What is the difference between a Neo-Con & a Republican?

Question

No, this is not a joke. Many ppl do not actually know that not ALL Republicans are Neo-Cons but ALL Neo-Cons are Republicans. This is what has happened the Neo's has kidnapped the Republican party and most of the Republicans do not know this. Anyway, do you know the difference?

Answer 1

"Neo-con" is short for Neoconservative. Neoconservatism was a movement in the '60's, with a group of liberals shifting to the conservative platform. It was in opposition to the New Left Counterculture.

"Republican" is a political party.

Answer 2

Nobody wants to be called a neocon nowadays, not even the original members, let alone Republicans in general.  I saw Bush's former envoy to the UN, John Bolton,  a while back on The Daily Show denying that he was a neocon, yet he was a signing member of the PNAC, which is an organization that people think of when they hear the term 'neocon,'  who are said to be former Democrats who defected back in the Reagan years, or perhaps before.

The PNAC group was co-founded by William Kristol, whom you can still see every Sunday on Fox news shilling for Bush's wars, and has included many other pimps and peddlars of that war, namely d**k Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Bolton, mentioned above, among others.  On their "ambitious" agenda for the USA since the breakup of the Soviet Union, among other things, was to undermine the United Nations as the world's policing agency, and basically take over this role themselves, hence Bush's decision to make Bolton the UN ambassador during a recess appointment in which the Senate could not vote against the decision, which they would have.

PNAC members, all with strong allegiances either to the oil industry or to Israel (or both, and especially the latter, apparently) signed a letter to Clinton in 1998 urging him to overthrow Saddam Hussein, which shows how long this had been a priority for them, even prior to 9/11.

Furthermore, in September 2000, one year before 9/11 they published a manifesto called "Rebuilding America's Defenses,"  which called for massive increases the defense budget and taking an agressive military role worldwide, including wars in the Middle East and the renewal of Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" program, aka, the Missile Defence System.  This document is notorious for including the following line, which refers to their agenda outlined in the publication: ""Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

Now this was almost exactly one year before 9/11 actually happened, and seems to indicate to many people that the PNAC had something to gain from 9/11, which was to speed up their agenda, therefore indicating a blatantly stated motive for some government and/or military officials to be complicit in 9/11.  The comment certainly seems suspiciously "prophetic," or coincidental,  at the very least, as does the fact that a pre-existing war plan to invade Afghanistan was immediately put into motion, even though the FBI did not have enough evidence to convict Osama Bin Laden, and that Donald Rumsfeld went to the Senate the very next day to say, basically, "See?  I told you we needed massive increases to our [already bloated] defense budget!"

The fact nobody has yet satisfactorily explained the symmetrical free-fall collapses of the three steel structured WTC buildings that day (still no explanation from NIST why the 47-story buidling number 7 fell, which was NOT hit by an airplane), other than by controlled demolition seems to lend further credence to this speculation, as does the "management" of the 9/11 Commission Report by neocon Philip Zelikow, a Bush administration insider, who helped develop  "the Bush Doctrine," or the waging of unprovoked, so-called "pre-emptive" wars...

And by "management," I mean "white wash."

In a shameless display of gall, the PNAC website still proudly displays the documents I have referred to above (see: Letter to Clinton, under "Letters and statements" and 'Rebuilding America's Defenses,' under "Publications and reports," respectively).  The website was shut down recently, but it has opened up again:

http://newamericancentury.org/index.html

The organization itself may be shutting down, but many of the so-called 'neocon' players are still active, of course. You can still see William Kristol on Fox News Sunday, or read his opinion pieces in the New York Times, of all places. However, aware of the deservedly bad image these people have earned for themselves and their movement, few of them probably wish to be called 'neocons,' nowadays, like John Bolton.

As for other Republicans, although Bush's neocon administration pandered to the Republican base by appealing to their 'basest' attitudes towards things like religion, gun ownership, abortion, homosexuality, etc. , (paying lip service to these issues without actually dealing with them, even reportedly mocking their Evangelical supporters in private), there was little about them that was actually "conservative" in the traditional sense, especially in terms of smaller government and less government spending, and in terms of the historically "conservative" idea of NOT getting involved in foreign wars, let alone going out and STARTING wars abroad in an imperialistic way, even occupying said countries for a number of years.

The Wikipedia article below gives you a good list of key players in the neocon movement.  It is astonishing how such a small group of "intellectuals" have managed to commandeer the entire country in the past 8 years, and do so much damage to the nation's reputation, finances, moral authority, and even military readiness.  More astonishing still is that Bush's would-be successor John McCain, who has a number of the neocons on his advisory teams, , including foreign policy 'experts' is still perceived by many to be 'stronger' in terms of military leadership... despite such disastrous results.

EDIT: Republican stalwart Pat Buchanan has outlined his differences with the neocons. Check out his expose on the people pulling the strings for US wars in the Middle East ("Whose wars?" by Pat Buchanan).  This week he exposes the McCain/neocon connection, in the form of Randy Scheunemann.

And None Dare Call it Treason - by Pat Buchanan

"Who is Randy Scheunemann?

He is the principal foreign policy adviser to John McCain and potential successor to Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski as national security adviser to the president of the United States.

But Randy Scheunemann has another identity, another role. ..

[Buchanan outlines Scheunemann's role in establishing a provocative relatationship between the US and Russia, via satellite countries of the latter, notably Georgia recently, for which the US will be committed to go to war with Russia, if Georgia joins NATO and some incident occurs there.  In addition to money earned from the McCain campaign, he has pocketed hundreds of thousands as a lobbyist for the president of Georgia]

... Now Scheunemann is the neocon agent in place in McCain's camp.

The neocons got their war with Iraq. They are pushing for war on Iran. And they are now baiting the Russian Bear.

Is this what McCain has on offer? Endless war?

Why would McCain seek foreign policy counsel from the same discredited crowd that has all but destroyed the presidency of George Bush? ..."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20080822/cm_u...

Answer 3

neo = new

con = conservative

its a new wave of conservatives

personally..i like the old school conservatives much better

Answer 4

Neo-cons mainly come from the Project for a New American Century.  Bush's first cabinet was comprised mainly of members: Wolfowitz, Pearle, Cheney, Rumsfeld.

Their stated aim is to promote the idea that American Leadership is good for America and for the World.

They aim to maintain the US world dominance by challenging any country, militarily, economically, politically - that starts to become an influence that might challenge the US.

The whole pre-emptive invasion of Iraq came from these people.

McCains main policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, is a Director of PNAC.  He is also a lobbyist for the country of Georgia who has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from them for advocacy.

McCain's connections go back to the roots of the neocons.

He is not a maverick, he is a necon PNAC Bush clone.

Answer 5

I understand the difference.  That is why I am a Clinton supporter voting for McCain.

McCain 2008.

Clinton 2012.