Talk:Neoconservatism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.


This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neoconservatism article.

{{RFMF}}


Contents

[edit] Domestic policy?

Can we get anything added about neo-con domestic policy? Is there such a thing? It's my understanding that the original neo-con theory of domestic policy was that building a Great Society is fine, but we've gotta keep our eyes open, look at the data about policy results, and not be blinded by ideology. The James Q. Wilson line of thought. Is that an accurate summary of their self-description? --Carl 06:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article notes:
The Neocons have, over the past decades, demonstrated impressive capacities for both adaptation and reproduction. They dropped their support for social programs that distinguished them from old line conservatives...
So you are right: originally they supported social programs, but stopped doing so when the political climate turned against social programs. It seems to me that since the fall of the Soviet Union, neoconservatism has absorbed neoliberalism. Thus, Francis Fukuyama repeatedly asserts that Anglo-American style "lean" states are more effective than Eunopean-style welfare states. This was not originally part of the neoconservative agenda.
It is well known that the Iraq war and occupation were/are directed by neoconservatives. One of Paul Bremmer's main objectives when he was directing the occupation was to turn Iraq into a free-market Utopia. This confirms that neoconservatism has lately embraced a free-market ideology, something that was not convenient when the Soviet Union still existed, so that one could push policies that hurt workers and ordinary people in general only so far. -- Hyperion 19:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I was going to ask about welfare. The article says "a greater acceptance of the welfare state". I think that's wrong. Most neoconservatives, not just in the current administration but going back to the Reagan years, have been(rhetorically, at least) opposed to social programmes and ardent supporters of the private sector. More than that, they seem much, much more opposed to welfare provision than Nixon or Eisenhower were. Certainly, if neo-conservatism is associated with the ideologies of Reganism in the US and Thathcerism in the UK (as it seems to be), that would make it aggressively opposed to the welfare state, and lacking the willingess to compromise and be pragmatic in order to win office that characterised more mainstream conservatives. (anonymous 21 April 2005)
I second this statement. Neoconservatives railed against the various policies designed to promote racial equality, and poverty, arguing that they were counter-productive (welfare causes more poverty rather than less, affirmative action furthers racial inequality). Nathan Glazer has very recently changed his point of view on Affirmative Action (he now supports it), but over the last three decades I cannot think of a single neoconservative that has either accepted or come close to agreeing with any of The Great Society inspired programs. While Charles Murray is much more of a Libertarian than he is a neoconservative, his Losing Ground was a seminal text in the neoconservative literature. --kspence00:12, 8 June 2005
The questions and the answers provided assume that the "neoconservatives" of decades ago are the same as today. It also assumes that neoconservatives identify themselves as such according to some overarching philosophy (like social or religious conservatives). Instead, the meaning has generally changed over time and the term is generally used by opponents to identify a class of people. Lumping a bunch of people together in one group as defined by opponents makes it difficult to find an actual common philosophy. As the term neoconservative is used today by opponents on the left, it does not have a social component, only a foreign policy philosophy. If it has any social component at all, it would be when paleoconservatives on the right use the term to describe neoconservatives.

--Noitall 05:20, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

But their policy preferences on the domestic front ARE the same as they were decades ago. In the late sixties they stood against the Great Society programs. In the seventies and eighties they stood against Affirmative Action in a variety of forms. This is pretty straightforward. Now one way to show that they did NOT have a united domestic policy stance is to show where there was variance. Give me some examples of neoconservatives who stood with the welfare programs of the sixties for example? Much of my understanding about Neoconservatism comes from the book of the same title written by Irving Kristol. He clearly notes a neoconservative stance towards foreign AND DOMESTIC POLICY. kspence 10:23, Jun 8, 2005

Neoconservatism is a school of foreign policy thought, not a complete political position encompassing domestic and fiscal policy. One could be a democratic socialist with a neoconservative foreign policy position, or a classical liberal and a neocon, or just about anything in between. Rogue 9 19:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Probably reasonably true in 2005, but not historically 15-30 years back. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
According to an article by Irving Kristol in The Weekly Standard, neoconservatism is more defined by a domestic policy than by a foreign policy. To quote him from the article:
AND THEN, of course, there is foreign policy, the area of American politics where neoconservatism has recently been the focus of media attention. This is surprising since there is no set of neoconservative beliefs concerning foreign policy, only a set of attitudes derived from historical experience.
He also talks about the neocons not liking the concentration of services in the welfare state. I suppose the relevance of all of this is dependent on whether one believes Irving Kristol to be a fair spokesman for neoconservatism. -- Heybrakywacky 04:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel/Judaism/Dual loyalty

Whatever one's view, it seems absurd to me that the rebuttals to the charge of dual loyalty outweigh the charge itself by around 375 words to 75. If noone objects [lol] I will add some meat to the idea of dual loyalty - publishing policy briefs for Israel, pusshing pro-Israel policies in the US, alleged spying for Israel etc - when i have more time. Hopefully someone else will beat me to it.Hippo43 03:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Much as I deplore the dual loyalty argument, more information is always better than less. But do make sure you back things up strongly with reputable citations; anything not seen as clearly and factually established will probably not meet with much enthusiasm from other contributors. -Joshuapaquin 05:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
In particular, Kevin B. MacDonald is not a reputable citation in this matter. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Heh! No kidding! -Joshuapaquin (strawpoll) 07:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems that this page is protected
I would dispute the large amount of type that is included as rebuttal in this section from David Brooks and others. The Judaic link to neoconservatism is pretty well established. Even Forward magazine is quite open about it. In their January 6th 2006 edition, Gal Beckerman remarks in a review of The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy by Murray Friedman:
Acknowledging the Jewishness of neoconservatism has always triggered the red, flashing lights of antisemitism, especially since the start of the Iraq War (with extra points if it's Pat Buchanan doing the acknowledging). But there is some truth to the suspicion. If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it. It's a thought one imagines most American Jews, overwhelmingly liberal, will find horrifying. And yet it is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants' grandchildren. Understanding what might be Jewish about this movement (or "persuasion" as its godfather, Irving Kristol, prefers it be called) should be possible without being accused of conspiracy theorizing about secret cabals pulling strings for Israel."
Not only is she saying that the ideology was born out of a group of children of Jewish Immigrants, it is their intellectual domain. This entire piece smacks of whitewashing what to many people across the globe has become a repugnant manisfestation of an aggressive ideological threat to themselves, and other people aggressively targetted by this group. One can be forgiven if as a non-American, the article reads like a fairy tale. I fear insistence on 'scholarly' pieces is code for excluding valid criticisms of neo-conservatism. Unfortunately actions speak louder than words, and it is the actions of these same neocons that result in very real bombs falling on the heads of brown people, and some cases, European people, however the 'scholars' try to frame it. It is the mis-use of wiki rules and guidelines that seriously undermine wikipedia as a legitimate endeavour.JohD 13:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As Joe Sobran said once - dual loyalty would be an improvement.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) 20 November 2006.

[edit] My Edits

1) I simply felt that a lot more needed to be said about the origins of the neocons on the left. If someone feels there's a better way they should feel free to add or edit.

2) On the Reagan era I found it simply shocking that there was no mention of Lebanon.

3) The neocon influence on the Bush Administration is certainly great enough that it deserves its own subheading within the article itself.

Jacrosse 16:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Jacrosse, I agree with you on point 1, but I can't see that adding nearly 1000 words of unreferenced prose is an answer. Perhaps paraphrase the quotations you have inserted and give citations or links to the documents themselves? Unfortunately i don't have time to summarise these passages myself.

Hippo43 16:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

First, Jacrosse, you must begin to use edit summaries. It is simply discourteous to the other editors to make very significant edits without any edit summaries at all to let others know what you are doing with the article. Second, Wikipedia is not a text dump. It's not appropriate, nor legal, to simply excerpt large parts of another person's work in an article. Fair use allows us to use perhaps a paragraph or two at most of unparaphrased text copied from another article. Your edits went way beyond that, and that places Wikipedia in a state of legal liability. Before making more major edits, please run your changes by other editors on the talk page (as you can well imagine, this is one of the more controversial and fought-over articles in Wikipedia). Also, thoroughly review WP:CITE and learn how to include proper citations for your additions. All the best. —thames 17:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Please dont be so condescending that I have to "learn" to use certain mechanisms, I forgot the edit summary yet again with my current edit. Anyway I shortened the quotes so that their hopefully within reason now. And I've still had no response to my other edits.
Jacrosse 22:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry but Raimondo thougts are not particularly noteworthy. TDC 22:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
First, I want to apologize for sounding condescending--it was not my intention. Please feel free to make your edits as you choose. However, large excerpts are not going to be acceptable--it doesn't appear that your shortening of the quotes made a substantive change in the length, such that wikipedia wouldn't have a legal liability problem. Your other edits may not be a problem: why don't you try adding those edits (with appropriate citations), and once those have been ironed out then figure out how to incorporate Raimondo's ideas. —thames 22:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have several issues with the recently added material, but let me start with these:

  • What is the basis to claim that Raimondo's is "The most thoroughgoing exposition on this phenomenon and its signifcance (sic)"? (Who says, for example, that he is he more thoroughgoing than Maurice Isserman?)
  • What is the fair use justification is there to quote at this length from Raimondo's copyrighted work? (Even for a review of Raimondo's work I'd say this would be excessive quotation.) And why should we even want to quote some of this? ("…burrowing into the unions… planted his followers on staff…The ignorant masses, according to Strauss and his followers, are kept in thrall by various delusions": rather non-neutral wording, where we could say the same things neutrally. If it's relevant. Much of this seems to me to belong more in an article on Schachtman.)
  • Why is more than a passing mention of James Burnham relevant? Are we making a case that he was a proto-neoconservative in the 1940s? (An interesting topic for an essay, but hardly encyclopedic as far as I can tell.)
  • After "Raimondo has therefore seconded the view of Seymour Hersh that neoconservatism is best understood as a cult" there are two paragraphs of uncited quotation that I can't even tell whether it is Raimondo's or Hersh's writing.

