Discussion Main / AcceptablePoliticalTargets

It's not a good idea to complain about strawmanning WHILE strawmanning.

I agree, actually. I can't think of any political groups that are really unacceptable targets off-hand.

Please do not revert the section on neocons. As someone who has spent month studding demographics and politics I can tell you most of what you put down was false. While there were originally several leftist drown to the movement in the 80's they only made up about 30% of it hardly a majority, and by the time they took power almost none had considered themselves liberals in 20 years. As for them being mostly Jewish that is just not true, the only person I have ever heard claim this was Bernard Goldberg and conspiracy theorist, and while there were a few prominent Jewish members like Bill Kristal vary few of us as members of the republican party much less neocons. Please look at facts before you post.

I have looked at the facts, thank you very much. There are more sources to this than Bernard Goldberg (Christopher Hitchens sums up Neoconservatism better than anyone else I've read). I've studied Neoconservatism plenty myself, and have read several books by prominent Neoconservatives. And don't try to imply Neoconservatives are backed by conspiracy theorists; your section seems like it was ripped from the pages of a far-left conspiracy blog, or from a film by Alex Jones (the fact that you have several spelling and grammar errors, including Bill Kristol's name, makes me wonder just how much research you actually did). It's Conspiracy Theorists (like Jones) who are claiming the tripe you put on this page. Even The Other Wiki entry on Neoconservatism debunks several of the claims you make. Neoconservatives are not fundamentalist Christians, and never have been. Nearly all of them have a secular, Trostkyist background, who simply see religion as an ally. And there are other prominent Jewish Neoconservatives than Kristol: examples include Paul Wolfowitz and David Horowitz.

I'm not going to bother asking you to do more research, because it's clear that you aren't interested in doing so. The name "neoconservative" was coined specifically to refer to leftists who had moved to the right on the issues of foreign policy. And, while the demographic has somewhat expanded, it's still largely the same. Your section is nothing but a Take That!, and a massive violation of the Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment. I'm taking it down, pure and simple. Don't put it up again.

I was meaning to fix that section. My general impression was that a lot of the prominent/most well known members were Jews and as you say, former liberals- however, George W Bush and some of his advisers probably could be called Neoconservatives (because they support regime change/are international idealists rather than realists), and he isn't Jewish or an ex-liberal.

The interventionist thing I mentioned as important, as I've definitely heard the neo-part of neoconservative used more to distinguish them from traditional conservatives on this issue, then the idea that they were neo because they used to be liberals.

I don't really have any suggestion on the antisemitism claim and how that could be phrased in a non-inflammatory way.

Yes, what you say is pretty much true. The neo-part of the term is mostly to distinguish them from traditional conservatives (not that that's a bad thing). Still, many of them had started out as idealistic (i.e. Trotskyist) leftists, with prime examples being Irving Kristol and David Horowitz. One reason they are separated from traditional conservatives is that they are not opposed to big government or the welfare state as a whole, retaining some of the "liberal" traits from their old ideology. And, yes, people like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have somewhat embraced the Neoconservative ideology in recent years, at least on foreign policy, and some earlier than others (for instance, Cheney joined a think tank in the late 90's, while Bush didn't even consider the policy until 9/11). Still, they are not Neoconservatives in full, because they have traditionally been lifelong conservatives.

Interventionism and idealism as a way of spreading democracy and globalization is a fair description of the Neoconservative ideology. I'm not saying there aren't legitimate criticisms of Neoconservatism, but several self-proclaimed Paleoconservatives (such as Pat Buchanan and Alex Jones) and leftists (like Oliver Stone) love to rant about a Neoconservative plot to control the world's resources and finances through big business and Israeli Zionism (just google "New World Order" with "neocon", and you'll see what I mean), which eerily echoes the claims made by German Nazis (as well as their American sympathizers) about a Jewish plot to rule the world, which also talked about the Jewish prominence in banking and finance. The fact that people like Buchanan and Jones already seem to have anti-Jewish slants of their own, as well as the Jewish and leftist background of many prominent Neoconservatives, makes this seem rather suspicious. That's where the anti-semitism claims come from. Admittedly, though, these guys are a minority (albeit an extremely vocal one at that), but the term "neocon" has become vastly misused as a result. Anyone who so much as supports the War in Iraq, or even the Federal Reserve, seems to get labeled a "neocon", and most people who use it have no idea what the term actually means.

