Talk:Neoconservatism

Defining the Subjective

I think I figured out the problem with this article. It's trying to define "Neoconservative" as a small well-defined political movement. But the term is used much more expansively than that. When leftist, liberal, progressive (and sometimes classically conservative) pundits say "Neocon" they usually aren't talking about some small group of Jewish, former liberals. The term "Neoconservative" is used to differentiate between modern conservatives and classic conservatives in order to emphasize the differences. The people these critics describe do not usually consider themselves to be neoconservative, but identify as simply conservative in order to claim the heritage of classic conservative ideology. Naturally, the defining characteristics of Conservatism have changed over time (like Liberalism). But since the criticism of modern Conservatives comes mostly from the Left, the more liberal or progressive changes in Conservatism are less recognized when differentiating the "Neocons" from the "Cons". Therefore Neoconservatives are usually characterized as being more radically right than previous conservative movements. The liberal/progressive/leftists pundits describe classic Conservatives as being conservationist, pro-military but cautious of use of force, and for limited government. Whereas Neoconservatives are described as putting profit above the environment, being aggressively militaristic, and wanting to radically dismantle government infrastructure and protections. This article exclusively describes the term in a way that is now archaic to current political discourse. The more contemporary use of the term is subjective and contested. So it isn't surprising that there's so much disagreement here.Garbled Reverie (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Euston Manifesto

A link to the Euston Manifesto was readded to this page. Nowhere in the link is neoconservatism mentioned, the opening line of the page clearly refers to them as left-wing. Without greater justification, I will remove the link again. -William Quill (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Euston manifesto signatories support Iraq War. Euston manifesto was promoted by the Henry Jackson society. And see Oliver Kamm's book "A left-wing case for a neoconservative foriegn policy".99.244.181.114 (talk) 05:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't make them neo-conservative, I suppose the best definition of them would be Liberal Hawks, which I'll add as a link instead. William Quill (talk) 10:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference between liberal hawks and neoconservative anyway?99.244.181.114 (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we just redirect to Uncyclopedia's article?

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Neocon

Far more informative. Also makes the point that those who actually use the term are more often than not referring to virtually anyone who could be considered right of centre, not just former Trotskyists.

Too bad they don't have an article on Islamo-fascism yet.74.36.193.198 13:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that that article is extremely and obviously biased. 67.84.53.83 18:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No shit Sherlock! :P74.36.192.238 17:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Domestic policy?

Can we get anything added about neo-con domestic policy? Is there such a thing? It's my understanding that the original neo-con theory of domestic policy was that building a Great Society is fine, but we've gotta keep our eyes open, look at the data about policy results, and not be blinded by ideology. The James Q. Wilson line of thought. Is that an accurate summary of their self-description? --Carl 06:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article notes:

The Neocons have, over the past decades, demonstrated impressive capacities for both adaptation and reproduction. They dropped their support for social programs that distinguished them from old line conservatives...

So you are right: originally they supported social programs, but stopped doing so when the political climate turned against social programs. It seems to me that since the fall of the Soviet Union, neoconservatism has absorbed neoliberalism. Thus, Francis Fukuyama repeatedly asserts that Anglo-American style "lean" states are more effective than Eunopean-style welfare states. This was not originally part of the neoconservative agenda.

It is well known that the Iraq war and occupation were/are directed by neoconservatives. One of Paul Bremmer's main objectives when he was directing the occupation was to turn Iraq into a free-market Utopia. This confirms that neoconservatism has lately embraced a free-market ideology, something that was not convenient when the Soviet Union still existed, so that one could push policies that hurt workers and ordinary people in general only so far. -- Hyperion 19:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was going to ask about welfare. The article says "a greater acceptance of the welfare state". I think that's wrong. Most neoconservatives, not just in the current administration but going back to the Reagan years, have been(rhetorically, at least) opposed to social programmes and ardent supporters of the private sector. More than that, they seem much, much more opposed to welfare provision than Nixon or Eisenhower were. Certainly, if neo-conservatism is associated with the ideologies of Reganism in the US and Thathcerism in the UK (as it seems to be), that would make it aggressively opposed to the welfare state, and lacking the willingess to compromise and be pragmatic in order to win office that characterised more mainstream conservatives. (anonymous 21 April 2005)

I second this statement. Neoconservatives railed against the various policies designed to promote racial equality, and poverty, arguing that they were counter-productive (welfare causes more poverty rather than less, affirmative action furthers racial inequality). Nathan Glazer has very recently changed his point of view on Affirmative Action (he now supports it), but over the last three decades I cannot think of a single neoconservative that has either accepted or come close to agreeing with any of The Great Society inspired programs. While Charles Murray is much more of a Libertarian than he is a neoconservative, his Losing Ground was a seminal text in the neoconservative literature. --kspence00:12, 8 June 2005

The questions and the answers provided assume that the "neoconservatives" of decades ago are the same as today. It also assumes that neoconservatives identify themselves as such according to some overarching philosophy (like social or religious conservatives). Instead, the meaning has generally changed over time and the term is generally used by opponents to identify a class of people. Lumping a bunch of people together in one group as defined by opponents makes it difficult to find an actual common philosophy. As the term neoconservative is used today by opponents on the left, it does not have a social component, only a foreign policy philosophy. If it has any social component at all, it would be when paleoconservatives on the right use the term to describe neoconservatives.

--Noitall 05:20, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

But their policy preferences on the domestic front ARE the same as they were decades ago. In the late sixties they stood against the Great Society programs. In the seventies and eighties they stood against Affirmative Action in a variety of forms. This is pretty straightforward. Now one way to show that they did NOT have a united domestic policy stance is to show where there was variance. Give me some examples of neoconservatives who stood with the welfare programs of the sixties for example? Much of my understanding about Neoconservatism comes from the book of the same title written by Irving Kristol. He clearly notes a neoconservative stance towards foreign AND DOMESTIC POLICY. kspence 10:23, Jun 8, 2005

Neoconservatism is a school of foreign policy thought, not a complete political position encompassing domestic and fiscal policy. One could be a democratic socialist with a neoconservative foreign policy position, or a classical liberal and a neocon, or just about anything in between. Rogue 9 19:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Probably reasonably true in 2005, but not historically 15-30 years back. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

According to an article by Irving Kristol in The Weekly Standard, neoconservatism is more defined by a domestic policy than by a foreign policy. To quote him from the article:

AND THEN, of course, there is foreign policy, the area of American politics where neoconservatism has recently been the focus of media attention. This is surprising since there is no set of neoconservative beliefs concerning foreign policy, only a set of attitudes derived from historical experience.

He also talks about the neocons not liking the concentration of services in the welfare state. I suppose the relevance of all of this is dependent on whether one believes Irving Kristol to be a fair spokesman for neoconservatism. -- Heybrakywacky 04:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that, in practice, neoconservativism is characterized by out-of-control and unlimited domestic spending, coupled with mounting national debt. Dogface 14:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Israel/Judaism/Dual loyalty

Whatever one's view, it seems absurd to me that the rebuttals to the charge of dual loyalty outweigh the charge itself by around 375 words to 75. If noone objects [lol] I will add some meat to the idea of dual loyalty - publishing policy briefs for Israel, pusshing pro-Israel policies in the US, alleged spying for Israel etc - when i have more time. Hopefully someone else will beat me to it.Hippo43 03:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Much as I deplore the dual loyalty argument, more information is always better than less. But do make sure you back things up strongly with reputable citations; anything not seen as clearly and factually established will probably not meet with much enthusiasm from other contributors. -Joshuapaquin 05:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

In particular, Kevin B. MacDonald is not a reputable citation in this matter. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh! No kidding! -Joshuapaquin (strawpoll) 07:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems that this page is protected

I would dispute the large amount of type that is included as rebuttal in this section from David Brooks and others. The Judaic link to neoconservatism is pretty well established. Even Forward magazine is quite open about it. In their January 6th 2006 edition, Gal Beckerman remarks in a review of The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy by Murray Friedman:

Acknowledging the Jewishness of neoconservatism has always triggered the red, flashing lights of antisemitism, especially since the start of the Iraq War (with extra points if it's Pat Buchanan doing the acknowledging). But there is some truth to the suspicion. If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it. It's a thought one imagines most American Jews, overwhelmingly liberal, will find horrifying. And yet it is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants' grandchildren. Understanding what might be Jewish about this movement (or "persuasion" as its godfather, Irving Kristol, prefers it be called) should be possible without being accused of conspiracy theorizing about secret cabals pulling strings for Israel."

Not only is she saying that the ideology was born out of a group of children of Jewish Immigrants, it is their intellectual domain. This entire piece smacks of whitewashing what to many people across the globe has become a repugnant manisfestation of an aggressive ideological threat to themselves, and other people aggressively targetted by this group. One can be forgiven if as a non-American, the article reads like a fairy tale. I fear insistence on 'scholarly' pieces is code for excluding valid criticisms of neo-conservatism. Unfortunately actions speak louder than words, and it is the actions of these same neocons that result in very real bombs falling on the heads of brown people, and some cases, European people, however the 'scholars' try to frame it. It is the mis-use of wiki rules and guidelines that seriously undermine wikipedia as a legitimate endeavour.JohD 13:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As Joe Sobran said once - dual loyalty would be an improvement.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) 20 November 2006.

Judging by their userpages (i.e., the heavy editing of articles related to Jews and Judaism found on their pages), the vast majority of the people that do not accept Kevin MacDonald as a reliable authority on Jews and Neoconservatism (despite the dozens of reliable/reputable sources that he uses) seem to be Jews and/or philo-Semites -- thus they are driven by a definite agenda to keep him and his reliable sources off of this page. What ever happened to NPOV? --172.149.73.192 18:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've yet to run into anyone who finds MacDonald a reliable authority on anything who is not anti-semitic to the core, and this ol' boy is about as goyische as you can get. Having read the article in question, it reeks of racial thinking and stereotypes, the most blatant of POV imaginable. --Orange Mike 18:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

My Edits

1) I simply felt that a lot more needed to be said about the origins of the neocons on the left. If someone feels there's a better way they should feel free to add or edit.

2) On the Reagan era I found it simply shocking that there was no mention of Lebanon.

3) The neocon influence on the Bush Administration is certainly great enough that it deserves its own subheading within the article itself.

Jacrosse 16:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Jacrosse, I agree with you on point 1, but I can't see that adding nearly 1000 words of unreferenced prose is an answer. Perhaps paraphrase the quotations you have inserted and give citations or links to the documents themselves? Unfortunately i don't have time to summarise these passages myself.

Hippo43 16:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

First, Jacrosse, you must begin to use edit summaries. It is simply discourteous to the other editors to make very significant edits without any edit summaries at all to let others know what you are doing with the article. Second, Wikipedia is not a text dump. It's not appropriate, nor legal, to simply excerpt large parts of another person's work in an article. Fair use allows us to use perhaps a paragraph or two at most of unparaphrased text copied from another article. Your edits went way beyond that, and that places Wikipedia in a state of legal liability. Before making more major edits, please run your changes by other editors on the talk page (as you can well imagine, this is one of the more controversial and fought-over articles in Wikipedia). Also, thoroughly review WP:CITE and learn how to include proper citations for your additions. All the best. —thames 17:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Please dont be so condescending that I have to "learn" to use certain mechanisms, I forgot the edit summary yet again with my current edit. Anyway I shortened the quotes so that their hopefully within reason now. And I've still had no response to my other edits.

Jacrosse 22:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but Raimondo thougts are not particularly noteworthy. TDC 22:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

First, I want to apologize for sounding condescending--it was not my intention. Please feel free to make your edits as you choose. However, large excerpts are not going to be acceptable--it doesn't appear that your shortening of the quotes made a substantive change in the length, such that wikipedia wouldn't have a legal liability problem. Your other edits may not be a problem: why don't you try adding those edits (with appropriate citations), and once those have been ironed out then figure out how to incorporate Raimondo's ideas. —thames 22:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have several issues with the recently added material, but let me start with these:

• What is the basis to claim that Raimondo's is "The most thoroughgoing exposition on this phenomenon and its signifcance (sic)"? (Who says, for example, that he is he more thoroughgoing than Maurice Isserman?)
• What is the fair use justification is there to quote at this length from Raimondo's copyrighted work? (Even for a review of Raimondo's work I'd say this would be excessive quotation.) And why should we even want to quote some of this? ("…burrowing into the unions… planted his followers on staff…The ignorant masses, according to Strauss and his followers, are kept in thrall by various delusions": rather non-neutral wording, where we could say the same things neutrally. If it's relevant. Much of this seems to me to belong more in an article on Schachtman.)
• Why is more than a passing mention of James Burnham relevant? Are we making a case that he was a proto-neoconservative in the 1940s? (An interesting topic for an essay, but hardly encyclopedic as far as I can tell.)
• After "Raimondo has therefore seconded the view of Seymour Hersh that neoconservatism is best understood as a cult" there are two paragraphs of uncited quotation that I can't even tell whether it is Raimondo's or Hersh's writing.

Jmabel | Talk 02:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Redux

Jacrosse, you ought not re-add this disputed content before talk page issues are resolved. As I said above, excerpts of this length fall outside of fair-use protection and are therefore a copyright violation. That is a legal liability that Wikipedia does not need. Furthermore, you still are not using edit summaries. This is not only unhelpful, but somewhat rude to the other editors working on this article. Please use edit summaries, even when you make minor edits, but especially when you add large amounts of material. Furthermore, the notability of Raimondo has not been established. Why is his account the most thoroughgoing of the plethora of examinations of neoconservatism that have been published since 9/11? Why does Raimondo deserve six or seven very large paragraphs worth of material when other authors (arguably more prominent and well-regarded than Raimondo) do not? —thames 23:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You can easily ask Raimondo for permission to use his words. While I don't know and have never spoken to him I suspect he would not mind your use of his writings. --Ben Houston 00:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's a constructive solution. It would certainly resolve one of the principal issues addressed on this talk page. —thames 06:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I know Justin personally, I'm sure he doesn't object to it, but ask him yourself - justin@antiwar.com

Jacrosse 03:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not my, or any of the other editors, job to obtain permission for your edits Jacrosse. I would also suggest that your personal relationship with Mr. Raimondo makes me somewhat skeptical about the objectivity of your assessment that his analysis of neoconservatism is "The most thoroughgoing exposition". You still have not satisfied the concerns of the other editors of this article. We've all worked very hard to get this article to where it is, and the insertion of a large amount of excerpted text, framed with your POV, is hard to justify. I would note that you still are not using descriptive edit summaries (either on this article or on others), although it seems you will use them when you feel the need to be uncivil [1]. Finally, you still have not addressed by Raimondo deserves disproportionately more space in this article than any other commentator. Please do not re-add the content without addressing these concerns. —thames 04:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

New Information Added

Okay i've put in about three paragraphs on domestic Neoconservatism based on what i've done in politics class drawing heavily on my colleges set text as its a very good work for this kind of thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flankergeek (talk • contribs) 4 Jan 2006.

Flankergeek's Edits

I found Flankergeek contributions to be informative and I think they deserve to be included in the article. --8bitJake 19:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at them until now, but I find them uncited and largely inaccurate. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I attributed my contribution to Andrew Heywood's 'Political Ideology: An introduction' Third Edition, Pages 98-99. This is an excellent text book used throughout the UK at A-level and above. Maybe you should check it out. - Flankergeek 19:27 9 January (GMT)

Here's the relevant material, for anyone who is trying to follow this.

