The Difference Between Neocons and Conservatives (AKA Wake Up people.)

Okay, I have grown tired of all this Neocon/Conservative/Liberal mumbo jumbo and I am going to clear this up right NOW!

First off there is a huge demographic of people here on ATS that have no idea what they are talking about when they start talking about the Neocon agenda and the Conservative agenda.

Point 1:

Neocons are not Conservatives

Neocon: New Conservative
ne⋅o⋅con⋅serv⋅a⋅tism
  /ˌnioʊkənˈsɜrvəˌtɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [nee-oh-kuhn-sur-vuh-tiz-uhm]
–noun
1. moderate political conservatism espoused (to make one's own; adopt or embrace, as a cause) or advocated by former liberals or socialists.


Wait wait wait! Neoconservatives are (Oh my god...) Socialists?
Neocon: New Conservative: Socialist


so⋅cial⋅ism
  /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Marx⋅ism
  /ˈmɑrksɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mahrk-siz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, esp. the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.

Neocon: New Conservative: Socialist: Marxist


Okay I bet you're wondering what I am getting at here? Why would Neoconservatives paint themselves in such a shiny coat of paint?
Well, to trick you of course! They dont care about the people. Socialism is a great theory on paper but when you get right down to it there will be someone trying to skew it to their own means. Someone who wants all the power for themselves.
Neocon: Tyrant

Neoconservatives are men and women running around with this title to confuse you into thinking they have your best interests in mind. The truth is their counterpart, The Conservatives, really do have your best interests in mind.
Dont understand this? Ron Paul is about as conservative as you can get.

Point 2:

Conservatives are good

con⋅serv⋅a⋅tive
  /kənˈsɜrvətɪv/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Show IPA
–adjective
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4. (often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.
6. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.
7. Mathematics. (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar.
–noun
8. a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
9. a supporter of conservative political policies.
10. (initial capital letter) a member of a conservative political party, esp. the Conservative party in Great Britain.
11. a preservative.

Do take notice that..."Strictly speaking, conservatism is not a political system, but rather a way of looking at the civil order. The conservative of Peru ... will differ greatly from those of Australia, for though they may share a preference for things established, the institutions and customs which they desire to preserve are not identical." [Russell Kirk (1918-1994)]

Conservative: Preserver

True Conservatives wish to, in a political venue, keep things the same. They do not want change. They do not want larger government. They want smaller government.

It is extremely hard to find a true Conservative. The absolute best way to describe this is:

Real Republicans, take note: There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between “Conservative Republican Values” and “Neo-Conservative Values.”

Conservative Republicans: STRONGLY favor protecting our civil liberties - Truly American


Neo-Conservatives: See our civil liberties as an unnecessary restriction on government power.

Conservative Republicans: STRONGLY favor a smaller, less intrusive government- Truly American


Neo-Conservatives: Are Willing to spend money (and expand government reach) without restraint, provided it helps them further their agenda.

Conservative Republicans: STRONGLY favor Fiscal Responsibility and reducing taxes - GOOD FOR AMERICA


Neo-Conservatives: Fool the public into thinking a “tax cut” (Paid for with PRINTED MONEY) is actually beneficial, hiding the fact that it amounts to little more than a loan that the taxpayer (or their children) will have to repay WITH INTEREST.

RonPaulWarRoom



Does that clear things up any? I hope it has.

Notice: The above topic can be construed in many different ways. I am for smaller government with less power, therefore bias toward Conservatives.

Edit:



[edit on 6/9/2009 by Tentickles]

Mod Edit: Title changed to remove profanity and retain ATS standards on thread titles.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by worldwatcher]

Thank you for putting this out there. I'm truly tired of folks throwing the improper labels around. People who shout "Bush spent more than Obama has, and HE was a conservative"! That's crap, and hopefully after reading this they will understand that. Bush was a NeoCon. Plain and simple. You're right, Ron Paul is about as Conservative you can get without being stifling. There is a point in which you have to lean liberally in order to progress.

Unfortunately what worked in the 1700's wouldn't work today, but that's OK. The goal of the true conservative is to keep things as close and free as possible, without holding back the progress of America.

I'd also just like to point out, just because a Conservative calls for debate or moratorium on a topic doesn't mean that they are against that topic. It just means we don't like to rush in to things half assed. We truly believe that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and I don't see a thing wrong with spending a million dollars on a study to find out if a proposal would work. A million dollars finding out, or 10 million spent to run a failed program, or to, worse, revamp it. What sounds more fiscally responsible to you?

I've also noticed Conservatives are much more likely to pull the plug on a failed program as opposed to Liberals who just want to change aspects of it. It's like they refuse to give up a power once it's given. They will hold on and try to sell the public a polished turd of a project saying, "If we do this, the whole thing will come together" instead of just letting a sick horse die. They constantly pump money into it and once they realize they are beating a dead horse, they raise the volume on a different issue, and let the first one fade into the background. Never really fixing anything, and keeping a money drain working. Conservatives would rather plug that hole and move on trying to find something that WILL work.

