What's the difference between a neo-conservative and a traditional conservative? Between a neo-conservative and a moderate conservative?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wiki's great and all, but I was hoping for a discussion on values and views of people here.
I view the neo-conservative agenda as follows:
Gut welfare Privatise medicare/social security Expand the executive powers of the federal government. Increase defense budget Pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage Restrict abortion
Does anyone here identify with the label 'neo-conservative?' Can you explain what values you hold that cause you to identify as such?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I’ve been labeled a “neo con” a few times. Not sure I’d put myself in that term since I don’t agree with everything the definition says. But on your list….
Gut welfare - I’d rather see a workfare system Privatise medicare/social security - Yeah, like Chili would be cool. GW has my support here. Expand the executive powers of the federal government. – Nope. I like less power in govt. Increase defense budget - I think we’ve leveled out here from the Clinton cuts Pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage – You bet, things that are ambiguous need definitions. Restrict abortion – eliminate would be nice. Leave something in there for life of the mother though, but make that real strict so it can’t be abused.
Your list is sort of conservative in general. What does the def say about neo-con itself: Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives are characterized by an aggressive stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government.
Sure I like to be aggressive on the war on terror. The social thing goes out the window with the marriage and abortion issue. And wouldn’t privatizing SSI help make govt smaller?
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The core difference, Scott, is this: neo-conservatives are actually authoritarian, and do not necessarily believe that government should be restricted provided that it is the RIGHT SORT of government.
OSC is a neo-con, for example.
--------
"And wouldn’t privatizing SSI help make govt smaller?"
Not in and of itself, no. Bush's plan actually makes government considerably bigger over the next thirty years.
quote:"We got a razor-thin majority vote in the last election so now we can do whatever we want and anyone who disagrees with us is trying to destroy America."
I don't know that I'd call it 'razor thin,' adam. That's a bit of hyperbole, don't you think?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, razor thin is pretty close. It was a better margin of victory than the last one, which was so close that a lot of people still feel Bush should have lost, but by historic standards it was one of the smallest percentage victories.
I would have a problem with the Dems if they had won by the same majority and clamed a mandate.
posted
Gut Welfare--Instead of feeding the hungry, we are feeding the Thin.
I heard Neo-Con are ex-liberals who see their same goals attainable in a conservative framework--specifically in a foriegn affairs context. They don't care about gay marriage or abortion. They want to spread American style democracy and the power of the free markets around the world, and believe the use of American muscle, force, and military, is a viable and perhaps preferred option.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Expand the executive powers of the federal government
Do you mean of the Federal Government Executive (which I'd argue is the case) or the power of the government in general (which I'd say is not officially the case)?
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jay, I don't mean to nitpick (actually, I do), but it's Chile. Chile is a country, chili is a food.
I wouldn't have brought it up, but I've seen you do that twice. Please don't take offense, as none was meant.
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the entire history of the American voting system, President Bush got more votes than any other person--ever.
But the Senator Kerry got the 2nd largest number of votes, ever, including all the previous winners.
More people voted for Senator Kerry than for President Bush during his first presidential election.
So while some Republicans on TV and the Radio spout how great their mandate is, and the Democrats should just pack it in and become Republicans, there is a large number of people out there who disagree with President Bush, and with other Republicans. They may not be represented well in congress at the moment, but that can and probably will change.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The mandate issue is always misleading. The number of votes is irrelevant.
Bush should push his agenda - he's president. Individual members of Congress should support or oppose individual elements of his agenda based on their policy leanings. Both sides should compromise when neither can carry the vote on their own.
That's why we have a legislature separate from the executive.
posted
*shakes head in sorrow at the fact that people once again argue over what they do not understand*
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The mandate issue is always misleading. The number of votes is irrelevant.
Bush should push his agenda - he's president. Individual members of Congress should support or oppose individual elements of his agenda based on their policy leanings. Both sides should compromise when neither can carry the vote on their own.
That's why we have a legislature separate from the executive.
I am glad I never have to remember why I like you, Dag.
quote:Of course, Bush never called "called everyone who disagreed with him unamerican," either.
No, he had Cheney do it, all over the news.
Funny, all I heard from Republicans when Clinton won was griping, too.
