Neoconservatism: Why We Need it

I stole the thread title from the book of the same title by Douglas Murray, which I cannot recommend enough, it changed my way of looking at the world. [1]

When I was young, and just coming into voting age, I was a libertarian (I think my first vote was Ron Paul when he ran as an independent), very anti-government, I viewed American foreign involvement as a negative that caused more harm than good. There are certainly historical cases where American involvement was not always golden (and these are the cases that are often disproportionately served by detractors). I kept this view until the mid 2010s, when I started to read books by Douglas Murray, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris -I should note Douglas Murray is the only one who openly uses the term NeoCon- (among writings from more classic NeoCon authors and general history).

I call myself a liberal, because for all intents and purposes I am. But, there is the infamous quote by Irving Kristol, "Neoconservatives are liberals who are mugged by reality". This was in the era of the 1960-1970s when communism was the main threat of America (and the world), and many traditional liberals were alarmed by the pacifism both domestically and oversees by the "radical left". America was the only nation capable of slowing the spread of communism, and even with massive efforts it was not a huge success (communism ended up imploding on itself except for some holdouts that nobody really will take seriously anymore, until they do, like North Korea). Anyway, I don't want to get into a long-winded segment about the Cold War, Korea, and Vietnam, because they are in the past (except for Korea which still requires a massive presence in South Korea to stabilize the border). I will just say that I think the tragedy of Vietnam was giving up, and I personally know many South Vietnamese that agree (most American veterans do not agree), so I am aware it is a controversial issue, and not everyone think the Vietnam War was a positive or even drastically slowed the spread of communism. I will concede that currently most Americans do not view the Vietnam War as just or necessary, and I am not going to change that, I am just pointing out the history of where neoconservatism started.

There were many events between the 1970s and today, but for America 11SEP2001 changed everything. This was the first time in decades that a serious attack was carried on American soil took place and the world was in a shock. Relatively speaking, American oversees policies was pretty watered down (compared to many countries we still had a massive presence in legacy places like Korea and Germany). However, the fear of communism has been off the radar for over a decade (probably several decades since it was taken seriously), and outside of some quick conflicts in the 1990s, it was a relatively peaceful time for America.

However, 9/11 brought to the forefront how America needs to be on the forefront of stopping extremism. What was once a global communist threat has become a global Islamic threat. And, let me throat clear, not all Muslims are bad, but the Islamic ideology is what is driving most of our issues. It is also the communism of our time, the "radical left" does not want to address it, and neither does much of the right. Interventionism and foreign occupation has been out of style since the Vietnam War, and "NeoCon" is actually often used a slur to shut down a debate.

The reality is most Americans have not travelled the world (and those that do, usually go to plush locations), most Americans do not realize the state of affairs of many countries, backward social policies, totalitarian regimes, no personal liberties. America is the one unique nation that has the ability to quickly mobilize the military for both conflict, intervention, and international medical emergencies (President Obama said that the American Military was indispensable for being on the frontlines of fighting Ebola). There are cases of global disaster relief, etc... America has the ability (and I would argue duty) to help struggling countries when they ask for it, the same way a good citizen would have a duty to help somebody who has a medical episode in the street, is it their duty or obligation, will they get anything in return, no, but its what makes people good and the world a better place. I believe as a citizen of America we need to support America in being a global citizen, which means using our unique strength and operational capability to make the world a better place (that can mean responding to an island ravaged by a hurricane days before anyone else, the first on the ground in a civil war, protecting key trade routes from piracy, and aiding in medical crisis's across the world).

I identify as both a liberal and a NeoCon. NeoCons are liberals who believe in a strong military, strong police, the rule of law, and classic liberal values. I sometimes use the term NeoCon to try to win back some approval for the term in liberal circles (and make some liberals realize that they have NeoCon tendencies).

For example, I support foreign intervention, I support the police (even now as it is unpopular to do so, but also recognize the need of some levels of reform), I support expanded social programs, I support civil rights (including sexual minorities), and I support the constitution (probably the most important historical document ever written, yes it had flaws, but was brilliant enough to have mechanisms to fix them), and the secular system of America. America is the greatest country on the planet, and we have the potential to grow even greater.

I was going to go on about some more controversial NeoCon topics, but I am getting tired (and I already probably wrote more than most will read) so I think I will wrap up, I just wanted to post this to summarize neoconservatism, and my view of it. I posted some links below (probably a boring topic for most, but just in case anyone cares). In any case, I realize that I am often looked down upon by the left and the right, half of my views will be hated by half of the members and the other half hated by the other half (but I think ideas are more important than tribes). But, with all of the political threads out there and the term NeoCon thrown around (often as a slur), I think that it is important to get a clear definition. I am willing to answer any questions regarding my beliefs or to be challenged (I am always open to change, I believe in evidence).
In any case that is my view on being a liberal and a NeoCon (which is essentially a redundant term, because I believe "NeoCon" should be associated with liberal).


