Well what is it?

Imbroglio on a new account?

no I am not imbroglio, i just want to know what the differance is and why there is some hard fealings between the two.

Neocons are for using the power of the government to push their view of the world, i.e. USA as policemen, one world order, pro-business, anti-drug, yada yada.

Traditional conservatives want to see the size and power of the federal government shrink and don't like neocons because they are for using the power of the govt. to push their agenda.

YMMV

So-called "neoconservativism" began as a revelation by former moderates and liberals that the world is a dangerous place and would be better off with the US taking the lead and trying to make it better than minding our own business and hoping everything turns out all right.
The problem is, the term has been used by idiots and liberals to refer to ANYONE who thinks the US should be proactive in our foreign policy, regardless of whether that person is a traditional conservative, neoconservative or whatever.

Quoted: Neocons are for using the power of the government to push their view of the world, i.e. USA as policemen, one world order, pro-business, anti-drug, yada yada. Traditional conservatives want to see the size and power of the federal government shrink and don't like neocons because they are for using the power of the govt. to push their agenda. YMMV

+1

Go check out the PNAC website. That's what the neo-cons are all about.

I invented neo-cons. When Al Gore invented the internet, I knew exactly what to do with it. I was a conservative before I was a liberal, before I was a conservative.

Quoted: I think the Hun hit it.  I notice that even on these very boards, those that seem to decry the term neocon also seem to be the folks who take a decidedly anti Jewish, anti Israel stance in their arguments.  So, is Neocon perhaps some sort of religious slur?

That was my understanding.

Neocons, a perjorative label first applied to them in the 1960's, are a very small group of New York Jewish intellectuals.  This is a good article by Adam Bellow, son of Saul Bellow, who explains who neo-cons are and how they arrived at their poltics (they were for the most part communists back in the 1940's).

newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/rnc/9676/index.html

Dad?!” my teenage daughter’s face reflected a queasy mixture of surprise and instinctive revulsion. “Is it true? Are you really a . . . Republican?”


She uttered the word as if it were a deadly disease that she could catch just by naming it. “I’m a conservative,” I corrected her.


“But are you really going to vote for . . . George Bush?”


I had never spoken to Lily about my politics—nor about my strange and eventful journey from Upper West Side liberal to neoconservative culture warrior. For a long time she was simply too young, and when she got older I hadn’t wanted to impose my views on her. Soon enough, I figured, she would realize that my ideas were out of step with those of her friends and her friends’ parents, and she would come to me on her own.


Of course, this had meant standing by while she was indoctrinated into the politically correct outlook that prevailed in her tony private school. Ironically, she was in the same position I had been in at her age: an earnest young person, raised in an atmosphere of unconscious liberal conformity, who had just begun to realize that not all the vital questions have been settled.


Now at last I would have to explain how I had become a conservative, the role I had played in the conservative intellectual revolt, and what it was like to be a conservative in a city (New York) and a profession (publishing) that were known for their liberalism.

Quoted: Neocons are for using the power of the government to push their view of the world, i.e. USA as policemen, one world order, pro-business, anti-drug, yada yada. Traditional conservatives want to see the size and power of the federal government shrink and don't like neocons because they are for using the power of the govt. to push their agenda. YMMV

Don't know that I can improve on that explanation.

Conservative sbeleive gov't has a role. But not to the extent the NeoCons do.

First, here are the past couple Neo-Con threads:
www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=251446&page=1
www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=251928

------------

Now, a bit of re-iteration

Originally, it all started as a backlash against liberalisim by a group of influential jewish ex-liberals....

After Reagan & 'Peace through Strength', the 'current' crop of neoconservatives (myself included, see my sigline) have never been liberals, though... Just the originals... Alot of us are ex-libertarians or ex-classical-conservatives who are peeved at the shortsightedness of either movement - the Liberals idealistic 'peace, love & understanding', the old-conservative/libertarian pipe-dream of an isolationist, protectionist 'Fortress America', and both side's constant wrangling over minor moral/social issues'...

My favorite analogy here is to the story of the 3 Little Pigs, with a bit of a twist. Pig #3 is your classic isolationist. He builds a strong house, doesn't go looking for wolves, and hopes that he'll be left alone. When the hungry wolf doesn't leave him alone, he & his friends run inside & locks the door. The house is strong enough that Mr Wolf can't huff/puff/blow it down. Problem is, this only works untill Mr Wolf & friends discover TNT, at which time the pigs are screwed, unless they break out the guns & take over the woods - finding and either killing or conquering all the wolves before said wolves can blow the house UP instead of down. If the pigs continue to hide in the brick house, they're cease to be pigs, and become wolf dinner. If they rise to the occasion, no one will be serving ham for a long long time...

The key to neoconservatisim is a belief that foreign policy & economics are the 2 important keys to a successful nation. There is a general opposition to Federal involvement (for or against) abortion, gay marriage, and other social issues.

With regard to foreign policy, the general idea is that in international affairs there are those who lead, and those who follow, it is not historically possible to get out of the way (be neutral). This leads to a 'neo-imperialist' worldview -> the US must exert leadership/control over the rest of the world in order to avoid being cvontrolled by it. However, instead of doing this by military occupation or colonization (first or 2nd generation empire), we do it thru a near-evangelical promotion of free market capitalisim and American-style republican democratic government. This produces the view that the Middle East can be 'fixed', and that the purpose of Iraq/OIF is to start the ball roling for a pro-democracy, anti-socialisim 'transformation' of the region, based on the premise that the current situation starts with - and is a direct result of - the corrupt secular govts, who are using the religeous nutjobs as puppets to distract the population from the fact that 'The Emperor's naked'....

The desired end result is the US assuming economic/military hegemony over the world (think UK, but 'improved' by not actually governing any other countries), and using any means neccicary to  maintain this. The Liberal philosophy that 'The US must prepare for the day when we are no longer the most powerful country on earth'/can't-we-all-be-friends, and the libertarian/old-conservative philosophy of isolationisim/leave-well-enough-alone are both considered equally repugnant.

On the other hand, most neoconservatives are OPPOSED to 'social' or 'peacekeeping' military missions (like Liberia or Somolia) unless there are national or economic interests at stake (to us, 'War for Oil' = 'good', 'War to Open Markets' = 'good', 'War to Pass out Food' = 'bad'). If it's not in the best interest of the USA, too bad, find another benefactor who cares...


With regard for economics, neoconservatives are generally hard-line capitalist. This means that outsourcing is good, free trade is good, and any form of 'protectionisim' (trying to 'save jobs' or such) or govt regulation besides antitrust is BAD. The premise behind supporting antitrust is that competition must be preserved for the market to function, and that means protecting competition from both public (socialist) and private (monopolist) threats.

In terms of social policy, the role of government is viewed as establishing stability (law & order) to provide a proper basis for economics to handle everything else. The theory is that if order is maintained, free markets can handle the 'rest' of social life. A very strict constructionalist view is taken on the Constitution, including the belief that the only 'Rights' you have are the ones important enough to write down (all of which protect specific activities which are required for the preservation of a republican (as in form of govt, not pol party) capitalist society).

Hence, there's no problem with drug prohibition, or STATE governments legislating morality, so long as the Constitution is observed as literally written.

so i am a traditional conservative

Quoted: so i am a traditional conservative

+1

It would appear that neocons have joined with the Liberals in abandoning fiscal responsibility.