Talk:Neoconservatism

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)

Post-Neoconservative era

Political monitors throughout the early 21st century have been preparing for a post-Neoconservative American era.

vandalism

The entry was vandalized in this edit and the previous one, and has been kept since. Please remove the "Trotskyist" claims, that are simply in line with the antisemitic edits referred to on this talk page. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you User:Rjensen! But why did you leave the "anti stalinist" sentence. The whole sentence:

The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist Left to the camp of American conservatism. -

has nothing to do with defining the neoconservatives. It could perhaps be a claim (contested by several, and pointed to others) in the same way as the Trotskyist allegations, and in fact preserves the allegation, as anti-Stalinists are not completely anti-Communists, only against Stalin (presumably of course, because he was against the Jews, and specifically against "Trotsky"). In the name of the MILLIONS OF NON-JEWISH simply HUMAN BEINGS murdered by "Stalin" and his (sometimes Jewish but many times not) helpers, please erase the whole sentence. I'm hoping there will be others that will agree with me, therefore I'm not removing it myself. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"anti-Stalinist" I think is accurate, since many were in fact socialists and what they focused on was Stalin's totalitarianism. See especially Gertrude Himmelfarb (2011). The Neoconservative Persuasion: Selected Essays, 1942-2009. p. 140, last line and p 141. Rjensen (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Lets say its correct. (I don't think so, but cannot go in depth on this right now. I'm into some other more interesting things.

But why is this in the definition of neo-conservatism? The definition was ok, until some anonymous vandalist added this opening phrase, OBVIOUSLY AS VANDALISM... and then we are fixing a word or two here and there...

Do you have any reservations if I just remove it completely, and restore the definition to its original wording?

The topic of migration and origination of the members of the neocon group, is definitely discussed at length in other sections.

And another thing: Lately another vandalist 122.106.103.89 or perhaps the same guy from before added a sentence mocking neocons, and then removed it shortly afterwards, so the entry and its cancelation are left in our records for eternity. (Can those two edits be completely taken off since they were clearly vandalism? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The meaning of the term neoconservative is new to conservatism. It was supposedly coined by Michael Harrington to describe Socialists who chose to support Richard Nixon in 1972. None of these Socialists had had any connection to Trotskyism since 1940. Many of course had no connection with socialism, but had been supporters of FDR, Truman, Humphrey, Moynahan or Jackson. I appreciate btw that there are anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about them which we should in no way advance. TFD (talk) 07:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion this sentence works fine for the led: The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist Left to the camp of American conservatism." It follows Gertrude Himmelfarb (2011). The Neoconservative Persuasion: Selected Essays, 1942-2009. p. 140, last line and p 141. Rjensen (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. TFD (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see Irving Kristol's article written in 2003

Irving Kristol, the "godfather" of neoconservatism was a former Trotskyist and a Jew. But the following from the WP article on him, shows that even then, that was not the DEFINITION even being derogatory, it never claimed the movement of anti Stalinists, but rather the movement of... well let me quote the original and emphasize:

>In 1973, Michael Harrington coined the term "neo-conservatism" to describe those liberal intellectuals and political philosophers who were disaffected with the political and cultural attitudes dominating the Democratic Party and were moving toward a new form of conservatism. (ref: Lind, Michael, "A Tragedy of Errors") Intended by Harrington as a pejorative term, it was accepted by Kristol as an apt description of the ideas and policies exemplified by The Public Interest. Unlike liberals, for example, neo-conservatives rejected most of the Great Society programs sponsored by Lyndon Johnson; and unlike traditional conservatives, they supported the more limited welfare state instituted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

>In February 1979, Kristol was featured on the cover of Esquire. The caption identified him as "the godfather of the most powerful new political force in America -- Neo-conservatism".(ref to outdated magazine link) That year also saw the publication of the book The Neo-conservatives: The Men Who Are Changing America's Politics. Like Harrington, the author, Peter Steinfels, was critical of neo-conservatism, but he was impressed by its growing political and intellectual influence. Kristol's response appeared under the title "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed -- Perhaps the Only -- 'Neo-conservative'".(ref: Goldberg, Jonah, "The Neo-conservative Invention")

>Neo-conservatism, Kristol maintains, is not an ideology but a "persuasion," a way of thinking about politics rather than a compendium of principles and axioms.(ref: Reflections of a Neo-conservative, p.79) It is classical rather than romantic in temperament, and practical and anti-Utopian in policy. One of Kristol's most celebrated quips defines a neo-conservative as "a liberal who has been mugged by reality."

