The Difference Between a Conservative and a Neoconservative

[TheWraith]

I've been thinking tonight about where the line is, of where an opponent becomes an enemy. Specifically, about conservatives and neoconservatives.

With luck, come the 110th congress my district will be represented by a Democrat who was a self described "Goldwater Republican" for 50 years, up until 2004. Now he's running as a Democrat. I expect he's a pretty conservative Democrat, which most people here at DU would detest. But in my opinion any Democrat, even a strongly conservative one, is better than a neocon.

Let us, for the moment, take Barry Goldwater as the dictionary definition of a conservative. Hawkish, militaristic, against government mandated equality, and strongly anti-communist, but with a base-line intellectual honesty, and opposition to government legislated morality.

If somehow I were teleported back in time and talked politics over dinner with Barry Goldwater, I seriously doubt that we would agree on almost anything. Budget deficits, maybe. But on the New Deal, civil rights, militarism, and so on down the list, I doubt he and I would see eye to eye. But I also suspect that it would be quite interesting to talk politics with him, and we'd probably have a good time debating the virtues of the relative positions over a pair of thick steaks.

In contrast, if I had the misfortune to share a meal with, say, Tom Delay, I would fully expect the evening to end with me lunging across the table trying to stab him with a salad fork. Delay and the whole neoconservative movement lacks the qualities that make it possible for classical conservatives to be decent human beings: namely, intellectual honesty and the ability to stake out a position and stick to it.

Goldwater backed the NAACP and helped to desegregate the Arizona National Guard, but he strongly opposed the Civil Rights Act, which he viewed as federal overreaching. I think he was wrong, but he took a position that was consistent with his personal views, even if it was controversial.

Neocons are defined by their dishonesty and selfishness. They're for small government one minute, then shelling out hundreds of billions in unsupervised funds the next. They scream bloody murder if you can't buy an assault rifle off the shelf, but adult magazines are Satan's tools. Harry Potter books are evil, but Scooter Libby's bestiality screeds are a-okay.

Neocons' positions are defined by what special interest groups own them, and how much fearmongering they can accomplish with a given subject. They have no actual principles, or beliefs, or values, except to spread as much fear and hate as they can in order to capitalize on it. They play a zero-sum power game, with never a care that they're breaking all their own rules.

That's the difference between a conservative and a neoconservative. A conservative stands for something, even if you disagree with him. A neoconservative stands only for himself and the rest of his clan of unethical power mongers. You can coexist with a conservative. But a neoconservative has no sense of restraint or respect for others, so there can be no coexistence with them, any more than there could be with a rabid dog.

[jerry611]

1. I think most REAL conservatives have finally figured it out

Conservatives have figured out that about 60% of the GOP in power are neocons. They are not happy about this. And neocons are going to be an endangered species in Washington within the next couple election cycles. The real conservatives are mighty pissed off right now.

[Dogmudgeon]

2. Conservatives, like Liberals, love America

Neo-Cons love power, money, control, mania ... but not people. And not America.

They say they do, but we've all seen what their "love" consists of.

--p!

[pretzel4gore]

3. conserve what?

privilege? personal security while a few hours away by jet underage kids live in alleyways and sniff glue to kill hunger? conserve his high living standards when the most wonderful men on earth earn $3 a day working 18 hours pulling ricksaws in calcutta? or children are chained to sewing machines in burma so nike can sell shoes cheap while maintaining their profit margin? So hideous old men can defecate in luxury?
conservatives are like the pharisees in the bible: all outward appearance of sanctity while harbouring a moral pervert's vices. In 2006 on planet earth, it's impossible to be a 'conservative' -even moreso then in 1964 (or 1864, for that matter)
but ok. let them claim they're 'conservative'. but, no more of that 'christian' awfooey crap, AT LEAST!

[Liberty Belle]

4. Yes, & true conservatives protect the Constitution & Bill of Rights.

They are appalled by the illegal wiretapping, eavesdropping on our phonecalls,use of torture, etc.

