neoconservatives vs new right

[freepcrusher]

based on semantics they would seem to be the same thing but my opinion is that they were not. Neoconservatives were not particularly ideological and were hawkish on military matters and objected to the excesses of liberal regimes (ie John Lindsay) but otherwise were truman/stevenson guys of the past.

The new right on the other hand was sort of a modern iteration of past movements such as Gerald L.K. Smith, Clare Hoffman, America First, Father Coughlin, Charles Lindbergh in the 1940s; Bricker, Taft, McCarthy, Jenner in the 1950s and the Carto, Goldwater, Schlafly, Ashbrook in the 1960s. The new right, in my opinion, was more or less the old AIP with a different name.

[bedstuy]

If you read the actual neo-conservative writers, Irving Kristol comes to mind, neo-conservatives really weren't that bad.  They were very earnest, somewhat misguided liberals who focused on this forgotten dimension of politics- the idea of small r republican values.  They basically thought that the government and liberalism were powerless to address the social problems of the late 60s.  I think they were right actually that the relativism and rebellion of the 60s was largely empty, in that it didn't present an alternative vision of what being an American was about.  Actually, if you look at Irving Kristol and look at Obama's 2004 convention speech, you could argue that Obama has some neoconservative views in the domestic sphere. 

And, yeah, the New Right was basically the Old Right.  Ideologically, you can see a lot of continuity from the second Ku Klux Klan to the New Right of the 1960s.  These were just American fascists.

[tpfkaw]

And, yeah, the New Right was basically the Old Right.  Ideologically, you can see a lot of continuity from the second Ku Klux Klan to the New Right of the 1960s.  These were just American fascists.

Yes, a group of Roman Catholics united by their support of the half-Jew Barry Goldwater were the same thing as the second Klan.

What's more, I repeated that again, which makes it, in this thread alone, three times as true!

[Person Man]

And, yeah, the New Right was basically the Old Right.  Ideologically, you can see a lot of continuity from the second Ku Klux Klan to the New Right of the 1960s.  These were just American fascists.

Yes, a group of Roman Catholics united by their support of the half-Jew Barry Goldwater were the same thing as the second Klan.

What's more, I repeated that again, which makes it, in this thread alone, three times as true!

Then again the "New Right" didn't mature until the late 70s and arguably many main elements of it were missing in the 60s. The ultrahawks, otherwise moderate-ish racists and reactionary Catholics couldn't win elections. Of course the lineage from the TEA Party to the second Klan makes more sense on a relative level.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Which "New Right" are we talking about here? The one epitomized by Frank Meyer and William F. Buckley, Jr. or the one represented by Richard Viguerie, Paul Weyrich, Howard Phillips, etc.?

[King]

A new different right emerging is a myth. When push comes to shove, 90% of the American Right is neoconservative when issues like Syria pop up and we really start talking about what we spend on defense, Medicare, and Social Security.

[freepcrusher]

Which "New Right" are we talking about here? The one epitomized by Frank Meyer and William F. Buckley, Jr. or the one represented by Richard Viguerie, Paul Weyrich, Howard Phillips, etc.?

the latter

[AggregateDemand]

The New Right, to me, are the rabid anti-gay, anti-Islam, anti-marijuana, anti-social-liberalism brigade.

Neocons are just neoliberals with a penchant for military interventionism and aggressive foreign policy. Born from 9/11 and Chinese monetary hijinks.

[Person Man]

The New Right, to me, are the rabid anti-gay, anti-Islam, anti-marijuana, anti-social-liberalism brigade.

Neocons are just neoliberals with a penchant for military interventionism and aggressive foreign policy. Born from 9/11 and Chinese monetary hijinks.

That works...but do they have to be mutually exclusive? A lot of neoconservatives abandoned, at least temporarily, the Republican Party after the Bush debacle (people like Francis Fukuyama) but aren't there those who identify as neocons but are anti-gay, anti-Islam, pro-personhood and anti-drug reform?

[freepcrusher]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

but aren't there those who identify as neocons but are anti-gay, anti-Islam, pro-personhood and anti-drug reform?
[/quote]

Tom Cotton?

[AggregateDemand]

That works...but do they have to be mutually exclusive? A lot of neoconservatives abandoned, at least temporarily, the Republican Party after the Bush debacle (people like Francis Fukuyama) but aren't there those who identify as neocons but are anti-gay, anti-Islam, pro-personhood and anti-drug reform?