>As a former Trotskyist, Irving was indeed himself mugged by the "reality" of conservative philosophy and enfolded leftist policies such as a lack of objection to welfare programs, international "revolution" through nation-building, "revolution" through militarily imposed "democracy" and application of Fabian Socialism / Keynesianism coupled with a socially conservative viewpoint. These concepts lie at the core of neo-conservative philosophy to this day.(ref. Blumenthal, Sidney, "Mugged by reality")

Just restating the prevalence of antisemitism inside the mostly correct anti-neocon rhetoric, using a quote which is remarked (and therefore hidden from view) in the article: quote not used here: |quote=When people say that the selection of Paul Wolfowitz... marks the triumph of neocons... they are generally not indicating pleasure. Cynics say they are indicating anti-Semitism: A neocon is a Jewish intellectual you disagree with.

Since the Neocon movement transcended Kristol and moved on to a different era, in particular under Reagan and Bush I, I'm moving it to the end of the section, as a fact rather than a definition, and changing the wording to reflect the sources correctly. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not think your analysis is accurate. Lind did not say that say that Harrington coined the term to describe disaffected liberals, he merely said he coined the term. In fact Harrington used the term to describe Socialists who had decided to back Nixon. Jonah Goldberg has no credentials and his writings in NR should not be used as a source. TFD (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. Pashute is wrong on numerous counts...for example he is incorrect to state that "neo-conservatives rejected most of the Great Society programs sponsored by Lyndon Johnson" (no, they supported them...which ones opposed the Great Society??. Rjensen (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

a. Its not my analysis. I quoted. Opposing the great society is part of a quote from Kristol himself, HERE IN THE DISCUSSION ONLY and not part of my edit.

b. I quoted word for word from the Kristol article including refs, as opposed to the current opening sentence, which is a non sourced entry that was entered by a vandalist, and which is contested in the article itself.

c. The next section in the article (discussed here) is Neoconservatism#Terminology which reads: The term "neoconservative" was popularized in the United States during 1973 by Socialist leader Michael Harrington, who used the term to define Daniel Bell, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Irving Kristol, whose ideologies differed from Harrington's.[7] The first two were never defined as anti Stalinists (nor Trotzkyists as far as we know). Harrington, who opposed neocons and coined the name, was, and so was Kristol, the last name in the list, but the first in the media's eyes.

This assertion is repeated throughout the article several times, and also in each of the members discussed, as well as under Leo Strauss, So do you need to change the whole article and several others to fit this theory. I'm sure you did not intend that. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Pashute complains about "a non sourced entry that was entered by a vandalist,". There was no vandal. It had a remark about Trotskyites which I deleted, and I added a source (Himmelfarb) that is quite explicit. I can't see why pashute still has a problem. As for Harrington, he did coin the term but he did not have much to day about the group. The Himmelfarb cite is about the history of the same group of people. Rjensen (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I gave a link to the anonymous vandalist. Clearly a vandalist.

Not "a remark" from the vandalist, but a full opening sentence to the section, which changes its whole tone. (Here's the link again, this time to the Diff)

Neoconservatives refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist (largely Trotsky) Left to the camp of American conservatism.

I claim two things:

a. You agree with me that Harington who coined the term "did not have much to say about the group". So the term is NOT defined by their origins, but by its content. The sentence, accordingly, should be moved to the end, or removed completely.

b. and I contest the "former Anti-Stalinist (largely Trotsky)" phrase.

Quoting Gertrude Himmelfarb on this issue cannot be used as a definite source, when further down those claims are contested. Also, could you please give here the exact quote in its context?

It is true that there is a wealth of sources showing that anti-Stalinist style was re-used in the neocon rhetoric (see for example The Neocon take on the "New Class" on the US History blog), but not that the neocons themselves originated from anti-Stalinists, except Kristol who was a former Trotskyist. And you agree that determining the neocons as defined by coming from "former Trotskyists" is false.