If this was all from Heywood, that was not clear: you only marked a citation on the first paragraph. If it all can be attributed, it might be worth having at about a third that length, and all clearly attributed as Heywood's view. Just for a couple of illustrations of what I find problematic as it stands:

• "Rising crime and 'anti-social behavior' are the result of a wider process of weakening authority in general." This is said in Wikipedia's narrative voice. Certainly this is not a generally accepted fact, it is someone's opinion. Is it Heywood's? The Neoconservatives' as attributed by Heywood? Something else? If a statement like that is to be preserved, this needs to be clearer.

• "For the Neoconservatives, the issue is not so much that people will adopt wrong or incorrect views, but that they will simply adopt different views." Again, who is asserting this. As it reads, it is Wikipedia making this claim about the Neoconservatives' views. And while this may apply to the Neoconservatives circa 1975, it seems rather off the mark about the Neoconservatives today, who tend to be pretty pluralist in domestic matters. Indeed, they tend to praise American pluralism as one of the values America should export. :Jmabel | Talk 05:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay fair copp, i shall re-write my entry and resubmitt it here for further scrutiny when time permits. Please take into account that this is pretty much my first major edit and I am still grappling with Wikipedia's tools and standards. -- Flankergeek 18:42 10 January 2006 (GMT)

On the Leftist Origins Subheading

It is to my discredit that I had to be so reliant on other quotes in expanding on a subject I profess to know a great deal about, and which I feel in any case needs to be considerably elaborated. I'm not sure then how best to make it work, and I still don't think its called for to insist on scrapping the quotes entirely. Consider then what I've written to the same effect in the articles on Shachtmanism and the French Turn. Also perhaps to the article "George Bush's Philosophers" on the external links list. Jacrosse 22:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have returned the subheading to just how I left it only because no one submitted any advice as to how it could be improved to address the concerns that were expressed. Furthermore, the fact that the subheading has a question mark seems to imply that the issue is subject to debate (the more indisputable facts of history are addressed elsewhere in the article), and therefore extensive quotations of others seems appropriate.

Jacrosse 17:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Jacrosse, you wrote: "no one submitted any advice as to how it could be improved". This is quite clearly not the case. I'm frankly disappointed that you would proceed immediately to re-introduce disputed material without having responded to any of the editors over the past week during which the page was protected. There are very valid copyright concerns, outside of the other objections, which you have not made the slightest effort to address. Your sole response to the other editors has been dismissive that your violation of fair use is even an issue. Finally, you are still not using edit summaries. Of your last six rapid-fire changes to the page you used two edit summaries. Please describe what you are doing, even if you write something as trivial as "formatting" or "typo".—thames 20:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't find the additions that horrible. I think you, Thames, have let this Jacrosse get under your skin. Instead of just removing it and bashing him for it, why not try to improve what he has added and work in into something that meets your critiria. Just removing the added material makes this into a confrontation rather than a collaborative building process. --Ben Houston 20:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

My principal problem is the fair use issue. I'm not an expert on Mr. Raimondo's writings, whereas Jacrosse seems to be. Amongst other comments, I've asked Jacrosse to paraphrase and reduce the amount of text from Mr. Raimondo's piece. Jacrosse, I think, would know best how to condense and distill Mr. Raimondo's points, but seems to have little motivation to do so, despite repeated requests. You are right though: it is very frustrating, and it has gotten under my skin.—thames 22:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the copyvio material once more. Wikipedia:Copyright#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others states that copyrighted material ought to be paraphrased/rewritten, or that permission ought to be obtained. I've asked User:Jacrosse to do both in the past, and I'm asking again. However, I don't think it's fair or permissible to put Wikipedia in legal liability be re-inserting the material without having made some changes to it.—thames 14:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Lind section

Jacrosse, on the Great Depression/WWII and New Left sections, why are you editing out sentences that were sourced with external links? —thames 15:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summaries, I felt that the discussion of Lind was biased toward his critics. I have just made new edits, which I hope are in keeping with your concerns, as with my new edits of the leftist origins subheading. I wish this had not been such an acrimonious process, but I hope that the way I've left it now can finally be satisfactory to all of us.

Let me also take this opportunity to say that it is the height of chutzpah for Chip Berlet to take me task for name calling, as name calling has been the essence of his entire career.--Jacrosse 03:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Jacrosse: Please stop the nasty personal attacks. Please refer to me--as is basic simple courtesy for any Wiki editor--by my user name. Thanks.--Cberlet 03:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

But that is your name, and you were once head of the Albanian client sect in this country, and furthermore you are a public figure and therefore your work on Wikipedia should merit particular scrutiny. And what does it say that you made no response to the substance of the charge that your whole career has been about name calling, hell you can't even smear your way out of it like the neocons, you just whine about "nasty personal attacks". --Jacrosse 16:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I was not a leader of the Albania friendship society, was not a fan of Enver Hoxha, have condemned Stalinism as totalitarian, and oppose Leninism as inherently anti-democratic. See, for example, my article "Abstaining from Bad Sects: Understanding Sects, Cadres, and Mass Movement Organizations"[2]. That you would believe such nonsense shows an alarming lack of thorough research on the subject. That you would post them here is a breach of Wiki etiquette. When you argue "you are a public figure and therefore your work on Wikipedia should merit particular scrutiny" you raise interesting issues that have recently been dealt with in detail by ArbCom. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Harassment_of_controversial_experts, especially the findings on "Controversial experts", "Harassment of controversial experts", "SNAKE! SNAKE!", "Harassment", and "External activities of users", and "Editors with a strong point of view." Please refrain from further attacks, false claims, and comments about my outside work.--Cberlet 17:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing which provides evidence against your older affiliations, and all the essay you pointed me to proves is that you subscribe to the Leninist/popular frontist proscription of "ultra-leftism". And all I can say for your harrassment of my friends at the Mises Institute is that its in keeping with all of your past behavior and antics.--Jacrosse 18:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a peculiar view of the essay. Nonetheless, your are violating Wiki policy with these personal attacks on me and my outside work. Please desist.--Cberlet 18:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

God, your awfully thin skinned for someone who styles himself as such a major enemy of "the right". You really are just a classic cliche of a bully who constantly name-calls whoever you don't like and is totally emasculated when the tables are turned. --Jacrosse 20:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Lucky for me I don't define my masculinity based on your criteria. Bad manners and agressive name-calling may be a sign of masculinity in your circle, but not mine. I write articles about the political right. I do not engage in name-calling. Review the above exchange between us, and then reconsider who comes across as the bully. Just a suggestion.--Cberlet 21:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Vintage projection! Assuming that your familiar enough with the case that's made against the quality of your work, including the bullying tactics thereof, I was commenting on your masuclinity issues for lack of a better term. I was saying that your the one who apparently has those issues, not me.--Jacrosse 22:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried Viagra? It might make you a more secure editor. Projection indeed! LOL! --Cberlet 01:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

How utterly sad, shallow, and all-bark-no-bite you are has proven to not cease to amaze me - you've descended all the way from vapid name calling to a pure non-sequitur!

Jacrosse 03:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This is extremely childish and must stop immediately. Both of you are violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I think it would be wise for both of you to take a break from editing Wikipedia, or this article at the very least, for a short period in order to cool off.—thames 18:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Start discussion over

Where is there evidence that it is "widely believed" that neoconservatism is tied to Trotskyist theories? This is a very controversial assertion.--Cberlet 19:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Its all very Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon-ish. Max Shachtman was a freind of Trotsky. Shachtman formed the Independant Socialist League, that merged with the Socialist Party, which had a group break off and form the Social Democrats, USA, of which Paul Wolfowitz used to be a member, who is a raging neocon. Other than the idea that change sometimes must come from conflict(revolution to the Trotskists, application of military power to the neocon), what else do they share?--BohicaTwentyTwo 20:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You trivialize every stage of the trajectory - Max Shachtman was probably Trotsky's closest American disciple, whose Independent Socialist League took over the Socialist Party in vintage Leninist style, who then as the renamed Social Democrats USA became an integral part of the political operation of Scoop Jackson, which more or less wholesale went into the Reagan Administration, and from there had an immense influence on the American right up to the present day.--Jacrosse 21:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

James Patrick Cannon can be properly desribed as Trotsky's closest American disciple. Max Shachtman and James Burnham were booted out of the Socialist Workers Party in 1940 at Trotsky's insistence because they did not accept a Marxist critique of the Soviet Union but were instead veering towards Cold War liberalism. To try retroactively casting everything which Shachtman did after that as "Trotskyism" is purely bogus. Some popular paleocons have had Leftist backgrounds such as Kenneth Goff who was a former Communist Party member from 1936 to 1939 before he became associated with Liberty Lobby and the like. It doesn't mean anything to try drawing from this the insinuation that Irving Kristol in 1980 was a Trotskyist. Kristol himself hardly spent any time (less than two years) in the Socialist Workers Party before he was expelled as a supporter of Shachtman's faction. During that time Kristol did absolutely nothing to leave a record of significant activity as a member of the SWP. Much later when he was veering more sharply to the Right Kristol began recalling his brief stint in the SWP which is an old trick of many people who turn to the Right, give the impression that having been on the Left once you now know the real truth. Kenneth Goff played such an act and so have many other conservatives, whether paleo, neo or dumeo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.247.137.241 (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

But what matters is where is there a reputable published source that says the analysis about Trotskyism is "widely" accepted? The issue is not what you or I or any other Wiki editor thinks.--Cberlet 21:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I said widely "believed" not widely "accepted", but I guess nuance is completely lost on you, as it certainly is from your work.--Jacrosse 15:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks. We both have been warned.--Cberlet 18:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

There is this book review in Foreign Affairs that discusses the link Source. Here is another from the American Conservative magazine [3]. There actually is a fair bit of these types of mentions.

I don't dispute that the concept is widely circulated, and widely discussed, I am just saying that there is no way to prove that it is widely "believed" or widely "accepted". I am just asking for a minor revision of language, or a simple statement that it is "one view." --Cberlet 18:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

<----------Can we please discuss more before content edits concerning Trotskyism?--Cberlet 15:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you so have your panties in a bunch about this Chip? Is it because you refuse to give quarter to the notion that totalitarianism came to America from the quarters of the old left as opposed to your much vaunted "right"? You would do well to remember that your old idol Hoxha did consider Trotsky to be a "right-opportunist".--Jacrosse 15:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Jacrosse, if you don't knock off the personal attacks, I will bring up your conduct on the admin noticeboard. The only reason I won't block you for that myself is that I've had enough interactions with you and the article that someone might question my motives.

On the substance of this: Is there any problem with using "discussed" instead of "believed" or "accepted"? It makes essentially the same point, and unlike the others is verifiable. - Jmabel | Talk 05:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Is that tone really necessary? I'll change it to "widely thought", will that do?--Jacrosse 15:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The wording "widely thought" does not change the meaning. I am objecting to the claim. Simply swapping in a synonym does not address the problem. The claim about Trotskyism is fascinating and worth mentioning, and may well be "widely circulated," and "widely discussed," but it is hardly "widely believed" or "widely thought." Those phrases are value judgements that might be cited to a reputable published source, but otherwise are POV and faulty original research.--Cberlet 16:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I will repeat - yes, admonitions about courtesy be damned - that Chip Berlet is the last person who should be criticizing anyone on this score!--Jacrosse 01:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please consider courtesy as an option. Really. I took the advice of the administrator. We can move forward with editing.--Cberlet 02:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not revert careful text editing and requests for cites that replace puff POV without cites.--Cberlet 02:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet is right about avoiding terms such as "widely thought". See Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. —thames 16:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have once again replaced the uncited opinionated POV with a factual summary and request for cites.--Cberlet 02:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

And I reverted it yet again, I repeat once more that I will give no quarter to a totalitarian like Chip Berlet!--Jacrosse 15:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

<-------------Unsubstantiated POV claims and no competent editing coupled with repeated personal attacks. My edit was fair and balanced and included most of the text with requests for cites. The response by Jacrosse is not appropriate.--Cberlet 18:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This is just harrassment pure and simple, which is all you know how to do, and yes, I repeat, you are a totalitarian!!!--Jacrosse 21:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not "harrassment," simply good editing. The material you keep reverting back to is not competently cited. It is just opinion. No cites. No links. Just POV. It has no place on a serious encyclopedia. I actually edited the text. You just revert. If you are not able to find cites, the material can AND SHOULD be deleted. And PLEASE refrain from the personal attacks.--Cberlet 23:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Jacrosse - I would recommend that you approach this a bit more analytically and less passionately. It is possible to get anything that is well supported into Wikipedia if you go through the appropriate process. You (Jacrosse) are letting Cberlet get under your skin in a very big way and it doesn't reflect positively on you. --Ben Houston 03:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest someone ban Jacrosse from editing this article. He isn't being civil even when I went and found references for the material he was trying to add. --Ben Houston 22:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the edits by Ben Houston have solved most of the problems. I hope there are no further attempts to delete this useful editing job. I have restored those edits. I only have a question about the one paragraph below.--Cberlet 18:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Explain this paragraph?

"Some observers believe furthermore that there is a fundamental continuity of ideas from Trotsky to the present neoconservative movement. They point in particular to the French Turn, by which Trotsky advocated the belief in social democracy as a Leninist vanguard. This was indeed essentially the position for which Shachtman broke with Trotsky, and that position has remained throughout the essence of neoconservatism. Indeed, this view has only been embraced by neocon thinkers such as Paul Berman, Christopher Hitchens, and Stephen Schwartz."

Let's make a note of the fact that Shachtman's split had nothing to do with the French Turn, which likewise had nothing to do with viewing social democrats as a Leninist vanguard. Shachtman split from Trotsky because Trotsky insisted on manintaining that the Soviet Union was what he called "a bureaucratically degenerated workers state." Shachtman chose to characterize the USSR was "bureaucratic collectivism" but rejected the Marxist view which asserts that a social class such as either the bourgeoisie or the proletariat must be the owning class. Trotsky used this Marxist perspective to argue that the Soviet Union, which was clearly not owned by a capitalist class, was a workers state, albeit a bureaucratically degenerated one. Shachtman rejected this perspective. The argument was not over the French Turn at all. It was an argument about how to view the Soviet Union as a social phenomenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.247.137.241 (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean that Paul Berman, Christopher Hitchens, and Stephen Schwartz point to the "French Turn?" The meaning of this paragraphis unclear. What position did Shachtman take? Really muddy.--Cberlet 21:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what that means. Although there is a wikipedia article for French Turn and another for Max Shachtman. The Shachtman article mentions his influence on neoconservatives fairly concisely (although it isn't properly referenced, which is problematic.) I agree with you that the above paragraph is just muddy. I would need to do some research though to understand the area much better than I do before attempting to rewrite it, unfortunately, I don't have the time right now. --Ben Houston 19:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait a bit and see if anyone else can make sense of it. I just do not understand what it is trying to say. Thanks for the edits.--Cberlet 04:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Man, I totally miss the point of that paragraph too. Jacrosse, I'm sure you have something in mind, but could you explain on this page what you are trying to say with the paragraph quoted above? (And if possible, please do the explaining without jargon—e.g., "French Turn," etc.) Also, there are some terms without clear antecedents in the paragraph: "the position" (which position?) and "this view" (which view?). Thanks for your help on this. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 03:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph in question is clearly false since we know that the Trotskyists were prosecuted by the Roosevelt administration for opposing World War II as an imperialist war. You could make a partial comparison between the way Earl Browder and other Stalinists supported World War II and the way that various former Leftists of many types shifted to the Right and became neo-conservatives in the 1970s. But certainly there is no rational comparison to draw between the Trotskyists insistently maintaining that a bourgeois war against fascism is an imperialist war and the practice of neo-conservatives justifying wars to spread democracy. The latter has more in common with Rudyard Kipling's notion of the white man's burden that it does with anything ever suggested by Trotsky as to how to react to a war by the imperialist capitalist state. People who throw such claims obviously know nothing about what Leon Trotsky did and did not teach to his followers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.247.137.241 (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Reversions without editing or discussion

Note to Jacrosse: Simply reverting what Ben Houston and I have written is not constructive. Please do not remove the disputed section tag until this discussion is complete.--Cberlet 17:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Concrete v. vague language

Instead of the vague and unproven "Many believe that..." I prefer the language researched by Ben Houston:

• Some, such as former Office of Special Plans employee Karen Kwiatkowski [4] and libertarian commentator Justin Raimondo [5], believe that...

