Neo-Conservatives

Buncha labels and generalities there ... "neoconservative", "zealot", "everyone", "liberals, "conservatives", "THOSE PEOPLE".

Labels and generalities are so much more convenient than critical thought and reasoned discourse, especially as employed to differentiate "Them" from "Us". That's why they're so widespread, I'm sure. Just remember, "One Size" generally fits poorly. Keep in mind too that once you commit to "Them or Us", you become one of "Them" :wink:

....and all of those labels were put in there as objects of criticism.....

rufio--

Good question.

I gave this new term about five minutes thought--but now that you mention it...

I took it at face value--new conservatives. What that implies, I'm not sure. Reagan is credited with the with New Conservative movement, and from some reading I've done, it seems the term Neo-Conservative are those, who espouse Reagan's pro-active foreign policies. Basically, it translates to me-- Hey, we (America) are huge and a hegemon. Let's use this position to spread democracy and squash global bad actors.....rather than just sitting on our hands, and/or taking steps to decrease our advantage (reducing our military...)

There is a thread in the politics forum titled Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy, or something very similar, which may hold some answers for you.

I do think the liberals have been roundly ashamed of the moniker 'liberal', though I don't know why they allowed that to happen, if they are proud of what they stand for. It seems they think neo-Conservative may be their tool to create a "bad word" to describe their political opponents. (Evocative of neo-Nazi...) It's not taking, though.

For what it is worth, and despite what Timber has added, there is a group of conservatives who follow the policies of the Project for a New American Century, of which Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and many others associated with this administations, are members. It was founded in 1997, and in a paper published in 2000, established it's goals for policy change as:

Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East;

Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities;

Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space;

Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;

Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.

You can visit the PNAC here.

Again, for what it might be worth, and without an expression of my opinion on this subject, most professional politics watchers (journalists and academics) consider the "neo-cons" to be a product of PNAC. It is alleged that some (or perhaps many, pick your allegation) traditional conservatives writers and thinkers are rejecting the PNAC program. For a detailed overview, try the Disinfopedia article--and bear in mind that the authors of this extremely detailed article, with links out the wazoo, are biased to the political left.

If you're up to the reading, you are in a position to make up your own mind about neo-conservatives. A bit of warning, running down info on PNAC and on it's "parent" think-tank, the American Enterprise Institute, although bewildering, will be much easier to manage then doing a search on "neo-conservative," for which you will get literally millions of hits, more than half of which will have not the least relation to American partisan politics.

Have fun . . .

How very narrow-minded of you Sofia . . . do you really contend that neo-conservative was a term thought up by "liberals" to smear the Right?

If that is the case, PM your address to me, and i've got some lovely brochures on lake front property in the Southwest . . .

Set--

You couldn't have read my entire post and come to that conclusion.

I stated much the same as you did about the group 'neo-conservative' refers to-- I imply that liberals use the term, and shorten it, as you have ('neo-cons') in a manner to evoke a negative connotation. They use it--and morph it--never imagined they created it. Not complaining about it, either. Just a word.

You really need to get this right.

Ronald Reagan started the little slur ("liberalliberalliberal") and no one -- and I mean no one -- who considers themselves liberal is an ounce ashamed of it.

Only conservatives think of the word as an insult.

Here is a link to a site that does a fairly good job of explaining (documenting??) the drift in the meaning:

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze1tvxm/thepoliticalarena/What's%20A%20Neo-Conservative.htm

PDid--

You are mistaken. I have seen COUNTLESS liberals complain bitterly on talk shows, news debate shows and news interviews. "They've made liberal a bad word." I've seen it here, and even told the liberal they shouldn't be ashamed of the word.

Glad you're not afflicted. No self-respecting liberal should be. Always wondered why they were...

What, they want to take over the whole universe?!!



I wouldn't mind being called a liberal at all, it's a nice word. "Bleeding heart liberal" reeaally gets to me though - believing that all liberals do is mope around crying about trees and wars and things is a big mistake.

