Talk:Neoconservatism

Earlier discussion on this article may be found here:

• Talk:Neoconservatism (United States)/Archive 1
• Talk:Neoconservatism (United States)/Archive 2
• Talk:Neoconservatism (United States)/Archive 3 (2004)
• Talk:Neoconservatism (United States)/Archive 4 (Jan-June 2005)

Info from Fukuyama

i was just reading francis fukuyamas After neoconservatism[1] piece in the nytimes and i saw this

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."

this should probably be worked into the article somehow. 66.92.72.189 22:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

¡Fascists!

---

I believe in calling a manually operated earth-reconstructor a spade. ¿Why not just state that neocons are fascists?

Ŭalabio 03:18, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

Well, because of what you said in the first part of your statement :-) Mscudder 19:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Orwell himself had this to say:

"It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else." --George Orwell, "What is Fascism?" 1944

---

Is this a reminder that we should check your edits closely? -- Jmabel | Talk

Motion to revert any and all edits made by Walabio to this article, past, present and future. 65.25.241.89 11:15, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, except for the few hard-banned users, we usually accept or reject edits on their merits. In fact, Walabio has never edited this article, unless he/she did so anonymously. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:53, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

In all seriousness I would like to know if there is an answer to this question. Is it politically correctness that makes this question not fit to be asked, or is it just so "obvious" that anyone who doesn't see the answer is just dumb? Many critics have charged there is no difference between fascism vs. neoconservativism. If there is a difference, someone might want to consider actually addressing the issue, because it's not obvious to a lot of people. --Frazzi 23:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It is very obvious, but this indeed is not a debating society; this is a wikipedia. In a nutshell, Fascists seek to have government be used to further the ends of an elite, as do many forms of totalitarianism, and conservatism regards government as a dangerous genie, we would prefer to government be as small as possible. Neoconservatism is a moderate movement, serving up a larger genie than many classical conservatives trust. Dominick 23:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The two have so little in common that it is hard to believe that anyone could argue in good faith that they are the same. For starters, fascism glorifies the state (or in some cases, the race) over individuals; neoconservatism does nothing of the sort. Fascism centers on the cult of the leader; neoconservatism does nothing of the sort. Fascism is closely associated with certain economic structures (notably a corporatism that specifically denies valid separate interests of management and labor) about which neoconservatism holds no opinion at all. Etc. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Pardon me; I've not followed this closely, but Jmabel's comment caught my eye. http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm presents some reasons why people might sincerely see similarities. Of course this depends to what extent you equate the current administration's goals and actions with neoconservatism; certainly many consider the Bush administration to be following neoconservative policies, and a number of self-identified neoconservatives are part of the administration, so it does not seem far-fetched to me to view the adminstration's actions in terms of neoconservatism. Evidently there is a disconnect between a theoretical political philosophy and the effects which actually happen when adherents actually have power (e.g. most self-identified communists don't advocate the terrible things which occurred in the name of communism under Stalin et al). (It's unclear to me whether an article about a political philosophy should discuss both the espoused goals and the actual effects of the philosophy.) Also the term neoconservative means different things to different people who identify as such, just as other such labels do, e.g. does "conservative" mean anti-gay-rights (see most modern self-labeled conservatives) or pro-gay-rights (see "traditional" conservatives like Barry Goldwater.)

In any case, if you view the Bush administration as neoconservative, there are certainly reasons to legitimately disagree with Jmabel's assertion that no one in good faith could argue that neoconservatism and fascism are the same: in the US today state is glorified over individuals: respect to loss of privacy and liberty in the name of homeland security; people imprisoned for years with no charges, no access to lawyers, tortured, etc; increased prosecutions for consensual crimes like pornography and drugs; etc. There is a visible cult of Bush. (E.g. "Thank God for Bush" bumper stickers on cars; administration lawyers writing that "the power to set aside laws is inherent in the presidency"; etc.) There are strong ties between the administration and corporations, e.g. Halliburton continuing to receive lucrative contracts despite scandals, and various policies which help corporations while hurting workers and the environment, etc. Additionally, there are the explicit aggressive military expansionist goals of many neoconservatives (e.g. Project for a New American Century) which are similar to famous examples of fascist states, and the use of perceived threats to justify wars, reduction of liberty, etc. Goulo 18:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

In all seriousness, claiming Bush bumper stickers are hiscult, would aplly the same to a Cult of other popular presidents. One other thing, because I am in the business, if Halliburton didn't do what they do, then who would? They are unique for supplying those services under those conditions, with the terms they provide. The closer competitor would be Raytheon, and they are not willing to perform many of those same services. Dominick 18:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall many other presidents getting such explicit linkages with God and religion as Bush does. Re: Halliburton: surely you're not seriously asserting that no other companies are capable of helping Katrina-stricken New Orleans? Probably you were just talking about Iraq, though, in which case I'd point out there were plenty of local businesses that were doing a lot of the reconstruction for a fraction of the cost, then we decided to start paying Halliburton a lot more and quit using the local businesses, often shutting them out by requiring tons of paperwork which only a large corporation like Halliburton has the lawyers to process. I talked on a plane with a guy who was heading to Kuwait where he worked at an ice plant which he said replaced the services of a local ice plant serving our troops, even though by his own admission the local one gave just as good service at a much lower price (but he was happy to be profiting by the military's decision...). Possibly some specialized services uniquely require Halliburton, but you can't seriously be proposing that no one else but Halliburton can cook and serve meals, for instance, and that some cushy convenient dealmaking that unduly benefits large US corporations isn't going on. Goulo 19:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Not a debate society here, but Carter did a lot of religeous linkage and so did Clinton. I guess if you have the idea that Bush is uniquely doing this, I can't dissuade you.

