The word “neocon” is obviously a short form for the word “neoconservative”. If you are not too familiar with the prefix “neo-“ it means “new”. So, if you are not able to put two and two together, “neoconservative” means “new conservative”. Does that make sense?
But what is their ideology? What is it about the neoconservative belief that makes it hip, new, and better than traditional conservatism? It is a hard definition to find since it has been hijacked by many people and may mean different things. However, I have found, with the help of some anti-Ron Paul posters in a forum I debate in, a pretty clear and concise summation of what they really believe. Irving Kristol wrote about it in the Weekly Standard about six years ago in this article and he starts off by saying this:
Viewed in this way, one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy. That this new conservative politics is distinctly American is beyond doubt.OK, not to complain or anything, but what was wrong with the “old” conservatism? What is it about this modern democracy that makes the old way of conservatism unable to properly govern it?
Neoconservatism is the first variant of American conservatism in the past century that is in the "American grain." It is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic. Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked. Of course, those worthies are in no way overlooked by a large, probably the largest, segment of the Republican party, with the result that most Republican politicians know nothing and could not care less about neoconservatism. Nevertheless, they cannot be blind to the fact that neoconservative policies, reaching out beyond the traditional political and financial base, have helped make the very idea of political conservatism more acceptable to a majority of American voters. Nor has it passed official notice that it is the neoconservative public policies, not the traditional Republican ones, that result in popular Republican presidencies.If you have just read that paragraph thoroughly enough, already you can see the danger. The point that Mr. Kristol is making here is that it is more about image and less about substance. The Roosevelts and Reagan had a charming persona that allowed the public to adore them. The others are tossed in the trash heap because they were ugly people. And please, Herbert Hoover and Dwight Eisenhower were anything but conservative. Hoover prolonged the Great Depression through government intervention, though not quite as heavy handed as FDR, and Eisenhower gave the interstate roadways, which have encourage automobiles over other forms of transportation (the environmental problems of today are the fault of government).
Now we get into some of the ideological stances of neoconservatives, because you do need some substance to hold your beautiful face together:
One of these policies, most visible and controversial, is cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth…Neocons would prefer not to have large budget deficits, but it is in the nature of democracy--because it seems to be in the nature of human nature--that political demagogy will frequently result in economic recklessness, so that one sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth. It is a basic assumption of neoconservatism that, as a consequence of the spread of affluence among all classes, a property-owning and tax-paying population will, in time, become less vulnerable to egalitarian illusions and demagogic appeals and more sensible about the fundamentals of economic reckoning…Neocons do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state and are happy to study alternative ways of delivering these services…Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his "The Man Versus the State," was a historical eccentricity. People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today's America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not. Though they find much to be critical about, they tend to seek intellectual guidance in the democratic wisdom of Tocqueville, rather than in the Tory nostalgia of, say, Russell Kirk.Now I see where this is going. Clearly, neoconservatism is nothing new. The ideas espoused by them have simply been stolen by progressives. It is an ideology of defeat, despite claiming to be optimistic. It is like when Dave Ramsey talks about car payments and about how everyone always moans that you will always have one. Instead of hoping for a better future where you are not diverting several hundred dollars a month toward a bad investment, you could be working to save that same money to buy a better car.
I really did not need to read more after that. I knew where he was going with it and I knew that he was basically a progressive in the guise of a conservative. Therefore, I am not going to bore you with the rest of his article. Feel free to read it for yourself. Bookmark it and share it with all your conservative friends. Let them know that a neocon is nothing more than a closet liberal who has given up on fighting tyranny and instead wishes to work with it to make government better. But you and I know that the only good government is a small one.
Oh, and just one other thing. Neoconservatives have a word they like to use on us as well. They call us “paleoconservatives”. In other words, we are ancient and outdated conservatives who have no good ideas for the future of this great nation. But I say that the old ideas (you know, the ones found in that pesky document called the United States Constitution) are the best ones. No where in that article will you find a reference to upholding the limits of government laid out in the Constitution. If clinging fast to the United States Constitution and the principles of limited government, also known as liberty and freedom, makes me ancient and outdated, then this 27-year-old white guy should be allowed to collect Social Security.
(I am kidding of course. I would never, ever want Social Security unless all other options have been exhausted, and that includes selling blood, semen, black-market organs, and illicit drugs.)