Then it ought to be ridiculously easy for you to name a couple of hundred (just to pick a nice, round, countable number).

No?

How about, say, ten?

Maybe you could find one, then?

One liberal who feels ashamed to be called a liberal?

One?

I'll wait...

Yes, there are plenty of us who are pissed off about the name-calling.

It's become a curse-word for the right.

But she said 'ashamed'.

John Kerry

You know how Democrats duck the word, especially in an election cycle.

What Democrat running for national office has claimed the title? (None who have been elected in my lifetime.)

But, I'll find some lore.

John Kerry what?



No; I have no idea what you are talking about.



What title? Liberal?

What does this have to do with proving your contention?



Lore? How about some proof of your contention?

There are countless, you said (actually you said COUNTLESS).

Listen, if you want to just kind of laugh this off now, that's OK with me.

But my contention -- which is that you haven't the slightest idea about that which you are screaming -- will be left unchallenged.

Of course, you could save a little face by simply saying that, or something like it....

Here's an example--

"Liberal" Is Not a Dirty Word.
Comments?

Over the last decade a disturbing trend has been emerging. "Liberal" has become a dirty word. Many commentators point out that Kerry's greatest liability in the coming election is that he is just another "New England Liberal."

***Men and women who are proud democrats refuse to call themselves Liberals. Call them any dirty, mean-spirited, untrue thing you like, but for Pete's sake, don't call them Liberals! To be labeled a Liberal is to court political death. ***

But this was not always the case. Liberals used to be proud, strong, and united. How did the Left reach this abysmal point where we have to deny ourselves and our political heritage? How did "Liberal" get to be a dirty word?

Sure, some might be thinking, who cares if a Liberal is no longer a viable thing to be. We can stand for the same things, call ourselves moderates, and still get elected. We can beat the Right at their own game. Everyone's happy. What's the problem?

I suppose you could say that. Except for one tiny hitch….It obviously isn't true! The Left is getting stomped, inside and out. One need only look to the 2002 mid-term election debacle. When democrats try to fight the Right on their own turf and nothing else they get trounced. Those who do get elected often renounce or downplay support for definitively Liberal policies so that they can keep the stain of Liberalism as far away as possible. The result, Liberal policies and the Liberal agenda are being railroaded and reversed across the country.

The fact is, politicians of the Left cannot be legitimate republicans, and what's more, we shouldn't want to be. What we need to do is rehabilitate the Liberal image. Liberals stand for good. We are right. We should be proud and defiant. We need to say, "YES! I am a Liberal and I'm proud of it. And you should be too."
-------

Google word liberal ashamed. You'll find reams of similar articles; liberals begging others not to continue to be so ashamed of their moniker.

I mean, PDid, you have to see the Rightward shuffle your party has taken. They are afraid to say what they are--so they have become something else--Republicans!! How can it be that the Dem nominee is really Bush Lite? And many of your A2K compatriots are sick to death that Kerry is the choice of the party. They have no real option. If "liberal" was popular, Kucinich would be the nominee.

Who wrote this? Why did you not link it or cut-and-paste the author's name?

I see nothing in it that is indicative of shame, either.

No dear, I'm not Googling anything. It is your responsibility to do your own homework. "Reams"? Links. Please.

I want to see just one liberal who says "I am a liberal and I am ashamed of it."

And everything you wrote past "I mean, PDid..." is changing the subject.

I mean, don't you think you ought to be ashamed of yourself, carrying on such a facetious argument?

And listen, even if you can't be ashamed, just stop making ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims like this.

You won't have any more grief from me if you'll just do that.

