Difference between revisions of "Talk:Neoconservatism"
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
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.[[User:Needleman|Needleman]] 18:37, 18 August 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.[[User:Needleman|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". [[Gunnar K. A. Njalsson|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 be create two categories of branches of Neo-conservativism? | ||
| + | --[[User:ExFin|ExFin]] 22:11, 11 October 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 02:11, October 12, 2007
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 be create two categories of branches of Neo-conservativism? --ExFin 22:11, 11 October 2007 (EDT)