It isn't about Bush and Kerry...it is about how some people seem to think they have a complete, unwavering picture of what all of the US wants, when in reality we are a very diverse group of people...we don't all want the same things.
So what we do is discuss things, and come to a working compromise.
But now simply disagreeing is supposedly endangering the whole country. So no more voting you conscience...you have to support what the government says...look at everything that was was said about the 13 ( I think) Congressmen who objected to Rice's confirmation.
It isn't about sour grapes..at lest that isn't all of it...but the very things that led a lot of people to become dissatisfied with the current administration are still happening, but whenever someone tries to bring some of the points up for discussion it is labeled sour grapes.
Take Jay for instance...he has not been very long, but he has said over and over again that he is tired of the Dems whining...that they lost, so they should shut up.
That doesn't meant that they have no say in the issues anymore, though...if anything they need to speak more than before, for fear of being marginalized.
That isn't the way a democracy is run.
Dag, there were TONS of times that very word, unamerican, was used in those circumstances. I saw many major players in the Bush administration say those very words on TV...that any questions about he war would be viewed as weakness, and that the need for a united front was more important that questioning the accuracy of the Intel or the motivation for going to war.
That is part of what got us into this mess in the first place. A lot of people agreed with that...and it way have been true, at least at first. But how long are people not suppose to question the facts?
I even heard a lot of grumbling about the Congress confirmation hearings, and the people who voted against Rice....never mind that that is their JOB. Once again, I heard them called unamerican, and that they were aiding terrorists by dissenting.
If anyone has the right to dissent or question, they do. It is what we pay them to do. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kwea, even under your more explicit explanation, you haven't said that Bush or his agents has said that everyone who disagrees with him is unamerican.
At best, you've supported the conclusion that he said everyone who disagrees with him about particular issues is unamerican, which I still dispute, but is an entirely different proposition.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Whereas the rest of us are glad we will never have to be afraid of what Tom Davidson would do if he were in power with a majority following."
Leaving aside the question of whom, exactly, you're speaking for, I'd like to hear what you think I'd do if I were in power with a majority following. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Not that I was a big Clinton supporter...I wasn't, really...and he isn't the best example for this either.
But his data was easy to find, and I have to go to work.
I understand that Bush won the election...I even understnd some of the reasons why.
But I wouldn't allow any candidate, even one I had voted for, a mandate, nor would I be calling people who disagree with him unamerican.
I think a balance is the best way to go, that either party winning a complete and utter victory would be a disaster. There are some isues that have to be one way or another, with no middle ground, but most issues have some "wiggle room" so to speak.
And if anyone thinks that calling me a name is going to shut me up if I feel strongly about something, they haven't been here long enough to know me very well.... (Not directed at anyone in particular, rather just mocking the recent trend in politics to do just that... )
quote:Do you mean of the Federal Government Executive (which I'd argue is the case) or the power of the government in general (which I'd say is not officially the case)?
quote: When opposing groups want opposite things, coming to a compromise is a sure way to make no one happy, as opposed to making at least some people happy.
There was a famous set of quotes that applies to this...I have to run to work, so I can't provide the documentation..so if I misrepresent it, please feel free to correct me...
I believe it was Thoreau and Emerson....
Henry said something similar about compromise, and that if one person felt strongly about an issue and the other didn't rather than making both sides equally unhappy the person who didn't feel as strong about the issue should give way...at least that would make one of them happy.
Emerson replied that in his experience, all that did was encourage ignorant people to hold strong opinions about everything.
I will try to track the exact quotes down sometime, but that has always been one of my favorite quotes.
Also, I wasn't insulting Bush...other than by having an opinion other than his, that is...so show me where I was calling him names.
Or retract that statement.
I wasn't trying to call anyone a name, I was trying to show how this bothered me. I don;t understand how expressing an opinion other than the Presidents can be unamerican, and that is exactly what it was being called.
Dag, first it was on the war, then the same argument was used against anyone who questioned the Intel...and BTW they were right to question, weren't they, as it was almost all faulty...
Now it is being used against Congressmen who are doing nothing more than their elected job. I have even heard people question their RIGHT to vote against Rice, and one person even said they should be arrested for aiding and abetting terrorists! Their job in hearings like that is to question, and they are allowed, evn required, to express their approval of disapproval. Why even have hearings if no one is allowed to say no?
