Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMessage auto-removed
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Message auto-removed (Original Post)
Name removed
Mar 2016
OP
No, paleocons are against all foreign wars and military bases in Europe, Korea, etc. nt
thereismore
Mar 2016
#1
thereismore
(13,326 posts)1. No, paleocons are against all foreign wars and military bases in Europe, Korea, etc. nt
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
leveymg
(36,418 posts)3. Not sure that is really the case. Links? nt
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
leveymg
(36,418 posts)2. Paleos not fond of wars that primarily benefit Israel and KSA/GCC.
Also, the Neos mostly look and talk like Hillary Clinton on domestic social issues. The Paleos are more conservative, generally.
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Response to Name removed (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Greybnk48
(10,695 posts)5. Paleos were good a economics, no trickle-down b.s.
or voodoo economics that began with Ronnie Ray-gun. That's just one difference.
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
MisterP
(23,730 posts)6. Israel's a good litmus test: the paleocons like it because it gets the Jews out of the US
but dislike it 'cos it's full of Jews; the neocons like it because they see it as the 51st state and if anyone analyzes it as a real country with its own motives, structure, and interests they'll try to destroy their career
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Igel
(37,431 posts)7. This does an adequate job.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_and_paleoconservatism#Conflict_of_values
Most of DUers' views of the difference is strongly colored and changed by their views, attitudes, opinions of conservativism in general, and what they think must be important to others that they don't really understand. We believe we know what's going on in their heads far, far better than they do. And this has been shown in surveys and attitude research: Self-claimed liberals "know" what conservatives think and their reasons far better than conservatives claim to know what other conservatives think, and are often at odds with the reasons conservatives give for their views.
(There's a lot of that kind of confirmation bias in the service of maintaining tribal boundaries.)
There are isolated voices like Radosh who like to claim that neoconservatism is what happened when progressives like the youthful him were mugged. They brought some left-of-center views and attitudes to a muscular foreign policy and domestic policy, but ultimately a lot of the "is this done according to approved policy and politics" rhetoric that they'd known from prior years carried over. ("This is done according to approved policy and politics" is just a paraphrase of "politically correct", if you didn't notice.)
This gets reflected in some of the Wiki article because a lot of the old East-Coast progressives that converted to their new political faith were ethnically Jewish.
Most of DUers' views of the difference is strongly colored and changed by their views, attitudes, opinions of conservativism in general, and what they think must be important to others that they don't really understand. We believe we know what's going on in their heads far, far better than they do. And this has been shown in surveys and attitude research: Self-claimed liberals "know" what conservatives think and their reasons far better than conservatives claim to know what other conservatives think, and are often at odds with the reasons conservatives give for their views.
(There's a lot of that kind of confirmation bias in the service of maintaining tribal boundaries.)
There are isolated voices like Radosh who like to claim that neoconservatism is what happened when progressives like the youthful him were mugged. They brought some left-of-center views and attitudes to a muscular foreign policy and domestic policy, but ultimately a lot of the "is this done according to approved policy and politics" rhetoric that they'd known from prior years carried over. ("This is done according to approved policy and politics" is just a paraphrase of "politically correct", if you didn't notice.)
This gets reflected in some of the Wiki article because a lot of the old East-Coast progressives that converted to their new political faith were ethnically Jewish.
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