This is concrete and properly cited. What's the problem?--Cberlet 21:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is your insistence on redundancy which comes off as a means of harrassment, the fact that you had to make the point twice under two different subheadings on the talk page says it all. The initial controversy over that section was resolved until you came along!--Jacrosse 22:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your comments make no sense to me. How does a concrete cited reference deserve to be deleted?--Cberlet 02:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:POV prefers article text which specifically cites the sources, rather than using vague terms such as "many believe that" and the like. —thames 05:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If it helps, I do not dispute that the Trotskyism argument deserves to be mentioned, or that it has circulated, I just prefer the more concrete language tied to citations. The other paragraph on the "French Turn" simply leaves me confused. I don't understand the point. It needs to be rewritten.--Cberlet 18:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I too believe that (1) if assertions like "many believe that" can be tied to actual people—hence the need for citations—and (2) if the "French Turn" paragraph can be made comprehensible, then the subsection will be fine. Jacrosse, could you engage in this discussion with us? Could you tell me what your objections to doing (1) and (2) are? Hydriotaphia 04:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that the following paragraph should be deleted:

Some observers believe furthermore that there is a fundamental continuity of ideas from Trotsky to the present neoconservative movement. They point in particular to the French Turn, by which Trotsky advocated the belief in social democracy as a Leninist vanguard. This was indeed essentially the position for which Shachtman broke with Trotsky, and that position has remained throughout the essence of neoconservatism. Indeed, this view has only been embraced by neocon thinkers such as Paul Berman, Christopher Hitchens, and Stephen Schwartz.

I've come to this conclusion for the following reasons:

1. "Some observers" is an unattributed weasel phrase.
2. Moreover, the connection between Trotskyism and neoconservatism has already been limned—more intelligibly and in more detail—in the paragraph further up that discusses Michael Lind's view of the neocons.

If I don't hear an objection, therefore, I think I will delete this paragraph in the next 24 hours. I also think it's highly disputable whether the extended quote from Justin Raimondo should remain in the article. I will soon discuss that issue too. But this is, alas, all I have time for at present. Hydriotaphia 01:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hypdriotaphia. I agree with your comments but do you realize that Jacrosse just keeps reverting to the above? There is another version which I wrote that is concrete and properly referenced that Jacrosse doesn't like. If you want to just revert to that it would be better than just deleting the stuff that Jacrosse keeps reverting to. (I also believe that it would be extremely helpful if someone just banned Jacrosse from editing this article -- he is a nuance who doesn't follow the rules and is preventing proper development of this article. He has been doing this reverting for at least a couple weeks now.) --Ben Houston 01:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• May I presume that you meant to write "nuisance", not "nuance"? - Jmabel | Talk 22:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ben Houston, I agree that Jacrosse is acting irrationally, but I'm going to proceed as if he's not. (As to banning him: I am inclined to agree, but then I'm not an administrator.) Tell me what version is yours (i.e., give me the date and time so I can go look at it in the history), and I'll take a look at it, and tell you what I think. In an ideal world, we would be able to insert as much of your version as possible while not provoking Jacrosse's wrath. Let's see what we can do in this admittedly un-ideal situation. Hydriotaphia 05:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The form of words about "French Turn, by which Trotsky advocated the belief in social democracy as a Leninist vanguard" is original research. Please see French Turn, where Jacross's additions have been discussed on the Talk page. --Duncan 23:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's a historically false statement to say that Trotsky ever viewed the social democrats as a Leninist vanguard. What the French Turn strategy was about was something else. After the rise of Hitler and the way that the Comintern's attitude towards the social democrats had split apart any possible opposition to Hitler, there was a tendency for many Left-wing youth to gravitate towards the social democratic parties out of disgust with the Comintern. Trotsky specifically distinguished between these youngsters seeking a Leftist party away from the Comintern and the leaders of the Second International. He told his followers that they should join the parties of the latter in order to argue their points of view with the new generation of Left youth who were entering the parties of the Socialist International and thereby win them over to revolutionary Marxism-Leninism at which point they could split from the Socialist International and form a new Fourth International. The latter was formed in 1938. But never, at any time, did Trotsky claim that the social democrats were going to be a vanguard of anything other than social reformism. It's incredible the number of ignorant false rumors which spread around about Trotsky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.247.137.241 (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that i don't think the text I added was great -- the section needs work. To be honest, I was trying resolve the heated argument by integrating what Jacrosse was trying to add but in a referenced and balanced fashion. The most recent revert to the text I had inserted is this one [6]. The original edit was this one, [7] frmo February 4, 2005, but I fear if we revert that far we may miss other improvements to this article. I think that my edit starts out with "Some" - which is actually a weasel word, but at least it is an attempt in good faith. --Ben Houston 00:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Dispute flag

Note to Jacrosse. Please do not remove dispute flags without discussion. It violates Wiki policy.--Cberlet 05:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for discussion.--Cberlet 23:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing to discuss - someone with your lack of credibility should not be able to hijack the article by arbitrarily and unilaterally declaring a dispute!--Jacrosse 22:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. -Will Beback 23:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Is that all anyone knows how to say?!--Jacrosse 13:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Jacrosse, I don't think Cberlet is declaring a dispute "arbitrarily and unilaterally." In fact, judging from the comments on this talk page, there are several people (including myself) who agree that a dispute flag is probably warranted. Please see my comments on this talk page (above) and respond to the concerns voiced therein. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 18:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the text drafted as a compromise by Bhouston and deleted the confusing sentence. I have also removed the dispute flag. If Jacrosse wishes to discuss this, we can do so here. Otherwise, I suggest that Jacrosse be banned from editing this page, as Bhouston already suggested. At some point these disruptions and personal attacks have to stop.--Cberlet 18:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Berlet is the one who should be banned, after a very arduous and painful process where the text was agreed on Berlet suddenly ramsacked it. I'm going to appeal to thames, who mediated that dispute, to intervene once more.--Jacrosse 16:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The text was edited by Bhouston as a compromise, and was a nice NPOV job. Repeated personal attacks and reverts without editing are the problem here. --Cberlet 17:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The text as agreed to by Thames, and nothing that has gone on since then, was the compromise. And damn it you deserve personal attacks, your whole career and purpose in life is the leveling of personal attacks on people you don't like, the fact that I'm not fond of most of them either not withstanding.--Jacrosse 20:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This makes no sense. There was no mediation. There is ongoing editing. Please stop the personal attacks.--Cberlet 18:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Francis Fukuyama's Recent Essay & Book

Summary: Both User:Bhouston (19 February 2006), PJ (4 March 2006) and 66.92.72.189 (23 February 2006) have posted quotes from Fukuyama's recent essay and book on Neoconservatism:

• "After Neoconservatism", [8], [9]
• "Fukuyama’s moment: a neocon schism opens", [10]

The following is a summary of the Fukumaya quotes highlighed by the above contributors in separate comments on this page:

Origins of the Neoconservative Moment

"The roots of neoconservatism lie in a remarkable group of largely Jewish intellectuals who attended City College of New York (C.C.N.Y.) in the mid- to late 1930's and early 1940's, a group that included Irving Kristol, Daniel Bell, Irving Howe, Nathan Glazer and, a bit later, Daniel Patrick Moynihan. The story of this group has been told in a number of places, most notably in a documentary film by Joseph Dorman called 'Arguing the World.'"

-from [11]

Trotskyite Influences

"It is not an accident that many in the C.C.N.Y. group started out as Trotskyites. Leon Trotsky was, of course, himself a Communist, but his supporters came to understand better than most people the utter cynicism and brutality of the Stalinist regime. The anti-Communist left, in contrast to the traditional American right, sympathized with the social and economic aims of Communism, but in the course of the 1930's and 1940's came to realize that "real existing socialism" had become a monstrosity of unintended consequences that completely undermined the idealistic goals it espoused. While not all of the C.C.N.Y. thinkers became neoconservatives, the danger of good intentions carried to extremes was a theme that would underlie the life work of many members of this group."

-from [12]

But if we are going to speak of real Trotskyism in the sense of the ideas advocated by the actual Leon Trotsky, then we must note that Trotsky attached a high importance to the defense of the Soviet Union and this was exactly why Shachtman and his followers broke from Trotsky. Trotsky had always argued that the ruling bureaucracy in the USSR would bring things towards a crisis in which the threat of counter-revolution would be posed and that at this point the revolutionary vanguard party must be prepared to save the revolution. Trotsky never advocated that the parties under his leadership should become Left of Center anti-Communist Cold Warriors. The Liberal Cold Warrior is a phenomenon which goes much further back in time before Shachtman came around to it. He simply joined an existing trend by breaking away from Trotsky's teachings. But neo-conservatism itself goes much further than that since neo-conservatism strongly advocates the cutting of taxes and economic deregulation, all of which goes well beyond anything which Shachtman ever advocated (never mind Trotsky). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.247.134.95 (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Connections to American Power and Hegemony

"Neoconservatism, whatever its complex roots, has become indelibly associated with concepts like coercive regime change, unilateralism and American hegemony. What is needed now are new ideas, neither neoconservative nor realist, for how America is to relate to the rest of the world — ideas that retain the neoconservative belief in the universality of human rights, but without its illusions about the efficacy of American power and hegemony to bring these ends about."

-from [13]

Over Militarized Means

"The problem with neoconservatism's agenda lies not in its ends, which are as American as apple pie, but rather in the overmilitarized means by which it has sought to accomplish them.... After the fall of the Soviet Union, various neoconservative authors like Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol and Robert Kagan suggested that the United States would use its margin of power to exert a kind of "benevolent hegemony" over the rest of the world, fixing problems like rogue states with W.M.D., human rights abuses and terrorist threats as they came up. Writing before the Iraq war, Kristol and Kagan considered whether this posture would provoke resistance from the rest of the world, and concluded, "It is precisely because American foreign policy is infused with an unusually high degree of morality that other nations find they have less to fear from its otherwise daunting power." ... We are fighting hot counterinsurgency wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and against the international jihadist movement, wars in which we need to prevail. But "war" is the wrong metaphor for the broader struggle, since wars are fought at full intensity and have clear beginnings and endings. Meeting the jihadist challenge is more of a "long, twilight struggle" whose core is not a military campaign but a political contest for the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslims around the world."

-from [14]

I hope this highlighting of Fukumaya's contributions helps get it into the article. This is a hard article for those not engaged in the long running debates to edit -- as noted by the many reversions of new content added by otherwise well meaning individuals. --70.48.68.200 08:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I'm going to request mediation. This article seems desperately to need it. Hydriotaphia 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the most NPOV version of the disputed text, and deleted the incomprehensible paragraph. Let's start with any disagreement over the compromise text written by Ben Houston since this appears to be a good faith attempt at finding a compromise.--Cberlet 02:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Your unilateral disruption of the cooling off period demonstrates that you are the one not acting in good faith!--Jacrosse 03:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I am interested in mediation, not giving this page over to your control. When mediation starts, I will cooperate.--Cberlet 03:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Start cooperating now...I won't have an edit war here.--MONGO 03:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"the neoconservative desire to spread democracy abroad, often by force" is hardly a NPOV edit. It is completely POV.--MONGO 03:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Then let's edit the version that at least has some sources connected to the claims--and that is the version that Ben Houston really tried to make a compromise between Jacrosse and me. Also, let's not ignore the long history of lack of cooperation and vicious personal attacks on me by [User:Jacrosse|Jacrosse]]. --Cberlet 03:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Not a good start, Mongo, you restored a version with the same text that is even more POV than the version written by Ben Houston. The version you restored--supported by [User:Jacrosse|Jacrosse]], begins with "Many believe that the neoconservative desire to spread democracy abroad, often by force, parallels the Trotskyist dream of permanent revolution." The version by Ben Houston at least attributes that phrase to actual cites. You could not have possibly read the text you restored. If you are not able to provide an even-handed mediation you should recuse yourself. Shame on you--Cberlet 03:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I am also not here to mediate...I am here to ensure all editors follow NPOV guidelines and watch out for WP:3RR.--MONGO 04:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There was a jump on my server end, just as there must have been when I made my last comment here...don't say shame on you to me again, condescending one. I'm well aware of your constant use of this resource to push your far left anti conservative viewpoints....so don't challenge me.--MONGO 03:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I know nothing about the personal attacks...I look at the edits. Hopefully the mediation will succeed in making the article better.--MONGO 03:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't get what's going on now—there are a lot of things happening at once, and I'm not sure I follow them—but I do want to respond briefly to something Mongo has said. I don't think "the neoconservative desire to spread democracy abroad, often by force" is a POV edit. It does seem to me that one thing that people who are labeled neoconservatives have in common is the notion that liberal democracy should be encouraged (they think so for differing reasons, to be sure). This encouragement, if necessary (often phrased: "as a last resort"), may take the form of military intervention. I think these assertions can be supported. If I can find support for them, would you consider letting "the neoconservative desire etc." passage stand? Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 03:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a more NPOV way to write the text, however. I tried a rewrite, see what you think.--Cberlet 03:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the use of biased sources such as antiwar.com can do nothing to support our attempts to be neutral. Yes, we can report they said these things, but what is the motivation behind citing them?--MONGO 04:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; but what if the proposition to which you object was supported by neutral sources? In the next few days, I shall attempt to find sources to back up the text to which you object. Thanks for pointing this out. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 04:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This article has no need of mediation, it is the perfect example of stupidity, a classic of wiki research, BRAVO!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) .

Awaiting mediator

This message was in response to my complaint that Mongo was not an unbiased mediator:

• MONGO is not the mediator assigned to the matter; he is not a member of the Mediation Committee, nor has he been deputized. It generally takes a few days after a mediation is accepted for a mediator to be assigned; most of the committee is actively mediating disuptes, and we generally try to give members a day or two to look over the cases and volunteer to take on mediations before we begin assigning cases. If you add Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Neoconservatism to your watchlist, you will see when a mediator is assigned to the case; you can also look at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Current to see which mediators are assigned to which cases, and which cases are unassigned at the moment. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 04:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope this clarifies matters.--Cberlet 13:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey! I never said I was a mediator, did I...NO. I am an administrator and when I said no edit war, I meant it. Maybe that confused you. Timestamp?--MONGO 14:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Then, fellow editor, please refrain from further personal attacks. (added sign & time stamp)--Cberlet 14:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

CBerlet...I have made not one personal attack against you and I am tiring fast of your misuse of our no personal attacks policy. I'm hoping you'll also not misrepresent me like you did at the administrators noticeboard [15] and call me a "biased mediator" again. When this mediation is done, the pervasive anti neoconservative message permeating this article will be gone.--MONGO 14:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Response: See this line from above: --("...don't say shame on you to me again, condescending one. I'm well aware of your constant use of this resource to push your far left anti conservative viewpoints....so don't challenge me.--MONGO 03:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC))-- which I call a personal attack. It certainly appeared to me that Mongo was implying being the mediator. Apologies to Mongo for my confusion. Apology from Mongo accepted in abstentia. Let's just edit the text and refrain from any more personal attacks. Everyone.--Cberlet 15:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

(Rip poke)...you started it: "Not a good start, Mongo, you restored a version with the same text that is even more POV" "You could not have possibly read the text you restored. If you are not able to provide an even-handed mediation you should recuse yourself. Shame on you--Cberlet 03:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)" I did read the text, I think it all needs to go, but I don't support the citations of biased sources like antiwar.com unless we attribute them as such...biased. That is why I did the revert. in abstentia? I owe you something? Yes, who will be the lucky mediator I wonder. Where are the citations for this article? Can someone point out where the references are within the text? How are they to be attributed?--MONGO 15:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a reference section but when those references are used they are not properly denoted -- which is a problem. I completely agree with you that this whole article needs its references improved. Although I disagree somewhat with your summarization of the article "hopelessly biased." I will make some time in the next few days to improve the references where I can. Best. --Ben Houston 15:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Pending the results of mediation I think we should establish a Neoconservatism/Temp article and rewrite things on the basis of cited sources, using the best-practices in footnoting. Until the mediation is over, I think all editors should refrain from editing.—thames 16:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no "Criticisms of Neo-Conservatism" i.e. a debate over the flaws in the NeoCon philosophy, which seems a more pertininet discussion than a page long debate over proper labeling. thoughts?

