Paleo Conservatism vs. Neo Conservatism

This post is on Basic paleo-conservative vs neo-conservative views.  

Before I can say anything perceptive about either lets define both for the readers that may not understand what each is about.

Paleo-Conservatism - Origins of the movement
Paleoconservative thought in the US is most widely associated with the anti-communist and anti-globalization right wing movement, which emphasizes tradition, civil society and classical federalism, along with familial, religious, regional, national and Western identity.

The paleocon philosophy arose from conservative opposition to President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal expansion of government in the 1930s and 1940s. The movement’s core beliefs were formed largely on the conservative principles laid out by author and philosopher Russell Kirk. The movement was given its name by Elizabethtown College Humanities Professor Paul Gottfried in the late 20th Century.

Ideologies
Paleocons believe in Laissez-faire capitalism, limited government and a non-interventionist approach to foreign policy. Most paleoconservatives are strongly opposed to the current war in Iraq, especially given the US’s tenuous basis for invasion.

In a previous age, paleocons would have believed military force should be used only in defense of a foreign attack or overt aggression against the US. but it is no longer applicable today, considering the recent history of large dictator-states headed by leaders bent on mass destruction. Paleocons believe pre-emptive strikes are justified against such aggressors or other extremists and fundamentalist terrorists who answer to no state, government or international law.

Paleocons do not subscribe to any one particular party line, though they do align with the majority of conservatives in that they adopt traditional values, and most often oppose abortion, gay marriage and gun control. Paleocons support capital punishment and a close reading of the U.S. Constitution.

Kirk is one of the heroes of the conservative movement. He is credited with establishing the 10 core principles of the paleoconservative movement in 1993 ( as delineated by The Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal): 1. The conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.
2. The conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.
3. Conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.
4. Conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.
5. Conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.
6. Conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.
7. Conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.
8. Conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.
9. The conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.
10. The thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.


Neo-conservatism - Origins of the Movement
Neoconservatism emerged as a reaction to the counter-culture movement of the 1960s and the Great Society projects of President Lyndon Johnson. The foundations of the movement dealt with domestic economic principles because of the perception of government's ineffeciency to eliminate poverty, crime and racial discrimination.

Neoconservatism is based on the philosophical writings of Irving Kristol, co-founder of Encounter magazine, which he edited from 1953 to 1958. Kristol said a neoconservative is "a liberal who was mugged by reality." The original idea was to focus on rehabilitating the mugger and providing realistic solutions to enduring social problems, thus creating a better society.

Ideology
The main planks in the neoconservative platform consist of:

• Cutting tax rates to stimulate the economy
• To neocons it is the economy, not the tax cuts that should be emphaszed. Neocons believe a balanced budget isn't as important as creating an environment within which people can thrive. Kristol believed shouldering the burden of budget shortfalls sometimes is the price of a good economy.
• Enforcing morality to create a more civil society
• Like social conservatives, neoconservatives believe US culture continues to sink to new lows of vulgarity. Like most social conservatives, neocons believe government has a responsibility to restore faith and values to society. Unlike social conservatives, however, neocons don't subscribe to the notion of America as a Christian nation, but instead embrace all faiths that have strong moral emphases.
• Aggressive nation-building and the exportation of democracy as a fundamental foreign policy
• Neoconservatives believe the way to combat terrorism and extremism is to implement democracies in emerging nations and assist countries in adopting democratic governments.

Source: By Justin Quinn, About.com Guide

---

Essentially what you have here is two very different ideologies under one parent theme “conservatism”.  Personally, I feel that neo-cons aren’t very conservative at all when it all boils down.  I view them as the “blue dog” democrats of the right wing.  In other words, neo cons are to Paleo-cons as Blue dogs are to progressive liberals.  Both ideologies move the respective parties toward center.

Lets keep our focus on the conservative side of the spectrum and delve deeper into the  some key differences between paleo-cons and neo-cons concerning world views as was originally requested in LFL’s post.

I suppose the easiest examples to feature the difference in philosophy would be the economy and the most recent war in Iraq.

Economy

Paleo-conservatives subscribe to Laissez-faire capitalism.  This would be in stark contrast to the government stimulus / bailouts we have recently witnessed.  The natural ebb and flow of business has it’s own tide schedule and shouldn’t be regulated by government.  

Once government begins to involve itself in business the natural evolution will be toward Fascism.  It will be forced to pick winners and losers.  I find it ironic when people associate conservatives with facists because the core ideals are so different, as a matter of fact they are opposite.  At least they are opposite of Paleo-conservatives ideals.

Neo-conservatives have the government playing more of a role in business.  The government is more “hands on” in trying to cultivate a prosperous business environment, even if it’s at the expense of the tax payer.  This can only be achieved through experimentation considering the business climate is ever changing.

This type of experimentation can be seen very clearly in today’s economy.  Lets not forget that it was George W. Bush who initiated the first round of stimulus.  Social experimentation has never proved to be an effective way of improving the economy or the business environment.  Quite the opposite during the great depression it made matters worse.  To believe that this type of experimentation benefits business is naive.  

Government has consistently be good at one thing.. waste.  I would argue the business environment would be much better off without government interference.  To say that capitalism and the free market has failed is a joke to me.  With the neo-conservative / liberal influence on policy, tax, and the Fed. I ask what exactly has been “free” about the free market?

I also believe that neo-cons feel that we are part of a global economy and must act accordingly, whereas paleo-cons put America first and the main concern is interior, viewing America as the focal point, not as a piece of a global puzzle.

War in Iraq

Paleo-conservatives, I would argue are not against the Iraq war due to the “tenuous basis for invasion” as stated by Justin Quinn.  I believe the way the enemy is defined and the way the war is being fought is what controls the issue.  

The inablilty to define the enemy is solely the fault of a neo conservatists viewpoint.  The view point that democracy must be installed worldwide. This is what prevents us from identifying the enemy as radical Muslims and instead focusing on a war on “terror”.  The wording is very important.  You see, defining this as a war on terror allows the U.S. to appear as though it is distinguishing between radical Muslims and terrorists.  This allows the United States to attempt to install a democracy in the middle east while defending the U.S. from a potential aggressor.  This war is a neo-cons wet dream.  The war affords them an excuse to install a democracy, which is what the neo-cons foreign policy is all about.  

The problem the neo cons have created is attempting to preserve two infrastructures.  One is the social infrastructure of Sharia Law, and Muslim traditions.  The other is the actual infrastructure of the nation.  The attempt to preserve both has been an expensive proposition for the U.S.

I would argue that Paleo-conservatives would have better and more honestly defined our enemy and decimated them.  This would work out for the overall good of the world.  The alternative has us in a quagmire that is costing us money and more importantly the lives of U.S. soldiers.

Probably the best example I can give of United States brutality in war was Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Take a look at Hiroshima today (link).  

Trying to accomplish some sort of hybrid war / government installation simultaneously is insanity.  First you win the war then you can install the government.  

Neo-conservatives pertaining to war are dangerous both domestically and to our enemy.  I would say that we are experiencing the opposite of the intended result (like with so many other government initiatives).