What's a neocon?

The left loves to hurl this term around as an insult. I would like to know the true definition of "neocon".

 

I'm wondering what is a paleo-con, libertarian, classical liberal, modern liberal and conservative and how many kinds of conservatives are there?

Lots of terms get thrown around these days - they are as abundent as species of drosiphilla.

 

The term neo-con probably sounds severe due to the fact that the word neo has been used in the past as in Neo-Nazi.

There's a long boring explanation of the evolution of the word itself in regard to American politics but it is now generally meant to just mean "ultra" something.

Neo-con is really just a short labeling of the words ultra-conservative.

If there is a reason why any conservatives take it as an insult at being called neo-cons it probably has to do with their point of view that they are not "ultra" anything... they believe their stance is mainstream.

(you all know when I said "stance" I had a "wide stance" joke to throw in there... but I didn't... see I'm trying!)

 

That isn't entirely accurate. Neocons tend to favor the use of bigger government to deal with their issues, which doesn't fit under most peoples' definition of "ultra-conservative."

Generally speaking, neocons tend to favor social conservatism (on such issues as gay rights) and military spending (PNAC is considered the "original" neocon think tank by many).

I like to think of neocons as self-hating liberals.

 

As far as I know, paleocons are the old school, Edmund Burke conservatives on crack. Justinian was a paleocon.

Libertarians favor as minimalistic a government as possible (although their definition of "as possible" will probably differ from yours).

Classical liberal is a term I've heard most commonly applied to the founding fathers of America. Their ideology mixed modern liberalism's love of progressivism and modern conservatism's love of personal responsibility.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
I will warn that this is a disputed article. Without bothering to much into the merits of that link.
The first use I became aware of with neo-con, was the group who got GWB elected in 2000.
To me it boils down to the theory of rejecting the Clinton policies and embracing Reagan.
The note worthy part of this statement is that the Bush neo-cons have been far from Reaganesque.

From the link:
It influenced the Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and the George W. Bush presidential administrations, representing the re-alignment in American politics, and the defection of "an important and highly articulate group of liberals to the other side."[3] One accomplishment was "to make criticism from the Right acceptable in the intellectual, artistic, and journalistic circles where conservatives had long been regarded with suspicion."[3]

As a term, neoconservative first was used derisively by democratic socialist Michael Harrington to identify a group of people (who thought they were liberals) as newly simulated conservative ex-liberals. The term stuck because neoconservatives were confused with true conservative.[4]

The idea that Liberalism "no longer knew what it was talking about" is Neoconservatism's central theme.[5] By the 1980s, being considered a conservative was no longer a cultural insult.

 

vyo, I consider myself a hardcore Burkean conservatism but have nothing but contempt for paleocons. Paleocons border a little more on the kind of old-school rustbelt populist conservatism that you might have seen in the Depression era. Contemporary conservatism has more sense.

Neoconservatism defies explanation at the moment. It is neither reliably conservative nor liberal on any dimension of issues.

 

Neo cons are exactly what the term implies. New conservatives. That is, liberals who became disenchanted with the utopian dreams of liberalism and saw the light of capitalism. They didn't give up thier modern liberal leanings on most social issues, just thier viceral distrust of capitalism. They favor large government and entitlements like modern liberals, but they see capitalism as a more logical means of generating the money to pay for them. Bush's tax cut is a prime example. The revenues that have been generated as a result of cutting taxes across the board are far beyond anything ever generated by a tax hike. If not for the war, the cash flow coming into the government really could make a serious dent in the national debt and fund bush's extravagant and pointless expenditures on more failing education and his drug entitlement program.

 

That's a much better definition. I apologize if I offended you.

 

I dont have hard numbers, but I could say with confidence that if you took away the extra revenue an actual tax cut generated and looked at revenue generation over the last 8-16 years, those numbers would not matter when it comes to the spending that ocurred without check and balance under the Bush administration.

Congress, regardless of party knew for the 6 years Bush had congressional control that any line items they inserted would not be vetoed.
Spending was completely out of control under the neocon administration.

 

We often make mistakes with supreme confidence. Study a bit before you stae anything with "confidence". Record after record has been broken with regard to tax revenues coming in since the tax cuts were initiated and more money coming in always, Always, ALWAYS matters when spending is an issue.

 

None taken; I've been accused of affiliation with far less savory ideologies.

 

These are neo-cons.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/​

 

Despite what Palerider claims. I will hold true to my thoughts.
NEO-CONS are a group of people who are in power that believe in large government spending, and call still encourage individual investment.

 

Isn't that what I said?