Where is mediation?

If there is not going to be a mediation, we should begin editing again, and seek sanctions against all liberal scum for simply reverting to his version without any substantial discussion.

Wilsonian Liberals of the past

So basically Neo Cons are a bunch of Alden Pyles in the Quiet American. They are no different than the Wilsonian liberals of the 20s and 30s.

This statement is definitely far off the beam. Under Woodrow Wilson the IRS was created with a clear prerogative for taxing the wealthiest interests. Under Ronald Reagan and his successors taxation on the rich has been undone very steadily. What is the comparison.

It should also be kept in mind that paleo-cons during the Cold War had a long record of advocating global interventionism to a degree that would make the Iraq invasion appear sane by contrast. Most paleo-cons used to curse at Truman for firing MacArthur when he tried to start World War III. No honest person can say that neo-cons invented the idea of global intervention, or that they ever had to bother looking at Wilson for examples of such interventionist sentiments. There have been differences of emphasis in the way that many neo-cons versus paleo-cons have advocated sweeping military interventions, and neo-cons in particular are attached to Israel, but there is no reason for looking outisde of the conservative box when seeking precedents for the advocacy of strong-arm interventionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.247.134.95 (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Editing for NPOV and Cites

OK. Let's focus on adding cites to some of the claims, and expanding the context of the article. The actual theories of neoconservatism are thin, as Mongo has pointed out. Too much of the criticism is from the libertarians such as Raimondo. Anyone want to take a section and work on it?--Cberlet 20:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It's important that we use more mainstream academic based referencing and try to stay away from POV websites that are not peer reviewed or simply opinion based. Not an easy job. It appears the focus of the mediation is rather narrow and I don't want to broaden it to my argument that this entire article needs a major overhaul, without everyone concurring on whether they want to go into it that deeply. I may recuse myself if the current mediation is just about a few points.--MONGO 21:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as my editing, aside from reverting vandalism, I'll await the assignment of a mediator to see where that takes us. It may be a long wait as I think they are all occupied elsewhere at this time.--MONGO 06:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This is appalling and outrageous

We already had this mediated, the version I'm presently defending is the one that was agreed to after mediation. There is no reason to overturn the existing agreement just because Chip Berlet has decided to hijack the article for his extremist agenda. If there needs to be a cooling off period at least turn at back to the other version.--Jacrosse 23:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There was no mediation. There is no exisiting agreement. I am not hijacking the article.--Cberlet 02:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

A mediator is still set to be assigned to this article: WP:RFM#To_Be_Assigned. Meanwhile, I suggest it's unwise for all sides to continue pouring gasoline onto the fire. We've all signed on, agreeing to mediation. Let's put some trust in its eventual outcome.—thames 21:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As a point of clarification, was there a previous mediation regarding this article? And did it involve the same issues and/or editors? Thanks, Hydriotaphia 21:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes there was, which is exactly what I've been repeatedly pointing out.--Jacrosse 16:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. Can you point me to where the mediation was carried out? (Is it in the Talk Page archives?) I just want to bring myself up to speed on what was agreed to. Thanks very much, Hydriotaphia 17:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of pouring gasoline on the fire

I've just wandered back into this article for the first time in a month or so. I certainly think it is reasonable to look at the Trotskyist backgrounds of some early neoconservatives, and to discuss how the neoconservative approach to foreign policy of "exporting democracy" may be, consciously or unconsciously, influenced by the Trotskyist doctrine of permanent revolution and (in particular) of the impossibility of socialism in one country, but some of Raimondo's hypothesizing about entryism and the French turn strike me as downright bizarre. Or wacko. Are we supposed to imagine that Paul Wolfowitz et. al., having deviously wormed their way into the Republican mainstream, will one day emerge in their true colors as leaders of a revolutionary Trotskyist vanguard? Or is it merely supposed to be an unprincipled Schachtmanite vanguard? Or am I misunderstanding? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The French Turn argument is all very conspiracy theory-like. However, I also think the only similarity between the Trotskyists and the Neocons is the scope of their goals and not the goals themselves. --BohicaTwentyTwo 13:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting

I can appreciate that some parties may want to undergo mediation in order to resolve their differences with one another, but I don't see why this should affect others who may wish to edit the article. I am unprotecting. Those who are interested in mediation know who they are and should probably refrain from potentially provocative edits. --Tony Sidaway 02:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. Suppose, though, that a party awaiting mediation does make a potentially provocative edit. Would doing so repeatedly be grounds for arbitration? (Keep in mind that mediation is experiencing a backlog, so this wait may take a while.) I don't expect any party to do this; I just want to be clear. Thanks, Hydriotaphia 04:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC) [Copied to Tony Sidaway's talk page]

Unfortunately, the principal parties in the mediation have shown that they could not refrain from revert warring, despite the pending mediation, which is why I had protected the page. You can look at the history yourself. While these editors bait and flame one another, no other editors can constructively work on the article.—thames 19:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:Thames):

In reference to your latest comment—I hope you don't think I've been edit-warring, baiting, and flaming. If I have, please tell me where and when I did so. Hydriotaphia 19:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's between Jacrosse and Cberlet.—thames 19:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thames is the one best to help you out there--Jacrosse 03:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

So let's be clear. There has not been a mediation. Thus every time Jacrosse reverted the page claiming that "mediation" had arrived at a "compromise" wording, that action by Jacrosse was based on a misunderstanding that assumed thames had handled a "mediation," and that somehow meant no edits to certain text were appropriate. Correct? Since other editors have now raised almost all of the same criticisms I originally raised about the unsourced and POV nature of this page, I see no need for a mediation. I propose I leave the editing of this page to others for a few months; especially since Jacrosse has stated: "And I reverted it yet again, I repeat once more that I will give no quarter to a totalitarian like Chip Berlet." Seems like mediation would be a waste of a lot of Admin time.--Cberlet 15:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful information, Cberlet. Jacrosse: do you consider this accurate? Were you under the impression (mistaken, since Thames was not mediating) that Thames had mediated between you and Cberlet and you two had come to some kind of conclusion? Please respond. Thanks, Hydriotaphia 18:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"Cosmetic" differences

To Jacrosse: Whether or not your differences with Cberlet are cosmetic, I still have a problem with the current version of the "left wing origins" section. I point this out merely to emphasize that discussion must continue. To reiterate my comments above, my concerns are the following (they all deal with the extended quote from Raimondo and the last two paragraphs of the section):

1. With regard to the Raimondo quote, there seem to me two problems. First, it is unclear to me why he needs to be quoted at such length. Second, unless Raimondo's particular musings on Schachtman et al. are a widely held view (unless, that is to say, Raimondo's views are held by people besides Raimondo), the quote, as well as the section's penultimate paragraph, are original research. This is for the simple reason that one person's view of a subject—unless that person is a very widely acknowledged expert on a subject—does not deserve Wikipedia's attention, except in Wikipedia's article on that person. By "very widely acknowledged expert on a subject," I mean (to take examples at random), Trevor-Roper on Laud, Tocqueville on Jacksonian democracy, Northrop Frye on Blake, Robert Bork or Richard Posner on antitrust law, etc. Raimondo does not appear to be such an expert. I think even someone who may agree with him will admit that.
2. "Some observers" is an unattributed weasel phrase.
3. Moreover, the connection between Trotskyism and neoconservatism has already been limned—more intelligibly and in more detail—in the paragraph further up that discusses Michael Lind's view of the neocons. Much of what is said in the last two paragraphs I simply do not understand. Perhaps this is because my knowledge of twentieth-century Marxism is spotty; perhaps it is because the paragraphs are replete with jargon. In either case, this is a problem.

Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 05:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If no one has any objections to my concerns, I will start making edits consistent with those concerns. Hydriotaphia 20:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

So, I've made the edits. I am more than happy to discuss those edits, and very willing to listen to criticism. Hydriotaphia 05:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverting the edits by Supersexyspacemonkey

The following is an explanation for why I reverted the changes made by User:Supersexyspacemonkey to the article. I left this message on the user's talk page.

Thanks very much for your contributions to the Neoconservatism article. However, I have reverted your changes for two reasons. First, the paragraphs you added describe a disagreement between neocons and paleocons about Reagan without (a) citing to neocons' and paleocons' appropriations of Reagan, (b) giving evidence that there is indeed a disagreement about who may legitimately "claim" Reagan, and (c) citing evidence that the "technical" (i.e., true and only?) definition of a neocon is a former liberal who has become conservative. Second, the paragraphs you added, even if they had been sourced, would be appropriate only in a section of the article, not in the introduction, which summarizes the high points of the sections that follow. Because there is no section currently devoted to the Reagan debate, your paragraphs belong in the body of the article, not in its introduction. If you disagree, I am more than willing to discuss this issue on the Neoconservatism talk page. Again, sincere thanks for your contribution. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 06:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hydriotaphia 06:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

New to conservatism?

The prefix "neo" can denote that many of the movement's founders, originally liberals, Democrats or from socialist backgrounds, were new to conservatism

According to who? The term 'neo' differentiates it from classical conservatism, particularily in terms of its support for the free market. Is there a reputable source for this "other interperetation" of the prefix? (Unsigned)

The conclusion that "'Neo' can denote that many of the movement's founders were new to conservativism," is false. It is prefix-abuse! It is certianly possible that many of the movement's founders could have been new to conservativism, and "neo" of course means new, but this is not how Neo--ism words are formed. "-ism" denotes a distinctive characteristic, theory, doctrine, or practise, and "Neo" always refers to the reversion to an altered form thereof. Even without knowing anything about neoconservativism, it is obvious that the word does not denote specifically that its proponents were once non-conservative. It is also not a great sentence, since it could have better described "liberals, Democrats, or from socialist backgrounds" (they forgot Green Party members !--kind of), as "those who identified with the political left" or something. That's just a side matter though. Not much more to debate here; I'm going to delete this part. Padde 17:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I take that back; I'm not going to change it, since the point is elaborated in the main text of the article. However, the meaning of 'neo' in this word has nothing to do with the former beliefs of its proponents. I'm not changing it because I don't know enough about the topic to do so, but I recommend that someone should. Padde 17:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In Defense Of Raimondo

Any reading of his columns that deal specifically with the history of neo-conservatism, and of his book Reclaiming The American Right, should demonstrate that he is in fact an expert on neo-conservatism, furthermore Antiwar.com has been a (if not the) primary vehicle for arousing knowledge of neo-conservatism into popular consciousness since 9/11.--Jacrosse 16:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this position is the following. An expert is one whose positions the other side takes time to dispute. (I.e., an expert is one whose arguments even his opponents feel they must confront.) I don't see this happening with Raimondo. There isn't any "anti-Raimondo" cottage industry, the way there is, for example, with a writer like Chomsky. I bring up the example of Chomsky in order to show that the problem is not that Raimondo is radical; Chomsky, after all, is radical too. The problem is that, while there is a cottage industry devoted to arguing against Chomsky (see, for example, this), Raimondo seems to be ignored by those outside his small group. Moreover, to devote so much time to such an overtly partisan source is problematic. And, as Duncan wrote on the Max Shachtman talk page:

I have re-read the aricle by Justin Raimondo. This is the linked article to the claim about the Leninist take-over. It does not does not support [the] claim. It suggests that a number of former Shachtmanites moved to the right, in the process breaking with Marxism and fragmenting further. Raimondo's article does not support the claim removed from the article. Even if he did, one claim would not justify inclusion automatically. Furthermore, Raimondo seems to be a highly partisan source, one who sees to shock and whose work is not carefully referenced. Indeed, many Wikipedians would argue that a blog is never a reputable source.

So, even if we did suppose Raimondo to be an expert source, the problem is that Raimondo's quote has nothing to do with the penultimate paragraph in the section—a paragraph that purports to "summarize" Raimondo's views. Thus, your response still doesn't justify that paragraph. Nor does it support the inclusion of the last paragraph, which continues to include unsourced, unattributed opinions. Therefore, unless you can convince me otherwise, I will—in the interest of compromise—leave the Raimondo quote in, but take out the last two paragraphs. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 18:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Can I please ask contributors to this page to be extra careful in their claims of how neo-conservatism is influenced by Trotskyism, permanent revolution and Max Shachtman. This is risk is that orginal research introduce on this page gets use to back it up there, and then those pages get used to back it up here. I have been unable to find strong connections between the cited documents and the claims they are used to support. Max Shachtman was not a neoconservative in any current understanding of the term: he was a social democrat, who thought that he was supporting self-determination in Vietnam rather than exporting democracy at the end of a barrel. Permanent revolution is not a strategy for democratisation in itself, but a strategy for establishing the Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat. Feel free to stop by my talk page if I can be of any help. --Duncan 20:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Duncan: please feel free to edit the "left wing origins" subsection of this page. I know you have been active at the Max Schachtman and "French Turn" pages, and I'm sure you would be a valuable contributor here. Hydriotaphia 17:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

To Hydrio - That is an absolutely outrageous criteria!!!! There exists an anti-Chomsky cottage industry because he is an easy target and one whom it is more effective to smear than someone like Raimondo who takes the time to get his facts strait. And to Duncan - you have proven beyond any doubt that your object is to defend Shachtman from whatever the hell your sectarian point of view is, it is true that Shachtman never truly became a neocon but it is truly absurd to say that he ever became a social democrat, self determination in Vietnam my shiny metal ass!!! Just like self dermination for Iraq right?--Jacrosse 21:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, let's all calm down a little here. As I said, in the interest of compromise, I left the Raimondo quote in, even though I continue not to believe he can truly be called an expert. But let me quote from what I said above: "even if we did suppose Raimondo to be an expert source, the problem is that Raimondo's quote has nothing to do with the penultimate paragraph in the section—a paragraph that purports to "summarize" Raimondo's views. Thus, your response still doesn't justify that paragraph. Nor does it support the inclusion of the last paragraph, which continues to include unsourced, unattributed opinions." Thus, we're still left with the problem of the last two paragraphs. Your latest comment still does not justify those two paragraphs. Unless you can convince me otherwise, I believe we should remove those last two paragraphs. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 23:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Jacrosse, my views on Shachtman are quite open. I do not fully understand his evolution, but personally I do think that his views were sincere - and that we has doing his best to explain his real views. I think his papers are evidence of that. There's a lot I don't understand, and that is why I am carefully reading through volume after volume and adding in every substantial reference I can find. I can think of references being added to Wikipedia which don't which actually supported the claim added with the reference - and that's why Wikpedia has has criteria. I know that we are all are busy, and sometimes we have to discuss as yet unsupported claims on the Talk pages while we look for references. In the mean time, Wikipedia's rules are clear that we can only add in referenced materials to the articles themselves. I and others are struggling to follow Wikipedia's policies as best we understand them. We all favour our understanding of the truth more than others': Wikipedia's norms aim to get around that, by forcing us to agree on what we can prove. If we did not do that then we would have revert wars. Without winning consensus, there can be no progress. A good way to focus this discussion would be to go away from this article and return to Max Shachtman. I think that since he broke with Trotskyism and Communism, and joined the social democrats, that is is fair to call him a social democrat. Wewould all love to see any proof you have otherwise. However, the blogerati's musings are not good enough. --Duncan 09:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

On Shachtman, I strongly recommend Isserman's If I Had a Hammer. -- Jmabel | Talk 15:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Earlier original use identified.

