so cloudy as to be practically irrelevant. Let’s get real- how many young people know that Bill Kristol’s dad used to be a Socialist? How many people even know who Bill Kristol is or Scoop Jackson was?

Ultimately one can only judge people by their actions. And, in my definition, anyone who ACTS like a Neoconservative- or puts others in harm’s way in order to further their expansionist aims- IS a Neoconservative. And we will never win our battle against the Neoconservatives unless we call things as they are, without getting bogged down in biographical details about people and philosophers who nobody ever hears about. So, while David Frum, Bill Kristol, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Lindsay Graham Michelle Bachmann and just about every modern republican congressman or senator or conservative think tank member inside the Washington Beltway may never have been hippies in the 60’s, and almost all can claim to have been lifelong conservatives, 99% are Neoconservatives because their ACTIONS define who they are. They all believe in projecting US military might in order to foster democracy overseas. They ultimately seem to care more about the welfare of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq and, Afghanistan than the United States.

#31 Comment By Patrick On July 6, 2011 @ 6:26 am

What bothers me is what we consider “mainstream” conservatism today in the form of talk radio, Rush, and others is basically a neconservative movement. What I would consider true conservatism you find here in TAC and also in the Libertarian publications like Reason and Liberty but the reach of talk radio and the neocon blogs seems to be far greater than that of real conservatives and the neocons appear to be setting the agenda these days. It is nothing short of appalling isn’t it to see “conservatives” defending torture and the secret prisons run under the Bush administration, all in the name of “defending” the country. It never ceases to amazes me why any true conservative would go any where near a member of the Bush administration and yet Sean has Rove and others on his show routinely when a case can be made that they should stand trial for being responsible for the abuse of those detainees. I have been student of the Holocaust my entire life and to see some of the circumstances of pre war Germany unfold in front of me, the “we have to take these steps in the name of defending the country” the dehumanizing of the muslims which made it easy to justify torturing them, it is all so very scary.

#32 Pingback By RIP Tea Party, 2010-2012 – We Barely Knew Thee – James Street – Further Right than You On September 14, 2012 @ 1:41 pm

[…] Thee Without a doubt, one of the most memorable movements in recent political history was the neoconservative Tea Party movement that became most visible during the 2010 midterm Congressional and State […]

#33 Comment By The Libertybelle On December 4, 2012 @ 12:15 am

Yep…time to resurrect the Old Right if the GOP is to survive!

#34 Pingback By Truth, Human Nature, and the American Way On December 9, 2012 @ 4:42 pm

[…] or IPS) websites describe FPI along with its 2009 founder William Kristol with the dreaded “neoconservative” moniker. As Right Web with its mission of “Tracking militarists’ efforts to […]

#35 Pingback By Democracy Is A Racket | Front Porch Republic On March 22, 2013 @ 10:51 am

[…] gives attention to the ascendancy of these faux-conservatives. The rise and eventual hegemony of “neoconservatism” over the conservative establishment, implies Gottfried, is best seen in the ironic context of the […]

#36 Pingback By Curbludgeon | Howdy On March 30, 2013 @ 5:44 pm

[…] Ron Paul (who is actually no longer in government, sigh) – liberals, RINOs (especially the neo-con variety), war-mongers, gun-controllers, Hollywood, radical chic-sters, abortionistas, […]

#37 Comment By Happy Dog On June 24, 2013 @ 6:03 pm

I’m not Jewish or a neocon, but to say that our defense of Israel is not in our national interest is astounding to me. It’s the only democracy in that part of the world. They are surrounded by people who want to destroy their existence and who want to destroy our existence. The Jews number less than 1% of the world’s population. You people are so anti-military you can’t see the forest through the trees. Our revolution that created our nation was abetted by foreign aid of money and arms. Say what you will about the definition of “neocon” but all of the above definitions are out of the mouths of those who disdain it. Sorry I’m still going to look further for a definition. Yes, our Constitution does say our military is for our protection. You people insult all those serving who believe in a far different definition of what their service, a decision made freely by them, means to them. My nephew gave up a college scholarship to serve in the military, neocon or not.

#38 Comment By Phillip Marlow On September 24, 2013 @ 9:04 am

After reading this article and all the comments I still do not know what a neocon is. I want names to compare with my political knowledge for a definition of neocon! is it John McCain, Marco Rubio, or is it the likes of the very left leaning democrats like Patrick Leahy?

#39 Comment By Neocon Watch On January 4, 2014 @ 1:28 pm

The proper definition of a neocon is a follower of the ideas of Leo Strauss. Google “Neoconservatism unmasked” and read C. Bradley Thompson’s article at Cato.

Also, the paranoia needs to stop. Michelle Bachmann, Rush Limbaugh, and any number of other regular conservatives are not neoconservatives.

Despite their giving lip service to Israel for the sake of appearances, I have found that neocons are not Zionists. They are closet anti-Zionists. For example, they were the ones behind giving away the Gaza Strip. This is because they are against the Westphalian system of nation-states. They have no loyalty to what is Jewish.

#40 Comment By LibertyChick On April 2, 2014 @ 2:16 pm

Good explanation of NeoCon. I said at the last election I couldn’t find much difference between Romney and Obama – it wasn’t my imagination. It’s scary what the “leaders” of our country are doing to it. I wish we would remove any and elected officials who violate their oath of office: to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Seems there should be actions taken against them for treason, including imprisonment in the Federal prison.

#41 Comment By LibertyChick On April 2, 2014 @ 2:18 pm

By the way, this audio-history of the Federal Reserve was worth listening to – very enlightening…

[5]