You are correct local companies can provide thos eservices, but the can't guarantee them, and yes the mountain of peperwork is required, but not by the government, but by our mountain of lawyers sueing the government.

You should not tell me what I can serious or not seriously say. I have been in this business, and in all seriousness, it isn't the service you provide, it is the verification and assurances you provide when delivering those services. As far as Katrina goes, once you get one contract, you get a lot more due to government people coming to you with repeat business. I know I like repeat business myself. Dominick 19:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

So the "good faith" argument is that the Bush administration is neoconservative and the Bush administration is fascist and therefore neoconservatives are fascists? Wow. If that's good faith... As far as I can tell, the Bush administration mixes several rightist and right-of-center ideologies, of which neoconservatism is only one. If this makes the neocons fascists, then it does the same for all other factions of a Republican Party that has, at least until very recently, been solid in its support of this administration. While I am no lover of Bush, I would comfortably say that anyone who calls this government fascist must never have spent any time in a fascist country, probably not even two weeks as a tourist. Mercifully, these days there is not much opportunity to do so. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The religous linkage would hardly be definitive. The derivation of the 14 points is pseudo scholarship, and mere rhetorical devices. Any society could be placed some place on each of the 14 scales as if they were continuoums. While the Bush administration would appear someplace on each scale, don't be surprised if you find most of other nations closer to the fascist end on many of these scales. For instance, the corporativism scale would find many nations where the governments actually have part ownership of the corporations, etc. Many European nations still have conscription and higher tax rates, and fewer checks and balances on government power, etc. --Silverback 10:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, to clarify: my goal was not to start a debate or to definitively prove whether or not neoconservatism = fascism (a question about which there will surely always be bitter disagreement). I was simply responding to Jmabel's sweeping dismissal and implication that anyone who draws connections between them is not arguing in good faith. I have seen many informed thoughtful people who in good faith see similarities and have presented reasons why. Whether they are correct or not is a separate issue. (And since it's been brought up a couple times: no, I don't think very many people would claim that the US is right now literally a fascist state like Nazi Germany, but a lot of people are concerned that the US is heading in that direction in various ways. Again, whether they are right or not is a separate issue from whether they are saying this in good faith and presenting reasons why.)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goulo (talk • contribs) 2 Oct 2005.

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 neoconservatiwe 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)

Use of "chickenhawk"

The following is unsourced:

"This charge is most frequently levelled by younger Baby Busters or members of Generation X, leading to the creation of a derogatory label – that of chickenhawks – directed at these neoconservatives, and also at President George W. Bush. Baby Boomers however, recognize that even Vietnam War hawks were critical of the way the war was being fought and did not want to fight in a war America was not trying to win. The neo-cons have been consistent with this experience, in their support of a voluntary professional military and staunch opposition to any reinstatement of the draft."

I've deleted it, as no evidence is offered in support of the contention that it is mostly "Baby Busters" or members of Generation X who level the accusation of "chickenhawk" at prominent neoconservatives; or that Baby Boomers are more sympathetic to the neoconservatives on this issue than younger people are; or that if they do tend to sympathize with the neoconservatives it is specifically because they identify with the feelings of Vietnam-era hawks on the "way the war was being fought." 68.4.35.180

It is an interesting standard that you are selectively applying. After all, several people are discussed as neoconservatives, without documenting who is calling them such, or whether they self-identify as such. For instance, is Cheney's support for some of Kistol's positions enough to make him a neocon, rather than a paleoconservative or a moderate?--Silverback 05:10, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Clear POV

"MacDonald's views of neoconservatism are not widely accepted in the United States, though similar theories have found a more receptive audience in some Arab media, such as Al Jazeera." The first part of the statement may not be a POV but the second surely is. How do we know that Al Jazeera likes MacDonald's views? Is there a report that was broadcast from this media organization that stated their support this person's theories or similrar theories? By audience, we are clearly saying that the Arab viewers like this person. Simpy because arabs may have a bias against jews does not mean they identify with this person. We can't just say because their reporting may or may not be against the jews they like this person's idea still if they do. We can't tell readers what a news organization thinks or what entire races think if we do not have clear evidence supporting it such as reports from arab intelllectuals, writings and columns from arab newspapers. If we do not have explicit evidence then this a POV and i suggest taking out the second part of the phrase. We can't conlude something (here that audiances we more receptive to his ideas) from simple reports on different issues in the media.

BBC link removed

Can someone explain why the following was removed:

• The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear (three part BBC documentary)

Jmabel | Talk 15:16, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Have you seen it? It is absolute propaganda and not a credible source. It's a documentary in the sense Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary, i.e.: not at all. --M4-10 17:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding? You're comparing Michael Moore to Adam Curtis? Are you daft? Feel free to disagree with the points presented in the documentary, but please understand that unlike Moore's work, PoN contains more then just speculation. --Anonymous person who added the link to the Internet Archives, 08:07, July 14, 2005 (CMT)

I actually came on this page to make sure that this documentary was linked to because I believe it to be the most prominent TV programme that attempts to explain some aspects of Neoconservatism. It's NOTHING like Moore's "documentary" which is a bit rubbish really! No, I don't have any political motives in saying this 17:04 18th November 2005

Free Markets and Neo-Liberalism

Several uses of the term "free market", especially with regard to imposing it through regime change, is rather inaccurate; although it may very well be a phrase used by neoconservative pundits. True free market supporters and economists specifically frown upon the global political regulation by organizations such as the World Bank, World Trade Organizaiton, International Monetary Fund, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, etc. as well as the use of hawkish militant foreign policy. Instead, neoconservativism in the United States shares many of the same values as Neoliberalism in South America, in which a government-business partnership controls the "commanding heights" of a national economy (or not unlike Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex"). "Globalization" may be a more suitable, yet still overly-loaded, term. Any suggestions before I "be bold"? (anon 12 Aug 2005)