In theory, they are mutually exclusive, since neoliberals are often socially apathetic. In practice; however, a neocon could get bent about a particular social issue, and adopt new right policy, without changing his neoliberal economic sentiments. His dominant political orientation would be difficult to discern. New Right hater? or Neocon with an axe to grind over a particular domestic social issue?

[Person Man]

That works...but do they have to be mutually exclusive? A lot of neoconservatives abandoned, at least temporarily, the Republican Party after the Bush debacle (people like Francis Fukuyama) but aren't there those who identify as neocons but are anti-gay, anti-Islam, pro-personhood and anti-drug reform?

In theory, they are mutually exclusive, since neoliberals are often socially apathetic. In practice; however, a neocon could get bent about a particular social issue, and adopt new right policy, without changing his neoliberal economic sentiments. His dominant political orientation would be difficult to discern. New Right hater? or Neocon with an axe to grind over a particular domestic social issue?

There was this poster once who was "libertarian" on all domestic issues except he supported personhood. He was an Iraq hawk. That's kind of the edge between "New Right" and "Neocon with an axe to grind".

[freepcrusher]

thought I would bump this six year old thread. I feel like this explains the difference between the sort of Kristol/Bulwark types and the Claremont/AmGreatness types. The former are more neoconservative while the latter, while sharing some of the same foreign policy, is more "new right". It's a subtle distinction but if you follow politics long enough - you will get the difference.

[Person Man]

It’s basically the difference between ideological right wingers and people who just agree with them that the left sucks on one or two issues. A member of the  latter group could be part of the former group but they could also be on the left. Most Notorious Example: I believe in all the social progress of the last 30 years and don’t like peaceniks who don’t believe in it enough to help other people achieve it.

[AltWorlder]

How do paleocons fit in with this? I also feel like there's this underrated pseudo-paleocon tradition typified by Alan Keyes, which was all about fetishizing Western classics. But then again, his mentor was Allan Bloom, whose mentor was Leo Strauss, and his grad school roommate was Kristol, so I guess maybe he was more of a highfalutin pseudo-neocon.

[freepcrusher]

How do paleocons fit in with this? I also feel like there's this underrated pseudo-paleocon tradition typified by Alan Keyes, which was all about fetishizing Western classics. But then again, his mentor was Allan Bloom, whose mentor was Leo Strauss, and his grad school roommate was Kristol, so I guess maybe he was more of a highfalutin pseudo-neocon.

paleocon is sort of like talking about prog rock. It isn't as descriptive as you think. The paleocons I respect are the sort of libertarian lew rockwell types. But then there is another type of paleocon that is just extreme conservatism more than anything else. Like I don't know if you could call him a paleocon, but Sohrab Ahmari is what I think of when discussing the latter.

[AltWorlder]

I think Ahmari is a post-liberal, it's yet another genre of Republican that's emerged in the past few years.

This is all complicated that him like a lot of these non-establishment extremist conservatives, from Pat Buchanan to Alan Keyes, are all strident Catholics, but their faith informs their views in different ways.

Of course, there's no real taxonomy to all of these amorphous groups and people, yet they do exist and can be discussed.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

The New Right, to me, are the rabid anti-gay, anti-Islam, anti-marijuana, anti-social-liberalism brigade.

Neocons are just neoliberals with a penchant for military interventionism and aggressive foreign policy. Born from 9/11 and Chinese monetary hijinks.

The "New Right" is just what everyone calls the "alt-right" then.  Funny enough, Mr. Alt-Right himself, Richard Spencer endorsed Biden! 

If we're thinking the new Trumpian right: it's more anti-immigration, anti-terrorism (but also anti-war), anti-taxes, anti-regulation.  LGBT isn't really something that's a priority. And I'd say at least are classic liberal and but socially conservative. 

But the Neocon definition is pretty spot-on.

[darklordoftech]

Aren’t neocons people who joined the New Right for foreign policy reasons but are apathetic about or opposed to the New Right domestic ideology?

[freepcrusher]

The New Right, to me, are the rabid anti-gay, anti-Islam, anti-marijuana, anti-social-liberalism brigade.

Neocons are just neoliberals with a penchant for military interventionism and aggressive foreign policy. Born from 9/11 and Chinese monetary hijinks.