Good post, Stars for you!

reply to post by midnightbrigade


Absolute power absolutely corrupts and when you believe you're right 24/7 it's hard to accept that you were wrong in the first place.

Another good informative thread ...

Now if someone will explain where to find the presidents public docs so I can read them and know more about him ... that'll rock.

Top = Bump + (S&F)

Long live the FAR-LEFT !!!

Conservatives live in the past, they have this weird idea of a 1950's utophia...they do not want to progress...that is NOT good

Nice attempt but it wont matter. Anyone who doesnt get it by now is either too far gone to ever get it or is intentionally not getting it so they can keep dragging it out in their losing arguments.

It's like 'racist' in the arena of the imbecile. . Whoever labels the other with it the fastest wins.

Case in point the post above mine.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by thisguyrighthere]

I think Deninnger might be reading my posts...

You folks in The Republican Party seem to have forgotten that "conservative" does not mean simply shooting terrorists.

It also includes:

*
Locking down the goddamn southern border and deporting the illegal immigrants, along with arresting all their employers, instead of sucking off your corporate bribery sources who want illegal immigrant labor because they can cheat the tax man, pay less than minimum wage, and screw those who want to come to America legally, thereby destroying the wage base of this country and the tax base at the same time, pocketing the difference.
*
NOT bailing out the failed. When you come to The SEC and ask for leverage limits to be removed and then blow up as a consequence the proper remedy for that sort of stupidity is called BANKRUPTCY.
*
NOT spending more than you make. Medicare Part "D" anyone? Kennedy's education bill anyone? You want to spend more, you figure out how to obtain the revenue to do so.
*
NOT ordering states to stand down in their protection of citizens from predatory lending, never mind the OIG's report showing that under Bush's government OTS actively conspired with thrifts to commit accounting fraud and thereby cost the FDIC insurance fund more than 2/3rds of its funds!

In short, The Republican Party has become the party of fraud and abuse.

Republican Irrelevance

I'm surprised people arnt more interested in this considering the heated debates we often get into over it.

reply to post by Next_Heap_With


All the bureaucratic, lackluster, unproductive, and downright pointless institutions imposed on this country by neoconservatives, false moderates, and the "far left" have proven to be the straw that broke the camels back. You shouldn't be "far left" based on who you are against or by what somebody who you "support" believes, but should always adhere to a moderate perspective to ensure that you're not swallowing any partisan bias.

That's too much to ask in America, I know.

Im waiting for Southern Guardian and a few others to show up and tear you apart....they use this word , and others like its some kinda cool new catch phrase that makes their posts seem more credible.....


I appreciate you putting this out there, and I have explained on many occasions just what a neocon is to people , I hope they get it, but i dont think they are going to.

However, just because some people might not understand doesnt mean we stop informing people right? That would defeat the purpose!

Star and flag

P.s. Next_Heap_With

Isnt it the far left that wants this Utopia? You know, spread the wealth, let the goverment take care of you, everyone on equal ground, healthcare for everyone..... whats the definition of that?

I was shocked when I found out how "conservative" somebody would consider me knowing my political beliefs. Growing up, I always aligned (mistake) myself with Democrats or left leaning moderates, but I found a weakness in my political ideology, and it was that I wasn't more critical of the people I supported and of myself for being such a follower.

Conservatism is a simple, pure, and sensible thing.

If practiced, you wouldn't see the kind of exuberant spending from neo-conservative Republicans and the flock that is the current Democratic house.

People want to talk about how "old" or "dated" it is, and I just have to say to them...

Was it true conservatism that got us into this mess?

No, it's not. It's the opposite.

I won't call myself a Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, etc...

That's all Bull#!

I am diligent in my research and adhere to no political party and MOST critical of the men and women in government who I believe are trying their best to get back to the basics and are actually fighting for the little guy.

Alliances won't get us anywhere but in an argument. The common good is far more important than partisanship.

I think OP is silly, GWB identifies himself as a CONSERVATIVE

+

CONSERVATIVE America Idenetified with "W" enough to vote him in two times - on mass

+

The CONSERVATIVE party (GOP) nominated GWB as its nominee

Seems like OP got the initial neocon definition from an institution that wants to reframe the insult BUSH was to this country and blame it on the left (voted in by conservative socialists ).

Heres a different definition -

www.thefreedictionary.com...


ne·o·con·ser·va·tism also ne·o-con·ser·va·tism (n-kn-sûrv-tzm)
n.
An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s: "The neo-conservatism of the 1980s is a replay of the New Conservatism of the 1950s, which was itself a replay of the New Era philosophy of the 1920s" Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.

Once again another definition - Once AGAIN NOTHING LIKE THE OP's -
in fact contrary to the OP's "definition"

www.yourdictionary.com...


☆ neo·con·ser·va·tive (-kən sʉr′və tiv)
adjective
designating or of an intellectual, political movement that evolved in the late 1970s in reaction to liberal and leftist thought, advocating individualism (senses & ), traditional moral standards, anti-Communist foreign policy, etc.