I like what Christo has just added, but isn't it a better place for it higher, under Origins? We currently have a reference to Harrington as the probable first user, and explain his use. MacDonald should go there, as the true originator. His definition is also pleasingly close to Harrington's, so it would allow us to also drop the reference to Harrington, thus shortening the article. --Duncan 17:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep Harrington as well: MacDonald is really just a precursor, since his use did not catch on. - Jmabel | Talk 17:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

References sought for Jacrosse's further addition

Can anyone find references for any of these claims? As far as I can see each and every element of his addition is not only unreferences, but untrue. I have listed them below. If anyone has any supportive erefences, please add them.

• Were the Shachtmanites, from Social Democrats USA and into the Reagan Administration onward, were acting on a totally orthodox Leninist trajectory of entryism, and a massively successful one at that.
• Is Raimondo a valid source?
• Who else says this?

This the generally accepted view among opponents of neoconservatism on the right and by many on the left as well. Also note that I never said "totally orthodox", certainly far from it. (Jacrosse)

• Is entrism a Leninist policy, consider that Lenin did not engage in it?

Lenin may not have himself, but he certainly instructed the parties of the Comintern to engage in it in the labor movements of their respective countries. (Jacrosse)

That's a pure distorion of what Lenin did in fact advocate. Lenin asserted that it was necessary to make contact with the working class and bring to them the message of the revolutionary vanguard. Therefore trade unions were to be entered into by Communists with an explicitly avowed Communist program who would seek to win the workers away from the trade union aristocracy. Such a strategy has nothing to do with entering a bourgeois imperialist party like the Republican Party whose class basis carries it further and further away from the proletariat. During Stalin's time the Soviet intelligence agencies did increasingly seek to attract people such as Kim Philby who were well-placed within bourgeois institutions and the parties of the Comintern followed suit on this point. But the parties of the Left Opposition and the Fourth International which Trotsky had led never attempted anything of the sort. The bid to capture the Teamster's Union was directly aimed at capturing proletarian organizations, not the Republican or Democratic parties.

• Did not the 21 conditions specify that Communists break from other workers' parties? That is to say, did not Lenin explicitly oppose the tactics used in the French Turn?

• Is the front group the vintage Leninist staple? What fronts did Lenin build? Was the Leninist staple not the revolutionary party and the mass movement?

Leninism dictates that the "revolutionary party" is the vanguard which must lead the mass movements by any means necessary. (Jacrosse)

• This could be a non sequitur. If the staple tactic is the revolutionary party, then it is not the front group? I am not sure that what you say about the Leninist concept of party is correct. The vanguard is, by definition, the most class-conscious layer of the workers' and allied movements. The party exists to organise the vanguard. However, Lenin supported power to workers' councils, not all power to the Party. This also suggests that the staple tactic is not the front group.

• What evidence is there that the Coalition for a Democratic Majority and the Committee on the Present Danger in the 1970s to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies were or are Leninist fronts?

The CDM and CPD were controlled and staffed by SDUSA cadre in a manner identical to the control and staffing of ANSWER by the Workers World Party. There is certainly more ambiguity when it comes to present day outfits as there does not exist today a supreme vanguard party of quite the nature that SDUSA served in the 70s. (Jacrosse)

• Is it true or significant to say that both Trotsky and Strauss were firm believers in the power of an elite with esoteric knowledge to lead the masses? Does not every leadership of any organisation comprise leaders, who may be considered to be a elite partly defined by knowledge?
• Does this mean that intellectual inconsistency, disagreements between Trotsky and Strauss, would therefore seem superfluous in a merger with the Straussians ? For example, it is not highly unclear that a merger between the Catholic Church and Church of the Latterday Saints -- both of which have leaderships defined by estoteric knowledge -- would be obstructed by differenced in their respective bodies of knowledge.

Of course principles can often interfere in that kind of opportunism, but not always. You would do well to check the facts in this particular case. (Jacrosse)

• Why "therefore" does it flow from this that Raimondo has seconded the view of Seymour Hersh that neoconservatism is best understood as a cult.[16]

Raimondo explains in the essay quoted (and cited!!!) his own view of neoconservatism as a cult phenomenon. (Jacrosse)

• Which observers believe furthermore that there is a fundamental continuity of ideas from Trotsky to the present neoconservative movement?

Raimondo, Lind, Ryn, Gottfried, Lieven, the list goes on and on. (Jacrosse)

• What are the essential elements of Trotskyism, and does neoconservatism have them?

The question is better answered with the word Leninism instead of Trotskyism, the essential element being the belief and exaltation of Machiavellian manipulation of mass movements to achieve revolutionary ends, and yes, this is what neoconservatism has done in the context of American politics. (Jacrosse)

• In French Turn, did Trotsky advocated the belief in social democracy as a Leninist vanguard?

That was the spirit if not the letter of what Trotsky was advocating, as Shachtman came to conclude and act upon. (Jacrosse)

• The French Turn was about unifying the revolutionary tendencies, not about transforming the social democratic parties into revolutionary ones. Nothing that Trotsky wrote suggest that his idea of the French Turn rested on the idea that social democracy could play the role of the Leninist vanguard. This, for example, is reflected by his support the establishment of the THird and Fourth Internationals.

• Was this was indeed essentially the position for which Shachtman broke with Trotsky, rather than the policy of defense of the USSR?

They were one and the same - the position that the western bloc, not the Soviet bloc, was what needed to be defended to advance the revolution. (Jacrosse)

• Here you seem to accept my point: Shachtman split primarily over the defence of the USSR, not over the French Turn.

• Is the French Turn the essence of neoconservatism?

The "spirit if not the letter" as I put it is, the belief in social democracy, to the extent that it is interchangeable with liberal democracy, as a revolutionary vanguard. (Jacrosse)

• The Spirit is invisible, but references need to be supplimented

• Are Paul Berman, Christopher Hitchens, and Stephen Schwartz neo-conservatives? How are they engaged in the French Turn?
• Have they recently adopted the view that the French Turn the essence of neoconservatism?

They are certainly friendly to neoconservatism if not unabashedly self-identified, and if they do not trace it back to that early history (I believe in fact they do), the position as it relates to the present context is certainly what they believe. (Jacrosse)

--Duncan 16:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)--Jacrosse 04:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarifications, Jacrosse. Can you supply some references? We should certainly discuss these notions, and, as we find supportive references, add them into the article. Generally, I appreciate your suggestion that I check the facts, but that it really our common job here, to find references that support facts before we introduce them. If we added in everything that we would not disprove, then we'd have a lot of silly articles here. Initially, I found each of your additions surprising and counter-intuitive, and I know that some other editors find that too. For example, I didn't know that is is generally accepted that the Shachtmanites conducted a massively successful policy of Leninist entrism into the Reagan Administration and, in fact, had totally missed the Reagan Administration adoption of Lenin's views. Many of your points about the 'spirit' of views are similarly undocumented and should not be added in until they are referenced by reputable sources. The sae is case with your inferences: for example Christopher Hitchens is perhaps not a neoconservative, and even if he were he might not think that the essence of neoconservatism is the French Turn. We need references for all these suggested additions of yours if we are to move them from Talk to the article. --Duncan 10:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to reiterate a question I asked a month back that was never answered: Are we supposed to imagine that Paul Wolfowitz et. al., having deviously wormed their way into the Republican mainstream, will one day emerge in their true colors as leaders of a revolutionary Trotskyist vanguard? Or is it merely supposed to be an unprincipled Shachtmanite vanguard? - Jmabel | Talk 17:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the original idea proposed here is that the core of Leninism is the subverting of organisations into order to make them tools for a classless, idealised form of democracy. Trotsky's supposed innovation was a bourgois party could be this tool, the SFIO. Shachtman supposedly innovated democracy to mean the defeat of Stalinism by any means necessary, even the Pentagon. Post-Shachtman, his followers deviously extended this to include entry into the Republicans, in order to bring them to the democratic agenda. I also notice that the Opus Dei building is New York is close to Shacthman's former apartment. Until we can prove the tunnel linking them, this will have to remain original research. --Duncan 10:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Usage and general views

The following text is problematic: "However, neoconservatives describe their shared view as a belief that national security is best attained by promoting freedom and democracy abroad through the support of pro-democracy movements, foreign aid and in certain cases military intervention. This is a departure from the classic conservative tendency to support friendly regimes in matters of trade and anti-communism even at the expense of undermining existing democratic systems."

This is distinctly pro-neocon POV. No such departure has occured. Neoconservatives have expanded the array of nations that we have engaged in economic and military alliances. However, the United States maintains a Cold War stance in regards to the Western Hemisphere (i.e. Cuba, Venezuela). The United States also continues to expand relations with and support anti-democratic regimes (i.e. Columbia, Saudi Arabia). The neoconservatives have somewhat softened the earlier conservative anticommunist stance in a few limited instances (such as in relation to China). Regardless, neoconservatives continue the earlier tradition of supporting friendly (or economically useful) nations at the expense of democratic institutions and movements.

Vassyana 14:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot more examples of this than simply Saudi Arabia and Columbia. In the war in Afghanistan, conservative policy makers have befriended or tolerate Gen. Perez Musharaff (who took over Pakistan undemocratically), Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan and a wide range of warlords.

Repetition

Is it me, or does this article repeat itself constantly? You could probably shorten it by a third without losing any information. Isomorphic 04:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Neocons are unopposed to big government, not opposed

I don't know much about how Wikipedia works, so please forgive me for intruding, but one mistake on the Neoconservatism page is so blatant that I have to comment. The article currently says: "Neoconservatism (or neocon) refers to the political movement, ideology, and public policy goals of "new conservatives" in the United States, that are opposed to "big government" principles and believe in restrictions on social spending." This is completely the opposite of the turth. It should be "unopposed," not "opposed." I think everyone, whether liberal or conservative, agrees that one of the major tenets of a neocon ideology is more social spending than is advocated by the traditional "paleoconservative." I edited the page to reflect this, hopefully that is OK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rcahalan (talk • contribs) 28 May 2006.

Historically neoconservatives were hawkish with foreign policy mated with liberal social policy, as with the Reagan and Nixon era. But I think modern middle class neoconservatives (the new New Conservatives) are opposed to social spending. Of course the republicans/neocons in office think they wont get reelected if they don’t spread the wealth around! and of course some are classic neocons.

I did some edits. cleaned up some sentences for flow, removed some POV style wording and opinion.--MadDogCrog 11:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"I have always found the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"Reagan and following Republicans have de-regulated and cut social programs in radical ways. Military spending aside, they absolutely oppose what they consider "Big Government" Garbled Reverie 06:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Carl Schmitt connection

I would like to seriously question the connection between Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss and neoconservative thought. I very much differ that neoconservative thought descends at all from Leo Strauss' work, or by extension Carl Schmitt's. Carl Schmitt was one of the foremost critics of liberalism in the world, whereas the neoconservatives advocate liberal democracy as the greatest possible form of government. (See Fukuyama's The End of History) To me, linking the two seems to be a smear campaign against neoconservativism by throwing it with the Nazi regime. The closest link is that Schmitt influenced Strauss, and Strauss was by some accounts the "founder" of neoconservatism. Beyond the fact that Strauss was by many accounts even more radical than Schmitt in his opposition to liberalism, there is little reason to believe that any of the ideas behind neoconservative thought come from him.

The only connection this article makes later on is Kristol citing it as one of his influences (which not does grant the article the right to claim that you can trace neoconservative thought back to Strauss, since an influence can take a variety of forms) and that Strauss may have caused his students to take a Machiavellian view of politics - this, however, is not directly relevant to neoconservativism, but rather some of its adherents. Mosz0r 20:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Carl Schmitt, but there is a connection between Leo Strauss and neoconservatism. While Strauss may not have approved of neoconservatives, neoconservatives approve of Strauss, and believe that some of their thought is derived from Strauss's ideas, even if they've modified some of them. Argyriou 06:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Argyriou. Leo Strauss definitely belongs; Schmitt should stay out of this unless there is a strong citation. - Jmabel | Talk 18:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The Power of Nightmares

Reviving an old topic—The Power of Nightmares—I've now seen the film. Certainly it is polemical: there is no question that Curtis has a thesis or two to promote. It seems to me to have more to say about Islamism than about neoconservatism; his main claims about the latter are:

• The rise of neoconservatism in some ways reflects and parallels that of Islamism, in that both initially reflected similar anxieties about people "going soft" in the self-indulgence of consumerist culture.
• The neoconservatives have exploited Islamism as a convenient enemy and have exaggerated its importance, military capability, and degree of organization, as the neoconservative Team B and others did with the Soviets.

I don't see any particular reason to link it here, but I would recommend the film. Even more, I'd recommend Curtis's Century of the Self, on the influence of Freudian (and other) psychoanalysis. - Jmabel | Talk 18:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Jewish neoconservatives

Michael Novak is Jewish, a fairly recent Catholic convert —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.148.55.254 (talk • contribs) 30 July 2006.

The wiki quotes "First, "neo-conservative" is a codeword for Jewish," implying criticizing the neocon movement as being equivalent to criticizing Jews. But I'd hardly describe Francis Fukuyama as Neoconservative. I think using that quote adds bias to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.219.29.236 (talk • contribs) 9 November 2006.

How is this POV?

I've reverted back the sentence:

It is today most closely identified with a set of foreign policy positions and goals: a hawkish stance during the Cold War and, more recently, in various conflicts in the Middle East.

The person who removed it says it's POV. I really don't see that. It's true. Neoconservatism used to be more about domestic policy, because plenty of non-neo conservatives believed in similar foreign policy goals, but these days, when most people hear "neocon", they think of foreign policy. And those are the neocon foreign policy positions. Argyriou 22:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC), who may even be a neocon.

• if you cant see how POV that is then you shouldn't be editing here

I disagree with the above unsigned comment. I seem to recall that the sentence has been in the article for a long time. If it is or is not POV, that is something to be discussed here, rather than deleted without winning consensus on the Talk page. We can find more references and discuss it. One of the principles of wikipedia is that we assume good faith. It's not the job of any editor to say whether or not another should be editing, that is a collective task, and not one that can be developed by an anonymous comment. --Duncan 17:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well said Duncan. But I have to say, this has got to be one of the most pointless pages on Wiki.Nuke Mecca 15:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Question??

I know this will sound dumb and maybe was asked, but is there a term for "a former conservative who moved to the Left." People like Ariana Huffington and David Brock?--T. Anthony 12:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• <joke>Ex-con?</joke>. No, I don't think there really is. - Jmabel | Talk 06:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That's kind of peculiar in a way. I was partly think of it because I know Neoliberal certainly does not mean "ex-conservative turned liberal" yet neoconservative often does mean "ex-liberal(more like Leftist really) turned conservative." It's kind of weird the two aren't parallels. I'd wonder if maybe there was a term like "Newly Liberal" or "Newly Left."--T. Anthony 06:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• In practice, usually just "former conservative". - Jmabel | Talk 00:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Neocons are not Christian Zionists

"(rv irrelevant "see also" link. Neocons are not Christian Zionists.)" - posted in an edit somment Yes, but many are. --Kalmia 20:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Have a source for that? There are many "paleoconservatives" and other conservatives who are Christian Zioinsts, but if "neoconservative" is anything other than a general term of abuse, it pretty much excludes Christian Zionists. Argyriou 21:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

... used as a pejorative by anti-Semites [quote needed]

Sorry, still haven't devoted the necessary time to the editing rules. BUT I just noticed that under the header below a quote is needed. This I can provide. Maybe somebody can help me add the link, so interested people find their way there. The original link does not work anymore. But the document was forwarded to the H-Antisemitism discussion group. Unfortunately I do not know the rules for adding notes. Maybe I manage to figure it out. If not, I would be pleased about help.