• My main suggestion is just to be aware that "free market" is, itself, a contested term. In particular, libertarians (disproportionately represented in Wikipedia) use it differently from almost everyone else. I see you have linked Austrian School, which is decidedly in the libertarian camp: they are "true" free market supporters only in the sense that each of a hundred sects claims to have the "true" Christianity. "Open markets" may be the relevant term, since it refers to the ability of many to enter the market, rather than to the degree of (non-)regulation; saying that they advocate "globalization" is rather polemical (probably true, but there are a few POV leaps involved). -- Jmabel | Talk 07:14, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Kevin MacDonald

What is the Kevin MacDonald material doing in this article? It is, at best, an anti-Semitic attack on a political faction, but it is handled here as if it ought to be taken seriously. This is like quoting Madeleine Murray O'Hare (We should have an article. We don't.) on a particular member of the clergy, or quoting Osama bin Laden in Politics of the United States. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:58, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup / Rewrite

This article is very messy with an overly long introduction and poor organization. It is also riddled with anti-semitic drivel like the MacDonald stuff and over emphasis on policy on Israel and the nonsensical "as a Jewish movement section" - ludicrous considering that most US Jews voted for Kerry and the fact that the Bush regime has pressurized Israel to screw the "settlers", destroying their homes, exiling them and handing over the land to PLO terrorists the Palestinian Authority.

The illegal "settlers" deserve to be "exiled" from their stolen homes. It's just one of life's great ironies that the same man who put them there illegally (Sharon) is the one who forced them to leave. 68.47.234.131 13:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I attempted a reogranization but Silverback insists on reverting and putting back MacDonald hogwash that was removed before I reorganized. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, since neoconservatism is used mostly as a pejorative term. Having those doing the pejoration tainted with anti-semitism lends a proper perspective to the article. A lot of the anti-americanism in Europe is mirrored by the huge pro-palestinian weight of opinion there, which probably has a basis in anti-semitism, especially in France. The anti-semitic stuff that remains has been well balanced in the text, and attempts to put more in this article have been resisted several times.

I think the perspective above on Europe is a little off. Firstly, neoconservatism is commonly used in the European press as a descriptive term, such as liberal, it does not have to imply a negative image. Secondly you are right that Europe is generally less pro-Israel than the US, however this may be influenced by the lack of a powerful Jewish political lobby (or Arab for that matter). Finally I find the suggestion that France, a strongly anti-arab nation as seen in the recent upheaval, is hugely pro-palistine is a little off the mark. Does this perhaps reflect American dislike towards France? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.45.252.244 (talk • contribs) 16 Jan 2006. Note that this is interspersed into a comment from five months earlier

Did you know what you were doing when you reorganized? If you did, you didn't let us in on it, and it was impolite to make it so hard for us to figure out on our own. Your edit summary was not quite honest "re-organized, more sensible headings", because you slipped in several edits as well, so it was difficult to tell what you had changed, since the compares did not line up.--Silverback 22:08, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

The only edits in the reorganization were the addition of the word "alleged" regarding connection with supposed Jewish thinking and a move of the introduction of Lind to fit in with the reordering of paragraphs. Most of it was grouping history of neoconservatism with subsections on origins, Reagan and Bush, placing all criticism of the term in the appropriate section, grouping descriptions of the neoconservatist viewpoint into a single section with a subsection on foreign policy with a single Middle East division (could be expanded in the future to include divisons on policy on Africa, China etc). Kuratowski's Ghost 23:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanx, that helps, based on your assurances, I have adopted your organization. I still prefer Neoconservatism as a "Jewish" movement to your new Anti-semitic charges against neoconservatism, so I have added it. This results in a temporary duplication, so it is easier for the community to see them together and compare. I invite you to reconsider your original opinions on these sections. I believe that the original handles this issue in a skillful and NPOV manner. I agree that Israel is over-emphasized in the article. We had this same problem in the PNAC article, which we handled by pointing out that the positions regarding Israel were consistent with the neocon positions on Taiwan, and in fact there was even more focus on taiwan in the PNAC publications. Perhaps something analogous will correct this imbalance here.--Silverback 08:38, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Previous edit's deletion of information

He who deleted the information wrote this in its place.

Deleted references to 1. Shachtman 2. and Trotsky

because:

1. There should be a supporting article on Shachtman's "Trotskyism", since the notion of any Western democratic political thinker advocating any form of Marxism is too bizarre to stand on a mere assertion.

2. The link to Trotsky's bio does not contain any information linking him to Neoconservatism.

I'm just moving it from the article to the discussion page.

Anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli overkill

Can someone explain to me why this article looks like it was written by someone with an anti-Jewish and or anti-Israeli perspective. That is why I put the NPOV tag on the article...where did so much misinformation come from? Enlighten me...--MONGO 02:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to limit all discussion and description of the Jewish conspiracy theory stuff to the one section, and even there have it well balanced and mostly dismissed and criticised. It is surprising how a fringe scholar like MacDonald, publishing opinion essays, and clearly anti-semetic can gain traction in the progressive and European communities. While these communities may explicitly reject the anti-semitic elements, they seem to have adopted the the conspiracy and other elements, that emphasize the Strauss lineage. I think it is adopted because it fits well with their pre-existing antipathy to Israel and support for the palestinians. They insist this is not based on antisemitism, and I think it isn't, I think it dates from the time that the US and NATO viewed Israel as a bulwark against communism in the area. So this conspiracy theory appears to be riding on the strong leftist, progressive, communist legacy present in Europe and in the American left.