Where does it stop? In 20 years, when Iraq is still killing Americans? Or will it be unamerican then too?
I am not saying that any person fits this description, but I have seen and heard this crap on the news, and that scares me. I got the chills when Cheney told GMA that disagreement was unamerican, and anyone protesting was giving aid to terrorists... remember they had just passed a law against aiding terrorists.... so how far of a stretch would it be for them to begin arresting protesters?
Not that I think that will happen, but that is the logical conclusion of that train of thought....which is why I so strongly disagree with it.
And ultimately why I reluctantly support this couples right to hang a political statement, even one I disagree with (maybe even particularly one I disagree with) from their own roof.
See? It DOES all tie in, it wasn't really that bad of a tangent!
posted
As an undergrad, I was on a panel on culture, government funding of the arts, and religion in the public forum. Someone showed a picture of a painting of Uncle Sam standing on a heap of dead women with an American flag, the point being to protest government policies that killed women. Somehow government funding was involved.
I asked them how comfortable they would be with government funding for a painting of Molly Yard holding a N.O.W. flag on a heap of aborted fetuses. They weren't pleased with the concept. Some said it should be eligible, but several said that would be funding a "religious" view and so would be unacceptable.
quote: Take Jay for instance...he has not been very long, but he has said over and over again that he is tired of the Dems whining...that they lost, so they should shut up.
I have? I thought I was more in the line of defending and supportive of Bush then anything else.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I thought I was more in the line of defending and supportive of Bush then anything else."
Jay, it's certainly seemed to me that your approach has so far been along the lines of "the best defense is a good offense."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice Wiki, Elizabeth. I'll probably return to that website often.
What's funny, yet irritating, is hearing neo-cons trumpet ad nauseam about the crusade to bring democracy to Iraq and other tyrannies, while Strauss, whose philosophy is one of the cornerstones of neo-conservatism, was anything but democratic, but rather an elitist. Strauss has a number of admirers, both in the administration and in the neo-con movement in general. He seems like a modern day Machiavelli or Nietzsche to me, or perhaps Rand, with some disturbingly anti-democratic views.
quote: He was widely known for his argument that the works of Western philosophers up to Machiavelli can be read at two different levels: an exoteric level that may be quite conventional, and an esoteric level that contains potentially dangerous truths that could destablize society. The substance of [the] esoteric level should be entrusted to a select few, while the exoteric level is suitable for the masses.
Hmmm, I wonder who decides who should be "entrusted" with the secret knowledge, while all us poor schlubs are kept in the dark (for our own good, of course, we wouldn't want any societal destablization if any ugly truths got out), shut up and do as we're told.
quote:According to ... Jim Lobe ..., Strauss believed the world to be a place where policy advisers may have to deceive their own publics and even their rulers in order to protect their countries
Shadia Drury of the University of Calgary, ... says "... Perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical (in Strauss's view) because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what's good for them"
According to Drury, ...Strauss thought that "those who are fit to rule are those who realise there is no morality and that there is only one natural right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior."
Portions replaced by ... for brevity. Deception and amoral power are the themes in Strauss' philosophy. One reason I find him so sickening and repellant as a political philosopher.
posted
No, I don't. I haven't tried to read any of his work because I don't like elitists. I don't feel I have misrepresented Strauss. He is well-known for the "hidden meaning" thesis, I have heard of that for several years, from a variety of sources. This is attributed to one of his students:
quote:According to Robert Locke, who studied under Professor Strauss, he was an atheist and the purveyor of an esoteric philosophy which was critical of liberalism but supported Machiavellian deception and a ruling elite.
quote: Strauss wrote an influential critique of modern political philosophy, i.e., philosophy since Machiavelli, arguing that it suffers from an inability to make value judgments about political regimes, even about obviously odious ones.
"We need honest, reasoned debate, and not fear-mongering. To those who pit Americans against immigrants and citizens against non- citizens, to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of goodwill to remain silent in the face of evil. "
That's the one, I believe that kicked off the "if you question us you're helping the terrorists" brouhaha. Most of the attendent outcry was, in my opinion, media-generated. But it was materially assisted by Mr. Bush's perceived disconnect from any facts which contradict existing policies and the Bush administration's known proclivities for secrecy and clamping down on dissent inside the administration itself.
[ February 11, 2005, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