Here is the wiki page (not always the best source, but a good rundown of the history of neoconservatism):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
"Neoconservatism is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic Party and with the growing New Left and counterculture of the 1960s, particularly the Vietnam protests. "

[1] Murray, D. (2006). Neoconservatism why we need it (1st ed.). Encounter Books.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2JVKeOExEE&t=1598s
(Great Debate on the Iraq War between George Galloway and Christopher Hitchens).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XwFWRRyMsk
(Douglas Murray)

I think it is natural to become more conservative as you grow older, indeed almost of us all do at least in *some* things, even if it's just about how much time you think is wise to spend partying. People who are afraid of persecution typically decide they want liberal governments, and will resist a right-ward change, and I'm sure there are other reasons that can keep a check on it, including just wanting to stay with previous conviction.

In any case I think the Neocon phenomenon is quite understandable.

Quote: odiousgambit

I think it is natural to become more conservative as you grow older, indeed almost of us all do at least in *some* things, even if it's just about how much time you think is wise to spend partying. People who are afraid of persecution typically decide they want liberal governments, and will resist a right-ward change, and I'm sure there are other reasons that can keep a check on it, including just wanting to stay with previous conviction.

In any case I think the Neocon phenomenon is quite understandable.

It is, because liberalism is just about "being nice." But liberalism always gets the exact opposite of what it is trying to do. As you get older you realize reality. Like free college will never work because people mistreat things that are free. All one need do is see the difference in the behaviors of kids who pay their own way and those who daddy is writing the checks. Liberals above all want to "be liked" so they want to hand out the free college. Conservatives realize it is not the popular man who gets the job done so they have to act like a grown up and tell the kids "NO!"

The neocon thing is just liberals realizing the world is not a safe place so we need to have a robust international policy. Which is true, but things have gone too far in that direction, time to pull back in many of these places.

Quote: odiousgambit

I think it is natural to become more conservative as you grow older, indeed almost of us all do at least in *some* things, even if it's just about how much time you think is wise to spend partying. People who are afraid of persecution typically decide they want liberal governments, and will resist a right-ward change, and I'm sure there are other reasons that can keep a check on it, including just wanting to stay with previous conviction.

In any case I think the Neocon phenomenon is quite understandable.

I generally agree with this.

As you get older, you tend to earn more money, and thus pay more taxes. I think the vast majority of Republicans vote that due to perception that they will pay less taxes, with 2A rights being a far second. I’m sure conservatives on this thread will list a million other reasons, but I wouldn’t consider anyone who argues politics all day on a forum to be an average voter.

Personally I am still very centrist, but at 29 years old I feel like I have taken several steps to the right in the last few years, but it has little to do with taxes.

At age 18, I probably would have written off anyone votes Republican to greed and bigotry. However I’ve come to at least understand the reasoning behind many conservative ideas, even if I completely disagree with them.

Bottom line .... no matter which side you are on, if you are so caught up in the tribalism of politics that you 100% believe everything the other side believes is flat out wrong, and refuse to criticize any politician on your “team”, you are not seeing the world as it really is. Nothing is black and white.

Quote: gamerfreak

I generally agree with this.

As you get older, you tend to earn more money, and thus pay more taxes. I think the vast majority of Republicans vote that due to perception that they will pay less taxes, with 2A rights being a far second. I’m sure conservatives on this thread will list a million other reasons, but I wouldn’t consider anyone who argues politics all day on a forum to be an average voter.

Less taxes is only part of it. It is a mental maturation. You see that what the left is proposing will not work and in fact will make things worse. You see that as you have seen it happen over your life. As an example, UBI is a pet thing of the left. Some people think you can just "make money" to hand out. But as you get older you know that this is not possible. You also have seen people get lazy when they get handed money.

Finally, you learn to be a skeptic. You learn that the more complicated the reasoning for "why it will work" or "why it is happening" the more likely you are being fed a line. Call it a reverse Occams Razor.

Quote: AZDuffman

Less taxes is only part of it. It is a mental maturation. You see that what the left is proposing will not work and in fact will make things worse. You see that as you have seen it happen over your life. As an example, UBI is a pet thing of the left. Some people think you can just "make money" to hand out. But as you get older you know that this is not possible. You also have seen people get lazy when they get handed money.

Finally, you learn to be a skeptic. You learn that the more complicated the reasoning for "why it will work" or "why it is happening" the more likely you are being fed a line. Call it a reverse Occams Razor.

I am pretty sure UBI was originally a libertarian idea (that is actually where I first learned of it), but its still a policy I support. I think historically it was originally proposed by Thomas Paine (my favorite founding father long before even learning about UBI), but more recently many libertarian groups have pushed for it as a replacement for welfare programs. In America in more recent history President Nixon supported it (basically, negative income tax he called it), along with Universal Health Insurance (he must of been a commie!) (I just mention that because many of the people who chide UBI and healthcare on here are huge Nixon fans....)