MacDonalds work is "researched" (footnoted, wow!) but many non-fiction authors do that in books, that may make them masters of a body of material (evidence?) they have assembled, and the human mind is good at seeing connections in noisy data, and those connections are even easier to see when the material has been selectively assembled. Frankly, I think there is nothing to it, and it is clear that there are many traditional conservative paths to neoconservatism taken by persons who have never heard of Strauss. However, having that one section in there, I think is encyclopedic and helpful to understand some of the origins of the Strauss and conspiracy pejoration that has created and attached itself to this term. On the PNAC site, there has been a tendancy of some contributers to want to emphasize the PNACs support of Israel, almost at the expense of everything else. I have been careful to point out that the PNAC has even more references to Taiwan, and so respect for the sovereignty of beleaguered democracies and a legacy from the cold war may explain the support for Israel better than a Jewish conspiracy.--Silverback 17:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, that's what I needed to hear. I've never doubted that U.S. support for Israel is due to the fact that they're the only democracy in the region and to a lesser degree a wish to see the country's survival in conjunction with said democracy due to the emotional factor of the holocaust. Not being Jewish, I find it all humorous and, well, a completely bigoted ideologue and I would normally write it off, but since we're trying to build an encyclopedia here, such bigoted and far out rhetoric is altogether very sad and is preposterous to the extreme. Thanks for your enlightenment.--MONGO 18:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Safe, then, to remove the NPOV tag? It seems that since June 2005 there has been remarkably little contention about the article contents. I haven't been a part of the discussion (I just read the article today), but it seems sufficiently well-balanced to me. -Joshuapaquin 20:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Anti-semitic edit?

This edit seems to me to amount to a deliberate insertion of POV into the article (and no small amount of anti-Semitism). However, I see that Mirv, whose work I generally respect, edited downstream of it without reverting. I suspect that may have been an oversight, but for the moment I will not revert (and right now I'm not on a fast enough connection to do so easily). I'd appreciate hearing from Mirv (or anyone else) on this. I think we should basically revert to before that edit. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. Mirv's work did not seem particularly noteworthy in this instance.--Silverback 07:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You are both correct; I edited over that without noticing it, and my edits were fairly minor: rearranging some out-of-order sections and adding one cross-reference—easily repeatable if necessary. —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The Power of Nightmares

I am going to oppose the Power of Nightmares addition. That page is too POV, it just uncritically summarizes the propaganda piece. If you will check the history, you will see that attempts to balance that page have been met resistance from fans.--Silverback 09:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I am going to oppose the deletion of relevant cross-references because one editor dislikes the shape of the linked article. The documentary is well-known, and U.S. neoconservatism is one of its central subjects; ergo it should, at the very least, be linked as a cross-reference from this page. If it has POV problems, then it should be brought to the attention of more editors, not hidden away. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The article is essentially a summary of the documentary, and if it was well known, I'm sure I would have heard of it. The article doesn't critique the documentary (not that it should) but placing it here as a "see also" is pure POV.--MONGO 19:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The so-called "documentary" is allowed to be uncritically summarized at extensive length in its wikipedia article. It is no more authoritative than the footnoted "research" opinion paper than MacDonald published in The Occidental Quarterly. Keep in mind, that we are rejecting the MacDonald work, not because it is anti-semitic, but because it is not real research, but the selective assembly of evidence and then the overgeneralizations and inferring of "links" from mere associations, etc. This is the way conspiracy theories are built. The documentary is actually less academically conservative in its overgeneralizations and inferring of links than the the MacDonald papers, and has the added persuasive power of dark lighting and a really good musical score (I thoroughly enjoyed it), but although powerfully, emotionally suggestive, it was intellectually weak and unpersuasive to the skeptical mind.--Silverback 20:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The comments Silverback backs here are totally POV. It is better to include information than it is to remove it. Adam Curtis has won numerous awards for his documentary work. In fact using the argument that it isn't neutral as a reason to delete is in violation as the principle outlined here [2] --Ben Houston 22:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

PoV problems

This page went from bad to worse. A whole mythology is being developed right here. This isn't what the wiki is for. Dominick 18:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I'd been taking a break from editing this article for about a year now, so I was disappointed to see it in its current state. To start, the new intro served much more to mystify matters than to circumscribe the domain of the topic. I inserted a new one somewhat along the lines of an older version. [3] It is not the most engaging writing, but it at least it is a start in clarifying the matters of who, what, when, and where of the subject.

To paraphrase a thinker admired by Sydney Hook, who is often called a neoconservative, this article needs to be brought down from the heaven of abstraction to the real earth. In other words, it should focus on individuals like Irving Kristol, who deserve credit for their highly successful abilities in institution-building, and the institutions and publications associated with them like Commentary and in later years the AEI and PNAC. [4] Right now, though, the heavy focus on ideology is seeming to reify the term.

Sections like 'criticism of neoconservatism as a Jewish movement' should be removed immediately. These views are not worth consideration in accordance with NPOV because they are outside the realm of reasonable discourse on the subject. Neoconservatism is not a "Jewish" or a "Zionist" movement; it just grew out of places like City College, which just happened to have high Jewish populations because of the demographics of NYC. These views should be relegated under the sections mentioning dealing with the conspiracy theories propagated by neofascist types and various cult outfits. 172 | Talk 08:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree and have been fighting the jewish conspiracy stuff, whenever the ever vigilant mongo and jmabel don't get there first. However, I do wonder if it can be removed completely. Many aspects of the jewish conspiracy theory seem to have gained currency in Europe and in progressive circles. How else to explain the complete overemphasis on the influence of Max Shachtman and Leo Strauss? Most people that get labeled necons probably have never heard of them, the connections are few, although notable, expecially since they are to one of the few people who self identify with the label. Even the neocons that came over from the liberal side of the fence have probably been more influenced by study of the Soviet Union, Jesus Christ, Ayn Rand, von Heyak and Milton Friedman that by these two obscurities.

