From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

rename this one too? humanUser talk:Human 18:31, 22 January 2008 (EST)

right now "neocnservative" redirects to this, will they all go to "neoconservativism" in the end? humanUser talk:Human 18:33, 22 January 2008 (EST)
That's what I intend to do, if no one objects. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 18:41, 22 January 2008 (EST)
I'd say leave the redirects, but try to fix all the links? humanUser talk:Human 18:42, 22 January 2008 (EST)
I'm on it. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 18:44, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Needs a doing over[edit]

This article isn't very good. It barely describes what a neo-con is. I will take a look at it soon, once I finish that silly MMP article I started. Perhaps someone else might like to help as well. We need something that reflects the notion that this author is saying here (basically that Neocons look for order in society by using religion and other "goals" of a society to give it focus). To me, the more I read about Neocons, the more I understand the policies of Bush and Co.--Damo2353 22:17, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, it could certainly use a good "positions" thing right after the brief intro. By the way, Bushco are pretty much the manifestation of neocon policy, of course. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:30, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
I can't do anything right now, but this Leo Strauss fella, seems like an interesting philosopher. Almost a mix between the characters in the Republic (Ironically enough) Socrates and Thrasymachus. He seems to be saying that the best way to organize a society is to have the rich and powerful ruling over the poor people and telling them Noble Lies about religion and the necessity to fight wars overseas to "spread democracy". Here is a fascinating interview [1].--Damo2353 22:52, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
I didn't check the interview, but Leo definitely needs to be addressed in this article, since he was teh daddy neocon, right? I also like the vein you are mining, re: philosophical roots, etc. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:18, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

"Because we all know who started Vietnam"[edit]

Eisenhower did, to get technical. He sent military advisers, and the first American KIA (apparently, the Viet Minh thought he was French) was during his presidency. I know it's nitpicking, considering his two successors clearly accelerated the process. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 20:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was Ho Chi Minh. Listening to Ella Fitzgerald sing "Baby, if I'm the bottom, you're the top" is very different after reading Dan Savage's column..Moderator 20:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Changed to "escalated." Osaka Sun (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Horribly misguided?[edit]

I often deride the Neocons as a combination of bloodthirsty and money-hungry (Looking at you, Dick Cheney), but for a thought experiment, let's use Hanlon's Razor, and assume the Neocons aren't sociopaths, but well-meaning dolts. Irving Kristol, the grand-daddy of Neocons, is a Jew, as is mentioned in the article (as is the problem that some people lace their opposition to Neocons with anti-semtism). What is the most significant event in the 20th Century for Jews? Sadly, we can assume it's the Holocaust. Six million Jews were murdered methodically over the course of years, and powerful nations that could have intervened did not because they wished to avoid another "War to end all Wars". The great "Might have been" is how many of the 12 million murdered in the camps would have survived had the war started sooner.

Of course, this means some assumptions:


  • That the UK (and other allied nations) would have been sufficiently prepared for the war.
  • That Germany still would have attacked the USSR and the Wehrmacht would have its guts ripped out on the Eastern Front.


  • That the strong are obligated to protect the weak.
  • That one country is responsible for another country's good or evil.

Or is this all Bulverism? --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Allan Bloom?[edit]

It's a shame that the person or persons behind this article are uninformed enough to believe that Allan Bloom was a neocon. Read Giants and Dwarfs, for Christ's sake. Considering his thoughtful reflections on Academia in works like The Closing of the American Mind, I think it's fair to say he's a cut above utopian old guard FDR ex-liberals who just couldn't stand long hair, peace, and grass. Burkean (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. It's bog standard "We're right and have a duty to impost our superior standards on the world" neocon trash. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
First of all, Bloom went on record and opposed the Vietnam War. I understand that's hardly conclusive, but virtually all Neoconservatives believe the Vietnam war was both just and necessary. It was one of the original issues behind the formation of the Neoconservative political position, when many hawkish old new deal democrats (like Henry Jackson) became a new kind of conservative over cultural and foreign policy issues. Perhaps Bloom was trying to conceal or somehow be in denial about his true political convictions, but in Giants and Dwarfs he wrote:
"I am not a conservative; neo or paleo. Conservatism is a respectable outlook. I just do not happen to be that animal."
Giants and Dwarfs, as well as the Closing of the American Mind, was about the influence of relativism, and various left political and social groups whom he felt were disregarding a rigorous and classical education where the amount of knowledge in many areas which the students had was decreasing. Neither book was principally concerned with American foreign policy or imparting it to the world. Your comment about neocon trash seems very similar to the quite lazy criticism one saw against Bloom from some in the news media. Chomsky provided us with the clever observation that Bloom was "Stupid". How witty and original. David Rieff claimed he was the moral equivalent of Oliver North, as others claimed he wasn't a real philosopher, without offering evidence. One said he should be ashamed. So a knee jerk reaction to Bloom's very moderate approach I have always found baffling. But I think Keith Botsford's take is quite instructive in this instance:
"Bloom was writing vigorous polemic at a time when America sought to ensure that the intellect could not (and would not be allowed to) rise above gender and race; the mind was to be defined by its melanin and genetic content, and by what lay between our legs; or, in the academe, the canon was to be re-read and re-defined so that it fitted the latest theorem of gender or race. Bloom would have none of it. He loved people who were first-rate with real love... Many profited. Others, mainly dwellers in the bas fonds of 'social studies', or those who seek to politicise culture, resented and envied."
I also don't think the tone was justified on your part when all I was doing was pointing out that Bloom differed from Neo-Conservatives. Burkean (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Look, I respect self-identification, but a 25 year old denial while being steeped in both many of the ideologies and the power stuctures of the movement is just that. A denial. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I discussed the writings of Bloom which you claim to know and people who thoroughly studied his book. You linked to a blog by a person who claims to have a Phd. He provides no evidence that Bloom supports foreign intervention as Douglas Murray clearly does (Douglas Murray, who has been frequently praised by many at rationalwiki for his defense of gay rights, Charlie hedbo, and free thought in general). Nowhere does Jack Kerwick mention Bloom's opposition to the Vietnam War, something which virtually all neoconservatives (Podhoretz, Shawcross, Kamm) support. Furthermore, Kerwick's conclusion is what mine was. That they are worlds apart ideologically, which was my point in the first place. "25 year old denial steeped in both many of the ideologies". At least try and use correct grammar if you're going to criticize my supposedly lazy arguments. I don't think the age of what I site should matter, especially when you're linking to a blog. Burkean (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)