In fact a whole section later in our WP article contests the anti-Stalinist claim itself, contesting alleged Leninism and Trotskyism, so what's "left"? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I edited my previous response making it clearer. I hope to convince you. And thanks for your time in any case. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Since there is no support for keeping the term "Trotskyist", there is no need to discuss that term further. The fact remains that most of the original neoconservatives had origins in the Left, and the term neoconservative means that they were new to conservatism. What motivated the change was their views on foreign and military, not domestic, policy. While that is less true today, many of today's leading neconservatives were children or students of earlier neoconservatives. TFD (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I was responding to Rjensen who did the edit.

But why are you, TFD, all for the anti Stalinist allegation? It too is pointing to one person: Irving Kristol! What is the difference between that and the Trotskyist claim? Leninism and Trotskyism claims are specifically contested and disproved later in the article. Who's "left" in the "anti-Stalinist" camp?

And even if the etymology is so important that it cannot wait till the next paragraph, why erase a non-contested and well sourced terminology, copied from two other accepted wikipedia articles, with the words: "...to describe those liberal intellectuals and political philosophers who were disaffected with the political and cultural attitudes dominating the Democratic Party and were moving toward a new form of conservatism. ? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Left-wing includes Socialist. TFD (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

But "journey from the anti-Stalinist Left" does not. And who is talking about socialists. Were talking about American Democrats.פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Socialists in the Democratic Party. TFD (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Definition

This article does a horrible job at describing what a neoconservative actually is. The begining of this article describes a neocon as someone who frequently advocate the "assertive" promotion of democracy and promotion of "American national interest" in international affairs including by means of military force. This can easily be applied to liberals, democrats, and conservatives, and is by no means unique to "neocons". Using military force to achieve a democratic pro-western regime is what the Obama regime did in Ukraine. Although U.S. troops did not formally enter the Ukraine, you have many western military advisors running the show within the Ukrainian military, and by the Obama regime's own admission, the U.S. regime has spent billions to overthrow the original Ukranian government. You can read through half the article and still not get a clear definition. There seem to be more references to socialists, and Stalin than there are to what a neoconservative is. Half the article talks about who made up the term, rather than what neoconservatism actually is. I seriously doubt anyone looking up the term neocon really cares who came up with the term. Finally, half way down this article, you begin to see something that looks like a definition. It says that neocons' main concern is to prevent the development of a new rival. Ok, that is great, but how is that any different from what Obama, or Clinton is, or was doing? Is invading Serbia, or Libya any better than invading Iraq? While some "liberals" are critical of the Iraq war, they are by no means against the general idea of sabotaging, or destabilising new rivals. Case, and point, Obama's pivot to Asia. Many political commentators are even saying that Obama has more militarily aggressive policies than Bush. "Neoconservatism generally endorses free markets and capitalism, favoring supply-side economics". Again, how is that any different than Obama, Clinton, or "European socialism"? The main criticism should be, what is the point of the neocon term? Because it sums up politics in Australia, Canada, Europe (minus Belarus), and the U.S.A. People who generally use the term neocon act as if there was some kind of difference between Obama, Clinton, and Bush, Romney. But still, we have a self proclaimed socialist in France named Hollande who also qualifies as a neocon under the definitions provided in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JA908098098 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Well it is mostly about who makes them up and their history, just as an article about Hollande's Socialist Party would be mostly about who makes them up and their history. And if the article about the Socialist Party says that they pursue neoliberalism, then you can't say so does the French Right, so they must be Socialists too. TFD (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hollande's socialist party is a political party, however, neoconservatism is a ideology, and most people look up terms from an encyclopedia to find out what the ideology means, rather than who made it up or who qualifies as one. While it is ok to include information on who made it up, the article should get straight to the point of a description. Even if you want to flood the article with irrelevant data, it still would be nice to present a clear definition for readers somewhere in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JA908098098 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This article defines it as a movement. A person could believe everything that the typical neoconservative does - I imagine millions in the U.S. do - yet not be one if one has no personal connection with the people who make up the movement. TFD (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Read the previous discussion about vandalism. A few versions back it in fact did give a good definition. Until several authors vandalized it, and, sadly, now we have some legitimate authors following suit. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the initial poster, this page as it sits now is still vandalized by people of extremely left leaning political ideologies. The very root of the word Neo means New or Modified, yet this article completely misses the point that neoconservatism actually has little to do with true American Conservatives, yet is thrown around as if it encompasses all people with conservative values. True American Conservatism is typically Christian or monotheistic, conservation minded (minimal impact to the environment through real, safe, practiced and proven methods with regards to every day life and industry), promotes true freedom and liberty as outlined in the Constitution, conservative economics when it comes to government (low taxes, low spending, small minimal government), and typically likes to keep things that work properly going (like Open Carry of firearms which has proven real impacts on minimizing crime according to every scientific study that did not use invalid cherry picked data), while trying to stop the typical liberal aspects that would never work properly or is subject to excessive abuse (like social security, welfare, minority based programs giving certain groups special treatment, excessive property taxes, any income taxes, etc). True conservatives believe military force is only needed when American interests or economy are or will be directly impacted, or if requested from a trusted ally such as the British during WWII. So based on this realistic definition, many things in this article need to be modified to paint a much clearer picture. For example both George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush were true conservatives, not a neoconservative, versus Dick Cheney had more neoconservative actions. The Bush son only approved military action after proof of WMDs had been proven and the potential for loss of life on American soil was very real. Even then, it still took a divided Congress, where a majority of those on the left side of political ideology approved military action, so this was not some neoconservative group trying to find a way to go to war, it was a unified agreement from all sides that something needed to be done in order to prevent further loss of American life, even if it meant a few deaths of soldiers. If Bush was a real neoconservative, then when Saddam offered oil at $1 per barrel as long as he remained in power, Bush would have taken that offer, instead of going on the recommendations of the bipartisan groups that helped approve military action in Iraq.