On a separate note, I disagree with the apparent blanket labeling of people associated with American Enterprise Institute as neocons. There are also strong paleoconservative and libertarian presences there, as well as some purely free market economists that don't merit a more specific political classification. I suggest removing the AEI reference in the intro unless some less blanket wording can be found.--Silverback 09:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

With proper citation, it would indeed be worth noting the commentary on the alleged influence of the Jewish conspiracy theory in 'progressive circles' in Europe. I say that with the caveat that a proper citation is required. I agree with your point on some in the European left, especially in France; but our conjectures cannot be inserted in the article without citation in accordance with the NOR policy... Regarding the AEI, you are correct in pointing out that it is not necessarily a "neoconservative" think-thank. Although neoconservatives have become more influential within the AEI in the past couple of decades, the AEI's roots are in the business-oriented circles of the conservative movement. I'll go ahead and make things more specific in the intro. 172 | Talk 10:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

It now says that "neocons" are associated with some of the policy iniatives of the AEI. [5] 172 | Talk 10:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

As you may notice, I have cited the claims of connection to Shachtman et. al. to Michael Lind, himself a self-described former neoconservative, and certainly not in any sense an anti-semite. I have no problem with the fact that these remarks are immediately followed by other citations questioning the validity of the connection, but Lind's is certainly not a viewpoint to be tossed away lightly. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that there is no real definition of this term by self idetified participants, only by outside observers. The anti-semitism struck me as the most opdd part of this, and what progressive circles have to say about this group means nil to the definition, except by way of criticism. The term should be defined by self identified neo-conservatives, not by groups seeking to paint them with a particular PoV. Dominick 12:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You are correct in stating that the term should be defined by the self-indentified neoconservatives, which follows from elementary encyclopedic conventions. However, you're mistaken in saying that there is no real definition offered by the participants with which to work. See Irving Kristol's article The Neoconservative Persuasion [6] Other works include the collection of essays called "The Neoconservative Imagination" in honor of Kristol. The principal work in definining neoconservative thought is Kristol's Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea. Free access excerpts of the said works are easy to find online. 172 | Talk 18:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I should restate it, there is no agreed on "manifesto" among the people whom the tag has been pasted. An elementary definition is not what is presented in the article. The main reason this article is so poor is the establishment of the term neo- as being a synonym for psuedo-. This article needs a serious clean up, and a sifting of the term as it is relayed by writers like Kristol. The commentary from liberal sources can be placed after that, with a rebuttal. Dominick 18:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Now I better understand your point. There certainly is no agreed on "manifesto" among the people often described as neoconservatives. But when we consider the core group of policy intellectuals associated with Commentary, The Public Interest, The National Interest (Kristol, Bell, Glazer in particular), and later their own work or the work of their associates in better established conservative institutions like the AEI, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board and in ever newer institutions like The Weekly Standard and PNAC, the boundaries of the topic start to become a bit more clear. With the focus on this core of individuals, we can then start to describe the policy agenda-- probably best defined in Kristol's work-- underpinning their work and then chronicle their success at institution-building.

Your point on the "establishment of the term neo- as being a synonym for psuedo" in this article is well taken. The whole debate on whether or not neoconservatism is really conservatism is a red herring that has no business being ingrained in the structure and organization of this article. For the purposes of this article, neoconservatism is conservatism, as that is what the neoconservatives say. The point on "paleoconservatism" should just be a passing remark stuck somewhere in the article just for the sake of illustrating the success of the neoconservatives' institution-building. For the sake of this article, the argument that 'neo is pseduo' only serves to illustrate that the work of a small circle of policy intellectuals has become so influential in the past two decades that some much older conservative groups affiliated with publications that had much larger circulations than either National Interest or Public Interest are now starting to define themselves in negatively in constrast to the neoconservatives.

In short, I completely agree with your point that this article needs serious clean-up, with a 'sifting of the term as it is relayed by writes like Kristol'. The only point on which I'm having some doubts is the one on putting commentary from "liberal sources" toward the end with a rebuttal. I doubt that it is helpful to include a section on liberal criticism. On Wikipedia these 'criticisms' sections often degenerate into the 'supporters say, critics say' stuff that begins to sound like rhetoric on online discussion forums. This is also the kind of structure that invites in conspiracy theorists and cultists, like the anti-Semites trolling this article; POV-pushers would see such a section as a dumping ground for their own rhetoric on what neo-con means to them. Instead, a better structure would focus on the specific instances of political opposition to neoconservative policy indicatives. On that note the huge, heterogeneous volume of polemics against the neoconservatives in response to the Iraq War can get briefly mentioned in passing.

I'd favor rewriting the article with the following structure: (i) the New York intellectuals and the origins of the term, where we start to get a picture of who the "neo-cons" are (ii) their policy agenda (iii) institution-building, which can go on to deal with the influence of their work in the Reagan and Bush administrators (iv) opposition, where specific instances of criticism can be traced. BTW, thanks for the insights. 172 | Talk 21:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

With sources online, the following would be helpful in rewriting the article:

• Irving Kristol, "The Neoconservative Persuasion." From the August 25, 2003 issue [7]
• Irving Kristol, "American Conservatism 1945-1995" [8]
• The AEI Irving Kristol Award and Lecture [9] September 12, 2002
• "Arguing the World" PBS [10]
• CSMonitor series [11]
• Max Boot, "Q&A: Neocon power examined" [12]
• CSMonitor, "Spheres of influence: Neoconservative think tanks, periodicals, and key documents." [13]

172 | Talk 22:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Restructuring?