Jmabel | Talk 02:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redux

Jacrosse, you ought not re-add this disputed content before talk page issues are resolved. As I said above, excerpts of this length fall outside of fair-use protection and are therefore a copyright violation. That is a legal liability that Wikipedia does not need. Furthermore, you still are not using edit summaries. This is not only unhelpful, but somewhat rude to the other editors working on this article. Please use edit summaries, even when you make minor edits, but especially when you add large amounts of material. Furthermore, the notability of Raimondo has not been established. Why is his account the most thoroughgoing of the plethora of examinations of neoconservatism that have been published since 9/11? Why does Raimondo deserve six or seven very large paragraphs worth of material when other authors (arguably more prominent and well-regarded than Raimondo) do not? —thames 23:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You can easily ask Raimondo for permission to use his words. While I don't know and have never spoken to him I suspect he would not mind your use of his writings. --Ben Houston 00:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's a constructive solution. It would certainly resolve one of the principal issues addressed on this talk page. —thames 06:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I know Justin personally, I'm sure he doesn't object to it, but ask him yourself - justin@antiwar.com
Jacrosse 03:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not my, or any of the other editors, job to obtain permission for your edits Jacrosse. I would also suggest that your personal relationship with Mr. Raimondo makes me somewhat skeptical about the objectivity of your assessment that his analysis of neoconservatism is "The most thoroughgoing exposition". You still have not satisfied the concerns of the other editors of this article. We've all worked very hard to get this article to where it is, and the insertion of a large amount of excerpted text, framed with your POV, is hard to justify. I would note that you still are not using descriptive edit summaries (either on this article or on others), although it seems you will use them when you feel the need to be uncivil [1]. Finally, you still have not addressed by Raimondo deserves disproportionately more space in this article than any other commentator. Please do not re-add the content without addressing these concerns. —thames 04:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Information Added

Okay i've put in about three paragraphs on domestic Neoconservatism based on what i've done in politics class drawing heavily on my colleges set text as its a very good work for this kind of thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flankergeek (talk • contribs) 4 Jan 2006.

[edit] Flankergeek's Edits

I found Flankergeek contributions to be informative and I think they deserve to be included in the article. --8bitJake 19:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at them until now, but I find them uncited and largely inaccurate. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


I attributed my contribution to Andrew Heywood's 'Political Ideology: An introduction' Third Edition, Pages 98-99. This is an excellent text book used throughout the UK at A-level and above. Maybe you should check it out. - Flankergeek 19:27 9 January (GMT)

Here's the relevant material, for anyone who is trying to follow this.
If this was all from Heywood, that was not clear: you only marked a citation on the first paragraph. If it all can be attributed, it might be worth having at about a third that length, and all clearly attributed as Heywood's view. Just for a couple of illustrations of what I find problematic as it stands:
  • "Rising crime and 'anti-social behavior' are the result of a wider process of weakening authority in general." This is said in Wikipedia's narrative voice. Certainly this is not a generally accepted fact, it is someone's opinion. Is it Heywood's? The Neoconservatives' as attributed by Heywood? Something else? If a statement like that is to be preserved, this needs to be clearer.
  • "For the Neoconservatives, the issue is not so much that people will adopt wrong or incorrect views, but that they will simply adopt different views." Again, who is asserting this. As it reads, it is Wikipedia making this claim about the Neoconservatives' views. And while this may apply to the Neoconservatives circa 1975, it seems rather off the mark about the Neoconservatives today, who tend to be pretty pluralist in domestic matters. Indeed, they tend to praise American pluralism as one of the values America should export. :Jmabel | Talk 05:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay fair copp, i shall re-write my entry and resubmitt it here for further scrutiny when time permits. Please take into account that this is pretty much my first major edit and I am still grappling with Wikipedia's tools and standards. -- Flankergeek 18:42 10 January 2006 (GMT)

[edit] On the Leftist Origins Subheading

It is to my discredit that I had to be so reliant on other quotes in expanding on a subject I profess to know a great deal about, and which I feel in any case needs to be considerably elaborated. I'm not sure then how best to make it work, and I still don't think its called for to insist on scrapping the quotes entirely. Consider then what I've written to the same effect in the articles on Shachtmanism and the French Turn. Also perhaps to the article "George Bush's Philosophers" on the external links list. Jacrosse 22:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have returned the subheading to just how I left it only because no one submitted any advice as to how it could be improved to address the concerns that were expressed. Furthermore, the fact that the subheading has a question mark seems to imply that the issue is subject to debate (the more indisputable facts of history are addressed elsewhere in the article), and therefore extensive quotations of others seems appropriate.
Jacrosse 17:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Jacrosse, you wrote: "no one submitted any advice as to how it could be improved". This is quite clearly not the case. I'm frankly disappointed that you would proceed immediately to re-introduce disputed material without having responded to any of the editors over the past week during which the page was protected. There are very valid copyright concerns, outside of the other objections, which you have not made the slightest effort to address. Your sole response to the other editors has been dismissive that your violation of fair use is even an issue. Finally, you are still not using edit summaries. Of your last six rapid-fire changes to the page you used two edit summaries. Please describe what you are doing, even if you write something as trivial as "formatting" or "typo".—thames 20:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't find the additions that horrible. I think you, Thames, have let this Jacrosse get under your skin. Instead of just removing it and bashing him for it, why not try to improve what he has added and work in into something that meets your critiria. Just removing the added material makes this into a confrontation rather than a collaborative building process. --Ben Houston 20:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
My principal problem is the fair use issue. I'm not an expert on Mr. Raimondo's writings, whereas Jacrosse seems to be. Amongst other comments, I've asked Jacrosse to paraphrase and reduce the amount of text from Mr. Raimondo's piece. Jacrosse, I think, would know best how to condense and distill Mr. Raimondo's points, but seems to have little motivation to do so, despite repeated requests. You are right though: it is very frustrating, and it has gotten under my skin.—thames 22:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the copyvio material once more. Wikipedia:Copyright#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others states that copyrighted material ought to be paraphrased/rewritten, or that permission ought to be obtained. I've asked User:Jacrosse to do both in the past, and I'm asking again. However, I don't think it's fair or permissible to put Wikipedia in legal liability be re-inserting the material without having made some changes to it.—thames 14:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lind section

Jacrosse, on the Great Depression/WWII and New Left sections, why are you editing out sentences that were sourced with external links? —thames 15:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summaries, I felt that the discussion of Lind was biased toward his critics. I have just made new edits, which I hope are in keeping with your concerns, as with my new edits of the leftist origins subheading. I wish this had not been such an acrimonious process, but I hope that the way I've left it now can finally be satisfactory to all of us.
Let me also take this opportunity to say that it is the height of chutzpah for Chip Berlet to take me task for name calling, as name calling has been the essence of his entire career.--Jacrosse 03:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Jacrosse: Please stop the nasty personal attacks. Please refer to me--as is basic simple courtesy for any Wiki editor--by my user name. Thanks.--Cberlet 03:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
But that is your name, and you were once head of the Albanian client sect in this country, and furthermore you are a public figure and therefore your work on Wikipedia should merit particular scrutiny. And what does it say that you made no response to the substance of the charge that your whole career has been about name calling, hell you can't even smear your way out of it like the neocons, you just whine about "nasty personal attacks". --Jacrosse 16:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I was not a leader of the Albania friendship society, was not a fan of Enver Hoxha, have condemned Stalinism as totalitarian, and oppose Leninism as inherently anti-democratic. See, for example, my article "Abstaining from Bad Sects: Understanding Sects, Cadres, and Mass Movement Organizations"[2]. That you would believe such nonsense shows an alarming lack of thorough research on the subject. That you would post them here is a breach of Wiki etiquette. When you argue "you are a public figure and therefore your work on Wikipedia should merit particular scrutiny" you raise interesting issues that have recently been dealt with in detail by ArbCom. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Harassment_of_controversial_experts, especially the findings on "Controversial experts", "Harassment of controversial experts", "SNAKE! SNAKE!", "Harassment", and "External activities of users", and "Editors with a strong point of view." Please refrain from further attacks, false claims, and comments about my outside work.--Cberlet 17:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I see nothing which provides evidence against your older affiliations, and all the essay you pointed me to proves is that you subscribe to the Leninist/popular frontist proscription of "ultra-leftism". And all I can say for your harrassment of my friends at the Mises Institute is that its in keeping with all of your past behavior and antics.--Jacrosse 18:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
That's a peculiar view of the essay. Nonetheless, your are violating Wiki policy with these personal attacks on me and my outside work. Please desist.--Cberlet 18:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
God, your awfully thin skinned for someone who styles himself as such a major enemy of "the right". You really are just a classic cliche of a bully who constantly name-calls whoever you don't like and is totally emasculated when the tables are turned. --Jacrosse 20:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Lucky for me I don't define my masculinity based on your criteria. Bad manners and agressive name-calling may be a sign of masculinity in your circle, but not mine. I write articles about the political right. I do not engage in name-calling. Review the above exchange between us, and then reconsider who comes across as the bully. Just a suggestion.--Cberlet 21:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Vintage projection! Assuming that your familiar enough with the case that's made against the quality of your work, including the bullying tactics thereof, I was commenting on your masuclinity issues for lack of a better term. I was saying that your the one who apparently has those issues, not me.--Jacrosse 22:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Have you tried Viagra? It might make you a more secure editor. Projection indeed! LOL! --Cberlet 01:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
How utterly sad, shallow, and all-bark-no-bite you are has proven to not cease to amaze me - you've descended all the way from vapid name calling to a pure non-sequitur!
Jacrosse 03:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This is extremely childish and must stop immediately. Both of you are violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I think it would be wise for both of you to take a break from editing Wikipedia, or this article at the very least, for a short period in order to cool off.—thames 18:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Start discussion over