Neo- at its origins means "modified", so neoconservative is "modified conservative" or "new conservative" values, which at its base is not truly conservative in most cases. Today it means either the centrist/left leaning RINOs (Republican in Name Only) who are not true conservatives, or the other side such as extremist "Christian" groups like Westboro who are trying to bring back the Crusades to rid this country of people who do not follow their extremist religious perspective, just like Muslims. NeoNazi means modified Nazi beliefs, based on the original beliefs but modified to suit their own modern agenda (hatred of anyone not a part of their little group).

The problem is that the neoconservative term has become a political buzzword within the modern media to improperly include true conservatives that refuse to bow down to liberal ideology and are actually working to restore the Republic of this nation as it was designed over 200 years ago, instead of using that term to appropriately refer to the centrist or "extremist right wing" people that are not true conservatives. Talikarni (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"Neo" means "new." While "neo" could imply a modification of an earlier ideology, in this case it referred to people who were new to conservatism, having previously been liberal Democrats or socialists. Whatever U.S. conservatism actually means is irrelevant. See Etymological fallacy, "a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning." TFD (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Victoria Nuland

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland: ``A former colleague said of her: 'I have no doubt that when she sits down for a family dinner, she is the biggest neocon at the table.' hardly "disputed" then, nu? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.98.118.115 (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please review WP:BLP. You need a serious source for this label. is a 02:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with past discussion related to the issue, and do not disrupt Wikipedia. The following are two paragraphs from the above-linked reliable source by Geoff Dyer.

In an administration so eager to correct the perceived errors of its predecessor, it might be surprising that Ms Nuland has emerged as its point person for dealing with Russia. She was Mr Cheney’s deputy national security adviser before moving to be ambassador to Nato. She is married to Robert Kagan, author of Americans are from Mars, Europeans from Venus and one of the most prominent neoconservative intellectuals – even if he now shuns the label.

“I have no doubt that when she sits down for a family dinner, she is the biggest neocon at the table,” says a former colleague in the Obama administration state department. “But she is also one of the most talented people I have worked with in government.”

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

No actual person says Nuland is a neocon-- an anonymous person says she is more of a neocon that her husband, but he now rejects that label so most people are more neocon than her husband. Anonymous people are not reliable sources--Especially as in this case when they are making up hypothetical situations about an imaginary family dinner. Rjensen (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Take your assertions to the relevant notice board. There is nothing prima facie unreliable about a Financial Times article written by a notable journalist and author, even if he doesn't quote the name of the "former colleague in the Obama administration" whom he quotes. I would be interested to see the developments in such a discussion.

Meanwhile, Robert Kagan was also removed from the list, and there are many sources characterizing him as a neocon. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's another potential source Neocons and the Ukraine Coup by Robert Parry.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree with the lists, because there is not clear definition or membership criteria. But the fact someone calls someone a neoconservative is certainly inadequate unless it is a serious book about neoconservatism. TFD (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

There aren't many "serious books" on neoconservatism, which happens to be an active movement.