In our area, we've begun mobilizing a coalition that includes Libertarians and Greens as well as Democrats to oppose things like wiretapping and spying on Americans.

If your conservative Reps start getting letters from people who aren't democrats on these issues, perhaps they will begin to get the message.

[teknomanzer]

5. I think your assessment is correct...

True conservatives have ideals and stand by them. Its a case of one person looking at the same set of facts and coming to a different conclusion. While I may not agree with a real conservative (paleoconservative) I do respect their position; there is a least a modicum of rationality behind it.

However, a neoconservative uses ideals as a facade. They don't believe in anything but the attainment and exercise of power for their own benefit. They are the very worst sort of Machiavellian politicians, because to them its not about the ends justifying the means... power is an end unto itself. All the neocon jibe about spreading democracy is a front for using brutal force to maintain global hegemony. All the crap about morality, and religion is propaganda to sway the ignorant masses. After all no one wants to be labeled as immoral, so whose side are you going to be on? And under the guise of moral religiosity they can then paint the world in stark shades of black and white to further their agenda. Its inaccurate to say that neocons are immoral; they are in fact amoral. To them the only thing in this world with any real value is power. Other values can be used for rhetoric as they see fit, and disregarded at a whim. This is the philosophy of borne of Leo Strauss. It is shameful, brutal, ugly, antidemocratic, and most assuredly anti-American.

I hope that paleoconservatives manage to pull the Republican party away from these thugs so we can go back to the debate between progress and conservation.

[Brundle_Fly]

6. you have to wonder if there

is any "real" conservatives left.

[suegeo]

7. New Conservatives (neo-cons) were once liberals.

The neo-con movement grew out of a group that were once anti-communist liberals.

They were once democrats, but split off from democrats, because the neo-cons are crazier than shithouse rats. The nickname given to them (new conservative) was meant to be an insult. A jab.

The batshit crazy neo-cons need demons to villify, first it was the commies (Jean Kirkpatrick), now it is "the terrorists."

NeoCons (Elliott Abrams, Perle, the sons of the orig. neo-cons out of Columbia Univ.) are still crazy, shithouse rats.

Their new demons--"the terrorists"--are grossly overblown boogeymen whom the wealthy puppetmasters and the douche bags in the pentagon overblow to keep us serfs in line.

It doesn't just seem like they work for something other than America.

[Marr]

8. Neocons are basically overt corporatists. Real conservatives hide it.

That's the only meaningful distinction I can see.

Ronald Reagan was no less a warmonger than GW Bush. He used racism and other divisive tactics just as often. He handed money to corporations while undercutting labor at every possible turn, just as W's administration does. Reagan and his administration had no more respect for the Constitution than W. does. How many indictments were brought against Reagan Administration officials?

The difference is that they used to hide it. Conservatives used proxy armies like the Contras to fight their corporate wars. Neocons use the US military. Conservatives talked about "trickle down economics", while Neocons don't even make that pretense. They just say, "fuck the poor". Neocons decided that all the things they used to hide are actually virtues. Like Gordon Gecko's pronouncement that "greed is good", the neocons just decided to embrace all those shameful positions and use tortured logic to call them "morality".

No, so-called "conservatives" empowered the neocons, and continue to feed at their trough. They can struggle to make distinctions now, but it's all just a matter of degree. Neoconservatives are the natural fruit of the conservative tree. I don't intend to let them just wipe their hands and forget about it.

[marions ghost]

12. exactly

You summed it up well. The 'real conservative' label is highly suspect at this point. It's hard for anyone with a few brain cells and something resembling a conscience to wear that label proudly anymore.

