Talk:Neoconservatism/Archive 5

message: 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)
replies: text: Done.  Mirv's work did not seem particularly noteworthy in this instance.--Silverback 07:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Anti-semitic edit? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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  --Ben Houston 22:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[The Power of Nightmares]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Restructuring?

message: 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)
thread_title: Some removed text

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Section on the Iraq War

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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: , , . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Neoconservatism a "reaction to the Civil Rights movement"?

message: 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 Almbergfamily@aol.com —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)
thread_title: Suggestion for massive simplification