The criteria, I would imagine, follow Wikipedia's sourcing criteria, so it depends on whether the person calling someone a neocon is a reliable source. Right?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

There are lots of serious books about neoconservatism.[1] Generally one should use academic writing for classification of ideologies, because the press is often imprecise. The other major issue is balancing aspects. How important is Nuland to neoconservatism? And normally people are not reliable sources, written works are. If a prominent psychiatrist shouts at someone that they are an idiot, we don't put down that their IQ is below 25. And we need to distinguish between opinions and facts expressed in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

There are only a couple of books published recently, but I don't know if they cover the Ukraine crisis, which is the event with respect to which news media sources are referring to her as a neoconservative.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The source for the FT piece is described as a "former State Department colleague in the Obama administration". Notable journalists generally protect official sources.

Meanwhile, the other piece includes this about Nuland, among other material

Now, you have Assistant Secretary of State Nuland, the wife of prominent neocon Robert Kagan, acting as a leading instigator in the Ukrainian unrest, explicitly seeking to pry the country out of the Russian orbit. Last December, she reminded Ukrainian business leaders that, to help Ukraine achieve “its European aspirations, we have invested more than $5 billion.” She said the U.S. goal was to take “Ukraine into the future that it deserves.”
The Kagan family includes other important neocons, such as Frederick Kagan, who was a principal architect of the Iraq and Afghan “surge” strategies. In Duty, Gates writes that “an important way station in my ‘pilgrim’s progress’ from skepticism to support of more troops [in Afghanistan] was an essay by the historian Fred Kagan, who sent me a prepublication draft.
“I knew and respected Kagan. He had been a prominent proponent of the surge in Iraq, and we had talked from time to time about both wars, including one long evening conversation on the veranda of one of Saddam’s palaces in Baghdad.”
Now, another member of the Kagan family, albeit an in-law, has been orchestrating the escalation of tensions in Ukraine with an eye toward one more “regime change.”

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

no one states she is a neocon--(this quote is about her husband & his brother). Rjensen (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Frederick Kagan & Robert Kagan

I have found another reference on p. 73 to Frederick Kagan as a "neoconservative activist" in a book published by an academic, Jeanne Morefiel, on Oxford University Press called Empires Without Imperialism: Anglo-American Decline and the Politics of Deflection. Amazon
It seems to be an irrefutable reliable source for adding Fred Kagan to the list, so I intend to re-add Kagan soon, but I have started a thread on BLP/N, and would like to hear comments here or there.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I neglected to mention that the sentence referred to above describes both Frederick and Robert Kagan as "well-known neoconservative activists". --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussed at BLP/N. Fail. Collect (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Not true, that is merely a unilateral pronouncement by you trying to curtail the discussion. Consensus has by no means been established, and you are not necessarily in the majority of the thread that has been open for only a couple of hours.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read the posts from the other editors. I find your apparent desire ti simply disparage anyone who disagrees with you to be outré. Collect (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

the cite is a one sentence unsourced rumor that gives no evidence and fails the RS test for Frederick Kagan. Calling FK "a well-known neoconservative activist" is false on its face--is "well-known" were true there would be many cites of actual activism. Rjensen (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Jensen, I see that you are a former professor at Yale! Wow!!!.

I'm not impressed.

You may not disparage the publication of an academic by a world-class academic press without good reason. And yet, you have provided none. You attack her assertion of "well-known", but there are numerous sources that discuss Frederick (not to mention Robert) Kagan in relation to the topic of neoconservatism, and they are likely to increase.

You characterize Morefield's statement as a "one sentence unfounded rumor", and that is, frankly, somewhat astonishing, for someone that used to be, in the past, at an Ivy league institution. Morefield doesn't answer to you.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not a former professor at Yale (I was a Harvard professor) and I have published with Oxford U Press. There is ONE half sentence on Frederick as neocon in ONE book. It gives no evidence in terms of footnotes, speeches, writings. It's not a RELIABLE source on this topic. Rjensen (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

There are other sources, and the topic itself seems to be gaining more attention in light of the role the neocons are seen as playing by numerous observers in promoting policies that foment conflict and strife.