Everyone who claims to be a 'real conservative' is attempting to mask what they really are, an accomplice of the Neocons. As you point out, the Neocons have risen to power with a hugh amount of support ever since Reagan. The abject failure of the Neocon agenda is an outgrowth of the innate tendencies of the party and is a burden that all conservatives must bear. Only the cowardly will try to worm out of this logical truth. Actually, at the (non-fundy) grassroots level I DON'T hear many former Bushco supporters trying to defend the Neocons OR their own actions anymore. They're just quietly guilty, in a self-protective avoidance mode IMO.

No need to "demonize" conservatives, but no need to give them a pass either. They need to do some real soul-searching. The more honest and realistic Bushco supporters are now a constituency without a party.

[OneBlueSky]

9. I think we do ourselves a disservice by demonzing conservatives . . .

we SHOULD be making the distinction, and demonizing neocons -- but NOT conservatives . . .

there are many people who self-identify as "conservative" who are NOT in agreement with the neocon agenda, but they're confused . . . these people have considered themselves conservatives so long that it's become central to how they perceive themselves . . .

looking at BushCo's supposed "conservative" agenda, these folks can't figure out who's crazy -- them, or the people running this country . . . to believe the latter, to them, is something akin to heresy -- it's downright unpatriotic! . . .

these people are potential allies against BushCo . . . all they have to do is learn to make the distinction between conservatives (them, the "good guys") and neocons (BushCo, the bad guys) . . .

so rather than demonizing conservatives, we should be HELPING conservatives make this distinction . . . helping them understand that they can oppose BushCo's illegal/immoral/unethical policies and STILL self-identify as "conservative" . . .

once long ago I suggested that the "Top Ten Conservative Idiots" should be re-named something else -- the "Top Ten Neocon Idiots", say -- but it wasn't well received . . . I STILL think that we're alientating MANY potential allies by attacking "conservatives" when many of them have no use for the BushCo agenda . . . they just don't know what to do about it . . .

[bemildred]

10. Honest Conservatives should be welcomed.

It is dishonest and self-serving tools of all stripes that are the problem.

[marions ghost]

13. I don't see how

you can have supported Bushco "and still self-identify as conservative" without great feats of torturous mental gymnastics. What it means to be a conservative (an honest, thinking conservative) will have to be reframed from scratch after the lethal damage inflicted on the country by the GOP.

Question--

How are so-called 'moderate' Republican values different from conservative Dem (DLC) values?

In other words, is there ANY moderate Republican approach to anything that is in some significant way different from conservative Democrat? Do any moderate Republican policies have any redeeming value at this point?

[sutz12]

11. Back in the old days, 'opponent' didn't mean 'enemy'

The neo-cons have been spouting the "Democrats are our enemy" shit for so long that real conservatives have started to believe it. It seems to be turning a bit, but there is still a long ways to go.

Real conservatives are not our enemy. They may be our opponent on the political landscape, but they are still Americans, and, in their way, they want what is best for America. Neo-cons have sold out to the evil empire. They need to be rooted out. That was one of Clinton's failings. He had a chance to do this, but didn't, "so as not to upset the American people" or some such shit. This whole Bush cabal goes back to the Reagan days, with all of its corruption and power brokering. The roots run deep.

I don't fear or hate real Conservatives. We need them to provide balance. But the neo-cons have tilted the balance so far to the right that it is difficult to see where the center is any more. For 20-25 years, the neo-cons have been living off of hate speech and getting away with it. They are the ones who soured the discourse.

I don't want to eliminate the Republican party entirely. I want them to clean up their act. I fear having Dems in charge of the whole shebang, too. Single party government doesn't work. If it did, Mexico would be a fucking paradise.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

14. K & R. My OP about the same idea, link below. Great minds, and all that!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2632341

MKJ

[marions ghost]

15. I think this is something that

really needs to be talked about, in the interests of TRUE unity, of people coming together to make some extensive changes. We need to go beyond these notions of "conservative" and "liberal."

To a great extent, the Republican spin machine has killed both "liberal" and "conservative." In their interpretation of BOTH terms, they have fed the people a lie.