There is a lot of interesting history and detail here, but the article has no linear flow. I have just subdivided the "Origins" section and am attempting to put it into a coherent chronological order (I'm still a bit confused what the relationship w/the New Left is). There are also FIVE! Paragraphs devoted to Lind's opinions and opinions about Lind's opinions (currently labeled as such) which probably could be cut back or re-integrated into the "Neocon. viewpoints" section. Kaisershatner 21:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice work. The article's finally startign to have a coherent chronology. I made some suggestions for restructuring this article which may be of use, if you're interested in taking a look at the discussion thread above. 172 15:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Some removed text

Talk:Neoconservatism in the United States/removed

I moved some text there to preserve it. If anyone thinks it is important to this article, please feel free to restore it, but to me the main subjects appeared to be Bush, bin Laden, Hussein, Cheney, etc. Kaisershatner 21:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

External links

At best these are ordered badly: 2 blogs at the top? Surely some of these links are more important than that. More likely, they could use some pruning. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Zapped the blogs. Totally irrelevant. One has become the "GOPinion" website, the other was written from Australia, for crying out loud. -Joshuapaquin 16:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

We could probably limit them even further to weed out the rest of the left-wing muckraking, and just lift the main online sources I listed under the "Pov problems" heading started by Dominick. 172 16:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

An intereting idea... certainly six or seven links, say, should be plenty I think. -Joshuapaquin 20:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thames! Changes are to remove POV

I put my changes back in (I used to be IP 198.97.41.12 before registering). Please compare the before and after. I have made three changes:

1. I removed the statement "Nevertheless, many of the prominent people labeled as neoconservatives are actually registered Democrats." I believe this is trying to obscure the fact that the neocons are now firmly emeshed into the Republican, not Democratic, party. If there are REALLY "many prominent neoconservatives", then state who they are. This may have been true historically (I couldn't even find any evidence of THAT), but it is irrelevant and misleading in the current climate.

2. I changed the statement that the war in Iraq is a test of neocon "thinking and democratic principles" to "thinking and planning". If Iraq fails it will not disprove the "democratic principles" of the neocons. The failure of a policy disproves NOT the principles behind the policy - it disproves the practicality of the thinking and planning behind that policy. They strongly argued for the necessity and prudence of this war. If they are wrong, and if the war makes things worse and not better, then they have been shown to be inadequate thinkers and planners. But that does not mean that their "democratic principles" would be disproven.

3. I changed the statement that the neocons will lose power and clout IFF (if and only if) Iraq leads to a "new regime which funnels oil revenues to terrorists". This is patently absurd. Failure in Iraq will be judged by the costs to America vs. the benefits to America. On the cost side will be the dollars and lives and prestige lost (if any); on the benefit side will be the improvement to American, Iraqi and world security (if any). Therefore I wrote that the test will be whether it leads to a "drawn-out conflict requiring the continued expenditure of American lives and money, and a weak and ineffective Iraqi government unable to control terrorism"

Note: since this is my first discussion, I'm not sure how to do this edit, (for example I manually edited the string below).

User:Gui2u 03:18, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

Hi Gui2u, thanks for joining Wikipedia. Welcome.

You say: I believe this is trying to obscure the fact that the neocons are now firmly emeshed into the Republican, not Democratic, party. This is your assertion, not a fact. What this record shows is the most neocons were Democrats, switched the the Republicans, but are not entirely welcome in the Republican party, and have openly discussed the possibility that someday they might switch again. They are not, as you assert, firmly enmeshed. I don't really care if the article says "democratic principles" or if it says "planning". But I disagree with your final assertion, and I think you ought to discuss something as crucial as that on the talk page before pushing it in the article text.

Finally, when making edits, please try to write an edit summary to explain why you've made the changes. Also, you can sign your name by typing four tildes, like so: ~~~~.And when you want to put a new topic on a talk page, there is a little tab at the top with a "+" sign, use that to make a new talk page section. All the best! —thames 18:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome. I couldn't find that most neocons were democrats. Certainly few if any of the neocons put in power by GWBush were democrats - and this is a section about neocons under GWBush. I looked up the political contributions of a few of them, and they are all Republican.

Not sure which of my assertions you disagree with?

As far as putting a discussion into talk page first, I am new here and don't know the protocol. I will say, though, that the discussions I have read seem to be mostly after the fact and not prior to making changes.

Thanks for pointing out the edit summary - I didn't know what it was for. I will try the tildes below.

Gui2u 19:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Paul Wolfowitz was a democrat who worked for Jimmy Carter. I believe Jeane Kirkpatrick was a Democrat as well. Irving Kristol was a socialist in his youth. If you look up the history of most of the core neoconservatives, they began their political careers on the left. It was under Reagan that they switched to the Republican party. Fascinating really. —thames 20:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thames, it looks like you disagree with my first and third changes, since you put the text for these two back in essentially unchanged.

Let me expand on my earlier comments:

1) If you want to include a statement implying that the neocons are actually closet-Democrats, then it does not belong in this section talking about GWBush, since only one of your examples has ever worked for GWBush. Furthermore, such an allegation is highly misleading and does not belong anywhere in this document. Of the three neocons you cite (which hardly qualifies as "many of the prominent [neocons]"), each of them (Wolfowitz, Kirkpatrick and Kristol) has given thousands of dollars to Republicans, for a total of $18,000 thousands dollars to Republicans and a total of exactly $250 to Democrats since 1977 (Kristol to a New York senator in 1979 - see newsmeat.com). IF any of them was ever really a Democrat, it was LONG LONG LONG ago and therefore irrelevant and misleading. It is much more likely that each of them completely changed their political leanings, than that neocon thinking is somehow allied with the thinking in the Democratic party.

3) Are you seriously arguing that the ONLY way that the neocon idea of invading Iraq with the lack of international support and using the battle and occupation strategy that was used will be considered a failure to the American people, and the Republican party which is part of and elected by the American people, will be if whatever government ends up governing Iraq is directly using its oil dollars to fund terrorists? This is not credible.

