.........
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.
....
Nationalists who wish to secure American dominance abroad (even if to promote a sort of benevolent hegemony through the free market and notions of liberal democracy) are conservative. The American Conservative has had a tendency to promote the notion that paleoconservatism is mostly the only acceptable grouping that can be defined as conservatism.
Define neocon, there is more than one conception as the term has twisted and turned through history. Personally, I prefer the term 'geolib'.
I prefer working in their realm. In the late 1990s, many of the neoconservatives people now recognize as being neoconservative actually sought to differentiate themselves from both the domestic policy neoconservatism and the foreign policy neoconservatives since the 1960s. In the post-Cold War world, the goal was to take advantage of the unipolar moment in global affairs by going after rogue states that both oppose American values (liberal democracy) and harm the national interest. They took it upon themselves to define themselves in relation to what they thought was a key feature of the Reagan administration's foreign policy, but redefined for the new age. Hence, "Neo-Reaganite" was born. The term did not stick, because many neoconservatives themselves were Neo-Reaganites, were actually related to neoconservatives, or were seen as a new or odd amalgam in the conservative world. Neoconservative thus had yet another general mold to add to its already confusing history.
Compassionate Conservatives.Of course they are. Just because the NeoCon label has become negative because of Iraq, Bush, the crisis, does not change the fact that they are conservatives... fallen conservatives maybe, but never the less conservatives.
Instead of insisting others provide you with the definition (which you can then deny infinitely), go ahead and find a definition you agree with.I don't accept nationalism as an aspect of neocon, as I interpret it to mean geolib and a fundamental internationalism conflicts with nationalism; patriotism (subjective) perhaps. Of course, I don't consider Bush2 a neocon domestically (maybe from an international perspective).
I would be willing, nonetheless, to engage in the thread topic under a definition of neocon specified by the OP poster or another. You see I need that definition to establish a meaningful parameter.
How about a definition in a sentence or two.
If I were to set the definition, it would be: A hawk libertarian.
That is not a definition.How about a definition in a sentence or two.
If I were to set the definition, it would be: A hawk libertarian. (See edits to my post you quoted)
Instead of insisting others provide you with the definition (which you can then deny infinitely), go ahead and find a definition you agree with.
A definition of these foreign policy neoconservatives in the late 90's? A rough conceptualization:
Neo-Reganite Conservative (or Neo-Reaganite Neoconservative): A conservative primarily concerned with maintaining American hegemony with free markets while simultaneously promoting liberal democratic values in rogue states, through force if necessary to secure the national interest.
Free markets contradict liberal democratic values?
That is not a definition.
Compassionate Conservatives.
They were so not conservative, they had to make up a new name.
The rapid expansion of government tipped their hand.
Compassionate Conservatives.
They were so not conservative, they had to make up a new name.
The rapid expansion of government tipped their hand.
Markets is an important component, but attached is concerns of genocide, imprisonment, closed borders, free speech, and so on.
Is economic freedom not speech?
It is, but it isn't the whole of speech.
Here's an interesting piece from the American Conservative:
What’s a Neoconservative? | The American Conservative
According to this author, the neoconservative view of America policing the world to rid it of evil is not really traditional conservative value, but rather a liberal one:
So, to quote a message board MC, what say ye? Are the neocons really conservatives?
All you have done is to demand other cite definition, offer catchy terms (geolib!) and single aspect descriptions. If you consider yourself a neocon, yet cannot offer a self definition.....don't talk to me about offering something.I already did, extensively; perhaps re-read the thread. I'm offering to engage in the topic of the OP give another's definition.
Do you have anything to offer?
one or 3 word catch phrases ARE NOT "conceptualizing" or defining. All you have done is engaged in semantic nonsense.Yes, it is. It's mine. I do not demand you accept my conceptualization of 'neocon'. Are you here to complain or debate?
one or 3 word catch phrases ARE NOT "conceptualizing" or defining. All you have done is engaged in semantic nonsense.
Here's an interesting piece from the American Conservative:
What’s a Neoconservative? | The American Conservative
According to this author, the neoconservative view of America policing the world to rid it of evil is not really traditional conservative value, but rather a liberal one:
So, to quote a message board MC, what say ye? Are the neocons really conservatives?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?