Jump to content

Talk:Neoconservatism and paleoconservatism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Propose rename: Conflicts between neoconservatism and paleoconservatism

[edit]

The current article name has a number of issues:

  • The spacing before and after the dash in the name is awkward.
  • The capitalization of the term paleoconservatism is incorrect since it isn't the first word in the article title.
  • I believe there are multiple conflicts and the title should reflect this.

Also, I would prefer having the term "Conflicts" first in order to not give either of the term political branches significant precedence over the other. Thus I propose the above suggested name change. Thoughts? --70.48.243.22 01:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question?

[edit]

I gather from this that the views concerning Jewish people or Israel are a major, maybe even the major, difference between the two groups. Is that the right impression of the article? Is that issue really so central? I guess I thought paleocons were just generalized isolationists while neocons were "spread the American ideal abroad" type people.--T. Anthony 04:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're really wrong. But as Time magazine's Joe Klein pointed out in the article on neoconservatism, there does seem to be a very strong Jewish influence in neoconservatism, which has perhaps made it more (ultra)Zionist (and particularly Likudnik) in orientation than might otherwise be the case. With that said, paleocon isolationism is forced to dwell on such issues, by simple virtue of the fact they are the ones presently being contested. If the neoconservatives were largely dominated by a clique of Irish Catholics who wanted to wage war on the United Kingdom, in order to bring the blessings of liberty to the people of Northern Ireland, for example, then paleocons would be forced to address that, instead. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

[edit]

The article seems to display an unspoken assumption that neoconservatism is the deviation from the paleoconservative line and its almost unilateral use of quote-unquote paloeconservative sources is indicative of this. This is quite egregious and suggests a polemic motivation behind the article's existence which is contrary to the proper functioning of an encyclopedia. TheLateDentarthurdent (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neoconservatives are an extremely powerful and influential faction within the American political scene (albeit less so with the election of Barack Obama, but they remain very influential within the Republican Party). Paleoconservatives are not. Hence, paleconservatives spend a lot more energy addressing their conflict with neoconservatives, than neoconservatives do likewise. Despite the fact there are probably ten major neocon writers being published for every one major paleocon writer, paleocon writers have actually written a great deal more on this subject. Hence it is not particularly surprising that their views might tend to seem disproportionately represented in this article, as it is simply much, much easier to find articles on this topic (the conflict between neocons & paleocons) written from a paleocon perspective, than it is to find such articles written from a neocon perspective. Many paleocon writers refer to this conflict in nearly every article they pen, whereas many neocon writers scarcely seem aware the conflict exists. By a similar token, if one were to check out the article on the Labor theory of value, it is likely that one would find a disproportionate Marxist perspective, since Marxists are the ones who take an interest in that topic (I have not actually perused that article in order to ascertain if this is the case, but I feel confident that it would be). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "1995 Washington Times" section appears irrelevant. Firing someone for expressing frankly racists attitudes has nothing to do with neo- vs paleo-conservatism. It is simply cleaning house. Is the writer suggesting that one side of this divide is actively racist? 132.250.122.190 (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Windscion[reply]

Sam Francis was a paleoconservative writer & syndicated national columnist, and adhered to positions that are generally taken, particularly among liberals (but certainly not limited exclusively to them), as being from a White racialist perspective (although the late Dr. Francis was actually quite critical of White nationalism). It should be noted, however, that many people considered Sen. Barry Goldwater's "No" vote, with regard to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to be indicative of a White racialist perspective as well, however libertarians and paleocons alike (as well as many mainstream Republicans not clearly identified with any given faction), tend to reject that analysis, and consider his "No" vote to be a matter of principled (paleo?)conservatism, based on the principles of federalism, and strict adherence to the enumerated powers of the Constitution of the United States.
By the same token, paleocons tend not to perceive Dr. Francis as some sort of racist bigot, but rather as a person who was simply willing to tell certain truths that society prefers not to hear (although not all paleocons agreed with Dr. Francis, with respect to his opinions about race relations, he was never-the-less almost universally admired within paleoconservative intellectual circles). Dr. Francis's involvement with the American Renaissance annual conference was first reported to the Washington Post by prominent neocon writer Dinesh D'Souza, which was taken by many paleocons as something of an ideological stabbing in the back by Mr. D'Souza, especially since Mr. D'Souza's book, The End of Racism (which I have read), despite its seemingly innocuous title, suggested many policy prescriptions similar to those advocated by Dr. Francis. Indeed, Mr. D'Souza first became aware of Dr. Francis's involvement with the American Renaissance annual conference through his own attendance of said conference. Some people consider Mr. D'Souza a particularly dastardly figure, in that he betrayed Dr. Francis for holding views that were not radically dissimilar from the ones he published in his 1995 book, but since Dr. Francis was a White man, and Mr. D'Souza was not, Dr. Francis was characterized (by Mr. D'Souza) as a malevolent figure, whereas Mr. D'Souza was merely an enlightened and iconoclastic thinker.
Suffice it to say that the firing of Dr. Samuel Francis from The Washington Times, at the behest of Mr. D'Souzua, does constitute a particularly nasty chapter in the conflict between neocons & paleocons, and within that context, is eminently suitable for inclusion within this article. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Goldwater

[edit]

Little is made of old paleoconservativism and its pro-immigration stances, which are now neolibertarianism. I think this should be corrected.--12.227.237.140 (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This entry is biased...

[edit]

This entry is biased against Paleo-Conservatives. It alleges Anti-Jewish sentiment. That's a bunch of bunk. I have zero against Jews. I have much against the Bush Doctrine.

Needs to be cleaned up.

K8cpa (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Neoconservatism and paleoconservatism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Neoconservatism and paleoconservatism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Neoconservatism and paleoconservatism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neoconservatism and paleoconservatism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One Redstate Article is being stretched rather thin

[edit]

Basing half an article on a single source seems a bit much. I think you need a little more than a Redstate article to determine all the differences between neocons and paleocons. (Not to mention that it seems to have it in for the neocons.) Costatitanica (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neoconservatism_and_paleoconservatism&oldid=1207153678"