Where is there evidence that it is "widely believed" that neoconservatism is tied to Trotskyist theories? This is a very controversial assertion.--Cberlet 19:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Its all very Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon-ish. Max Shachtman was a freind of Trotsky. Shachtman formed the Independant Socialist League, that merged with the Socialist Party, which had a group break off and form the Social Democrats, USA, of which Paul Wolfowitz used to be a member, who is a raging neocon. Other than the idea that change sometimes must come from conflict(revolution to the Trotskists, application of military power to the neocon), what else do they share?--BohicaTwentyTwo 20:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You trivialize every stage of the trajectory - Max Shachtman was probably Trotsky's closest American disciple, whose Independent Socialist League took over the Socialist Party in vintage Leninist style, who then as the renamed Social Democrats USA became an integral part of the political operation of Scoop Jackson, which more or less wholesale went into the Reagan Administration, and from there had an immense influence on the American right up to the present day.--Jacrosse 21:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
But what matters is where is there a reputable published source that says the analysis about Trotskyism is "widely" accepted? The issue is not what you or I or any other Wiki editor thinks.--Cberlet 21:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I said widely "believed" not widely "accepted", but I guess nuance is completely lost on you, as it certainly is from your work.--Jacrosse 15:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Please stop the personal attacks. We both have been warned.--Cberlet 18:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
There is this book review in Foreign Affairs that discusses the link Source. Here is another from the American Conservative magazine [3]. There actually is a fair bit of these types of mentions.
I don't dispute that the concept is widely circulated, and widely discussed, I am just saying that there is no way to prove that it is widely "believed" or widely "accepted". I am just asking for a minor revision of language, or a simple statement that it is "one view." --Cberlet 18:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

<----------Can we please discuss more before content edits concerning Trotskyism?--Cberlet 15:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you so have your panties in a bunch about this Chip? Is it because you refuse to give quarter to the notion that totalitarianism came to America from the quarters of the old left as opposed to your much vaunted "right"? You would do well to remember that your old idol Hoxha did consider Trotsky to be a "right-opportunist".--Jacrosse 15:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Jacrosse, if you don't knock off the personal attacks, I will bring up your conduct on the admin noticeboard. The only reason I won't block you for that myself is that I've had enough interactions with you and the article that someone might question my motives.
On the substance of this: Is there any problem with using "discussed" instead of "believed" or "accepted"? It makes essentially the same point, and unlike the others is verifiable. - Jmabel | Talk 05:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Is that tone really necessary? I'll change it to "widely thought", will that do?--Jacrosse 15:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The wording "widely thought" does not change the meaning. I am objecting to the claim. Simply swapping in a synonym does not address the problem. The claim about Trotskyism is fascinating and worth mentioning, and may well be "widely circulated," and "widely discussed," but it is hardly "widely believed" or "widely thought." Those phrases are value judgements that might be cited to a reputable published source, but otherwise are POV and faulty original research.--Cberlet 16:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I will repeat - yes, admonitions about courtesy be damned - that Chip Berlet is the last person who should be criticizing anyone on this score!--Jacrosse 01:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Please consider courtesy as an option. Really. I took the advice of the administrator. We can move forward with editing.--Cberlet 02:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Please do not revert careful text editing and requests for cites that replace puff POV without cites.--Cberlet 02:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Cberlet is right about avoiding terms such as "widely thought". See Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. —thames 16:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I have once again replaced the uncited opinionated POV with a factual summary and request for cites.--Cberlet 02:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
And I reverted it yet again, I repeat once more that I will give no quarter to a totalitarian like Chip Berlet!--Jacrosse 15:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

<-------------Unsubstantiated POV claims and no competent editing coupled with repeated personal attacks. My edit was fair and balanced and included most of the text with requests for cites. The response by Jacrosse is not appropriate.--Cberlet 18:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This is just harrassment pure and simple, which is all you know how to do, and yes, I repeat, you are a totalitarian!!!--Jacrosse 21:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
It is not "harrassment," simply good editing. The material you keep reverting back to is not competently cited. It is just opinion. No cites. No links. Just POV. It has no place on a serious encyclopedia. I actually edited the text. You just revert. If you are not able to find cites, the material can AND SHOULD be deleted. And PLEASE refrain from the personal attacks.--Cberlet 23:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Jacrosse - I would recommend that you approach this a bit more analytically and less passionately. It is possible to get anything that is well supported into Wikipedia if you go through the appropriate process. You (Jacrosse) are letting Cberlet get under your skin in a very big way and it doesn't reflect positively on you. --Ben Houston 03:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I suggest someone ban Jacrosse from editing this article. He isn't being civil even when I went and found references for the material he was trying to add. --Ben Houston 22:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the edits by Ben Houston have solved most of the problems. I hope there are no further attempts to delete this useful editing job. I have restored those edits. I only have a question about the one paragraph below.--Cberlet 18:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explain this paragraph?

"Some observers believe furthermore that there is a fundamental continuity of ideas from Trotsky to the present neoconservative movement. They point in particular to the French Turn, by which Trotsky advocated the belief in social democracy as a Leninist vanguard. This was indeed essentially the position for which Shachtman broke with Trotsky, and that position has remained throughout the essence of neoconservatism. Indeed, this view has only been embraced by neocon thinkers such as Paul Berman, Christopher Hitchens, and Stephen Schwartz."

Does this mean that Paul Berman, Christopher Hitchens, and Stephen Schwartz point to the "French Turn?" The meaning of this paragraphis unclear. What position did Shachtman take? Really muddy.--Cberlet 21:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know exactly what that means. Although there is a wikipedia article for French Turn and another for Max Shachtman. The Shachtman article mentions his influence on neoconservatives fairly concisely (although it isn't properly referenced, which is problematic.) I agree with you that the above paragraph is just muddy. I would need to do some research though to understand the area much better than I do before attempting to rewrite it, unfortunately, I don't have the time right now. --Ben Houston 19:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Let's wait a bit and see if anyone else can make sense of it. I just do not understand what it is trying to say. Thanks for the edits.--Cberlet 04:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Man, I totally miss the point of that paragraph too. Jacrosse, I'm sure you have something in mind, but could you explain on this page what you are trying to say with the paragraph quoted above? (And if possible, please do the explaining without jargon—e.g., "French Turn," etc.) Also, there are some terms without clear antecedents in the paragraph: "the position" (which position?) and "this view" (which view?). Thanks for your help on this. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 03:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversions without editing or discussion

Note to Jacrosse: Simply reverting what Ben Houston and I have written is not constructive. Please do not remove the disputed section tag until this discussion is complete.--Cberlet 17:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concrete v. vague language

Instead of the vague and unproven "Many believe that..." I prefer the language researched by Ben Houston:

This is concrete and properly cited. What's the problem?--Cberlet 21:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is your insistence on redundancy which comes off as a means of harrassment, the fact that you had to make the point twice under two different subheadings on the talk page says it all. The initial controversy over that section was resolved until you came along!--Jacrosse 22:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but your comments make no sense to me. How does a concrete cited reference deserve to be deleted?--Cberlet 02:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:POV prefers article text which specifically cites the sources, rather than using vague terms such as "many believe that" and the like. —thames 05:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If it helps, I do not dispute that the Trotskyism argument deserves to be mentioned, or that it has circulated, I just prefer the more concrete language tied to citations. The other paragraph on the "French Turn" simply leaves me confused. I don't understand the point. It needs to be rewritten.--Cberlet 18:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I too believe that (1) if assertions like "many believe that" can be tied to actual people—hence the need for citations—and (2) if the "French Turn" paragraph can be made comprehensible, then the subsection will be fine. Jacrosse, could you engage in this discussion with us? Could you tell me what your objections to doing (1) and (2) are? Hydriotaphia 04:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that the following paragraph should be deleted:

Some observers believe furthermore that there is a fundamental continuity of ideas from Trotsky to the present neoconservative movement. They point in particular to the French Turn, by which Trotsky advocated the belief in social democracy as a Leninist vanguard. This was indeed essentially the position for which Shachtman broke with Trotsky, and that position has remained throughout the essence of neoconservatism. Indeed, this view has only been embraced by neocon thinkers such as Paul Berman, Christopher Hitchens, and Stephen Schwartz.

I've come to this conclusion for the following reasons:

  1. "Some observers" is an unattributed weasel phrase.
  2. Moreover, the connection between Trotskyism and neoconservatism has already been limned—more intelligibly and in more detail—in the paragraph further up that discusses Michael Lind's view of the neocons.