I'm liberal and I'm proud. Gonna say, gonna sing it out loud

NeoCons are far to the right of your everyday republicans, many who are unaware of this ultra right-wing threat to their party (and the nation). Neo-cons are the main reason many republicans have left the party and won't be supporting president Bush.
Liberals are generally democrats who are left of the democratic party. While the word may be used in an attempt to slur, it doesn't resonate with me. I am with Edgar on that one! I could be nothing else.

DAN RATHER: What does it mean to be a liberal, and why did Democrats let self-described conservative Republicans define it for them? Stay here with us.[...]

Next here on the CBS Evening News: FDR and JFK were liberals and proud of it. So how did the liberal label sink so low in today's politics? We'll give you a look when we come back."
In other news of politics, this was kickoff day for a fledgling, small radio network, a beginning effort to create a talk-radio outlet for liberals. But it's not called the Liberal Radio Network. They named it, quote, "Air America." Why did they leave 'liberal' out of the label? CBS's Jim Axelrod examines the evolution and, in some says, the discrediting of a political label.
JIM AXELROD: What might seem like a simple yes or no question--
(Excerpt from Democratic debate sponsored by CBS News)
Unidentified Woman: Are you a liberal?
Sen. JOHN KERRY (Democratic Presidential Candidate): Let me--let me just go to...
Woman: Are you a liberal?
KERRY: Please come to the characterization.
AXELROD: --has become for Democrats like asking if they're still beating their wives. There's no good answer.
MARIO CUOMO (Former Democratic Governor): It suggests to a lot of Americans: mushy-headed, spending too much money.
AXELROD: Which might be conservatives' biggest win in the last quarter-century, redefining the same badge FDR and JFK wore proudly for decades.
ED ROLLINS (Republican Political Consultant): I think a liberal, basically, is someone who really wants to spend your money, wants to have a bigger government, wants to be more intrusive in your life.
AXELROD: Conservatives had help. Democrats ran landslide losers who seemed phony trying to look mainstream, while Republicans had a man who appeared to personify it.
RONALD REAGAN: (From 1988) Their views can only be described by the dreaded L-word: liberal, liberal, liberal.
AXELROD: But it was more than that.
CUOMO: If you'll let me define, I'll say I'm a liberal. Now give me 10 minutes to tell you what it means.
AXELROD: Liberals never understood you don't have 10 minutes to make your point; you have 10 seconds.
RUSH LIMBAUGH (Radio talk show host): It really is a crime. Liberalism is a humanity crime.
AXELROD: In a word, conservatives found a way, such an effective way it's still the first place they go today.
Unidentified Man: (From political ad) Another rich, liberal elitist from Massachusetts who claims he's a man of the people. Priceless.
AXELROD: That's fitting, borrowing the tag line from a successful advertising campaign, because that's what this has been as much as anything else in a country with about as many liberals as conservatives: a triumph of marketing.
DONNY DEUTSCH (CEO, Deutsch Inc.): It is branding. Liberal, as a brand, is tarnished.
AXELROD: Donny Deutsch knows something about advertising. His $2.7 billion agency handles everyone from Revlon to Mitsubishi to Monster.com. Oh, and he's a Democrat.
DEUTSCH: I don't think you're right now, in this day and age, going to ever make the word 'liberal' a positive, electable thing. It's about changing the playing field.
AXELROD: But labels are just part of selling something. The bigger question: Never mind the package, do people want the product? Jim Axelrod, CBS News, New York.
--Dan Rather and Jim Axelrod on the CBS Evening News, March 31, 2004
-------
I'll bring more. It'll take another day or two.

Only an idiot would try to pretend liberal politicians haven't been ashamed to say they are liberals.

Quote--
I want to see just one liberal who says "I am a liberal and I am ashamed of it."
---
Well, that would be interesting, but no one here alleged anyone said anything of the sort. However, I can well understand your attempt to change what I did say. I guess you weren't thinking when you challenged. Don't despair. I won't rub your nose in it. We Republicans are good winners. Lots of practice.

Anyhoo, I'll be back--quoting another impossibly popular Conservative...