[CentristVoice]

What do you think are some crucial differences? I mean, both believe in protecting American Christian values, but what divides neoconservatives and paleoconservatives?

[quetzalcoatl]

I don't think there is any point of resemblance between the two. Paleos would be aghast at any such suggestion, as they hold neo-cons in very low regard.

"Paleoconservatives in the 21st century often highlight their points of disagreement with neoconservatives, especially regarding issues such as military interventionism, illegal immigration and high rates of legal immigration, as well as multiculturalism, affirmative action, free trade, and foreign aid, all of which they oppose.[1] They also criticize social welfare and social democracy, which some refer to as the "therapeutic managerial state",[3] the "welfare-warfare state"[4] or "polite totalitarianism".[5] They identify as the legitimate heirs to the American conservative tradition.[6]"

After the decision of George H. W. Bush to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Iraq War during 1991, many neoconservatives considered this policy, and the decision not to endorse indigenous dissident groups such as the Kurds and Shiites in their 1991-1992 resistance to Hussein, as a betrayal of democratic principles.[44][45][46][47][48]

Ironically, some of those same targets of criticism would later become fierce advocates of neoconservative policies. During 1992, referring to the first Iraq War, then United States Secretary of Defense and future Vice President Richard Cheney said:

I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home....

And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam [Hussein] worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.[49]

Within a few years of the Gulf War in Iraq, many neoconservatives were endorsing the ouster of Saddam Hussein. On February 19, 1998, an open letter to President Clinton was published, signed by dozens of pundits, many identified with neoconservatism and, later, related groups such as the PNAC, urging decisive action to remove Saddam from power.[50]

Neoconservatives were also members of the so-called "blue team", which argued for a confrontational policy toward the People's Republic of China and strong military and diplomatic endorsement for the Republic of China (also known as Formosa or Taiwan).

During the late 1990s, Irving Kristol and other writers in neoconservative magazines began touting anti-Darwinist views, as an endorsement of intelligent design. Since these neoconservatives were largely of secular origin, a few commentators have speculated that this – along with endorsement of religion generally – may have been a case of a "noble lie", intended to protect public morality, or even tactical politics, to attract religious endorsers.[51]"

Neocons are all about promoting US military hegemony. To the extent they have any social/economic views they generally mimic the neo-liberal line, except when it is politic not to do so. Neocons are primarily liars - it is their frontline mode of operation. Paleos, agree or disagree, are far more principled in nature.
"

[Rich]

The collapse of the Soviet union turned a lot American leaders demented when it came to the foreign policy. I think what is missed is how badly the West was doing in the cold War only a few years before the Soviet union's collapse. Look at say central America in the eighties, little sign there of free markets bringing liberty prosperity, free speech, peace etc. Little sign there of the inevitable victory of freeish market, liberal democracy And then in a few years the Communist system went from timid reform to sudden unexpected death. its easy to see how western leaders found it difficult to react in a balanced way to this new world.

Back then it was like why wouldn't anyone want American troops in their country "guaranteeing freedom" if they had the chance. Who wouldn't want to be West Germany rather than East Germany if their cold war era dictators were removed.

Back in 2003 I said the Americans are going to go into Iraq, introduce democracy and leave. People thought I was mad. The Americans never intended to leave. I just knew they would. You can't just go in and set up a puppet. It doesn't work like that. Saudi Arabia's not a puppet. It had a two hundred year history before it allied with the United States. The rulers are their own people with their own agenda. Exactly the same as the Poles, Hungarians, Balts etc who wanted to join NATO.

[VerminLord]

I started out as a neoconservative, but shifted to paleoconservatism. I do not know what I really am now.

I do agree with paleocons that neocons have hijacked the conservative movement. I honestly hate America's foreign policy. We should mind our own business and let the other nations handle their own probems, but unfortunately I do not think that is possible anymore with today's world, and America's foreign policy is a necessary evil. So I do not know if that automatically disqualifies my from being a paleocon.

Neocons advocate more American involvement in foreign countries, laissez-faire capitalism, and nationalism and bureaucracy.

Paleocons are more about states' rights, isolationism, constitutionalism, and libertarianism (the Jefferson kind, not the modern kind. Thomas Jefferson was anti-gay for example, while modern libertarians advocate gay rights.)

[quetzalcoatl]

I honestly hate America's foreign policy. We should mind our own business and let the other nations handle their own probems, but unfortunately I do not think that is possible anymore with today's world, and America's foreign policy is a necessary evil.

The more you dig into it, the more you will find that America's postwar foreign policy has been an unnecessary evil. The situation in the middle east is an object example. Are we better off now with Isis at the gates of Baghdad than with Saddam in charge? How has the US interest been served by attempting to topple Bashar al-Assad? The answer is not well: the civil war simply means that Assad is less able to suppress radical Islamist elements. The US engineered a coup to topple Mossadegh in 1953 - now, in place of a secular socialist state, we have an Islamist theocracy. What we did to the Soviets in Afghanistan wan't bad enough apparently; we had to step into their footsteps and take an even worse beating ourselves.

The neo-con philosophy has actually eroded US hegemony by sowing chaos and instability. In the aftermath of various coup attempts and subversion efforts, our attempts to control the outcome have been outright failures. People who are violently anti-American have stepped into the power vacuum we created.

When we tried such moves in Ukraine and Hong Kong, we were unceremoniously handed our behinds. China and Russia were having none of it.

This mess doesn't bother the neocons at all. Why? Because their worldview is not US-centric at all. It doesn't bother them to see the US getting a bloody nose - it's not about the US, they couldn't care less.

[ThirdTerm]

[youtube]cJQyunI3BoI[/youtube]

Irving Kristol is thought to be the founder of neoconservatism who was affiliated with Commentary magazine from 1947 to 1952, the Jewish monthly review magazine. As a son of Jewish immigrants, Kristol promoted US military interventions in the Middle East to create a favourable environment for Israel's survival in the region. Paul Wolfowitz is also a leading neoconservative who was a major architect of the Bush administration's Iraq policy and its most hawkish advocate under the Bush Doctrine he invented. It's no coincidence that both Kristol and Wolfowitz were raised in the Jewish community in New York and neoconservatism is closely linked to the Jewish lobby. Paleoconservatives are represented by Pat Buchanan, who is ideologically closely aligned with white nationalists, and they oppose non-European immigration to preserve their European cultural heritage as well as any military intervention by the US anywhere, quite contrary to neoconservatives.