If I don't hear an objection, therefore, I think I will delete this paragraph in the next 24 hours. I also think it's highly disputable whether the extended quote from Justin Raimondo should remain in the article. I will soon discuss that issue too. But this is, alas, all I have time for at present. Hydriotaphia 01:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hypdriotaphia. I agree with your comments but do you realize that Jacrosse just keeps reverting to the above? There is another version which I wrote that is concrete and properly referenced that Jacrosse doesn't like. If you want to just revert to that it would be better than just deleting the stuff that Jacrosse keeps reverting to. (I also believe that it would be extremely helpful if someone just banned Jacrosse from editing this article -- he is a nuance who doesn't follow the rules and is preventing proper development of this article. He has been doing this reverting for at least a couple weeks now.) --Ben Houston 01:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • May I presume that you meant to write "nuisance", not "nuance"? - Jmabel | Talk 22:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Ben Houston, I agree that Jacrosse is acting irrationally, but I'm going to proceed as if he's not. (As to banning him: I am inclined to agree, but then I'm not an administrator.) Tell me what version is yours (i.e., give me the date and time so I can go look at it in the history), and I'll take a look at it, and tell you what I think. In an ideal world, we would be able to insert as much of your version as possible while not provoking Jacrosse's wrath. Let's see what we can do in this admittedly un-ideal situation. Hydriotaphia 05:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The form of words about "French Turn, by which Trotsky advocated the belief in social democracy as a Leninist vanguard" is original research. Please see French Turn, where Jacross's additions have been discussed on the Talk page. --Duncan 23:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I must admit that i don't think the text I added was great -- the section needs work. To be honest, I was trying resolve the heated argument by integrating what Jacrosse was trying to add but in a referenced and balanced fashion. The most recent revert to the text I had inserted is this one [6]. The original edit was this one, [7] frmo February 4, 2005, but I fear if we revert that far we may miss other improvements to this article. I think that my edit starts out with "Some" - which is actually a weasel word, but at least it is an attempt in good faith. --Ben Houston 00:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute flag

Note to Jacrosse. Please do not remove dispute flags without discussion. It violates Wiki policy.--Cberlet 05:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for discussion.--Cberlet 23:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing to discuss - someone with your lack of credibility should not be able to hijack the article by arbitrarily and unilaterally declaring a dispute!--Jacrosse 22:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
No personal attacks, please. -Will Beback 23:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Is that all anyone knows how to say?!--Jacrosse 13:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Jacrosse, I don't think Cberlet is declaring a dispute "arbitrarily and unilaterally." In fact, judging from the comments on this talk page, there are several people (including myself) who agree that a dispute flag is probably warranted. Please see my comments on this talk page (above) and respond to the concerns voiced therein. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 18:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the text drafted as a compromise by Bhouston and deleted the confusing sentence. I have also removed the dispute flag. If Jacrosse wishes to discuss this, we can do so here. Otherwise, I suggest that Jacrosse be banned from editing this page, as Bhouston already suggested. At some point these disruptions and personal attacks have to stop.--Cberlet 18:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Berlet is the one who should be banned, after a very arduous and painful process where the text was agreed on Berlet suddenly ramsacked it. I'm going to appeal to thames, who mediated that dispute, to intervene once more.--Jacrosse 16:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The text was edited by Bhouston as a compromise, and was a nice NPOV job. Repeated personal attacks and reverts without editing are the problem here. --Cberlet 17:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The text as agreed to by Thames, and nothing that has gone on since then, was the compromise. And damn it you deserve personal attacks, your whole career and purpose in life is the leveling of personal attacks on people you don't like, the fact that I'm not fond of most of them either not withstanding.--Jacrosse 20:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
This makes no sense. There was no mediation. There is ongoing editing. Please stop the personal attacks.--Cberlet 18:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Francis Fukuyama's Recent Essay & Book

Summary: Both User:Bhouston (19 February 2006), PJ (4 March 2006) and 66.92.72.189 (23 February 2006) have posted quotes from Fukuyama's recent essay and book on Neoconservatism:

  • "After Neoconservatism", [8], [9]
  • "Fukuyama’s moment: a neocon schism opens", [10]

The following is a summary of the Fukumaya quotes highlighed by the above contributors in separate comments on this page:

[edit] Origins of the Neoconservative Moment

"The roots of neoconservatism lie in a remarkable group of largely Jewish intellectuals who attended City College of New York (C.C.N.Y.) in the mid- to late 1930's and early 1940's, a group that included Irving Kristol, Daniel Bell, Irving Howe, Nathan Glazer and, a bit later, Daniel Patrick Moynihan. The story of this group has been told in a number of places, most notably in a documentary film by Joseph Dorman called 'Arguing the World.'"

-from [11]

[edit] Trotskyite Influences

"It is not an accident that many in the C.C.N.Y. group started out as Trotskyites. Leon Trotsky was, of course, himself a Communist, but his supporters came to understand better than most people the utter cynicism and brutality of the Stalinist regime. The anti-Communist left, in contrast to the traditional American right, sympathized with the social and economic aims of Communism, but in the course of the 1930's and 1940's came to realize that "real existing socialism" had become a monstrosity of unintended consequences that completely undermined the idealistic goals it espoused. While not all of the C.C.N.Y. thinkers became neoconservatives, the danger of good intentions carried to extremes was a theme that would underlie the life work of many members of this group."

-from [12]

[edit] Connections to American Power and Hegemony

"Neoconservatism, whatever its complex roots, has become indelibly associated with concepts like coercive regime change, unilateralism and American hegemony. What is needed now are new ideas, neither neoconservative nor realist, for how America is to relate to the rest of the world — ideas that retain the neoconservative belief in the universality of human rights, but without its illusions about the efficacy of American power and hegemony to bring these ends about."

-from [13]

[edit] Over Militarized Means

"The problem with neoconservatism's agenda lies not in its ends, which are as American as apple pie, but rather in the overmilitarized means by which it has sought to accomplish them.... After the fall of the Soviet Union, various neoconservative authors like Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol and Robert Kagan suggested that the United States would use its margin of power to exert a kind of "benevolent hegemony" over the rest of the world, fixing problems like rogue states with W.M.D., human rights abuses and terrorist threats as they came up. Writing before the Iraq war, Kristol and Kagan considered whether this posture would provoke resistance from the rest of the world, and concluded, "It is precisely because American foreign policy is infused with an unusually high degree of morality that other nations find they have less to fear from its otherwise daunting power." ... We are fighting hot counterinsurgency wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and against the international jihadist movement, wars in which we need to prevail. But "war" is the wrong metaphor for the broader struggle, since wars are fought at full intensity and have clear beginnings and endings. Meeting the jihadist challenge is more of a "long, twilight struggle" whose core is not a military campaign but a political contest for the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslims around the world."

-from [14]

I hope this highlighting of Fukumaya's contributions helps get it into the article. This is a hard article for those not engaged in the long running debates to edit -- as noted by the many reversions of new content added by otherwise well meaning individuals. --70.48.68.200 08:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

I'm going to request mediation. This article seems desperately to need it. Hydriotaphia 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the most NPOV version of the disputed text, and deleted the incomprehensible paragraph. Let's start with any disagreement over the compromise text written by Ben Houston since this appears to be a good faith attempt at finding a compromise.--Cberlet 02:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Your unilateral disruption of the cooling off period demonstrates that you are the one not acting in good faith!--Jacrosse 03:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I am interested in mediation, not giving this page over to your control. When mediation starts, I will cooperate.--Cberlet 03:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Start cooperating now...I won't have an edit war here.--MONGO 03:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
"the neoconservative desire to spread democracy abroad, often by force" is hardly a NPOV edit. It is completely POV.--MONGO 03:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Then let's edit the version that at least has some sources connected to the claims--and that is the version that Ben Houston really tried to make a compromise between Jacrosse and me. Also, let's not ignore the long history of lack of cooperation and vicious personal attacks on me by [User:Jacrosse|Jacrosse]]. --Cberlet 03:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Not a good start, Mongo, you restored a version with the same text that is even more POV than the version written by Ben Houston. The version you restored--supported by [User:Jacrosse|Jacrosse]], begins with "Many believe that the neoconservative desire to spread democracy abroad, often by force, parallels the Trotskyist dream of permanent revolution." The version by Ben Houston at least attributes that phrase to actual cites. You could not have possibly read the text you restored. If you are not able to provide an even-handed mediation you should recuse yourself. Shame on you--Cberlet 03:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I am also not here to mediate...I am here to ensure all editors follow NPOV guidelines and watch out for WP:3RR.--MONGO 04:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There was a jump on my server end, just as there must have been when I made my last comment here...don't say shame on you to me again, condescending one. I'm well aware of your constant use of this resource to push your far left anti conservative viewpoints....so don't challenge me.--MONGO 03:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I know nothing about the personal attacks...I look at the edits. Hopefully the mediation will succeed in making the article better.--MONGO 03:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't get what's going on now—there are a lot of things happening at once, and I'm not sure I follow them—but I do want to respond briefly to something Mongo has said. I don't think "the neoconservative desire to spread democracy abroad, often by force" is a POV edit. It does seem to me that one thing that people who are labeled neoconservatives have in common is the notion that liberal democracy should be encouraged (they think so for differing reasons, to be sure). This encouragement, if necessary (often phrased: "as a last resort"), may take the form of military intervention. I think these assertions can be supported. If I can find support for them, would you consider letting "the neoconservative desire etc." passage stand? Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 03:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a more NPOV way to write the text, however. I tried a rewrite, see what you think.--Cberlet 03:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the use of biased sources such as antiwar.com can do nothing to support our attempts to be neutral. Yes, we can report they said these things, but what is the motivation behind citing them?--MONGO 04:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough; but what if the proposition to which you object was supported by neutral sources? In the next few days, I shall attempt to find sources to back up the text to which you object. Thanks for pointing this out. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 04:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This article has no need of mediation, it is the perfect example of stupidity, a classic of wiki research, BRAVO!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Awaiting mediator

This message was in response to my complaint that Mongo was not an unbiased mediator:

  • MONGO is not the mediator assigned to the matter; he is not a member of the Mediation Committee, nor has he been deputized. It generally takes a few days after a mediation is accepted for a mediator to be assigned; most of the committee is actively mediating disuptes, and we generally try to give members a day or two to look over the cases and volunteer to take on mediations before we begin assigning cases. If you add Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Neoconservatism to your watchlist, you will see when a mediator is assigned to the case; you can also look at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Current to see which mediators are assigned to which cases, and which cases are unassigned at the moment. Essjay Talk • Contact 04:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope this clarifies matters.--Cberlet 13:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey! I never said I was a mediator, did I...NO. I am an administrator and when I said no edit war, I meant it. Maybe that confused you. Timestamp?--MONGO 14:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Then, fellow editor, please refrain from further personal attacks. (added sign & time stamp)--Cberlet 14:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
CBerlet...I have made not one personal attack against you and I am tiring fast of your misuse of our no personal attacks policy. I'm hoping you'll also not misrepresent me like you did at the administrators noticeboard [15] and call me a "biased mediator" again. When this mediation is done, the pervasive anti neoconservative message permeating this article will be gone.--MONGO 14:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Response: See this line from above: --("...don't say shame on you to me again, condescending one. I'm well aware of your constant use of this resource to push your far left anti conservative viewpoints....so don't challenge me.--MONGO 03:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC))-- which I call a personal attack. It certainly appeared to me that Mongo was implying being the mediator. Apologies to Mongo for my confusion. Apology from Mongo accepted in abstentia. Let's just edit the text and refrain from any more personal attacks. Everyone.--Cberlet 15:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
(Rip poke)...you started it: "Not a good start, Mongo, you restored a version with the same text that is even more POV" "You could not have possibly read the text you restored. If you are not able to provide an even-handed mediation you should recuse yourself. Shame on you--Cberlet 03:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)" I did read the text, I think it all needs to go, but I don't support the citations of biased sources like antiwar.com unless we attribute them as such...biased. That is why I did the revert. in abstentia? I owe you something? Yes, who will be the lucky mediator I wonder. Where are the citations for this article? Can someone point out where the references are within the text? How are they to be attributed?--MONGO 15:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
There is a reference section but when those references are used they are not properly denoted -- which is a problem. I completely agree with you that this whole article needs its references improved. Although I disagree somewhat with your summarization of the article "hopelessly biased." I will make some time in the next few days to improve the references where I can. Best. --Ben Houston 15:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Pending the results of mediation I think we should establish a Neoconservatism/Temp article and rewrite things on the basis of cited sources, using the best-practices in footnoting. Until the mediation is over, I think all editors should refrain from editing.—thames 16:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no "Criticisms of Neo-Conservatism" i.e. a debate over the flaws in the NeoCon philosophy, which seems a more pertininet discussion than a page long debate over proper labeling. thoughts?

[edit] Where is mediation?

If there is not going to be a mediation, we should begin editing again, and seek sanctions against [User:Jacrosse|Jacrosse]] for simply reverting to his version without any substantial discussion.


[edit] Wilsonian Liberals of the past

So basically Neo Cons are a bunch of Alden Pyles in the Quiet American. They are no different than the Wilsonian liberals of the 20s and 30s.

[edit] Editing for NPOV and Cites

OK. Let's focus on adding cites to some of the claims, and expanding the context of the article. The actual theories of neoconservatism are thin, as Mongo has pointed out. Too much of the criticism is from the libertarians such as Raimondo. Anyone want to take a section and work on it?--Cberlet 20:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It's important that we use more mainstream academic based referencing and try to stay away from POV websites that are not peer reviewed or simply opinion based. Not an easy job. It appears the focus of the mediation is rather narrow and I don't want to broaden it to my argument that this entire article needs a major overhaul, without everyone concurring on whether they want to go into it that deeply. I may recuse myself if the current mediation is just about a few points.--MONGO 21:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as my editing, aside from reverting vandalism, I'll await the assignment of a mediator to see where that takes us. It may be a long wait as I think they are all occupied elsewhere at this time.--MONGO 06:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is appalling and outrageous

We already had this mediated, the version I'm presently defending is the one that was agreed to after mediation. There is no reason to overturn the existing agreement just because Chip Berlet has decided to hijack the article for his extremist agenda. If there needs to be a cooling off period at least turn at back to the other version.--Jacrosse 23:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There was no mediation. There is no exisiting agreement. I am not hijacking the article.--Cberlet 02:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
A mediator is still set to be assigned to this article: WP:RFM#To_Be_Assigned. Meanwhile, I suggest it's unwise for all sides to continue pouring gasoline onto the fire. We've all signed on, agreeing to mediation. Let's put some trust in its eventual outcome.—thames 21:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As a point of clarification, was there a previous mediation regarding this article? And did it involve the same issues and/or editors? Thanks, Hydriotaphia 21:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes there was, which is exactly what I've been repeatedly pointing out.--Jacrosse 16:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
OK. Can you point me to where the mediation was carried out? (Is it in the Talk Page archives?) I just want to bring myself up to speed on what was agreed to. Thanks very much, Hydriotaphia 17:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] At the risk of pouring gasoline on the fire

I've just wandered back into this article for the first time in a month or so. I certainly think it is reasonable to look at the Trotskyist backgrounds of some early neoconservatives, and to discuss how the neoconservative approach to foreign policy of "exporting democracy" may be, consciously or unconsciously, influenced by the Trotskyist doctrine of permanent revolution and (in particular) of the impossibility of socialism in one country, but some of Raimondo's hypothesizing about entryism and the French turn strike me as downright bizarre. Or wacko. Are we supposed to imagine that Paul Wolfowitz et. al., having deviously wormed their way into the Republican mainstream, will one day emerge in their true colors as leaders of a revolutionary Trotskyist vanguard? Or is it merely supposed to be an unprincipled Schachtmanite vanguard? Or am I misunderstanding? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The French Turn argument is all very conspiracy theory-like. However, I also think the only similarity between the Trotskyists and the Neocons is the scope of their goals and not the goals themselves. --BohicaTwentyTwo 13:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting

I can appreciate that some parties may want to undergo mediation in order to resolve their differences with one another, but I don't see why this should affect others who may wish to edit the article. I am unprotecting. Those who are interested in mediation know who they are and should probably refrain from potentially provocative edits. --Tony Sidaway 02:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. Suppose, though, that a party awaiting mediation does make a potentially provocative edit. Would doing so repeatedly be grounds for arbitration? (Keep in mind that mediation is experiencing a backlog, so this wait may take a while.) I don't expect any party to do this; I just want to be clear. Thanks, Hydriotaphia 04:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC) [Copied to Tony Sidaway's talk page]
Unfortunately, the principal parties in the mediation have shown that they could not refrain from revert warring, despite the pending mediation, which is why I had protected the page. You can look at the history yourself. While these editors bait and flame one another, no other editors can constructively work on the article.—thames 19:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
(Copied from User talk:Thames):

In reference to your latest comment—I hope you don't think I've been edit-warring, baiting, and flaming. If I have, please tell me where and when I did so. Hydriotaphia 19:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's between Jacrosse and Cberlet.—thames 19:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Thames is the one best to help you out there--Jacrosse 03:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
So let's be clear. There has not been a mediation. Thus every time Jacrosse reverted the page claiming that "mediation" had arrived at a "compromise" wording, that action by Jacrosse was based on a misunderstanding that assumed thames had handled a "mediation," and that somehow meant no edits to certain text were appropriate. Correct? Since other editors have now raised almost all of the same criticisms I originally raised about the unsourced and POV nature of this page, I see no need for a mediation. I propose I leave the editing of this page to others for a few months; especially since Jacrosse has stated: "And I reverted it yet again, I repeat once more that I will give no quarter to a totalitarian like Chip Berlet." Seems like mediation would be a waste of a lot of Admin time.--Cberlet 15:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful information, Cberlet. Jacrosse: do you consider this accurate? Were you under the impression (mistaken, since Thames was not mediating) that Thames had mediated between you and Cberlet and you two had come to some kind of conclusion? Please respond. Thanks, Hydriotaphia 18:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Cosmetic" differences

To Jacrosse: Whether or not your differences with Cberlet are cosmetic, I still have a problem with the current version of the "left wing origins" section. I point this out merely to emphasize that discussion must continue. To reiterate my comments above, my concerns are the following (they all deal with the extended quote from Raimondo and the last two paragraphs of the section):

  1. With regard to the Raimondo quote, there seem to me two problems. First, it is unclear to me why he needs to be quoted at such length. Second, unless Raimondo's particular musings on Schachtman et al. are a widely held view (unless, that is to say, Raimondo's views are held by people besides Raimondo), the quote, as well as the section's penultimate paragraph, are original research. This is for the simple reason that one person's view of a subject—unless that person is a very widely acknowledged expert on a subject—does not deserve Wikipedia's attention, except in Wikipedia's article on that person. By "very widely acknowledged expert on a subject," I mean (to take examples at random), Trevor-Roper on Laud, Tocqueville on Jacksonian democracy, Northrop Frye on Blake, Robert Bork or Richard Posner on antitrust law, etc. Raimondo does not appear to be such an expert. I think even someone who may agree with him will admit that.
  2. "Some observers" is an unattributed weasel phrase.
  3. Moreover, the connection between Trotskyism and neoconservatism has already been limned—more intelligibly and in more detail—in the paragraph further up that discusses Michael Lind's view of the neocons. Much of what is said in the last two paragraphs I simply do not understand. Perhaps this is because my knowledge of twentieth-century Marxism is spotty; perhaps it is because the paragraphs are replete with jargon. In either case, this is a problem.

Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 05:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If no one has any objections to my concerns, I will start making edits consistent with those concerns. Hydriotaphia 20:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

So, I've made the edits. I am more than happy to discuss those edits, and very willing to listen to criticism. Hydriotaphia 05:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting the edits by Supersexyspacemonkey

The following is an explanation for why I reverted the changes made by User:Supersexyspacemonkey to the article. I left this message on the user's talk page.

