Why conservatives are convervative.

[Fiddytree]

Neoconservativsm was the result of conservatives jumping ship because they felt that welfare was necessary just as neoliberalism was formed from liberals jumping ship in order to go to war on the welfare system. That is why neoconservatives refer to themselves as "compassionate conservatives".

The early neoconservatives were not conservatives jumping ship with conservatism. The dialog was with the left on two fronts: 1) They thought perhaps liberals overextended their ideas-either agreeing more with conservative viewpoints or merely stayed the same 2) The New Left and some Democratic Socialist allies began to push back against them, and argued that they could no longer be considered liberal or that the New Left was real liberalism. So to some degree, many identified as neoconservative feel like displaced Truman/Kennedy Democrats, while others who are younger may see themselves as somewhat in the "compassionate conservatism" field or somewhat moderate Republican.

 

[cpwill]

It does strike me that foreign intervention (of a humanitarian nature) is, at it's root, a much more liberal idea than it is a conservative one. I don't see anything conservative about going into a foreign country and spending billions or trillions of dollars in order to try and help them build a functioning democracy...but maybe that's just me.

well the policy is often described as "Wilsonian". that being said, for Conservatives it's a split between those who think that you have to let people suffer and grow it on their own, and those who think that those universalistic ideals (being universal) are generally ready for implementation.


but yes, there is alot of crossover with neoconservatism and earlier liberalism; which is why neocons often honor Scoop Jackson, JFK, etc.

 

[StillBallin75]

well the policy is often described as "Wilsonian". that being said, for Conservatives it's a split between those who think that you have to let people suffer and grow it on their own, and those who think that those universalistic ideals (being universal) are generally ready for implementation.


but yes, there is alot of crossover with neoconservatism and earlier liberalism; which is why neocons often honor Scoop Jackson, JFK, etc.

totally agree.

 

[Fiddytree]

well the policy is often described as "Wilsonian". that being said, for Conservatives it's a split between those who think that you have to let people suffer and grow it on their own, and those who think that those universalistic ideals (being universal) are generally ready for implementation.


but yes, there is alot of crossover with neoconservatism and earlier liberalism; which is why neocons often honor Scoop Jackson, JFK, etc.

Indeed, "Saint Jackson" as is commonly stated. However, people like Lipset were deeply democratic, but you can sense that tinge of skepticism of being able to just run with democracy without other developments taking place concurrently or prior to such systems of government that we marvel at. I was reading Political Man a bit over the past few weeks (marvelous work), it takes time to finish, but you just feel the multiple variables pouring through the pages that make one respect complexity for what it is and how difficult it must be to nail down a formula.

To take it back a bit. Perhaps we should focus on conservatism in terms of international politics, and why it may or may not bode well with certain portions of Wilsonian beliefs.

 

[CriticalThought]

The early neoconservatives were not conservatives jumping ship with conservatism. The dialog was with the left on two fronts: 1) They thought perhaps liberals overextended their ideas-either agreeing more with conservative viewpoints or merely stayed the same 2) The New Left and some Democratic Socialist allies began to push back against them, and argued that they could no longer be considered liberal or that the New Left was real liberalism. So to some degree, many identified as neoconservative feel like displaced Truman/Kennedy Democrats, while others who are younger may see themselves as somewhat in the "compassionate conservatism" field or somewhat moderate Republican.

I disagree because the political spectrum of the country is center right. Such a shift would have meant the country would have to be center left.

 

[cpwill]

I take hesitancy with extending those historical examples to a disposition that started in the 20th century. Also, while we have intervened frequently, we have also had a great deal of conflict with the act of intervention-not just because it made practical sense for a young and developing country, but also because it was in our ethos to be less willing to be much like everyone else in the world.

have you ever read Dangerous Nation?