Since I've learned a little more about searching out sources on google books, here are a couple links. On page one of these results of 186 hits, in addition to the Gunter book, there is this book

The Strange Death of Republican America: Chronicles of a Collapsing Party, Sydney Blumenthal,

for example, which characterizes Frederick Kagan as "a neoconservative", and as "the neoconservative instigator of the surge", in no uncertain terms. There is this book,

The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East,

which characterizes Robert Kagan as neoconservative and Frederick as part of the movement on p.31, and characterizes Frederick Kagan as a neoconservative associated with AEI on the first page of Chapter 16, "On to Iran".

So there are two more books from the first page of 10 of 186 books returned as a results of the search. And they all present the same context of the ideological development of the movement and the policies its proponents have promoted.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The Transparent Cabal? TFD (talk) 07:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The author is notable and you can check the reviews on the Amazon.com page here. Is that title taboo on Wikipedia?

OK, we're moving on to page two of 186 hits, and here is a summary of findings from the first three relevant books, all by notable authors, including a Pulitzer winner, a former diplomat and academic, and four current or former professors:

1. In The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War p.233, Fred Kaplan, recipient of the Pulitzer prize states,

   Fred Kagan …was now ensconced at the American Enterprise Institute, Washington’s most prominent neocon think tank… Now it would be through Kagan that AEI emerged as the nexus joining the neocon movement and COIN.

2. In The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End p.232 Peter W. Galbraith states,

   In devising his new strategy, Bush again turned to the neoconservatives. The so-called surge strategy was the brainchild of Frederick Kagan, a military historian at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute who had never been to Iraq.

3. In The Culture of Immodesty in American Life and Politics: The Modest Republic (2013)[2] edited by professors Michael P. Federici, Richard M Gambl, and Mark T Mitchell, Claes G. Ryn states

   The more prominent neoconservatives include… Frederick Kagan, Robert Kagan…

   --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Quote mining fails as essentially all the other editors here agree. Please consider the possibility that you are wrong, and the majority is right on this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no quote mining involved, insofar as "quote mining" involves taking statements out of context. Every one of those statements means exactly what it appears to mean as shown above.

To what majority are you referring in your edit summary? Are you claiming that consensus has been established?

This is the second time you have attempted to cut off the process here, first by claiming that a thread at BLP/N which had been open for a couple of hours had been closed, when it had just gotten under way.

I don't want to have to spend any more time and effort responding to such pointy antics.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

List the editors who back what you are prescient on. List those who demur. Tell us the count. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, the author of The Transparent Cabal is notable, as are the people providing reviews on Amazon. The book is notable for attracting claims of promoting conspiracy theories and subtle anti-semitism.[3] The title of the book should be a good hint and it even spends the first chapter explaining that it is not conspiracist or anti-Semitic.

You are merely googling the subject and neoconservatism and copying whatever you find in walls of text.

TFD (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

You address the easiest source to attack, and ignore those with which you can't find fault.

Yes, I'm googling for books containing "neoconservatism" and one of the subjects at issue, but I am only posting short, relevant quotes not toaken out of context from the books. What walls of text?

Meanwhile, you post one review from a relatively unknown publication by a relatively unknown author and attempt to authoritatively dismiss the source. Well, you're not an authority, you cited one source and make comments about anti-semitism that are reflected in the review, which is fine, but represent only one view of the book. At least the review admits as much, where you don't

The antisemitism in The Transparent Cabal is quite subtle – so much so that many readers probably won’t see it, and will likely dismiss criticism of it as yet another attempt by the Likud lobby to silence its foes.

The reviews posted from mainstream media outlets on Amazon differ.

Meanwhile, while I have little time to go through the list of 186 books, I doubt you'll like this.

Aftermath: Following the Bloodshed of America's Wars in the Muslim World Nir Rosen p.229

…two outsiders played a crucial role in the push for more troops. Fred Kagan and Gen. Jack Keane are controversial figures: the former is a neoconservative military historian with no experience or specialization in the Middle East…

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed I do "address the easiest source to attack" because they jump out. I do not ignore those with which I can find no fault but do not even look at them, because if you introduce obviously unreliable sources, you destroy your credibility, and waste editors time by asking them to search through countless sources to see if any of them are good. The "reviews on Amazon" are wholly unimpressive - they are just comments by people who hold similar views. While I appreciate that you, like "many readers", may not understand why the theory that a conspiracy of Jews took control of U.S. foreign policy so that its sole focus became the security and welfare of Israel could be seen as anti-Semitic, it does not make such a theory mainstream. TFD (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)