Thanks very much for your contributions to the Neoconservatism article. However, I have reverted your changes for two reasons. First, the paragraphs you added describe a disagreement between neocons and paleocons about Reagan without (a) citing to neocons' and paleocons' appropriations of Reagan, (b) giving evidence that there is indeed a disagreement about who may legitimately "claim" Reagan, and (c) citing evidence that the "technical" (i.e., true and only?) definition of a neocon is a former liberal who has become conservative. Second, the paragraphs you added, even if they had been sourced, would be appropriate only in a section of the article, not in the introduction, which summarizes the high points of the sections that follow. Because there is no section currently devoted to the Reagan debate, your paragraphs belong in the body of the article, not in its introduction. If you disagree, I am more than willing to discuss this issue on the Neoconservatism talk page. Again, sincere thanks for your contribution. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 06:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hydriotaphia 06:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New to conservatism?

The prefix "neo" can denote that many of the movement's founders, originally liberals, Democrats or from socialist backgrounds, were new to conservatism

According to who? The term 'neo' differentiates it from classical conservatism, particularily in terms of its support for the free market. Is there a reputable source for this "other interperetation" of the prefix? (Unsigned)

The conclusion that "'Neo' can denote that many of the movement's founders were new to conservativism," is false. It is prefix-abuse! It is certianly possible that many of the movement's founders could have been new to conservativism, and "neo" of course means new, but this is not how Neo--ism words are formed. "-ism" denotes a distinctive characteristic, theory, doctrine, or practise, and "Neo" always refers to the reversion to an altered form thereof. Even without knowing anything about neoconservativism, it is obvious that the word does not denote specifically that its proponents were once non-conservative. It is also not a great sentence, since it could have better described "liberals, Democrats, or from socialist backgrounds" (they forgot Green Party members !--kind of), as "those who identified with the political left" or something. That's just a side matter though. Not much more to debate here; I'm going to delete this part. Padde 17:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I take that back; I'm not going to change it, since the point is elaborated in the main text of the article. However, the meaning of 'neo' in this word has nothing to do with the former beliefs of its proponents. I'm not changing it because I don't know enough about the topic to do so, but I recommend that someone should. Padde 17:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In Defense Of Raimondo

Any reading of his columns that deal specifically with the history of neo-conservatism, and of his book Reclaiming The American Right, should demonstrate that he is in fact an expert on neo-conservatism, furthermore Antiwar.com has been a (if not the) primary vehicle for arousing knowledge of neo-conservatism into popular consciousness since 9/11.--Jacrosse 16:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this position is the following. An expert is one whose positions the other side takes time to dispute. (I.e., an expert is one whose arguments even his opponents feel they must confront.) I don't see this happening with Raimondo. There isn't any "anti-Raimondo" cottage industry, the way there is, for example, with a writer like Chomsky. I bring up the example of Chomsky in order to show that the problem is not that Raimondo is radical; Chomsky, after all, is radical too. The problem is that, while there is a cottage industry devoted to arguing against Chomsky (see, for example, this), Raimondo seems to be ignored by those outside his small group. Moreover, to devote so much time to such an overtly partisan source is problematic. And, as Duncan wrote on the Max Shachtman talk page:

I have re-read the aricle by Justin Raimondo. This is the linked article to the claim about the Leninist take-over. It does not does not support [the] claim. It suggests that a number of former Shachtmanites moved to the right, in the process breaking with Marxism and fragmenting further. Raimondo's article does not support the claim removed from the article. Even if he did, one claim would not justify inclusion automatically. Furthermore, Raimondo seems to be a highly partisan source, one who sees to shock and whose work is not carefully referenced. Indeed, many Wikipedians would argue that a blog is never a reputable source.

So, even if we did suppose Raimondo to be an expert source, the problem is that Raimondo's quote has nothing to do with the penultimate paragraph in the section—a paragraph that purports to "summarize" Raimondo's views. Thus, your response still doesn't justify that paragraph. Nor does it support the inclusion of the last paragraph, which continues to include unsourced, unattributed opinions. Therefore, unless you can convince me otherwise, I will—in the interest of compromise—leave the Raimondo quote in, but take out the last two paragraphs. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 18:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Can I please ask contributors to this page to be extra careful in their claims of how neo-conservatism is influenced by Trotskyism, permanent revolution and Max Shachtman. This is risk is that orginal research introduce on this page gets use to back it up there, and then those pages get used to back it up here. I have been unable to find strong connections between the cited documents and the claims they are used to support. Max Shachtman was not a neoconservative in any current understanding of the term: he was a social democrat, who thought that he was supporting self-determination in Vietnam rather than exporting democracy at the end of a barrel. Permanent revolution is not a strategy for democratisation in itself, but a strategy for establishing the Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat. Feel free to stop by my talk page if I can be of any help. --Duncan 20:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Duncan: please feel free to edit the "left wing origins" subsection of this page. I know you have been active at the Max Schachtman and "French Turn" pages, and I'm sure you would be a valuable contributor here. Hydriotaphia 17:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
To Hydrio - That is an absolutely outrageous criteria!!!! There exists an anti-Chomsky cottage industry because he is an easy target and one whom it is more effective to smear than someone like Raimondo who takes the time to get his facts strait. And to Duncan - you have proven beyond any doubt that your object is to defend Shachtman from whatever the hell your sectarian point of view is, it is true that Shachtman never truly became a neocon but it is truly absurd to say that he ever became a social democrat, self determination in Vietnam my shiny metal ass!!! Just like self dermination for Iraq right?--Jacrosse 21:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa, let's all calm down a little here. As I said, in the interest of compromise, I left the Raimondo quote in, even though I continue not to believe he can truly be called an expert. But let me quote from what I said above: "even if we did suppose Raimondo to be an expert source, the problem is that Raimondo's quote has nothing to do with the penultimate paragraph in the section—a paragraph that purports to "summarize" Raimondo's views. Thus, your response still doesn't justify that paragraph. Nor does it support the inclusion of the last paragraph, which continues to include unsourced, unattributed opinions." Thus, we're still left with the problem of the last two paragraphs. Your latest comment still does not justify those two paragraphs. Unless you can convince me otherwise, I believe we should remove those last two paragraphs. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 23:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Jacrosse, my views on Shachtman are quite open. I do not fully understand his evolution, but personally I do think that his views were sincere - and that we has doing his best to explain his real views. I think his papers are evidence of that. There's a lot I don't understand, and that is why I am carefully reading through volume after volume and adding in every substantial reference I can find. I can think of references being added to Wikipedia which don't which actually supported the claim added with the reference - and that's why Wikpedia has has criteria. I know that we are all are busy, and sometimes we have to discuss as yet unsupported claims on the Talk pages while we look for references. In the mean time, Wikipedia's rules are clear that we can only add in referenced materials to the articles themselves. I and others are struggling to follow Wikipedia's policies as best we understand them. We all favour our understanding of the truth more than others': Wikipedia's norms aim to get around that, by forcing us to agree on what we can prove. If we did not do that then we would have revert wars. Without winning consensus, there can be no progress. A good way to focus this discussion would be to go away from this article and return to Max Shachtman. I think that since he broke with Trotskyism and Communism, and joined the social democrats, that is is fair to call him a social democrat. Wewould all love to see any proof you have otherwise. However, the blogerati's musings are not good enough. --Duncan 09:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
On Shachtman, I strongly recommend Isserman's If I Had a Hammer. -- Jmabel | Talk 15:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earlier original use identified.

I like what Christo has just added, but isn't it a better place for it higher, under Origins? We currently have a reference to Harrington as the probable first user, and explain his use. MacDonald should go there, as the true originator. His definition is also pleasingly close to Harrington's, so it would allow us to also drop the reference to Harrington, thus shortening the article. --Duncan 17:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep Harrington as well: MacDonald is really just a precursor, since his use did not catch on. - Jmabel | Talk 17:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References sought for Jacrosse's further addition

Can anyone find references for any of these claims? As far as I can see each and every element of his addition is not only unreferences, but untrue. I have listed them below. If anyone has any supportive erefences, please add them.