The only reason I'm doing this is because I originally added Neoconservatives to the list of Acceptable Political Targets (and acceptable they most certainly are) in the first place. And yes, you will find no shortage of blogs, videos, and other works on the net that proclaim them as a new generation of Nazis, hence my line about Godwin's Law being in effect.

This article is about expectable political targets, what you have down says that neoconservatives are expectable because they are ex-leftist and Jewish, plus everybody compares them to Nazis. But the Neoconservative movement was not mainly made up of ex-leftist, even if several disillusioned members joined, at its height only about 30% were. Also vary few Jews were members even if there were a few prominent ones there are many more prominent fundamentalist christen Neocons. Also they often exploit their connection to the religious right for political gain. Finally several groups are just as likely as them to be compared to Nazis (even though there are several parallels between the groups most predate Hitler). I find what you put down offensive on both a professional level as a political researcher and on a personal level as a Jew.

A major part of the neocon philosophy was rejecting things like big government or the welfare state as a whole, it being a backlash against the liberalism of the decades before Reagan (the government grew during his time because we invested in pricy and as it turns out useless weapons systems. I am not a conspiracy theorist and hate people like Buchanan Smith and Stone. I Am merely pointing out why they are expectable targets and there tendency to always be on offence not that they are trying to take over the world, (after all if they did they would have no one to attack). Also I have not read what Christopher Hitchens said about them besides that he is allied with them on certain policy issues.

I am a moderate republican (granted with some people like the tea party that makes me a far leftist) and what I put down is not just what I have read about but also what I have observed and discussed with neocons. I am currently working for a candidate that was thrown out of the Republican Party for agreeing to work with Obama and not attacking him. And sorry about my spelling but I am a graduate student and campaign worker that douse not have much time, it took me an hour to just write this and I have a test soon. Please find out how neocons actually act and what group they are mainly a part of before putting down information.

I warned you, pal - your section is a crass violation of the Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment. Don't put it up again.

Also, I think the word you're looking for is "acceptable", not "expectable".

Again, you insinuate that I know nothing about Neoconservatism simply because I disagree with you, as if your definition of it is the only viable one, and you feel that leaves you entitled to post outright Flame Bait on the page. Your definition of them is entirely one-sided (as well as negative), and we don't put that on the main page.

And sorry, but you're just wrong. Neoconservatives do not reject big government and the welfare state as a whole. This is an excerpt from The Other Wiki:

"In economics, unlike paleoconservatives and libertarians, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a welfare state; and, while rhetorically supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes."

Considering that neoconservatives were generally supportive of the expansion of government during the Bush years, I'd say they had no real problem with big government. Yes, they look up to Reagan is some aspects (such as his head-on approach to confronting the Soviet Union), but they are different from Reaganism in several ways. And yes, they favor a more up-front approach on foreign policy compared to the Nixon-Kissinger realism. Yet you imply this to mean that they merely have a desire to make war for the fun of it (hence your comment of "after all, if they did, they would have no one to attack"). This sounds like the conspiracy theory that they plan to keep wars going for the sake of profit. You'll excuse me if I don't agree with that claim in the least.

Ah, another jab at the Tea Partiers, and, by extension, libertarianism. I'm guessing this means you think Neoconservatives are behind the "Obama=Socialist" Tea Partier crowd. Well, you couldn't be more wrong; Tea Partiers are not Neoconservatives, and they don't generally support Neoconservatives, either (in fact, I myself know a number of Tea Partiers, and many of them have second thoughts bout Iraq and Afghanistan, and don't favor an interventionist foreign policy). Most of them, if you ask them, tend to favor people like Ron Paul (and we all know what he thinks of Neoconservatives). And, of course, there's this article by prominent Neoconservative David Horowitz, calling out people like the Tea Partiers for their intense dislike of Obama.

I'm going to put up a new, less inflammatory entry. Please, refrain from putting up such Flame Bait as "shoot first ask questions later defense policy", or "always attack the enemy philosophy". That's nothing but a one-sided look at an idealist foreign policy, and I'll thank you to keep that on the discussion pages. Understood? No matter how many times you put up that entry, I'll always be here to take it down. So don't bother.