But, anyway I don't want to get too distracted with UBI, I support it, and I think it will become a reality as automation takes over many jobs in the decades ahead.

As to your earlier foreign policy point, America has already been scaling back presence oversees. We have been scaling up our presence in Poland which is a good thing (to keep Russia in check). I was trying to avoid mentioning Trump by design, but his Germany scale back, has really been a shift from Germany to Poland and Estonia (which actually makes sense to assist NATO forces as the Russian threat looms). Though it would have been better to keep the full strength in Germany and add additional forces in Eastern Europe. Cutting forces in South Korea (the idea has been floating over the summer) would just be madness.

Quote: Gandler

I am pretty sure UBI was originally a libertarian idea (that is actually where I first learned of it), but its still a policy I support. I think historically it was originally proposed by Thomas Paine (my favorite founding father long before even learning about UBI), but more recently many libertarian groups have pushed for it as a replacement for welfare programs. In America in more recent history President Nixon supported it (basically, negative income tax he called it), along with Universal Health Insurance (he must of been a commie!) (I just mention that because many of the people who chide UBI and healthcare on here are huge Nixon fans....)

But, anyway I don't want to get too distracted with UBI, I support it, and I think it will become a reality as automation takes over many jobs in the decades ahead.

It does not matter how many people "like" UBI, it cannot work. You keep saying how many people support it and give all kinds of theories as to how it will succeed. What you do not realize is the kind is not wearing any clothes.

Quote: odiousgambit

I think it is natural to become more conservative as you grow older,

It is a very old observation

“He who is not a républicain at twenty compels one to doubt the generosity of his heart; but he who, after thirty, persists, compels one to doubt the soundness of his mind.”

“Celui qui n’est pas républicain à vingt ans fait douter de la générosité de son âme; mais celui qui, après trente ans, persévère, fait douter de la rectitude de son esprit.”

Anselme Polycarpe Batbie (19th century academic jurist).

The idea is more often expressed in the e-mail age as:
‘If You Are Not a Liberal When You Are Young, You Have No Heart, and If You Are Not a Conservative When Old, You Have No Brain’

The saying is often attributed to Winston Churchill who was probably repeating it.

It has been observed that the opinions SCOTUS judges tend to run counter to this trend. The assumption is that if you get a job guaranteed for life, as you grow older you simply want more people to think fondly of you.

Quote: AZDuffman

It does not matter how many people "like" UBI, it cannot work. You keep saying how many people support it and give all kinds of theories as to how it will succeed. What you do not realize is the kind is not wearing any clothes.

I was trying to avoid going the UBI debate route here.

But, yes, many reputable people support UBI. Every tech billionaire that you can probably name offhand supports it. (Other billionaires and CEOs do as well, but I focus on tech for a specific reason). Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg are probably the big five that come to your and everyone's mind.

For somebody to be that massively successful in tech, they need to be good at both business and math (coding). So if you measure their mathematical and business brilliance by their wealth the fact that the richest men (in the case of Bezos richest man in the world who is not a dictator) in tech, all support this shows that it is not a crackpot theory. Mark Cuban was one holdout, but he has started to come around since COVID-19 (saying biweekly checks for duration of the virus, and potentially beyond). I don't claim to be a math genius, probably barely average (if I do well on math tests its because I study hard, and am good at studying for tests), but many mathematically sound (not just sound but revolutionaries) support it, even the Wizard said that he did in one of his livestreams that I watched about election betting (when Yang was still in the primary (I don't know if this is a view that he still holds).

However, the larger issue is, we are automating away jobs. Eventually there will be wealth that accumulates itself (in the sense that no human worker is directly required). This may not be today or tomorrow, but it will be in the coming years. I am young (as you love to point out), but even in my short life, I have seen technology progress in ways that if you asked me 15 years ago I would laugh at. The idea that in 50 years very few Americans will be working (certainly not in the kind of jobs that exist now) is not fringe but expected (if not far sooner, 50 years is a very conservative timeline).

So yes, it does matter how many people like UBI, especially if the biggest proponents are math and business wizards.... They know what is coming (far more than I do). The fact that every tech billionaire you can probably name off of the top of your head supports it should tell you something.
Also, my favorite found father, Thomas Paine, supported it (and yes he was my hero long before I learned about his support of UBI).

If we are both still active on this board in 20 years, I think we will be having a very different discussion about UBI (it quite possibly will be occurring by then).

Quote: AZDuffman

It does not matter how many people "like" UBI, it cannot work. You keep saying how many people support it and give all kinds of theories as to how it will succeed. What you do not realize is the kind is not wearing any clothes.

+100

The whole UBI discussion is so freakin idiotic man.
Whenever someone talks about how great it is, that person immediately loses credibility with old Shrek.