This the generally accepted view among opponents of neoconservatism on the right and by many on the left as well. Also note that I never said "totally orthodox", certainly far from it. (Jacrosse)
  • Is entrism a Leninist policy, consider that Lenin did not engage in it?
Lenin may not have himself, but he certainly instructed the parties of the Comintern to engage in it in the labor movements of their respective countries. (Jacrosse)
  • Did not the 21 conditions specify that Communists break from other workers' parties? That is to say, did not Lenin explicitly oppose the tactics used in the French Turn?
  • Is the front group the vintage Leninist staple? What fronts did Lenin build? Was the Leninist staple not the revolutionary party and the mass movement?
Leninism dictates that the "revolutionary party" is the vanguard which must lead the mass movements by any means necessary. (Jacrosse)
  • This could be a non sequitur. If the staple tactic is the revolutionary party, then it is not the front group? I am not sure that what you say about the Leninist concept of party is correct. The vanguard is, by definition, the most class-conscious layer of the workers' and allied movements. The party exists to organise the vanguard. However, Lenin supported power to workers' councils, not all power to the Party. This also suggests that the staple tactic is not the front group.
The CDM and CPD were controlled and staffed by SDUSA cadre in a manner identical to the control and staffing of ANSWER by the Workers World Party. There is certainly more ambiguity when it comes to present day outfits as there does not exist today a supreme vanguard party of quite the nature that SDUSA served in the 70s. (Jacrosse)
  • Is it true or significant to say that both Trotsky and Strauss were firm believers in the power of an elite with esoteric knowledge to lead the masses? Does not every leadership of any organisation comprise leaders, who may be considered to be a elite partly defined by knowledge?
  • Does this mean that intellectual inconsistency, disagreements between Trotsky and Strauss, would therefore seem superfluous in a merger with the Straussians ? For example, it is not highly unclear that a merger between the Catholic Church and Church of the Latterday Saints -- both of which have leaderships defined by estoteric knowledge -- would be obstructed by differenced in their respective bodies of knowledge.
Of course principles can often interfere in that kind of opportunism, but not always. You would do well to check the facts in this particular case. (Jacrosse)
  • Why "therefore" does it flow from this that Raimondo has seconded the view of Seymour Hersh that neoconservatism is best understood as a cult.[16]
Raimondo explains in the essay quoted (and cited!!!) his own view of neoconservatism as a cult phenomenon. (Jacrosse)
  • Which observers believe furthermore that there is a fundamental continuity of ideas from Trotsky to the present neoconservative movement?
Raimondo, Lind, Ryn, Gottfried, Lieven, the list goes on and on. (Jacrosse)
  • What are the essential elements of Trotskyism, and does neoconservatism have them?
The question is better answered with the word Leninism instead of Trotskyism, the essential element being the belief and exaltation of Machiavellian manipulation of mass movements to achieve revolutionary ends, and yes, this is what neoconservatism has done in the context of American politics. (Jacrosse)
  • In French Turn, did Trotsky advocated the belief in social democracy as a Leninist vanguard?
That was the spirit if not the letter of what Trotsky was advocating, as Shachtman came to conclude and act upon. (Jacrosse)
  • The French Turn was about unifying the revolutionary tendencies, not about transforming the social democratic parties into revolutionary ones. Nothing that Trotsky wrote suggest that his idea of the French Turn rested on the idea that social democracy could play the role of the Leninist vanguard. This, for example, is reflected by his support the establishment of the THird and Fourth Internationals.
  • Was this was indeed essentially the position for which Shachtman broke with Trotsky, rather than the policy of defense of the USSR?
They were one and the same - the position that the western bloc, not the Soviet bloc, was what needed to be defended to advance the revolution. (Jacrosse)
  • Here you seem to accept my point: Shachtman split primarily over the defence of the USSR, not over the French Turn.
The "spirit if not the letter" as I put it is, the belief in social democracy, to the extent that it is interchangeable with liberal democracy, as a revolutionary vanguard. (Jacrosse)
  • The Spirit is invisible, but references need to be supplimented
They are certainly friendly to neoconservatism if not unabashedly self-identified, and if they do not trace it back to that early history (I believe in fact they do), the position as it relates to the present context is certainly what they believe. (Jacrosse)

--Duncan 16:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)--Jacrosse 04:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarifications, Jacrosse. Can you supply some references? We should certainly discuss these notions, and, as we find supportive references, add them into the article. Generally, I appreciate your suggestion that I check the facts, but that it really our common job here, to find references that support facts before we introduce them. If we added in everything that we would not disprove, then we'd have a lot of silly articles here. Initially, I found each of your additions surprising and counter-intuitive, and I know that some other editors find that too. For example, I didn't know that is is generally accepted that the Shachtmanites conducted a massively successful policy of Leninist entrism into the Reagan Administration and, in fact, had totally missed the Reagan Administration adoption of Lenin's views. Many of your points about the 'spirit' of views are similarly undocumented and should not be added in until they are referenced by reputable sources. The sae is case with your inferences: for example Christopher Hitchens is perhaps not a neoconservative, and even if he were he might not think that the essence of neoconservatism is the French Turn. We need references for all these suggested additions of yours if we are to move them from Talk to the article. --Duncan 10:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to reiterate a question I asked a month back that was never answered: Are we supposed to imagine that Paul Wolfowitz et. al., having deviously wormed their way into the Republican mainstream, will one day emerge in their true colors as leaders of a revolutionary Trotskyist vanguard? Or is it merely supposed to be an unprincipled Shachtmanite vanguard? - Jmabel | Talk 17:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the original idea proposed here is that the core of Leninism is the subverting of organisations into order to make them tools for a classless, idealised form of democracy. Trotsky's supposed innovation was a bourgois party could be this tool, the SFIO. Shachtman supposedly innovated democracy to mean the defeat of Stalinism by any means necessary, even the Pentagon. Post-Shachtman, his followers deviously extended this to include entry into the Republicans, in order to bring them to the democratic agenda. I also notice that the Opus Dei building is New York is close to Shacthman's former apartment. Until we can prove the tunnel linking them, this will have to remain original research. --Duncan 10:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Usage and general views

The following text is problematic: "However, neoconservatives describe their shared view as a belief that national security is best attained by promoting freedom and democracy abroad through the support of pro-democracy movements, foreign aid and in certain cases military intervention. This is a departure from the classic conservative tendency to support friendly regimes in matters of trade and anti-communism even at the expense of undermining existing democratic systems."

This is distinctly pro-neocon POV. No such departure has occured. Neoconservatives have expanded the array of nations that we have engaged in economic and military alliances. However, the United States maintains a Cold War stance in regards to the Western Hemisphere (i.e. Cuba, Venezuela). The United States also continues to expand relations with and support anti-democratic regimes (i.e. Columbia, Saudi Arabia). The neoconservatives have somewhat softened the earlier conservative anticommunist stance in a few limited instances (such as in relation to China). Regardless, neoconservatives continue the earlier tradition of supporting friendly (or economically useful) nations at the expense of democratic institutions and movements.

Vassyana 14:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot more examples of this than simply Saudi Arabia and Columbia. In the war in Afghanistan, conservative policy makers have befriended or tolerate Gen. Perez Musharaff (who took over Pakistan undemocratically), Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan and a wide range of warlords.

User: mlhoganjr

[edit] Repetition

Is it me, or does this article repeat itself constantly? You could probably shorten it by a third without losing any information. Isomorphic 04:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neocons are unopposed to big government, not opposed

I don't know much about how Wikipedia works, so please forgive me for intruding, but one mistake on the Neoconservatism page is so blatant that I have to comment. The article currently says: "Neoconservatism (or neocon) refers to the political movement, ideology, and public policy goals of "new conservatives" in the United States, that are opposed to "big government" principles and believe in restrictions on social spending." This is completely the opposite of the turth. It should be "unopposed," not "opposed." I think everyone, whether liberal or conservative, agrees that one of the major tenets of a neocon ideology is more social spending than is advocated by the traditional "paleoconservative." I edited the page to reflect this, hopefully that is OK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rcahalan (talk • contribs) 28 May 2006.

Historically neoconservatives were hawkish with foreign policy mated with liberal social policy, as with the Reagan and Nixon era. But I think modern middle class neoconservatives (the new New Conservatives) are opposed to social spending. Of course the republicans/neocons in office think they wont get reelected if they don’t spread the wealth around! and of course some are classic neocons.
I did some edits. cleaned up some sentences for flow, removed some POV style wording and opinion.--MadDogCrog 11:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Schmitt connection

I would like to seriously question the connection between Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss and neoconservative thought. I very much differ that neoconservative thought descends at all from Leo Strauss' work, or by extension Carl Schmitt's. Carl Schmitt was one of the foremost critics of liberalism in the world, whereas the neoconservatives advocate liberal democracy as the greatest possible form of government. (See Fukuyama's The End of History) To me, linking the two seems to be a smear campaign against neoconservativism by throwing it with the Nazi regime. The closest link is that Schmitt influenced Strauss, and Strauss was by some accounts the "founder" of neoconservatism. Beyond the fact that Strauss was by many accounts even more radical than Schmitt in his opposition to liberalism, there is little reason to believe that any of the ideas behind neoconservative thought come from him.

The only connection this article makes later on is Kristol citing it as one of his influences (which not does grant the article the right to claim that you can trace neoconservative thought back to Strauss, since an influence can take a variety of forms) and that Strauss may have caused his students to take a Machiavellian view of politics - this, however, is not directly relevant to neoconservativism, but rather some of its adherents. Mosz0r 20:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Carl Schmitt, but there is a connection between Leo Strauss and neoconservatism. While Strauss may not have approved of neoconservatives, neoconservatives approve of Strauss, and believe that some of their thought is derived from Strauss's ideas, even if they've modified some of them. Argyriou 06:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Argyriou. Leo Strauss definitely belongs; Schmitt should stay out of this unless there is a strong citation. - Jmabel | Talk 18:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Power of Nightmares

Reviving an old topic—The Power of Nightmares—I've now seen the film. Certainly it is polemical: there is no question that Curtis has a thesis or two to promote. It seems to me to have more to say about Islamism than about neoconservatism; his main claims about the latter are:

  • The rise of neoconservatism in some ways reflects and parallels that of Islamism, in that both initially reflected similar anxieties about people "going soft" in the self-indulgence of consumerist culture.
  • The neoconservatives have exploited Islamism as a convenient enemy and have exaggerated its importance, military capability, and degree of organization, as the neoconservative Team B and others did with the Soviets.

I don't see any particular reason to link it here, but I would recommend the film. Even more, I'd recommend Curtis's Century of the Self, on the influence of Freudian (and other) psychoanalysis. - Jmabel | Talk 18:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish neoconservatives

Michael Novak is Jewish, a fairly recent Catholic convert —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.148.55.254 (talk • contribs) 30 July 2006.

The wiki quotes "First, "neo-conservative" is a codeword for Jewish," implying criticizing the neocon movement as being equivalent to criticizing Jews. But I'd hardly describe Francis Fukuyama as Neoconservative. I think using that quote adds bias to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.219.29.236 (talk • contribs) 9 November 2006.

[edit] How is this POV?

I've reverted back the sentence:

It is today most closely identified with a set of foreign policy positions and goals: a hawkish stance during the Cold War and, more recently, in various conflicts in the Middle East.

