Why Neoconservatism Is The Opposite of Conservatism

[Bravus]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/29/brooks/index.html

[olger]

Do you live in America?

THANKS,

olger

[Bravus]

Nope, and I think you know that because you asked the question earlier and someone else answered for me. I live in Australia. I'm not sure how where I live reflects on the arguments Glenn Greenwald presents in that post, but I'm very happy to share where I live.

[there buster]

..

[Bravus]

Funny, I'd have thought this one might be interesting to you, Ed, since I see you as an old-school small government conservative, who must at least have some twinges of worry about the current big-government approach.

[Dr. Shane]

I certainly agree with the author on this:

Quote:

There is one principal reason for this shift -- the Bush presidency and the political movement that supports it is not driven by any of the abstract political principles traditionally associated with "liberalism" or "conservatism." Whatever else one wants to say about the Bush presidency, it has nothing to do with limiting the size, scope and reach of the federal government.

The author is confused on a couple of things.

• He places Reagan and Goldwater in the same group - as conservatives. They were not in the same group. Goldwater was an old-school conservative and Reagan was a neo-conservative.
• Reagan did agree with Goldwater on the principle of small government but did not implement that principle when in office

• Goldwater belongs more in a group with Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover and Dwight Eisenhower

• Reagan belongs in a group with Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt.

He is also confused (or ignorant) on this point.

Quote:

But none of this expansion of government power has been undertaken in order to promote ends traditionally associated with liberalism either -- none of it is about creating social safety nets or addressing growing wealth disparities or regulating business.

• Bush has expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit for the working poor.
• He has expanded the food stamps program
• He has increased Pell Grants to help the poor go to college
• HUD policies under Bush have increased the number of the nation's poor that own their home.
• Bush signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the most far-reaching reform of American business practices since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

A neo-con is simply an old-fashion Democrat in Republican clothing. They believe in a strong military but also in social spending. What distinguishes them from a traditional Democrat is that they favor supply-side economics while the traditional Democrat favors grass-roots economics.

In today's political landscape many traditional Democrats lean toward the neo-cons because the Democrat party today has been taken over by the anti-war movement and doesn't have much of a focus beyond that. On matters of defense, neo-cons and the modern-day Democrat couldn't be further apart, On other issues, modern-day Democrats are not much different than their half-brother, the neo-con.

[Dr. Shane]

There are certainly two factions in the Republican Party. I would consider Newt Gingrich is one of the most vocal traditional conservatives and, of course, the President is a neo-conservative.

The Democrat has divisions too. We see Hilary Clinton as more a of moderate as contrast with others like Howard Dean that are completely anti-war.