Talk:Neoconservatism

Some neoconservatives also call themselves "paleo-liberals". Jaques 05:17, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Besides Michael Bloomberg, Ronald Reagan, Phil Gramm, Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and many others, were also members of the Democratic Party before they became Republicans.Needleman 18:37, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Europe-based Neo-conservativism

I have a problem here which arose in one biographical article about a Canadian-Finnish neo-conservative. Based on the written material, this person promotes a neo-conservativism based on Classicial (European) Conservativism. When I compare with this existing article, I note that this European variant is more socially conservative and less "revolutionary". Njalsson of my article has written that he is "allergic the idea of revolutions in general, either right wing or left wing" and in many questions which religious conservatives of the US take immediate stances on, he says "it depends, let's look at the facts and at both sides of the case".

So it appears that there may be a major difference between European and American Neo-conservativism in both origin and the fact that they are based upon very different "conservativisms". Should we create two categories or branches of Neo-conservativism? --ExFin 22:11, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm genuinely confused

I'm not sure I understand the difference between a neocon and a conservative. Bush is supposed to be a neocon, but I don't think he was ever a liberal. Also, the current administration is in no way atheistic (see stem cells and faith-based initiatives) nor is it socially libertarian (abortion, same-sex marraige, and the Patriot Act). Does the definition of neocon need work, or am I wrong in thinking Bush is a neocon? HelpJazz 11:55, 7 February 2008 (EST)

You are right, this article is a mess. The Bush administration was ran by neoconservatives.--Walker 23:31, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Neocons on Social Conservativism

For the record, and I don't think this was on purpose, neoconservative social views stem largely from the work of Strauss and his students, and are a form of secular based social conservativism. I happen to be a neocon so I know.--jfraatz

Neocons and George W. Bush

Neocons dominated only George W. Bush's foreign policy, and only after 9/11. They did not support his winning of the primary in 2000 and no influence over his all-important nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court.--Andy Schlafly 01:07, 26 April 2010 (EDT)

Bush was a neocon. It's hard to say they didn't dominate his presidency if he himself was one. This article just seems to convey a poor understanding of neoconservatism.

No, you're not correct. I encourage you to read more here with an open mind. The Neocons preferred McCain over Bush in 2000, and the neocons struck out when Bush made his nominations to the Supreme Court.--Andy Schlafly 13:40, 26 April 2010 (EDT)

True that McCain was more of a Neocon than Bush but the Paleocons supported Pat Buchanan.Benny1986 20:59, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

True, but by Election Day most conservatives were supporting Bush. Unfortunately, Bush did not have a strong political philosophy so he could be good on some issues (like the Supreme Court and American sovereignty) but then not so good on others.--Andy Schlafly 21:08, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

I question the inclusion of Daniel Pipes on the list of neocons. Here he is in April 2003 arguing against nations-building and the view that Iraq is ready for democracy [1] and again in Oct 2003 against occupation [2]. In both cases he is pushing the administration to reduce nations-building ambitions and get out. I suspect that Pipes is labeled a neocon by leftists for the same reason many others were -- "guilt by association." JasonNYC 08:27, 14 May 2012 (EDT)

It says Alan Keyes was a student of Strauss, but he really doesn't fit the neocon mold, he is very strong especially on social issues. Benny1986 20:31, 2 June 2013 (EDT)

Something critically wrong with this article

Or atleast as I believe. Neo-conservatism is indeed conservatism, just not the mainstream movement. I'm not comparing Conservatives to Nazis, but Neo-Nazism is indeed a branch of Nazism; it's just an offshoot. Maybe the page could be edited accordingly? Whiterose (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2017 (EDT)

It may be considered a form of conservatism, but people's perceptions of it as conservatism does not make it conservatism. I think our article Conservative accurately describes what conservatism is (or at least what it should be). Neoconservatism does not agree with or does not feel strongly on many conservative principles. I think one could accurately call it "big government conservatism" or "perverted conservatism." A form of conservatism, but not truly conservative. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2017 (EDT)

Well stated indeed.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2017 (EDT)

Neocons have nothing in common with traditional social or economic conservatives, other than support for defense spending. They are exclusively concerned with national security. They represented a break with the traditional commie-dominated peaceniks of the Democratic party. With the rise of Clintonism and the Obama administrations complete subversion of the Deep State to serve globalist interests, many have returned home to the Democratic party. They don't have a new label yet, other than "Patriotic Democrats".

It's a waste of time to even try and fit this group in with either party's traditional social & economic positions, other than support for military industrial complex. They're not really even a voting block, and, no one considers them as such. They are for the most part a group of foreign policy experts. At one time they were considered non-partisan, but they've aroused so much opposition in both parties, they weigh on media allies more and more to fight back. They don't amount to more than a few thousand at best, and they idea of making a voting constituency of them is ludicrous. RobS^{The coup plotters are going down} 22:23, 22 April 2017 (EDT)

Is it a neo-con position to advocate going to war with Germany if it continues its increasingly aggressive European integration efforts?

In the talk section of another article, I pointed out that Germany has been conspiring to have the EU force its members to merge their armed forces into one gigantic European Army under German command -- which would essentially be the moment the EU bureaucrats finally destroy the sovereignty of European nations and create the federal Europe they have always wanted.

I then stated that such a move by Germany would result in a war between Germany and the United States, because the United States will not tolerate globalist entities such as the EU -- through fiat -- carving countries out of the American sphere of influence and then turning them into vassal states of an un-elected bureaucracy.

Apparently, at least one high-profile user on this site believes that responding to aggressive European integration efforts with military force is a neo-con position. Apparently, that user believes that it is possible to go too far in opposing globalism, and if you go too far, you are a neo-con.

Can someone please explain to me the logic behind that way of thinking, please? Because I'm lost. --James Kardys (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2018 (EDT)

Put the crack pipe down. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 00:02, 22 April 2018 (EDT)

Okay, then. Tell me. If and when the EU forces all of its members to have their armies integrated into one fighting force that will be used to make sure those members lose their sovereignty for good and are never able to break free from the psychotic tyranny that is the Brussels-Berlin axis, how should America respond?

Should it do nothing as its sphere of influence in Europe is rapidly destroyed, and a globalist European superstate that is powerful enough to threaten America's sphere of influence in its own backyard enters the world stage? Should it attempt to peacefully co-exist with that globalist European superstate?

Should it celebrate the formation of that globalist European superstate because it means we would no longer have an obligation to protect Europe?

Should it resort to economic or diplomatic action in hope that this globalist European superstate could be successfully contained like the USSR?

What ought America do in the event of something that would be the worst nightmare of many anti-globalists, especially those in Europe? --James Kardys (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2018 (EDT)