Context: Shortcomings and criticism of the term "Neoconservative"

.... or is used as a pejorative by anti-Semites. [citation needed]"

I add the citation. I take it from here:

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-antisemitism&month=0304&week=&msg=4zdiWX1EuCVzeRLDdQySKA&user=&pw=

Maybe someone can clean up after me??? I hate to leave a nitwit mess. Thanks ...???

LeaNder 20:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I love when some people attack conservatives by using the term "neoconservative" with relation to Iraq or other foreign policy issues. This opens them wide to attack by me in calling them "anti-Semites". It's my favorite opening attack and puts them instantly on the defensive. However, the problem with using GLORIA as a reference is that they are a very biased source and would wreck any attack by me on anti-neoconservatives. It's like using a Neo-Nazi source to back up arguments that Hitler was a nice guy. I would rather see some mainstream source to defend this argument, otherwise the comment should be removed until such a source can be found.

The statement that, "Some claim that as antisemites did with big business moguls in the nineteenth century and Communist leaders in the twentieth, the trick here is to take all those involved in some aspect of public life and single out those who are Jewish. The implication made is that this is a Jewish-led movement conducted not in the interests of all the, in this case, American people, but to the benefit of Jews, and in this case Israel." is not supported by your sole reference to GLORIA.

I would like to get some feedback on this topic before I make an edit of that section. Thank you. Jtpaladin 17:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Adbusters and Frank Gaffney

I snipped this:

During the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, left-wing magazine AdBusters published a list of the "50 most influential neocons in the United States", noting that half of these were Jewish (see [17]); although many prominent neoconservatives are not Jewish, among them Michael Novak, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Frank Gaffney, Dan Estes, and Max Boot.

1.) Adbusters may mention that a bunch of neocons are Jewish, but that does not equal a charge of dual loyalty.
2.) Frank Gaffney is a millitarist, not a neocon. If all the neocons convert to pacifism tomorrow, he will still be a hawk. Yakuman 20:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've partially restored the piece about the Adbusters article, with cleanup, and quotations to make the case that Adbusters is making the charge of dual loyalty. I ended up leaving out the part about Although many prominent neoconservatives are not Jewish, among them Michael Novak, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Frank Gaffney, Dan Estes, and Max Boot for a couple of reasons, including not wanting to clutter the overall article with the otherwise necessary counterpoint that it's ridiculous to call Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Gary Bauer, or Fr. Neuhaus "neoconservative". Argyriou 00:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Neuhaus was a neoconservative until c. 1994. There was a shakeup at First Things and he went his own way. Yakuman 02:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Major POV problem

This article assumes that neoconservatism is mostly about foreign policy. This is a post-9/11 misconceptions. Both pro- and anti-neocon editors seem to make this mistake. There are other aspects: literary criticism, the critique of modernity, opposition to the Great Society, free speech in academia, the use of social science to critique Leftism, equity feminism, civil rights, the role of religion in the public square. Whether or not you like the neocons, PNAC only represents one facet of a broad movement with enormous intellectual firepower. Yakuman 07:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Currentism is winning out here. There could be a lot more on other, earlier aspects of neoconservatism. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words

"There is a widespread impression", "Some of those identified" lends to Weasel Words. Especially without a Citation! Can these be re-worded, or citaiton provided (which would lead to re-wording anyways I susppose). Hackajar 09:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. The vast acreage of uncited material makes this an opinion piece, not a factual article. --Dsutton24 19:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Section moved from main article for discussion on POV and OR

“ Neoconservatives have often been singled out for criticism by opponents of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, many of whom see this invasion as a neoconservative initiative.

Critics at the Harvard International Review say that "The inability (or incompetence; take your pick) of the Bush administration to act on lofty goals of democratization has opened neoconservatism to charges that it only pays lip service to ideals of liberty and democracy." ”

I don't necessarily have a problem with these appearing in the article per se. The first part is simply OR (WP:OR) and I think the second one flirts with POV problems (WP:NPOV) especially dangling at the beginning of the Criticism section as it is. I don't think it adds much either. Comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rtrev (talk • contribs) 19:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The first isn't really OR, it's just unsourced. There should be plenty of sources for that assertion. It's also really ahistorical, which reflects most criticism of neoconservatism, so it's appropriate to lead off the section on criticism of neoconservatism. The second didn't really fit any of the other categories of criticism, so I moved it from the introductiopn, where it really didn't belong, to the general "criticism" section. I do think it's horribly POV, as it's quoting a rather hostile editorial, but it is a real criticism of neoconservatism. So long as it's shown to be an opinion, and included in the criticism section, I'm ok with it staying. Argyriou 20:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with leading off with the first part and it does need a source. I think it might be better to roll them both into a small sub-section about neoconservative foreign policy, which I am sure we can find plenty of citations for. Rtrev 20:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That would require re-writing the entire criticisms section to focus on issues, rather than the identity of the critics. That may be worth doing, but I'm not up for it. Argyriou 20:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

it looks like the neo-cons are doing all they can to make sure that this article becomes as meaningless as possible

I talk to ne-cons all the time. One thing most neo-cons will say is 'what is a neo-con". They hate the term, and try to pretend it does not exist. It is interesting to see the difficulty it is taking to write this article. It does not surprise me. I would imagine that neo-cons would be organizing to make sure that this article is as unclear and difficult to read as possible. Cheers! Webulite 01:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• So what are you proposing? Rtrev 02:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting... It seem from the few references I've seen that the word neo-con is used primarily by liberals with a negative connotation, if not simply being used as some remote synonym to neo-nazism. I think the connotation and usage of this word deserves attention. (QUINTIX 14:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

Rumsfeld and Rice are not neo-cons.

It seems to me that the classification of Donald Rumsfelf and Condeleza Rice as neo-cons is, at least controversial. This would deserve at least a parentisis in the page when this is asserted.

Rumsfeld never wanted democracy to be implemented in Iraq. He wanted to get there, install another dictator and leave ASAP. The majority of neo-cons already asked for his head a long time ago. His fights with Paul Wolfovitz (him, yes, a true neo-con) are well known.

Condelezz aRice is much close to Kinssingerian Realpolitik than to neo-conservatism. Her wikipedia page does not once mention neo-conservatism. Correctly.

I think the article should at least say that their classifications as neo-cons is controversial (in my opinion wrong)

Miguelrio 20:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Miguel Rio, 24 Oct 2006

Shachtmanites

We say "Jeane Kirkpatrick and Kenneth L. Adelman were Shachtmanites in their youth". Kirkpatrick was in YPSL ([18]); Kevin MacDonald, who is an anti-Semitic S.O.B. but usually correct on basic facts also lists Elliott Abrams, Max Kampelman, Carl Gershman, Joshua Muravchik, and Penn Kemble. [19] But does someone have even a half-decent citation for Adelman? - Jmabel | Talk 23:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't find one. Shall we cut it?--Duncan 13:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

YPSL existed for years before the Schachtmanites rejoined, and took over, the old Socialist Party organization. Membership in YPSL is not evidence by any means of Schachtmanite affiliations: heck, I was in YPSL before Schachtman moved in; he even talked to me ("Who is this schmuck?"). (NS,TIW!)--Orange Mike 14:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see something more solid than we've got on Kirkpatrick, but at least let's get Adelman out of ther if there is no citation at all. Mike, if you can sort more of this out, that would be great; as I'm sure you know, even with first-hand knowledge you should be using citable sources, but I imagine that first-hand knowledge may give you a clue where to look. - Jmabel | Talk 04:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really. I was young then; all I knew was that they were an old splinter sect, and some of the old guys in the SP were eager to welcome them back into the fold; but the young YPSL leaders looked very askance at these old farts we'd never heard of except in the history of long-ignored factional splits of the Roosevelt era sectarian Left.--Orange Mike 04:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"Kosher Conservatives"

The only websites I can find using this term are explicitly, often proudly anti-semitic. I can find no evidence of its use by any respectable opponents (or supporters) of the neoconservative movement. Instead, it seems to be used to label any conservative who is also pro-Israel or anti-antisemitism as not a real conservative.--Orange Mike 20:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Illogical Sentence

"Critics have charged that, while paying lip service to such American values, neoconservatives have supported undemocratic regimes for realpolitik reasons [citation needed]." This cannot make sense -- the article distinguishes neocons from Kissinger-style international politics. Kissinger is the king of modern american realpolitik. Therefore, either the neocons are realists (in political science terms) and the article is wrong about the realist-neocon distinction, or this sentence needs to be ammended.

Since the sentence is both illogical and unsourced it should just be removed. --Lee Hunter 14:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Definition and Views (Grammatical)

The structure of this sentence is all mixed up and incomplete:

"Patriotism is a necessity, world government is a terrible idea, the ability to distinguish friend from foe, protecting national interest both at home and abroad, and the necessity of a strong military"

I'm not sure quite what they were trying to say about the latter portions so I can't really correct it myself. Jimmy 03:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Farm teams

What are farm teams? They're mentioned in dual loyalty section. There's a wikipedia article on farm teams, but seems to refer to something completely different. BobFromBrockley 11:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In American professional baseball, 'farm teams' are minor-league teams used to cultivate and winnow out promising newcomer players. The use in this case is metaphorical: that the major neoconservative players are recruited and cultivated out of the subgroups mentioned until ready to play in the figurative Big League circles of national neoconservative action: columnist, official, think tank maven, etc. --Orange Mike 14:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand now. I realise now that farm team wikipedia page mentions this sort of metaphorical use. BobFromBrockley 18:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Add mention of A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm?

I was just cleaning up the new article on A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, the oft-discussed report. The report is often mentioned as a precursor/preview of the policy advocated by neoconservatives close to the George W. Bush administration. Examples:

• "perhaps the most insightful window on the JINSA/CSP policy worldview comes in the form of a paper Perle and Feith collaborated on in 1996 with six others under the auspices of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Essentially an advice letter to ascendant Israeli politician Benjamin Netanyahu, 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm' makes for insightful reading as a kind of US-Israeli neoconservative manifesto." (from Jason Vest, The Men From JINSA and CSP, The Nation)

There are lots more quote saying that this mid-1990's document is significant. --64.230.123.152 23:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

American Jews vs. Jewish Neocons

I added the following statement to the section on Neoconservatism, American Jews, and "Dual Loyalty"

"However, political commentators like those in the AdBusters article stress that their criticism is not aimed towards the political views of American Jewry as a whole, but rather that the commentary is specifically about neoconservative Jews and their apparent success in steering American Mideast policy in a pro-Israeli direction (at times to the detriment of American interests)."

This is to emphasize the distinction between criticism of Neoconservative Jews, versus criticism of all Jews. Without this distinction, this section would have you believe that critics of Neoconservative Jews are automatically anti-Jewish (and lumped with "white nationalists" like David Duke).WashCali 01:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's relevant to an argument against neoconservatism that many neocons are Jewish, the argument is anti-semitic. The Adbusters article is a particularly egregious example of leftist anti-semitism. Argyriou (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Your first statement does not make sense to me - please elaborate (my initial reaction is that it smacks of many an irrational smear campaign, although I sincerely hope that I am wrong). Your second statement is your personal opinion and is not relevant to the discussion.WashCali 02:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

How is it an irrational smear campaign to allege anti-semitism on the basis of a seemingly irrelevant inclusion of the demographics of an ideological movement? Could you tell me off-hand how many Irish-Americans are neo-cons, how many Mexican-Americans, how many Samoan-Americans? Your implication that a legitimate question is a smear campaign is itself a highly hostile charge. I shudder to think what the imputation of such a charge is.

UN involved in leaving Hussein in power?

From the section titled "Neoconservativism under George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton" This paragraph appears - "Particularly galvanizing to the movement was the decision of George H. W. Bush and then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War in 1991. Some neoconservatives viewed this policy, and the decision not to support indigenous dissident groups such as the Kurds and Shiites in their 1991-1992 resistance to Hussein, as a betrayal of democratic principles."

Wasn't that in fact the result of an agreement with the U.N.? Sorry I haven't got the data available, but I seem to remember that as being the U.N.'s wishes rather than the President's.

No. The US called all the shots in the Gulf War, and Bush Snr, Powell and General Schwarzkopf (the head of the Allied forces in the war) have all given extensive interviews since 1991 about why it would have been wrong to try and occupy the rest of Iraq. Their position, that the risk of a civil war and Vietnam-style quagmire was too great, seems to have been completely justified by events in Iraq since 2003.

Because America chose to fight the war through a UN mandate in order to build a strong international coalition for their actions, it was technically the UN that Iraq surrendered to, but in practice it was the Americans who decided to go to war in the first place and it was the Americans who decided what should happen to Saddam.

The only involvement of the UN was to approve the action proposed and carried out by the US and its allies. The Gulf War, unlike the Iraq War, was fought with broad international approval which was expressed through a UN resolution. The range of countries sending troops was also much broader in the Gulf War, for example France sent forces as part of the coalition (there's a famous bit of footage from the war where a damaged French fighter jet lands on its carrier). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.146.47.250 (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Reagan is not a Neoconservative

This article discusses how neoconservativism was a big part of Reagan's Presidency. That is dead wrong. The neocons of the Ford era undermined Reagan's campaign. Neoconservatism is a philosophy of big government and interventionalist foreign policy. Neither of these characterize Reagan's presidency. Total spending increased in response to the Cold War. If Reagan had invaded the Soviet Union you might be able to pin him as a neoconservative, but he didn't. Iran-Contra was led by the neocons within his administration, but he took no part in it. Lasker 19:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been over 24 hours with this glaring error. If there is no discussion on this point in another 24 I will make some changes.

Reagan was not a neoconservative. Some members of his administration were, but the same is true of Clinton and others. I support this edit, subject to substantive argument here. Arker 02:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The big stick

The following was removed from the article some time in the last month; I think it was essentially accurate, but because it was uncited, I won't restore it at the present time. Someone might do well to back this with citations and restore it:

Neoconservative writers have frequently expressed admiration for the "big stick" interventionist foreign policy of Theodore Roosevelt. In foreign policy, critics argue that neoconservatives tend to view the world in 1939 terms , comparing the threat from adversaries as diverse as the Soviet Union, Osama bin Laden (and, more broadly, Islamic extremism, dubbed Islamofascism by many neoconservatives), and China to the threat then-posed by Nazi Germany and Japan, while American leaders "stand in" for Winston Churchill. In this analogy, leftists and others who oppose them are cast either as Neville Chamberlain-style appeasers or as an Anti-American fifth column.

Also, the following seems on the mark, but was also deleted (apologies if this was well accounted for in an edit summary, there have been about 100 edits since I last looked at this article).

According to Peter Steinfels, a historian of the movement, the neoconservatives' "emphasis on foreign affairs emerged after the New Left and the counterculture had dissolved as convincing foils for neoconservatism . . . The essential source of their anxiety is not military or geopolitical or to be found overseas at all; it is domestic and cultural and ideological."