The person who removed it says it's POV. I really don't see that. It's true. Neoconservatism used to be more about domestic policy, because plenty of non-neo conservatives believed in similar foreign policy goals, but these days, when most people hear "neocon", they think of foreign policy. And those are the neocon foreign policy positions. Argyriou 22:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC), who may even be a neocon.

  • if you cant see how POV that is then you shouldn't be editing here
I disagree with the above unsigned comment. I seem to recall that the sentence has been in the article for a long time. If it is or is not POV, that is something to be discussed here, rather than deleted without winning consensus on the Talk page. We can find more references and discuss it. One of the principles of wikipedia is that we assume good faith. It's not the job of any editor to say whether or not another should be editing, that is a collective task, and not one that can be developed by an anonymous comment. --Duncan 17:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Well said Duncan. But I have to say, this has got to be one of the most pointless pages on Wiki.Nuke Mecca 15:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question??

I know this will sound dumb and maybe was asked, but is there a term for "a former conservative who moved to the Left." People like Ariana Huffington and David Brock?--T. Anthony 12:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  • <joke>Ex-con?</joke>. No, I don't think there really is. - Jmabel | Talk 06:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That's kind of peculiar in a way. I was partly think of it because I know Neoliberal certainly does not mean "ex-conservative turned liberal" yet neoconservative often does mean "ex-liberal(more like Leftist really) turned conservative." It's kind of weird the two aren't parallels. I'd wonder if maybe there was a term like "Newly Liberal" or "Newly Left."--T. Anthony 06:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • In practice, usually just "former conservative". - Jmabel | Talk 00:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neocons are not Christian Zionists

"(rv irrelevant "see also" link. Neocons are not Christian Zionists.)" - posted in an edit somment Yes, but many are. --Kalmia 20:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Have a source for that? There are many "paleoconservatives" and other conservatives who are Christian Zioinsts, but if "neoconservative" is anything other than a general term of abuse, it pretty much excludes Christian Zionists. Argyriou 21:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ... used as a pejorative by anti-Semites [quote needed]

Sorry, still haven't devoted the necessary time to the editing rules. BUT I just noticed that under the header below a quote is needed. This I can provide. Maybe somebody can help me add the link, so interested people find their way there. The original link does not work anymore. But the document was forwarded to the H-Antisemitism discussion group. Unfortunately I do not know the rules for adding notes. Maybe I manage to figure it out. If not, I would be pleased about help.

Context: Shortcomings and criticism of the term "Neoconservative"

.... or is used as a pejorative by anti-Semites. [citation needed]"

I add the citation. I take it from here:

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-antisemitism&month=0304&week=&msg=4zdiWX1EuCVzeRLDdQySKA&user=&pw=

Maybe someone can clean up after me??? I hate to leave a nitwit mess. Thanks ...???

LeaNder 20:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Adbusters and Frank Gaffney

I snipped this:

During the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, left-wing magazine AdBusters published a list of the "50 most influential neocons in the United States", noting that half of these were Jewish (see [17]); although many prominent neoconservatives are not Jewish, among them Michael Novak, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Frank Gaffney, Dan Estes, and Max Boot.

1.) Adbusters may mention that a bunch of neocons are Jewish, but that does not equal a charge of dual loyalty.
2.) Frank Gaffney is a millitarist, not a neocon. If all the neocons convert to pacifism tomorrow, he will still be a hawk. Yakuman 20:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've partially restored the piece about the Adbusters article, with cleanup, and quotations to make the case that Adbusters is making the charge of dual loyalty. I ended up leaving out the part about Although many prominent neoconservatives are not Jewish, among them Michael Novak, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Frank Gaffney, Dan Estes, and Max Boot for a couple of reasons, including not wanting to clutter the overall article with the otherwise necessary counterpoint that it's ridiculous to call Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Gary Bauer, or Fr. Neuhaus "neoconservative". Argyriou 00:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Neuhaus was a neoconservative until c. 1994. There was a shakeup at First Things and he went his own way. Yakuman 02:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major POV problem

This article assumes that neoconservatism is mostly about foreign policy. This is a post-9/11 misconceptions. Both pro- and anti-neocon editors seem to make this mistake. There are other aspects: literary criticism, the critique of modernity, opposition to the Great Society, free speech in academia, the use of social science to critique Leftism, equity feminism, civil rights, the role of religion in the public square. Whether or not you like the neocons, PNAC only represents one facet of a broad movement with enormous intellectual firepower. Yakuman 07:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Currentism is winning out here. There could be a lot more on other, earlier aspects of neoconservatism. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Words

"There is a widespread impression", "Some of those identified" lends to Weasel Words. Especially without a Citation! Can these be re-worded, or citaiton provided (which would lead to re-wording anyways I susppose). Hackajar 09:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section moved from main article for discussion on POV and OR

   
“
 Neoconservatives have often been singled out for criticism by opponents of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, many of whom see this invasion as a neoconservative initiative.

Critics at the Harvard International Review say that "The inability (or incompetence; take your pick) of the Bush administration to act on lofty goals of democratization has opened neoconservatism to charges that it only pays lip service to ideals of liberty and democracy." [1]
   
”

I don't necessarily have a problem with these appearing in the article per se. The first part is simply OR (WP:OR) and I think the second one flirts with POV problems (WP:NPOV) especially dangling at the beginning of the Criticism section as it is. I don't think it adds much either. Comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rtrev (talk • contribs) 19:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The first isn't really OR, it's just unsourced. There should be plenty of sources for that assertion. It's also really ahistorical, which reflects most criticism of neoconservatism, so it's appropriate to lead off the section on criticism of neoconservatism. The second didn't really fit any of the other categories of criticism, so I moved it from the introductiopn, where it really didn't belong, to the general "criticism" section. I do think it's horribly POV, as it's quoting a rather hostile editorial, but it is a real criticism of neoconservatism. So long as it's shown to be an opinion, and included in the criticism section, I'm ok with it staying. Argyriou 20:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with leading off with the first part and it does need a source. I think it might be better to roll them both into a small sub-section about neoconservative foreign policy, which I am sure we can find plenty of citations for. Rtrev 20:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That would require re-writing the entire criticisms section to focus on issues, rather than the identity of the critics. That may be worth doing, but I'm not up for it. Argyriou 20:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] it looks like the neo-cons are doing all they can to make sure that this article becomes as meaningless as possible

I talk to ne-cons all the time. One thing most neo-cons will say is 'what is a neo-con". They hate the term, and try to pretend it does not exist. It is interesting to see the difficulty it is taking to write this article. It does not surprise me. I would imagine that neo-cons would be organizing to make sure that this article is as unclear and difficult to read as possible. Cheers! Webulite 01:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

  • So what are you proposing? Rtrev 02:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rumsfeld and Rice are not neo-cons.

It seems to me that the classification of Donald Rumsfelf and Condeleza Rice as neo-cons is, at least controversial. This would deserve at least a parentisis in the page when this is asserted.

Rumsfeld never wanted democracy to be implemented in Iraq. He wanted to get there, install another dictator and leave ASAP. The majority of neo-cons already asked for his head a long time ago. His fights with Paul Wolfovitz (him, yes, a true neo-con) are well known.

Condelezz aRice is much close to Kinssingerian Realpolitik than to neo-conservatism. Her wikipedia page does not once mention neo-conservatism. Correctly.

I think the article should at least say that their classifications as neo-cons is controversial (in my opinion wrong)

Miguelrio 20:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Miguel Rio, 24 Oct 2006

[edit] Shachtmanites

We say "Jeane Kirkpatrick and Kenneth L. Adelman were Shachtmanites in their youth". Kirkpatrick was in YPSL ([18]); Kevin MacDonald, who is an anti-Semitic S.O.B. but usually correct on basic facts also lists Elliott Abrams, Max Kampelman, Carl Gershman, Joshua Muravchik, and Penn Kemble. [19] But does someone have even a half-decent citation for Adelman? - Jmabel | Talk 23:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't find one. Shall we cut it?--Duncan 13:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
YPSL existed for years before the Schachtmanites rejoined, and took over, the old Socialist Party organization. Membership in YPSL is not evidence by any means of Schachtmanite affiliations: heck, I was in YPSL before Schachtman moved in; he even talked to me ("Who is this schmuck?"). (NS,TIW!)--Orange Mike 14:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see something more solid than we've got on Kirkpatrick, but at least let's get Adelman out of ther if there is no citation at all. Mike, if you can sort more of this out, that would be great; as I'm sure you know, even with first-hand knowledge you should be using citable sources, but I imagine that first-hand knowledge may give you a clue where to look. - Jmabel | Talk 04:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Not really. I was young then; all I knew was that they were an old splinter sect, and some of the old guys in the SP were eager to welcome them back into the fold; but the young YPSL leaders looked very askance at these old farts we'd never heard of except in the history of long-ignored factional splits of the Roosevelt era sectarian Left.--Orange Mike 04:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Kosher Conservatives"

The only websites I can find using this term are explicitly, often proudly anti-semitic. I can find no evidence of its use by any respectable opponents (or supporters) of the neoconservative movement. Instead, it seems to be used to label any conservative who is also pro-Israel or anti-antisemitism as not a real conservative.--Orange Mike 20:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illogical Sentence

"Critics have charged that, while paying lip service to such American values, neoconservatives have supported undemocratic regimes for realpolitik reasons [citation needed]." This cannot make sense -- the article distinguishes neocons from Kissinger-style international politics. Kissinger is the king of modern american realpolitik. Therefore, either the neocons are realists (in political science terms) and the article is wrong about the realist-neocon distinction, or this sentence needs to be ammended.

Since the sentence is both illogical and unsourced it should just be removed. --Lee Hunter 14:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/o/Talk%7ENeoconservatism_1f24.html"