The "New Right" is just what everyone calls the "alt-right" then.  Funny enough, Mr. Alt-Right himself, Richard Spencer endorsed Biden! 

If we're thinking the new Trumpian right: it's more anti-immigration, anti-terrorism (but also anti-war), anti-taxes, anti-regulation.  LGBT isn't really something that's a priority. And I'd say at least are classic liberal and but socially conservative. 

But the Neocon definition is pretty spot-on.

You're confusing the alt-right with breitbart/malkin tier stuff. Spencer is basically a white moderate/liberal who wants a white homeland. He dislikes the aforementioned website/pundit just as much as any lefty does.

[Person Man]

The New Right, to me, are the rabid anti-gay, anti-Islam, anti-marijuana, anti-social-liberalism brigade.

Neocons are just neoliberals with a penchant for military interventionism and aggressive foreign policy. Born from 9/11 and Chinese monetary hijinks.

The "New Right" is just what everyone calls the "alt-right" then.  Funny enough, Mr. Alt-Right himself, Richard Spencer endorsed Biden! 

If we're thinking the new Trumpian right: it's more anti-immigration, anti-terrorism (but also anti-war), anti-taxes, anti-regulation.  LGBT isn't really something that's a priority. And I'd say at least are classic liberal and but socially conservative. 

But the Neocon definition is pretty spot-on.

I mean there are degrees. What does “anti-terrorism” even mean?
It sounds more like what would be called Liberal Nationalism.

[Santander]

The New Right, to me, are the rabid anti-gay, anti-Islam, anti-marijuana, anti-social-liberalism brigade.

Neocons are just neoliberals with a penchant for military interventionism and aggressive foreign policy. Born from 9/11 and Chinese monetary hijinks.

The "New Right" is just what everyone calls the "alt-right" then.  Funny enough, Mr. Alt-Right himself, Richard Spencer endorsed Biden! 

If we're thinking the new Trumpian right: it's more anti-immigration, anti-terrorism (but also anti-war), anti-taxes, anti-regulation.  LGBT isn't really something that's a priority. And I'd say at least are classic liberal and but socially conservative. 

But the Neocon definition is pretty spot-on.

You're confusing the alt-right with breitbart/malkin tier stuff. Spencer is basically a white moderate/liberal who wants a white homeland. He dislikes the aforementioned website/pundit just as much as any lefty does.

lol

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

The New Right, to me, are the rabid anti-gay, anti-Islam, anti-marijuana, anti-social-liberalism brigade.

Neocons are just neoliberals with a penchant for military interventionism and aggressive foreign policy. Born from 9/11 and Chinese monetary hijinks.

The "New Right" is just what everyone calls the "alt-right" then.  Funny enough, Mr. Alt-Right himself, Richard Spencer endorsed Biden!  

If we're thinking the new Trumpian right: it's more anti-immigration, anti-terrorism (but also anti-war), anti-taxes, anti-regulation.  LGBT isn't really something that's a priority. And I'd say at least are classic liberal and but socially conservative.  

But the Neocon definition is pretty spot-on.

You're confusing the alt-right with breitbart/malkin tier stuff. Spencer is basically a white moderate/liberal who wants a white homeland. He dislikes the aforementioned website/pundit just as much as any lefty does.

Being non-interventionist and supporting certain social programs doesn't make one a "liberal". Any run of the mill free market neocon is far closer to being a liberal than Spencer is.

Also, this thread is 6 years olds...

[Crumpets]

"Neo-con" I think represents two kinds of people. There are the 90s academics and think tank types who created a new theoretical framework for how to look at foreign policy in a unipolar US-dominated world. The Bush administration took that framework and ran with it so hard, they ended up flying off a cliff Roadrunner and Coyote-style. I've worked with a lot of these people and, even if they are still pretty bitter about the whole "Iraq would have worked out if we had done it right" idea, they are otherwise pretty rational and really do have a grasp of how much the Bush administration screwed up and how bad Trump is for the US in the long term.

Then there is the second group which is the "bomb them all and let Allah sort them out" who claim not to be neo-conservative imperialists, but who also 100% supported the Iraq War, are fine with going to war in Iran and North Korea as long as they don't have to go and seem to have no ideology other than repeating whatever the most prominent Republicans say at any given time. This group I find a lot less agreeable.