It’s no surprise to me that quite some neoconservatives actually think that Huckabee is on to something with his (economic) populism. After all, neoconservatives aren’t conservative at all. They’re pro-big government and extremely hawkish with regards to foreign policy. It is interesting to see them speak out against truly conservative policies though.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
On Twitter
Support for free trade defines neoconservativism as much as anything. And there has always been a big constituency of the Republican party opposed to free trade, in fact, that has been a big defining point of ‘paleoconservativism’ (Buchanan). Supply-side economics also pretty much is favored by neoconservatives, while the opposition thinks its more important to balance budgets. Neo-conservatives are for big government too. But the main opposition to neoconservativism isn’t necessarily libertarianism. You have neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, and libertarians all in what used to be the same ‘big tent’
Support for free trade is FAR broader than just so-called “neoconservatives”.
Jason,
Yes like I said libertarians support it too. Neoconservatives tend to support international agreements and institutions like the WTO to support it. However, like I said, paleoconservatives are a big segment of the party, and to say they aren’t "true conservatives" isn’t accurate.
Ok, I will modify: There are many of us who are neither "neoconservatives" nor "libertarians" who support free trade.
I prefer to call supporters of free trade "people who can do math", but that is admittedly a little self-serving.
Free trade is easily attached to a wide variety of ideological positions. For example, neoliberals (aka "third way" Democrats) value the cooperation, mutual benefit, and side-effects of interdependence. Many conservatives (of many different stripes) enjoy the strong financial and economic gains.
I don’t think that “true conservatives” have a single position on the trade issue. Like with many international issues, trade cuts across the traditional conservative/liberal dichotomy as is, as such, a very poor object for such labels.
jason
yea there are people who dont fit in these groups. but its also not true that free trade is necessarily a conservative position. there are other lines on which politics are divided. for example, neoconservatives and neoliberals , who have pretty much controlled govt, between Bush and Clinton, have pretty much been cooperative on issues like trade and foreign policy usually (and one must note that Hillary is policy-wise more supportive of Bush than other Democrats). On the other hand polls have shown the majority of the public opposed to agreements like NAFTA, and opposed to a lot of foreign intervention. There is another political divide, cutting across both parties, which isn’t really officially recognized, but Perot tapped into.
Same thing on government reform issues, btw
Michael,
Until now, I didn’t know you were a Paleoconservative/Buchananite. Did you even read the article to which you linked? The only admiration that the author has for Huckabee is in his attempt to reach out to voters belonging to the lower socio-economic classes, not in his policies per se. To summarize for your benefit, these are the policies the author advocates:
-End the tax penalty on those who buy their own health insurance
-Reduce regulation and thus increase competition in the health care industry
-Payroll tax credit in the form of a child tax credit
-Curtail illegal immigration
Ok, so I see tax cuts, deregulation, and securing the border. By any definition, these are solidly conservative policies. You erred by not reading the article, which led you to mistakenly conclude that the author supported Huckabee’s populism, and also bizarrely led you to the conclusion that neoconservatives are proponents of big government. I know that the European definition of neoconservative is completely corrupted, but really, you should do some research as to what neoconservatives believe before you paint with such broad brush strokes.
If, as it turns out, you’re actually not conservative and your comment was merely a typical left-wing rant against the "neoconservatives," my apologies.
Also I would add that neoconservatives really believe in an expanded role of government in regards to social programs but that to offset this expanded role they believe that the government should divy up some of its power back to the states.
Therefore it is really an oversimplification to say that neoconservatives They’re pro-big government
I have honestly found the neoconservative approach to government one that is very big tentish. Forget Iraq and Afghanistan for a minute. That has divided up, diluted and made the message of NeoCons appear as if they are war mongering big government morons.
George W. Bush has indeed done a good job in making it appear that way but in truth Neocons who have not lost their mind trully seem to me to be on to something.
I have always been fascinated by their Hawkish foreign affairs, strong military, strong governmental welfare programs while trying to downsize government thru funnelling power back to the states.
As Ronald Reagan once said. Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.
What he meant was that the government should not be in the business of legislating morality, values and such. When one truly looks at a non corrupted version of Neoconservativism it really does have a lot of the big tent philosophy that people are lamenting for these days.
It would also rebuff the new populists on both the left and right who are heightening anxieties, not easing them, and are ignoring the real limits to what the government can do.
Herein lies the neocon philosophy. There are limits that the government can and cannot address. Before we get too carried away with a populist economic proposal by a fiscally liberal candidate we should consider this fact that seems to be etched in stone.
There is only so much a government can accomplish before we as individuals and cities, counties and states must pick up the slack.
Apologies for the formatting of the last post, let’s see if I can clean this up: Abrisaham, I think you?re mischaracterizing the neoconservative position in saying that "neoconservatives really believe in an expanded role of government in regards to social programs." Not really. Neoconservatives tolerate some form of welfare as an inevitabile outcome of democracy, but are hardly advocates for it. The Wikipedia treatment of neoconservatism is fair, so I?ll borrow their synthesis of Irving Kristol?s own summary of Neoconservative policies: Taxes and Federal Budget: "Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth." In Kristol?s view, neocons are and should be less concerned about balancing fiscal budgets than traditional conservatives: "One sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth." Size of Government: Kristol distinguishes between Neoconservatives and the call of traditional conservatives for smaller government. "Neocons do not feel ? alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable." Traditional Moral Values: "The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives". Here Kristol distinguishes between traditional conservatives and libertarian conservatives. He cites the shared interest of Neocons and Religious Conservates in using the government to enforce morality: "Since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power." Expansionist Foreign Policy: "Statesmen should ? distinguish friends from enemies." And according to Kristol, "with power come responsibilities ? if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you." National Interest: "the United States of today, inevitably ? [will] feel obliged to defend ? a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces ?that is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II ? that is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today."True, Neoconservatives do not belong to the radical wing of the party. Neoconservatives belong to the practical wing of the party, making tradeoffs in areas they feel are less important (e.g. welfare) in return for gains in their areas of priority (taxes, defense, culture). To take this strategy and conclude that "[a]fter all, neoconservatives aren?t conservative at all," as Michael has done, is demagoguery at best and stupidity at worst.
JF I think what you are doing is taking a definition and implying that said definition is in fact the way it is. When you can see that George W. Bush was the first president to pass a Perscription drug benefit for Seniors this was in fact a Neoconservative approach to social matters.
The reality of the neocon movement seems to be much different then a pie in the sky black and white definiton. In addition this can be seen by the dictionaries treatment of the Progressive movement as "Moderate." Does anyone actually believe that the progressive movement is moderate in this country?
Lastly the missing element from Wiki’s definition of a working neoconservative movement is the focus that neocons want to put upon states rights to embrace the libertarian element within this country.
If you choose to focus on the Wiki definiton of Neoconservativism then Im afraid you are totally right and I am totally wrong. Yet I suggest to all that the Neocon movement is much larger and much different then a wiki definition and that the progressive movement in this country is much larger and much different then the Moderate tag that has been placed upon it by those making up definitions.
There are book smarts and their are street smarts. I suggest that the Neocon and the progressive movements defy the book smarts and take on a direction all of their own which will encourage a new and revised definition sometime in the near future.