OP PLEASE LINK YOUR DEFINITION ie ... RAND institute - FOX news...

In general definition is nothing - Conservatives voted for it, voted for again, rallied behind it...



[edit on 10-6-2009 by mental modulator]

Originally posted by Tentickles
I'm surprised people arnt more interested in this considering the heated debates we often get into over it.

I am interested in why you chose the only definition I have seen that equates neocons
with socialists - I have looked at four other definitions mind you.

The neocon split from classical liberalism half a decade ago - in the 70 - 80s neocons were anti communist - hence arming the Afghan resistance and IRAQ which was an attempt to
halt and defeat communism, a socialist cousin.Yet OP claims that neocons are in favor of socialist ideals, which is FALSE.

Rumsfeld and Chenny Both "neocons" set up the deals with jihad elements in order to,
once again destroy socialism/communism...

WE DON"T WANT HIM - Neocons are not some dead critter you can toss at the other guy and "say not it..."

I will OP this correctly one day, this one is off (rare for the author)



[edit on 10-6-2009 by mental modulator]

reply to post by mental modulator


They did.

The "conservative" movement voted for a man who ran on the promise to butt out of foreign affairs, to scale back government, and to scale back the national debt.

They bought it hook, line, and sinker, but what is the reality of that? He started two wars on false pretenses, spent the surplus, and handed our country over to his banker buddies.

The second election turned into a Republican/Democrat affair, which only caused further detriment to our country. You have firstly, the idiots who made it that way, and secondly, the media.

Just because "conservatives" screwed it up with Bush doesn't make liberalism correct by proxy. All the Democratic house did when they had the power was enable George Bush to do whatever he wanted anyway with Pelosi at the helm.

They are my friend, one in the same.

reply to post by mental modulator


So because someone runs on a "conservative" campaign it means he really IS conservative?

Come on man, i thought you were smarter than this

I know alot of people who voted for Obama, because he was a democrat.....hmmm same story there too? Cause they sure as HELL say they didnt get what they thought they voted for.

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


Wrong wrong wrong. Bush got voted in as a conservative because he was more conservative than his opponents -- Al Gore and then John Kerry. So yes America did pick the more conservative candidate. That does not mean Bush was spot on with his conservative ideals and beliefs.

And yes you are right, Bush abandoned the conservative agenda while in office. So a Republican shouldn't' vote conservative again? Riiiight.

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by mental modulator

 

So because someone runs on a "conservative" campaign it means he really IS conservative?

Come on man, i thought you were smarter than this

I know alot of people who voted for Obama, because he was a democrat.....hmmm same story there too? Cause they sure as HELL say they didnt get what they thought they voted for.

But twice man ??? TWO TIMES ???

Do you think four years would have been enough time to decide this?

I think it is an excuse for many - I know many conservatives who LOVED Bush

but now, when his legacy makes for poor press, he is dropped and labeled SOCIALIST???
Come on man, I know your work as well and you are smarter than that.

Bush might have been the wrong brand for your liking - but he was not a socialist
and he did not practice any LEFTY tenets or doctrine...


HE was incompetent -

reply to post by mental modulator


Oh trust me man i feel ya! I couldnt believe it took two tries to figure it out for a lot of people too!

I did like bush, until he started making bad decisions worse and not taking care of business.

He definitely fell away from his conservative voters, and like you for the LIFE of me i cant figure out how he got a second term.

I see where you are coming from and i think the last sentence of your post summed it up quite nicely!

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by mental modulator

 

They did.

The "conservative" movement voted for a man who ran on the promise to butt out of foreign affairs, to scale back government, and to scale back the national debt.

They bought it hook, line, and sinker, but what is the reality of that? He started two wars on false pretenses, spent the surplus, and handed our country over to his banker buddies.

The second election turned into a Republican/Democrat affair, which only caused further detriment to our country. You have firstly, the idiots who made it that way, and secondly, the media.

Just because "conservatives" screwed it up with Bush doesn't make liberalism correct by proxy. All the Democratic house did when they had the power was enable George Bush to do whatever he wanted anyway with Pelosi at the helm.

They are my friend, one in the same.

Well if you haven't noticed by now it is the constant back and forth of conservatism and liberalism that keeps this country going...

Heck was Ronald Reagan a conservative???

Was he?

Well he filled his ranks with "NEOCONS" that he hired on

Just look at all the GOP presidents since Nixon = plenty of these so called not conservative staffers working for GOP presidents- shaping CONSERVATIVE foreign and domestic policy...

and I disagree the ideologies couldn't be different

the implication and "friends" may be the same - BUT do not be fooled into thinking
both ideas and thoughts that motivate the ideas are the same- that is a mistake...

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


Further more the DEM/GOP split represents the values and views of the populace.

It might not be effective for real change or governance but what you are talking about has been in existence for all of history, literally.

The right just needs to REFLECT and REDEFINE what is represents - IN PRACTICE and DEED