This appears to have been appropriately cited (Steinfels, 69); someone may want to restore. - Jmabel | Talk 06:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected because of the reverting. Please discuss here and let me know when you've reached an agreement. 142.151.175.39, as you're adding contentious material, please use your regular account. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have much of an interest in this particular article or topic, but I do notice that the same type of censorship, bullying, and irrational mass-deletion of valid information that is happening with this article in regards to the "Neoconservatism, American Jews, and 'Dual Loyalty' " section is also happening over at the Israel lobby in the United States article, along with the List of Jewish American businesspeople list (among MANY others). I'd simply like to let people know that this is not an isolated phenomenon in any way and that it has been occuring for a very long while. Sadly, the only solution seems to be 'monitor' the edits of these people closely in the hopes of preserving some semblance of NPOV in the articles that they edit/mangle. That being said, not everyone has the time and energy to constantly monitor and subsequently expose all of these biased and POV edits/deletions; thus, much valuable information has been lost and will continue to be lost due to the fascistic editing habits of these particular editors. --Wassermann 14:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's unprotect this page, I want to do some editing... Scifiintel 18:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead section uninformative

When it was founded and who it's associated with is unimportant. How is it different from other forms of conservatism? This information should be in the lead. –M^T 00:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

New comment

There are two articles now, so there must be two talk files. See Talk:Neoconservatism (United States) for some issues that really belong here.

Mild update. It would be quite useful to review http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=neo-conservative which contains many international linkages not mentioned here, which should be.

There are also US-Israel, US-Canada, US-UK, US-Australia commonalities, each of which needs its own mentions, along with the Israel-Canada-UK cross-linkages. For instance, Conrad Black, a Canadian who hates Canada and lives in London, owns the Jerusalem Post, which calls for assassination of Yasser Arafat. And Izzy Asper, a Canadian who supports Israel unconditionally, owns Global TV which was the only Canadian TV network to send an "embedded reporter" to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Australians and US cooperate almost automatically in the War on Terrorism (just like the Vietnam War) and now seem to share an interventionist foreign policy, which Canada and the UK do not seem to share to the same degree (despite Anthony Blair, who is taking major heat for it that Bush and Howard aren't taking).

---

Its extremely good practice to disambig articles like this one where the words have tottaly different meanings in different areas.

{{subst: TheHypnotist}}

Making this the disambiguation page

Would it be reasonable to make this into a disambiguation page of some sort, due to the fact that there are other articles for neoconservatism in other countries, yet the main article describes the United States? TheHypnotist 03:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the concept is quite different in different countries it would be presumptuous to assume that the U.S. flavor is the primary meaning. However in a review of the term's usage on Wikipedia I see there is a strong tendency to use the U.S version. Upon checking the "what links here" page it looks like the overwhelming number of them intend the U.S. meaning. Someone would have to go through and relink hundreds of articles. Future editors would need to know to link to "Neoconservatism in the United States" when they write "neo-con". On the other hand, Neoconservatism (disambiguation) deserves its own page, perhaps with a short summary of the U.S. material. Let's see what other editors think. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagreement with business lobby and fiscal conservatives section

The entire section should be deleted:

"There has been considerable conflict between neoconservatives and business conservatives in some areas.[citation needed] Neoconservatives tend to see China as a looming threat to the United States and argue for harsh policies to contain that threat.[citation needed] Business conservatives see China as a business opportunity and see a tough policy against China as opposed to their desires for trade. Business conservatives also appear much less distrustful of international institutions.[citation needed] In fact, where China is concerned neoconservatives tend to find themselves more often in agreement with liberal Democrats than with business conservatives.[citation needed] Indeed, Americans for Democratic Action - widely regarded as an "authority" of sorts on liberalism by both the American left and right alike[citation needed] - credit Senators and members of the House of Representatives with casting a "liberal" vote if they oppose legislation that would treat China favourably in the realm of foreign trade and many other matters.[citation needed]"

This is an entirely incoherent and a completely unsupported section that has no basis in fact. In fact, it is neoconservatives who support doing business with communist China. True conservatives do not support doing business with China. Nothing in this section has any citation. It is not only POV but it is a POV which does not mesh with reality. I support deletion of the whole section. Jtpaladin 14:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. If there is something to what was written in that section (and I think there is, somewhat), it can be cited. Three months without citation is enough. Αργυριου (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your time and support. Jtpaladin 15:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagged with templates due to problems

This article has long-standing and continuing problems of contentious edit-warring and contains many undocumented or insufficiently-documented statements. Please see the previous discussions by other editors, users, and the editing history summaries. The problems are not simply mechanical, format-related, or cosmetic; they are more significant than that and are related to problems of adhering to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:POV, WP:BLP, including guidelines and policies pertaining to Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Attribution, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, as well as Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles. I've tagged it with a couple of templates for those reasons. --NYScholar 00:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the tags. Much of the article is questionable in terms of reliability, POV, relevance and needs to be checked and rewritten with citations. The machine512 00:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Historical usage

The most recent version of this article, may 25 2007, says that Carl Schmitt and other Germans were referred to as neo-conservative in the 1930s, and cites a recent English-language book in support of the assertion. One wonders when and in what language they were described with this term ... in the English language in the 1930s? Then better to cite the original source rather than this later book. In some other language? Then the example has no point; the point is to trace the evolution of the phrase.

Deleted section

Neoconservatism, American Jews, and "Dual Loyalty"

- Some opponents of neoconservatives have sought to emphasize their interest in Israel and the relatively large proportion of Jewish neoconservatives, and have raised the question of "dual loyalty". A number of critics, such as Pat Buchanan, Juan Cole, and Kathleen and Bill Christison have accused them of putting Israeli interests above those of America. In turn these critics have been labeled as anti-Semites by prominent Jewish organizations.

- Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke and some other white supremacists attack neoconservatism as advancing Jewish interests. They say a "Jewish supremacist" movement exists in the United States. Similarly, during the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the politically left-wing magazine AdBusters published a list of the "50 most influential neocons in the United States", noting that half of these were Jewish, - and insinuating that the preponderance of Jews in neoconservatism leads them to "not distinguish enough between American and Israeli interests". The article asks "For example, whose interests were they protecting in pushing for war in Iraq?", and ends with the statement "And half of the them are Jewish." - - Political commentators like those in the AdBusters article state that their criticism is not aimed towards the political views of American Jewry as a whole, but rather that the commentary is specifically about neoconservative Jews and their apparent success in steering American Mideast policy in a pro-Israeli direction (at times to the detriment of American interests). - - Neoconservatives say that they were much less interested in Israel before the June 1967 Six Day War. It was only after this conflict, which raised the specter of unopposed Soviet influence in the Middle East, that the neoconservatives became interested in Israel's security interests. They promote the view that Israel is the United States' strongest ally in the Middle East as the sole Western-style democracy in the region, aside from Turkey. - - Commenting on the alleged overtones of this view in more mainstream discourse, David Brooks, in his January 6, 2004 New York Times column wrote, "To hear these people describe it, PNAC is sort of a Yiddish Trilateral Commission, the nexus of the sprawling neocon tentacles". In a similar vein, Michael Lind, a self-described 'former neoconservative,' wrote in 2004, "It is true, and unfortunate, that some journalists tend to use 'neoconservative' to refer only to Jewish neoconservatives, a practice that forces them to invent categories like nationalist conservative or Western conservative for Rumsfeld and Cheney. But neoconservatism is an ideology, like paleoconservatism and libertarianism, and Rumsfeld and Dick and Lynne Cheney are full-fledged neocons, as distinct from paleocons or libertarians, even though they are not Jewish and were never liberals or leftists." - - Lind argues that, while "there were, and are, very few Northeastern WASP mandarins in the neoconservative movement", its origins are not specifically Jewish. "...[N]eoconservatism recruited from diverse 'farm teams' including Roman Catholics (William Bennett and Michael Novak) and populists, socialists and New Deal liberals in the South and Southwest (the pool from which Jeane Kirkpatrick, James Woolsey and I [that is, Lind himself] were drawn)".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Looper5920 (talk • contribs) 21:51, April 4, 2007 (UTC)

Re-write

I'm sorry to say this, but this article has become an overlong article with accuracy and neutrality issues. I suggest that we start this article all over again, this time paying closer attention to what's inserted in the article. Who's with me? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 02:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don;t think that "starting again" is the best solution. Perhaps this talk page is the place to highlight where the neutrality issues are and which sections could be trimmed. My nomination for trimming would be the "Three pillars" section: three big quotes from an online-available source that could easily be succintly paraphrased. BobFromBrockley 15:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it really worth our time going through such a gigantic article and picking out each individual error? (messedrocker • talk) 20:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Conservative Criticism of Neoconservatism

I don't know if it should be rewritten, but I just added a section on Conservative Criticism of Neoconservatives. Conservatives, especially paleoconservatives, have been the biggest critics of neocons, even greater than liberals. Below are some seminal conservative articles criticizing the neocons.

Articles I added:

• Paul Gottfried: What’s In A Name? The Curious Case Of “Neoconservative”
• Conservatives, Neoconservatives, Paleoconservatives: What Next? by Paul Gottfried.
• Claes G. Ryn, "The Ideology of American Empire". Orbis 47 (2003), 383-397. A longer and more scholarly traditional conservative critique.
• Zmirak, J.P., "America the Abstraction," A conservative critique of neoconservatism.
• Why do NeoCons hate France? Why real conservatives should be pro-France.
• Nation or Notion? by Patrick J. Buchanan
• Strauss & the Straussians by Paul Gottfried.
• Strauss & History by Claes G Ryn.

--HowardJ87 13:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing 'Administration of George W. Bush' section from article

This entire section is a synthesis and constitutes original research. It is also not reliably sourced, but providing references probably will not correct the problem. The section has been tagged for some time now, and no one has taken the initiative to fix it. Therefore, I am removing it to the talk page. I realize this is a controversial article, but this section is not entitled to stay in the article in its current form simply on the basis that the article is disputed. I would like to remind all editors that the burden of evidence is on the editor who restores controversial content to the article. By no means is it mandatory for any editor to place a {{fact}} tag on any disputed content, nor is it my obligation to fix it or improve it, contrary to some editors' beliefs. So please, if you want to salvage any of this content, correct the problems, source it properly, and restore it to the article. MoodyGroove 19:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

==Administration of George W. Bush==

This appears to be original research and needs to be sourced:

Thus, neoconservative thinkers were eager to implement a new foreign policy with the change in Administrations from Clinton to George W. Bush. Despite this, the Bush campaign and then the early Bush Administration did not appear to exhibit strong support for neoconservative principles, as candidate Bush stated his opposition to the idea of "nation-building" and an early foreign policy confrontation with China was handled without the vociferous confrontation suggested by some neoconservative thinkers. Also early in the Administration, some neoconservatives criticized Bush's Administration as insufficiently supportive of the State of Israel, and suggested Bush's foreign policies were not substantially different from those of President Clinton.

===China spy plane incident===

This contains weasel phrases and appears to be original research. This article isn't about the Bush presidency or the spy plane incident. So it needs to be linked to neoconservatism, with reliable sources.

The Bush Administration was criticized by some neoconservatives for their non-confrontational reaction during the U.S.-China spy plane incident. On April 1, 2001, a Chinese J-8 fighter collided with a U.S. Navy EP-3E spy plane over the South China Sea, killing the Chinese pilot and forcing the EP-3E to make an emergency landing on the Chinese island of Hainan, where the twenty-four members of the American crew were held and interrogated for eleven days while their plane was searched and photographed by the Chinese. The Bush Administration conducted diplomacy and then issued a statement of regret to the Chinese Foreign Ministry. President Reagan's former Assistant Secretary of Defense, Frank Gaffney, wrote in an article in National Review Online that President Bush "should use this occasion to make clear to the American people that the PRC is acting in an increasingly belligerent manner. Mr. Bush needs to talk about these threats as well as his commitment to defend the American people, their forces overseas and their allies."

===September 11, 2001===

This appears to be original research and needs to be referenced with reliable sources.

The influence of neoconservatism in the Bush administration appeared to have found its purpose in the shift from the threat of Communism to the threat of Islamic terrorism. The administration undertook an invasion of Afghanistan shortly after the September 11 attacks, to remove the al-Qaeda-supporting Taliban from power. The administration also began planning and obtaining political and diplomatic support for an invasion of Iraq, citing Iraq's dictatorial government, support for terrorism, purported links to al-Qaeda, work on chemical and nuclear weapons, and refusal to abide by U.N. resolutions regarding inspection of weapons programs.

This appears to be original research and needs to be referenced with reliable sources.

Neoconservative identification with the State of Israel was furthered by the September 11 attacks, which served to create a perceived parallel between the United States and Israel as democratic nations under the threat of terrorist attack. Moreover, some neoconservatives have long advocated that the United States should emulate Israel's tactics of pre-emptive attacks, especially Israel's strikes in the 1980s on nuclear facilities in Libya and Osirak, Iraq.

==="Bush Doctrine"===

This is original research and contains a synthesis. How is the Bush Doctrine related to neoconservatism? If that's the argument it needs to be sourced.

lol. The Bush doctrine is also commonly called 'the Wolfowitz doctrine' for a reason. There's a gap between 'unsourced' and original research a mile wide and mile deep.WolfKeeper 22:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's the synthesis that bothers me. First, going after terrorists (or the nations that harbor them) after September 11, 2001 is not pre-emptive. Second, the quote "will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries..." needs to be sourced (who said it, when, and to whom?) and the comment "This doctrine can be seen as the abandonment of a focus on the doctrine of deterrence [...] through mutual assured destruction..." seems bizarre to me, because it implies that "mutual assured destruction" (usually understood to mean nuclear war) is a viable alternative to the Bush Doctrine in the global war on terrorism. That seems like an odd chain of reasoning to me. MoodyGroove 00:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

The Bush Doctrine, promulgated after September 11, incorporates the concept that nations harboring terrorists are themselves enemies of the United States. It also embraces the Clinton Doctrine, which is the view that pre-emptive military action is justified to protect the United States from the threat of terrorism or attack. Both doctrines state that the United States "will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States." This doctrine can be seen as the abandonment of a focus on the doctrine of deterrence (in the Cold War through Mutual Assured Destruction) as the primary means of self-defense. While there have been occasional preemptive strikes by American forces, until recently preemptive strikes have not been an official American foreign and military policy.

This is a synthesis and shows only that the AEI agreed with the fundamental premise of the Bush doctrine.

Neoconservatives won a landmark victory with the Bush Doctrine after September 11. Thomas Donnelly, a resident fellow at the influential conservative think-tank, American Enterprise Institute (AEI), argued in "The Underpinnings of the Bush doctrine" that "the fundamental premise of the Bush Doctrine is true: The United States possesses the means—economic, military, diplomatic—to realize its expansive geopolitical purposes. Further, and especially in light of the domestic political reaction to the attacks of September 11, the victory in Afghanistan and the remarkable skill demonstrated by President Bush in focusing national attention, it is equally true that Americans possess the requisite political willpower to pursue an expansive strategy."

This paragraph shows that Max Boot favors an aggressive U.S. foreign policy. How is it related to the Bush presidency? The implied argument is a synthesis.

In his well-publicized piece "The Case for American Empire" in the conservative Weekly Standard, Max Boot argued that "The most realistic response to terrorism is for America to embrace its imperial role." He countered sentiments that the "United States must become a kinder, gentler nation, must eschew quixotic missions abroad, must become, in Pat Buchanan's phrase, 'a republic, not an empire'," arguing that "In fact this analysis is exactly backward: The September 11 attack was a result of insufficient American involvement and ambition; the solution is to be more expansive in our goals and more assertive in their implementation."

Nearly identical to neoconservatism? Original research and synthesis. The fact that Bush praised a book that is 'similar to neoconservatism' means what exactly?

