I agree with you to some extent, especially on this point with both parties being very similar. If you actually look into "liberal" and "conservative" ideologies, you might actually come to some frustration as I have because there really doesn't appear to be a huge difference between "conservative" vs. "liberal" ideologies with the exception of culture maybe.
Particulalry, neoconservativism which is typically what the Republicans are. Neoconservativism is actually an offshoot of modern liberalism, and the founders of this ideology were actually democrats who became dissatisified with the Democratic party's stance on defence.
It's important to note that use of military isn't a characteristic in paleoconservatism (which is almost exactly like modern libertarianism and is why political ideology frustrates me). But, as I just said, the neoconservative movement is an offshoot of liberal ideology and is the reason why they are so similar.
Only main difference is that liberals are currently favoring diplomacy over military use and the neocons still favor military use. Yet, military force has traditionally been a big part of liberal ideology. Many influential thinkers in the world secular moralilty and justice have legitimized the use of military force with the intent of spreading liberty.
One prominent example is John Rawls who is big in modern secular thinking. In his publication The Laws of Peoples, Rawls actually states that liberal, tolerant people shouldn't tolerate nations violate humanr rights or whose government favors any particular faith and discriminates against minority fiaths. Such nations are not deserving of any kind of mutual respect that liberal nations like ours might show to each other and it is our moral obligation to destory these immoral societies with use of military force.
But, really this line of reasoning just corresponds with old-school liberal/secular ideology. This kind reasoning was popular among liberal, secular intellectuals at the time when we had to fight Nazis and the Communists. But, the trend among liberals today is to favor peace over war. Neoconservative movement came about when these old-school liberals refused to go with the new trend and thus the neocons came about.
That's pretty hard to do. As nice as traditional secular liberal ideology appears to many people, one of the flaws in democratic government is the inherent greed in the heart's of men. Another secular ideology which is at ends with liberal secualrism is Marxism, which used this flaw within capitalist states to legitimized their own.
But, if you force people to do whatever you might think is right you end up taking their freedom away and ultimately end up make the same mistakes authoritarian governments have made in the past. On the other hand, if you give people the freedom to do what they want then you're guaranteed that things like corruption and immorality will happen and may even get out of hand sometimes.
Arguably the best post in this thread, thank you
The history on the neocons is accurate too, they are in fact a liberal offshoot that in effect hijacked the conservative party, forever removing them from actual conservatism
I agree with you to some extent, especially on this point with both parties being very similar. If you actually look into "liberal" and "conservative" ideologies, you might actually come to some frustration as I have because there really doesn't appear to be a huge difference between "conservative" vs. "liberal" ideologies with the exception of culture maybe.
Particulalry, neoconservativism which is typically what the Republicans are. Neoconservativism is actually an offshoot of modern liberalism, and the founders of this ideology were actually democrats who became dissatisified with the Democratic party's stance on defence.
It's important to note that use of military isn't a characteristic in paleoconservatism (which is almost exactly like modern libertarianism and is why political ideology frustrates me). But, as I just said, the neoconservative movement is an offshoot of liberal ideology and is the reason why they are so similar.
Only main difference is that liberals are currently favoring diplomacy over military use and the neocons still favor military use. Yet, military force has traditionally been a big part of liberal ideology. Many influential thinkers in the world secular moralilty and justice have legitimized the use of military force with the intent of spreading liberty.
One prominent example is John Rawls who is big in modern secular thinking. In his publication The Laws of Peoples, Rawls actually states that liberal, tolerant people shouldn't tolerate nations violate humanr rights or whose government favors any particular faith and discriminates against minority fiaths. Such nations are not deserving of any kind of mutual respect that liberal nations like ours might show to each other and it is our moral obligation to destory these immoral societies with use of military force.
But, really this line of reasoning just corresponds with old-school liberal/secular ideology. This kind reasoning was popular among liberal, secular intellectuals at the time when we had to fight Nazis and the Communists. But, the trend among liberals today is to favor peace over war. Neoconservative movement came about when these old-school liberals refused to go with the new trend and thus the neocons came about.
That's pretty hard to do. As nice as traditional secular liberal ideology appears to many people, one of the flaws in democratic government is the inherent greed in the heart's of men. Another secular ideology which is at ends with liberal secualrism is Marxism, which used this flaw within capitalist states to legitimized their own.
But, if you force people to do whatever you might think is right you end up taking their freedom away and ultimately end up make the same mistakes authoritarian governments have made in the past. On the other hand, if you give people the freedom to do what they want then you're guaranteed that things like corruption and immorality will happen and may even get out of hand sometimes.
The neo-con movement also is based largely on post-modern philosophy. Much of post modernism revolves around the idea that all claims to truth are claims to power which some post-modern devotees use to deny claims to truth as merely a kind of imperialism. However, other post-moderns take this same view and end up with the idea that all there is, is power and therefore "we" should be the ones to have the power.