The American people will look at the net costs and benefits of the war when deciding whether it is a success or failure. They certainly do so when considering the Vietnam war. In fact when does someone NOT do that for any act they have taken? What basis do you have for suggesting they would do otherwise for the Iraq war?

(Kaisershatner had nicely moved this section to the bottom where it belonged, but someone moved it back up to the top and deleted the above comment of mine, and I don't know enough to know how to move it back, but someone probably should).

Gui2u 01:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

My compromise text did not imply that Neoconservatives are "closet democrats". But it does acknowledge a fact that numerous commentators have noted: the core neoconservative group began on the left and switched sides during the Carter-to-Reagan transition. Pick up a copy of Rise of the Vulcans by James Mann, which goes into this transition in some detail. It's a historically significant piece of information. Neoconservatives are a unique faction within American politics, and have the appelation "neo" precisely because they are not traditionally conservative or republican. It is far more misleading to censor this part of the neoconservative historical development than it is to include it.

On the third point, we seem to be talking past each other. The original text is talking about how the Iraq venture would be judged by neocon standards--i.e. if their beliefs that democracy will transform Iraq and prevent Iraq from supporting terrorism. You are talking about how Iraq will be judged on more general standards--i.e. cost-benefit analysis. I think both are right, but it's a mistake to delete the original text and replace it entirely with you own. I'm going to rewrite the paragraph to include both. —thames 01:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Section on the Iraq War

Thames, I removed that sentence "nevertheless...liberal background" because it doesn't belong in the Iraq War section, and is already repeatedly stated in the intro and other areas describing the origin of neoconservatism. The other sentence you changed back wasn't one of my edits, and I don't have a strong preference either way (except maybe for deleting that section altogether - speculation about the future of Iraq isn't really relevant to a discussion of neoconservatism except for the simple point that win/loss in Iraq could be used to justify/undermine support for the philosophy in general). Kaisershatner 20:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Thames, I removed this sentence from the section on Neoconserv/GWB: "Nevertheless, many of the prominent people labeled as neoconservatives began their political careers on the left, and continue to identify with some traditionally Democratic policy positions." Here's why: (1) the point that many neocons are former liberals or socialists is made at least twice earlier in the article - to me it's redundant to restate it again in this section, (2) it is a pretty general statement to make, for example, how are you defining "traditionally Democratic policy positions?" (3) When it is clear what you mean by that, for example, if C. Rice is vociferously pro-choice or something, then it should be sourced because it might add interesting depth to the article. But in the end, if the main point you're trying to make is that many neocons are former liberals/leftists, then isn't that already well-stated above? Respectfully, Kaisershatner 14:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and just wanted to add, User:Thames, good work on a compromise para between you and Gui2u. Kaisershatner 15:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

K.: I like the change to add a new section. I edited it to tease out the two issues: the effect of the war on Neocon philosophy in general, and the effect of the war on Neocon influence in the Republican party. I *wanted* to change Thames' statement about the war being a failure to the neocons IFF it leads to oil dollars for terrorism. I think it would be more accurate to say it will be considered a failure it it leads to an overall increase in terrorism. Do you or Thames agree? Anyway I left it as is. - Gui2u 15:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Neoconservatism a "reaction to the Civil Rights movement"?

This doesn't begin to make sense. I can't think of any identified neoconservative who opposes the results of the civil rights movement. On the contrary, the racists, anti-immigrationists, and southern apologists tend to hang out in the paleoconservative camp, e.g. Pat Buchanan, Samuel Francis, Joseph Sobran, Charley Reese, Michael Peroutka, Paul Gottfried, Thomas Fleming. Gazpacho 10:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Mostly agree, although Charles Murray, for example, is generally counted as a neocon, and often considered racist. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course there will be examples like Murray, but do we have any reason to believe that there's a substantive trend of anti-civil rights neocons who switched parties as a result of that social change? I don't think so. I wonder if the individual who submitted the quote is clear on the distinction between a neoconservative and a recent convert to conservatism. -Joshuapaquin 07:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, Charles Murray self-identifies as a libertarian. Who counts him as a neocon? He speaks and writes frankly about racial research and while that gets him pejoratively called a racist, it doesn't make him one. Even if he were a racist, if he is a libertarian, then he certainly doesn't advocate any government role based on race and wouldn't initiate force to harm a person of any race.--Silverback 07:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

First, let me reiterate the more important part of what I said above: I "mostly agree". Second, I don't believe I or anyone else said anything about a "government role based on race" or "initiat[ing] force" in racially related matters, and it seems even more tangential to the article than my possibly tangential remark. Third, for whatever it's worth, just Google Murray's name and the word "neoconservative" and you can easily find dozens, maybe hundreds, of places where he is called a "neoconservative", and I suspect that this is a topic where there is more offline than on. I turned up three quite relevant hits out of Google's first dozen: [14], [15], [16]. The second is a bit "bloggy", but I picked it because it is pro-Murray and states that "The Bell Curve marked the climax of first-generation neoconservatism." -- Jmabel | Talk 04:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think there are a lot of pejorative uses of neoconservative that limit the usefulness of the term and it even can be used in a way that renders it less meaningful by those that embrace the term. I've seen Charles Murray on CSPAN2 booktv. He openly identifies as libertarian. He is misrepresented and daemonized by those that don't want his ideas to be discussed. I happen to think his interpretation of the research in the Bell Curve misunderstands the evidence, but I don't doubt his good faith and I don't think the topics he discusses should be off limits. In his publications, of course, he is not specifically addressing a libertarian issue, just what he believes is a need for intellectual honesty about the evidence. It is the evidence, not whether he is a racist or not that should be discussed, if ones curiousity runs in that direction. Frankly, I find group differences interesting from an evolutionary and anthropological point of view, but irrelevant for relations between individuals.--Silverback 06:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for massive simplification

It seems to me that suggesting that the term "neocon" (as used in the mainstream media) incorporates the notion of "rejecting smaller government" as a core value, or suggests somehow being in favor of continued runaway social spending is absurd.