President Bush has expressed praise for Natan Sharansky's book, The Case For Democracy, which promotes a foreign policy philosophy nearly identical to neoconservatives'. President Bush has effusively praised this book, calling it a "glimpse of how I think".

Original research and unsourced speculation:

At the same time, there have been limits in the power of neoconservatives in the Bush administration. The former Secretary of State Colin Powell (as well as the State department as a whole) was largely seen as being an opponent of neoconservative ideas. However, with the resignation of Colin Powell and the promotion of Condoleezza Rice, along with widespread resignations within the State department, the neoconservative point of view within the Bush administration has been solidified. While the neoconservative notion of tough and decisive action has been apparent in U.S. policy toward the Middle East, it has not been seen in U.S. policy toward China and Russia or in the handling of the North Korean nuclear crisis.

===Impact of 2003 Iraq War===

====Charges of appeasement====

This is unsourced and the cited reference is to a photo of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam Hussein's hand. Need I go on?

Neoconservative proponents of the 2003 Iraq War likened the conflict to Winston Churchill stand against Adolf Hitler. Former United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld likened Hussein to Joseph Stalin and Hitler. President George W. Bush singled out Iraq's dictator as the "great evil" who "by his search for terrible weapons, by his ties to terrorist groups, threatens the security of every free nation, including the free nations of Europe."

This is unsourced.

In the writings of Paul Wolfowitz, Norman Podhoretz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Max Boot, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, William Bennett, Peter Rodman, and others influential in forging the foreign policy doctrines of the Bush administration, there are frequent references to the appeasement of Hitler at Munich in 1938, to which are compared the Cold War's policies of détente and containment (rather than rollback) with the Soviet Union and the PRC.

What is a conventional foreign policy expert? That's a weasel phrase and shows a POV issue. The general concept is true but needs to be sourced.

While more conventional foreign policy experts argued that Iraq could be restrained by enforcing No-Fly Zones and by a policy of inspection by United Nations inspectors to restrict its ability to possess chemical or nuclear weapons, neoconservatives considered this policy direction ineffectual and labeled it appeasement of Saddam Hussein.

Also removing this unsourced addition to the History and origins section by 76.215.208.144 (talk · contribs) 02:36, 2 July 2007

"Neocons" belive that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power- forcefully if necessary- to promote its values around the wolrd. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a U.S. empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, through preemptive military action.

List of Neoconservatives

I looked through this lengthy talk page and did not see anything about this, though I may have missed it. Why is there not a list page of Neoconservatives? I think that would be useful as there are list pages for socialists, libertarians, etc. --CommonSense101 20:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Origins of the Neoconservative movement

Leo Strauss is considered the mind behind the movement. Granted he did not start the movement, he was the influence that created the movement. On Fukuyama's own wikipage it says he is indebted to Strauss. (This unsigned comment left by Aptitude (talk · contribs) 21:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC))

Hillary Clinton

Today's Cato Daily Podcast highlighted the similarities of Hillary Clinton and the neoconservatives.

Here is the link: Cato Daily Podcast July, 30 2007— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayson Virissimo (talk • contribs)

Popular culture criticisms

I think the "Criticism in popular culture" section[20] of the article is not worthy of being in an encyclopedia article. Only some of the bullet points really pass the notability criterion - it's an arbitrary list of trivial factoids. Can we cut it? BobFromBrockley 09:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hate Speech

"Some would argue that the term neoconservative is hate speech." Do we have a citation for the "some" who would make this claim? Otherwise, I think it is POV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.25.238 (talk • contribs)

What is Neoconservatism?

The first five paragraphs of introduction do not answer this question. They do say a little bit about what it is not. Perhaps this inadequate intro can be amended with some broad definitions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.52.16 (talk • contribs)

Barry Goldwater

I reverted this edit that removed the following comment: [Neoconservatism] achieved its first victory in the nomination of Barry Goldwater as the Republican Presidential candidate in 1964 The edit summary said: The Neoconservatives did not come from the Goldwater campaign, most Neoconservatives opposed the Goldwater movement - See pg 38 of "Where the Right went Wrong" by Pat Buchanan

The comment in question was well referenced:

1. ^ Rick Perlstein, Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus (New York: Hill and Wang, 2001)
2. ^ William F. Buckley, Jr., Up From Liberalism (Stein and Day, 1984)

So Icon1776 (talk · contribs) threw out the above captioned references by Perlstein and Buckley in favor of a reference from a book written by Pat Buchanan. I don't think that's a sufficient reason to remove the comment, especially considering that Harry Jaffa is credited with writing Goldwater's famous quote "Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." If you want to add (in an appropriate place) that Buchanan disagrees, I don't have a problem with that. MoodyGroove 23:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

My thought is that we really need to consider whether this discussion of Goldwater's nomination as "the first victory" for neoconservatives belongs at the top of the page. I've made no edits, but someone should really rethink this. Perlstein is a pop-politics author, not a scholar. His academic credentials are a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and an unfinished graduate degree. I think we can safely say that William F. Buckley, Jr. is not a neutral academic authority. Frankly, neither of these comments qualifies as academically suitable. Harry Jaffa's involvement in Goldwater's campaign as a speech writer is hardly evidence of Goldwater's political views. Further, Goldwater stood for libertarian policies, something completely at odds with the modern definition of the term "neoconservative". 21:34 GMT, 11 Nov. 2007, BriceTimmons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.163.191 (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger of article "Roots of neoconservativism" into "Neoconservatism"

It has been suggested that Roots of neoconservativism be merged into Neoconservatism by NYScholar with this edit
Comment and critique invited. -- Yellowdesk 00:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Support: I don't see why that fairly short article has any content that should not be in this article. BobFromBrockley 08:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge. There is no apparent reason why these two articles should be separated. --m3taphysical 23:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge. Neoconservative is straw-man term and, as this article demonstrates, can only be explained in the context in which it was used and the character of the political views of those who used it. The other article provides a better foundation. Rogerfgay 20:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Support The articles support each other and are both small, we should merge them.71.57.186.45 (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge or delete. This article isn't notable enough to stand on it's own, and I don't see why it shouldn't be included in the "Neoconservatism" page.Reinoe (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Team B

Several people closely associated with or identified as neoconservatives were involved with Team B. The Power of Nightmares states that Rumsfeld lobbied Ford to set the team up. IMO Team B needs to be mentioned, as it shows how the Neoconservatives have historically operated against both USSR and against Saddam Hussein in Iraq by grossly exaggerating the evidence and hyping up unrealistic threats.WolfKeeper 02:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Support: I think the article should be merged with the "Roots of Neoconservatism". this information would give a "big picture" application of the movement, especially if it focuses on real-life policies. Eviemhm (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)eviemhm

Neocons vs. Academia

To combat the one-sided views of neoconservativism generally presented in academia, I'm looking for a pro-neoconservative book to have my students read. Most of the texts in my left-wing discipline present neoconservatism in a harsh, biased light. Can anyone recommend a good starter text for an upper-level class on World Politics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by M. Frederick (talk • contribs) 18:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

None???? Seriously?

There's no starter text that pro-neocon because neoconservatives are Platonic political theorists. Straussian political theory views the education of "the masses" in politics as a bad idea. Leo Strauss published enough material for any professor. Francis Fukuyama is extensively published, and William Kristol has written plenty. Further, while the Straussians see themselves as a group (or possibly two groups, West Coast and East Coast), they do not typically identify under a sub-party banner like Libertarians or Progressives. Thus, no one who is actually a legitimate, academic neoconservative would write a "pro-neoconservative book". The most common neoconservative text which comes to mind is Frum and Perle's An End to Evil. It is, in my opinion, intentionally trite hogwash. In true Platonist fashion it condenses the authors' ideas into a mass-consumable "noble lie". 23:40 GMT, 11 Nov. 2007 BriceTimmons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.163.191 (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Iraq War

Was wondering how there could be an article on neoconservatives without any mention of their role in the Bush II administration, the origins of the war in Iraq and the ramifications of that intervention. Wanted to put something in about that.Mysteryquest 20:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it also be appropriate to talk about Kennedy? It seems like if we started adding things like that it would never stop. --24.251.155.132 05:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

2000?

I guess this is related to the previous post, but why is there no 2000 in tracing the development/history of neoconservatism? This would seem to be its most important period inasmuch as its the application of one of its most basic tenants, the war in Iraq and the imposition of American ideals, etc.Mysteryquest 21:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Neoconservatism/Israel/Evangelism/Islam/Bush Administration/Iraq/Iran/Nuclear Power/Preemptive War

i agree with several other posters that the article currently revels in historically situating neoconservatism as a philosophical legacy while ignoring the reality of actions taken by people like scooter libby, paul wolfowitz, feith, wurmser, cheney, rice, bush, pat roberts, bolton, and others who have become de facto neoconservatives in the eyes of the world, if not in the eyes of their defenders, by adhering themselves to that which neoconservatism has become.

semantics, citations, arguments aside; as lao tzu once wrote, the eternal truth cannot be told, so it is at best self-deluded and at worst deliberately propagandistic to claim that one set of facts is "POV" while another set is not.

the reality of neoconservatism is that it is allied in history with the bush administration and its destructive invasion of iraq. a continued failure by the wikipedia article to put that into proper context simply spotlights the limitations of the wikipedia format. the article needs improvement imho.

this writer must let more pedantic souls argue wording, since i so strongly miss the taste of truth in this article (that neoconservatism is the illegitimate father of usa imperialism) that i cannot bother to contribute more than this reaction, hoping that truly fair-minded people who are interested in providing accuracy in the wikipedia format will recognize that the article is faulty until it puts the neoconservative manifestation in bush's administration into appropriate context.

there might be no neoconservatism worth writing an article about, were it not for the election of 2000 and the bush administration and its invasion of iraq. the article does not convey that truth adequately to me. it pretends that neoconservatism is a bunch of old, jaded hippies. it is not. neoconservatism is the club name of a bunch of self-righteous, violent, paranoid, religiously fanatical, american imperialists. that truth should be known to readers who wish to learn about neoconservatism. citations would certainly be available were it worth the bother to provide them. do your own due diligence.

The standard of the Wikipedia is not truth, it is verifiability with reliable sources. It has nothing to do with fairness. It has everything to do with the fact that the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for anti-Americanism or anti-neoconservatism. The comments you provide here (which do not assume good faith on the part of editors who do not share your point of view) do nothing to help this article or the Wikipedia. If you want to read an article that outlines your version of the "reality of neoconservatism" I would recommend The Power of Nightmares. It's right up your alley. MoodyGroove 14:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Good advice, particularly since The Power of Nightmares meets the definition of Reliable Source in the Wikipedia. :-)WolfKeeper 19:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Neocon Policies

Added a section of Neocon Policies that describes what distinguishes neocons from other movements. Incredibly, there was no description of this. I used an in-depth article written by Kristol, who cheerfully refers to himself as a neocon, and who is considered by many to be the founder of neoconservatism. Thank you, Jgui 08:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits have consideerably improved the article. However, the Kristol article is summarized in a section near the end[21], so there is now repetitiion - one of the two section needs to go, and the material merged. Meanwhile, I think there is also repetition between the lede, which talks about etymology, the section on usage[22] and the section on the term as a pejorative[23]. Anyone feel like dealing with this? BobFromBrockley 16:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Bobfrombrockley, thanks, I had missed the alternate Kristol section since it was so paraphrased and pared down. As you suggested, I incorporated bits of it into the section I had added, and the remaining sentence into the Usage and general views section, which I then renamed (since usage was gone). I also incorporated the pejorative section into criticism. I agree with you that there is still a lot of repetive and unnecessary history: I think the history and evolution of views sections are both long and could be combined, but that is too much work for me now. I will revisit though. Thank you, Jgui 22:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Bush administration

Added a section on Bush Administration. Apparently all current history (from election of Bush to today) was removed by MoodyGroove in June. His reason was that the text he removed was OR or at least uncited. I have therefore been careful to write a new section using cited text from Reliable Sources. Thank you, Jgui 06:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing

As I read the article, I don't think it emphasizes enough that this is about political labeling more than political philosophy. It has to do with political rhetoric and party line campaigning more than actual political philosophy. Reagan slapped a "conservative" label on a very left-wing political agenda that really had nothing to do with the philosophical rhetoric used to sell his positions. He was so effective at it that his far left domestic agenda is alive and kicking today - with bipartisan support. Republican "neocons" (so to speak) are still today fighting to take credit for policy initiatives that completely eliminated application of the Bill of Rights in major areas such as family law. Rogerfgay 10:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Where is honest proof that

...from the first paragraph

"In summary, Neo-Conservatism is the belief of the elite, that they should take all liberties away in order to profit maximally from them. In order to do this, events are staged as a contribution to cultivating fear and panic which, through the media principally, is manipulated into voting through such acts as will take away civil liberties - as has recently been seen in the USA."

No credibility form Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by William Wallace Lives (talk • contribs) 00:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal

I removed "By the 1980s, being considered a conservative was no longer a cultural insult." as it is unsourced and nonsensical for an encyclopedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.178.94.104 (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Structure

Jgui has done some good work in tidying up this unruly article. I think it needs more work, but am unsure how to proceed. The main problem is the way issues around etymology and issues around the neoconservative movement work together. I think it would be helpful to remove all the material to do with the usage of the term to one specific section. There is also a lot of repetition around relationships with other forms of conservatism, and material under "criticisms" on crits by other conservatives needs to be placed in closer relationship with "distinctions from other conservatives". What do people think? BobFromBrockley 12:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC) To be more specific, I think that the article should be reworked like this:

• "Evolution of neocon views" [24] should be taken apart and its sections distributed elsewhere.
  • The first 2 paras of "Usage & general views" [25] (on usage) should form the start of a new section on the usage of the term neoconservatism. The 2nd 2 paras (on general views) should be merged into "Drift away from New Left" [26], which it partly repeats.
  • "Neocon views on foreign policy" [27] should either become its own section, or move into historical section, perhaps jsut before "1980s" [28].
  • "Distinctions from other conservatives" [29] should form section of its own.
  • "Criticism of the term" [30] should form subsection of new section on usage (see above)
• Criticisms section should likewise be split up, with the bits on libertarian and paleo-cons going into new "Distinctions from other conservatives" section (see above).

How does that sound? BobFromBrockley 12:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

what is neo conservatism?

i read the article. i still don't understand what is the term. will someone please explain what is neo-cons? please do it in simple words in the top of the artice. 217.194.205.230 (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Neo-con

Neoconservatives are often dubbed neocons by critics. i think this is very misleading, as i understand it the full term neoconservative was originally a criticism. There no really evidence that neo-con is anything more than shorthand for the full term. The sources for that statement are being misused. --Neon white (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Neoconservative

The use of the term "neoconservative" appears to have changed over time. It once was used to describe conservatives who rejected the post-war consensus on economic and social policies in the US, UK and Canada, and wanted to return the Republican and Conservative Parties to their perceived roots. Sometimes they were called "neoliberals", since they espoused classical liberalism rather than Toryism. So Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Brian Mulroney were described as neo-conservatives and sometimes as neo-liberals, in contrast to previous leaders like Jerry Ford, Ted Heath and Joe Clark.

However in recent years, usage has changed to refer to supporters of George W. Bush's foreign policy, and the term is sometimes a proper noun in upper case. Also, while the earlier neoconservatives were influenced by Hayek, the current group are influenced by Strauss.

Today, Reagan and Thatcher are more often described as simply conservative.

While the article acknowledges different usages, I think it might acknowlege how it has changed.

--The Four Deuces (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What does a present neoconservative look like?

The current picture is like showing what a bird looks like, by showing a dinasaur.