So when they talk about enforcing democracy, the truth of freedom and all this, what they are really doing in their own understanding, is exercising power to shape the world as they think is in their best interests. Whether its rhetorical power in claims of the goodness of freedom and democracy, or military power, or economic power... in the end they are all just power.
Now, when you come to guys like Hannity who have often supported neo-con causes etc, I don't think they really subscribe to that philosophy and would undoubtedly deny that it is behind what they are supporting. They have simply swallowed the rhetoric that the neo-cons put out to legitimize themselves and their power grabs.
There are many liberal 'true believers', but ultimately the hard core of the liberal movement doesn't care nearly as much about ideology as they would like people to think. Ultimately just like the neo-cons, they care about power.
In fact the main difference between them seems to come down to nationalism vs globalism. Which, very interestingly, was the essential difference between the fascists and the communists back in the 20's and 30's.
That would be why the one side favors national defence and a more imperialistic attitude, while the other favors 'diplomacy' and compliance with foreign powers.
If these definitions of the so-called "neo-conservatism" is accurate, then in my opinion, that also means that President Ronald Reagan was a "neo-conservative."
I do not like the term or the definitions used in this thread to define the so-called "Neo-conservatives." However, let me ask this question. To y'all whom are defining what Neo-conservativism is; do you believe that President Ronald Reagan was a "Neo-conservative." ?
__________________ "If you were the only one needing Salvation from Sin, Jesus still would have died for your salvation."
If these definitions of the so-called "neo-conservatism" is accurate, then in my opinion, that also means that President Ronald Reagan was a "neo-conservative."
I do not like the term or the definitions used in this thread to define the so-called "Neo-conservatives." However, let me ask this question. To y'all whom are defining what Neo-conservativism is; do you believe that President Ronald Reagan was a "Neo-conservative." ?
Vambram, Simon and i arent creating the definition or the history of neoconservatives. They are a real group, they originally splintered off from the Democratic party, and they HAVE hijacked the conservative party.
Famous Neocons are Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz etc...
Heres a couple fairly informative pieces... check it out for yourself.
Neoconservatism goes back to the 1920's and in the 70's they gained a lotta strength in the conservative party. Since reagan they have completely dominated the conservative party and thought
Vambram, Simon and i arent creating the definition or the history of neoconservatives. They are a real group, they originally splintered off from the Democratic party, and they HAVE hijacked the conservative party.
Famous Neocons are Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz etc...
Heres a couple fairly informative pieces... check it out for yourself.
Neoconservatism goes back to the 1920's and in the 70's they gained a lotta strength in the conservative party. Since reagan they have completely dominated the conservative party and thought
While I do not consider Bush a neocon (in the truest sense of the word)....he did however...IMHO...pander to the liberals and neocons during his last year or so as Pres.
__________________ Joh 16:33 These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. <--I take myself very seriously...
Last edited by Cris413; 16th July 2009 at 09:19 PM.
Reason: too many "howevers" ~giggle~
Vambram, Simon and i arent creating the definition or the history of neoconservatives. They are a real group, they originally splintered off from the Democratic party, and they HAVE hijacked the conservative party.
Famous Neocons are Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz etc...
Heres a couple fairly informative pieces... check it out for yourself.
Neoconservatism goes back to the 1920's and in the 70's they gained a lotta strength in the conservative party. Since reagan they have completely dominated the conservative party and thought
I'm thinking that Pat Buchanan would be one of the few true conservatives around? He always seemed to be a cut above the rest
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Cris, Vambram, i want to address you both on this one
Originally Posted by Vambram
So, do you think that President Ronald Reagan was a conservative, .. or a "neo-conservative."
.
Bush Sr, Jr, Reagan.
The first 2 i have no respect for, for several reasons, REAGAIN however, i did and do hold great respect for... THIS being said, let me just alledge that its not what one professes by mouth that determions what they should be classified, but rather the agendas they endorse.
conservatism = protection of the constitution, neoconservatism = infringing on the constitution in order to gain or maintain control
Theres more differances we can list but the main idea is that conservatism has nothing to do with neoconservatism.
Also past neoconservatives, Prescott Bush for instance, were huge supporters of Hitler and the Nazi party
Now as far as Bush Sr and Jr, they were definately neocon as well as nearly all their cabinets and the influances around them
Reagan had Cheney and Paul wolfowitz, Rummy was in there too on the side, all neocons. Whethr REagan was hardcore neocon or not i dont know, i know i did like him despite some of his neocon agenda like Iraqgate, where we traded guns and ammo for drugs and then sold the drugs to fund further neocon agenda.
My belief is that Bush Sr was the real neocon force behond the reagan administration
Reagan though definately showed neocon tendencies in his foreign and domestic policy.
I'm thinking that Pat Buchanan would be one of the few true conservatives around? He always seemed to be a cut above the rest
Jim i would agree Buchanan is a true conservative, and yet even he doesnt touch Ron Paul
If Ron Paul were to run i would give my all to campaign for him. Even the Democrat Dennis Kucinich is more conservative than most modern conservatives.
Linear Mode