This definition has become very clumsy in an effort to define an overall philosophy where it appears to me anyway, that the divergence from the mainstream Republican agenda is quite narrow. Neocons are simply another facet of the conservative front - their influence on the overal direction of conservative thought is similar to that of the religious right in that "a push in my direction need not imply a retreat in your direction, we're carving out new space here." Broadening the base, not making a new base.

A viewpoint of the world tending towards US Nationalism and US interests coming first, decreased reluctance to resort to military tactics, becoming more comfortable with our role as the only superpower, being strongly in favor of pre-emptive intervention in Iraq and elsewhere, summarized neutrally "a generally hawkish view of the world and of America's interests" - this seems to be the consistent meaning of the word as used in the popular press.

Don't make things more complicated than they are. The need to simplify seems to be emerging.

To suggest that somehow this movement was founded by former liberals or social progressives seems incredibly disingenous. To imply that it is a coherent and well structured conservative movement on the verge of releasing a party manifesto is inaccurate. All of this in my opinion, of course.

I'm beginning to wonder whether the vandals have control of the ship.

lest my input seem anonymous, I can be reached easily at [email protected] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.28.2.17 (talk • contribs) 12 Dec 2005.

This, in turn, is in my opinion. Much of what you say about the neo-cons seems erroneous; the idea that they promote a "world tending towards nationalism," for example, flies in the face of their demonstrated contempt for the idea of national sovereignty. Their movement was in fact founded by a combination of ex-Trotskyites and outright fascists (see Michael Ledeen,) and I would venture to predict that they will shortly be expelled from the conservative movement altogether, as an errant weed, to paraphrase Yitzhak Rabin. --HK 15:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Shadia Drury

This paragraph was deleted by User:172, with the claim that Drury is not a suitable source. I would like to hear from other editors on this matter:

It should be noted, however, that among the noted neo-cons who are reported by Strauss critic Shadia Drury to be Strauss' protégés are William Kristol; Paul Wolfowitz; Supreme Court Justic Clarence Thomas; Judge Robert Bork; former Secretary of Education William Bennett; National Review publisher William F. Buckley; former Reagan Administration official Alan Keyes; Francis Fukuyama, author of The End of History; and former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

--HK 15:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the article on Drury makes 172's position understandable, but doesn't preclude bona fide scholarship. Do you have a citation to support the paragraph? Preferably from an academic work? -Joshuapaquin 15:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

First question: is there a specific citation even to Drury so we can verify that she is being quoted accurately? And is this from something peer-reviewed that she published, or just from something like remarks during an appearance on the radio?

I'd tend to consider as citable something that she published as an academic. On the other hand, I'd insist on having something verifiable, because (besides the questions in the preceding paragraph) at least one of these names looks very unlikely to me: How is Yale-educated Buckley a Strauss protégé? (For that matter, how is he a neoconservative?)

I think that demonstrable academic "lineages" are more relevant than a hostile writer's characterization as a "protégé" (assuming it is hers; if not, there is even less here), unless she backs up "protégé" with specifics like "Strauss wrote to such-and-such and got him his first job as a lawyer" or something like that. Also, is "protégé" in this context her word, or Herschel's? In any event, just studying under someone doesn't make you a "protégé", let alone studying under one of their students.

Laying aside the word "protégé", I believe that most (though possibly not all) of these people either studied under Strauss or under people who, in turn, studied under Strauss. (Buckley seems the least likely, and I'd like to see an independent citation for Ashcroft.) But so did several thousand other people, so the importance of the connection is open to question.

FWIW, this article on Strauss co-authored by William Kristol clearly shows Kristol to be at least an admirer of Strauss. Wolfowitz, while rejecting the "Straussian connection" as "a product of fevered minds", says he "took two terrific courses from Leo Strauss as a graduate student". [17] Those both seem perfectly citable; in the latter case I think the "product of fevered minds" quote would probably also belong. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 - [email protected]

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 [18]. 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)

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.

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)

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)

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"[19]. 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)

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 [20]. 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)

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)

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)

Concrete v. vague language

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

• Some, such as former Office of Special Plans employee Karen Kwiatkowski [21] and libertarian commentator Justin Raimondo [22], believe that...

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 [23]. The original edit was this one, [24] 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)

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)

Francis Fukuyama on the roots of Neoconservatism, Trotskyism and anti-Communism

If people are looking for quotes related to the roots of neoconservatism and Trotsky, Francis Fukuyama provides some in today's NY Times Magazone:

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." The most important inheritance from the C.C.N.Y. group was an idealistic belief in social progress and the universality of rights, coupled with intense anti-Communism.

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 the NY Times Magazine article [25]

There is more in the article. It is a pretty decent article describing the overreach of the neoconservative movement and what directions it can go in the future to mend its mistakes. --Ben Houston 18:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting quote from former neoconservatism Francis Fukuyama is this one that closes the NY Times Magazine essay:

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.

And another quote from the article:

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.

--Ben Houston 18:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 [26] 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?

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.

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.

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)

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)

Fukuyama's Critique

Perhaps we need to include Fukuyama's insider critique of the neocon movement as well (see e.g. "After Neoconservatism", http://www.champress.net/english/index.php?page=show_det&id=2405; and "Fukuyama’s moment: a neocon schism opens", http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-election2004/article_2190.jsp#.) PJ 14:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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?

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)

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)