For my first rant, I would like to clear up some common misconceptions about neocons, and go over the differences between neocon and paleocon ideologies. Because (thanks in part to the liberal dominated media) there seems to be a lot of misconceptions and inaccurate stereotypes regarding Neo-conservatism.
Many of the current stereotypes of Republicans in general are based on paleocons. Paleoconservatives are the "old" conservatives that most people actually associate with the Republican Party.
Wikipedia actually has a pretty fair write up of both Neoconservatism and Paleoconservatism on their site. I'll be summarizing much of this from their site. Here is a brief overview of Neoconservatism:
1. Neocons are idealists first. They will support actions that are potentially detrimental to the US Agenda for no other reason than because such actions are morally right. This moral imperitive is probably the most obvious difference between neocons and paleocons. The source of this morality is largely irrelevant. Although most neocons are theists (and Christians at that), theism is not an absolute requirement. I myself am an atheist, but I still share their moral views.
2. Neocons favor aggressive foreign policy. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and threats must be dealt with immediately. By the time a threat is imminent is it already too late to do anything about it. This concept is often referred to as Preemptive Doctorine, and (along with democracy) is probably the core of neocon ideology.
3. Necons favor democracy and spreading democracy abroad. Neocons are far more militant than paleocons when it comes to opposition against pretty much all non-democracies, especially communism. Aside from the fact that neocons view non-democracies as morally repugnant, they also view the spreading of democracy as contributing to the long-term security of the nation. Part of the logic being that democracies are far less likely to be a threat to us than non-democracies. So converting a nation into a democracy permanently removes them as a threat to us, and may actually create an ally. Neocons will never support a non-democracy over a democracy. But beyond that, neocons view non-democratic systems as irredeemably evil.
4. Neocons are unilateralist. That means that they oppose subordinating the nation (or it's policies) to any outside force, including (and especially) a world government. Neocons are notoriously anti-United Nations, and most view the UN as worthless at best, dangerously incompetent at worst.
5. Neocons are capitalists. They support free trade and lowering taxes as much as possible. Competition encourages efficiency and imagination, and makes people more productive over the long term. A free capitalist society encourages personal growth and allows people to reach their potential far more often than in communistic or socialistic systems. Neocons generally oppose social spending, believing that the free market can almost always offer a more efficient solution to a given social problem.
6. Neocons oppose affirmative action because they are inherently anti-racist. Neocons believe that competition in all forms is ultimately healthy for our society, and that people of all races are capable of competing on their own merits, without help from the government. Affirmative action, aside from being unfair, is ultimately demeaning to minorities because it implies that the only way they can compete is if they have help (incidentally, this is where the term "liberal plantation" originates). Neocons have no fear of multi-culturalism, and most (myself included) actually view it as a strength.
7. Neocons support free speech. The only exception being matters of national security. They are violently opposed to the supression of any ideology and generally oppose government regulation.
Some good examples of neocons in the media are Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, and Sean Hannity.
By contrast, paleocons differ in the following ways:
1. Paleocons support a large military, but not an aggressive foreign policy. In their view, many of America's problems could be solved by simply minding our own business. If neocons can be viewed as having a crusader mentality when it comes to foreign policy, paleocons could be seen as having a fortress mentality. Oppression in other nations, while offensive, is none of our concern. We should concentrate on our own defense and let other people deal with their own problems. They oppose preemptive doctorine and believe we should only resort to military force under imminent threat of attack. They support military funding, but not to the (in their view) outrageous degree that neocons do.
2. The Paleocon view of democracy is that allies are good things to have and we should encourage mutual cooperation with nations that share our views. But we should not rule out cooperating with non-democracies so long as it furthers our own agenda. Nixon had no problems embracing Red China, something that would be anathema to modern neocons.
3. Paleocons are not unilateralist, and believe that when we do interfere in the business of other nations, that we should only do so with the support of our allies.
4. While Paleocons are capitalist, most are opposed to free trade. They see no problem with stacking the deck in America's favor through tariffs and taxes. Although, like neocons, they generally oppose taxes where American citizens are concerned. Paleocons probably oppose social spending even more than neocons do.
5. Although not necessarily racist, many paleocons still hold to the belief that some cultures simply cant handle Western values such as Democracy, and for this reason democracy should not be "forced" upon them. Ironically this view is now shared by many on the left as well. Paleocons see multi-culturalism as a dilution of our European herritage.
Some additional differences that I am lifting directly from Wikipedia:
- ...paleocons are often more sympathetic to environmental protection, animal welfare, and anti-consumerism than others on the American Right.
- Paleocons argue that since human nature is limited and finite, any attempt to create a man-made utopia is headed for disaster and potential carnage.
Probably the most famous example of a modern Paleocon is Pat Buchanan. These are the only differences I could come up with, but they are pretty major ones (at least to conservatives they are). In most other areas (Abortion, Gay Rights, Capital Punishment, gun rights, ect..) neocons and paleocons tend to be on the same page. Here are some links to Further reading: Wikipedia's write up of Neoconservatism - I actually disagree with some of it, but most of it seems pretty accurate. They go into detail on the origin of the movement, which is interesting (though not particularly relevant to the modern version of the ideology). Wikipedia's write up on Paleoconservatism. I will warn you that some paleocons I have debated with have taken issue with some of Wikipedia's interpretations of paleocon ideology. |
