SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: asenna1 who wrote (166555)8/1/2001 3:49:42 AM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 769667
 
As if you know anything about this......well, have your fun, at least you are confirming that I am not on the far right.......I am laying back down.......



To: asenna1 who wrote (166555)8/1/2001 6:36:55 AM
From: Neocon  Respond to of 769667
 
First, the so- called neoconservatives did not start calling themselves anything. Rather, as certain leftists writing for magazines like Commentary began increasingly to question certain elements of contemporary liberalism, like anti- anti- communism, the use of "race norming" standards, the opposition to meritocracy generally, and other things, a number of people began to characterize them as "neoconservative". At first they resisted, insisting on their socialist or liberal credentials. Many helped found groups like the Democratic Leadership Council. But as they became increasingly alienated from the left wing of the Democratic Party (post- McGovern), some embraced the label, and as they became fed up with the Carter presidency, many consented to support the Reagan challenge, sometimes accepting appointments in the Administration. Many went so far as to become Republican, although some dragged their feet.

The Clinton bid for the presidency was a crisis among neoconservatives. Some were enlisted into his campaign, as a last gasp of centrist dominance of the Democratic Party. Others found Clinton repugnant as an individual, and many had already moved too far right to trust him, especially when Hillary was an undisputed liberal. There were quite a few arguments about this at the time.

Most of those who had been identified as neoconservatives in the late 70s or early 80s were not much different from the conservative mainstream by this time. The were not libertarians, of course, but most had become persuaded of the fundamental soundness of free- markets and limited government. They were not religious conservatives, for the most part, but shared some elements of social conservatism, such as an interest in the moral character of society, the promotion of fundamental values necessary to a democracy, an opposition to political correctness, a sensitivity to the issue of welfare dependency, and other things. (Some were pro- life, some were not.) They were more interventionist than a lot of conservatives, but not hot to make military commitments that would get us bogged down. In sum, on most contemporary issues, they would fall on the conservative side.

Only libertarians could possibly characterize the neoconservatives, many of whom have dropped the "neo" as superfluous, as socialist. That there were some socialists among the group originally so identified is true. However, those who joined the Republican Party and are active in conservative politics long ago gave that up. What has happened is that a certain group of populist conservatives, mainly identified with Pat Buchanan, blame the neoconservatives for their alienation from the Republican Party, and have an axe to grind..........