Whats the difference between a far right conservative and a more moderate conservative? What exactly is a neocon and what is a normal conservative? Is the conservative idealogy and republican party big enough to have any big enough divides that it could ever split if the democrat party weakened alot more. Are there any third parties that represent this idealogies at all?

I want to know the different views within conservative thinking, not the differences between a liberal and a conservative.

Can any local conservative &/or republicans feel me in on the different views you hold?

[Edited on September 12, 2005 at 1:54 PM. Reason : .]

9/12/2005 1:31:00 PM

ummm. moderates are more moderate.

[Edited on September 12, 2005 at 1:38 PM. Reason : 0]

9/12/2005 1:38:00 PM

well its not as simple as I am %100 pro-god vs a moderate who is 59% pro-god. There have to be some real issues there.

9/12/2005 1:43:40 PM

Conservative Libertarians are a rising factor for sure. Know lots of registered GOP'ers who will tell you their political alignment is just that. I don't think anyone is stupid enough to stray from the Big 2. You have a better chance at changing the political climate within a party than you do convincing the general public that there is a viable 3rd option.

9/12/2005 1:45:23 PM

"moderate" and "far-right" "conservatives" as well as "liberal" are pretty meaningless words to assign to a complete political ideology.

Yes, I expect disagreements and tensions in the GOP, and no it will not cause a split.

[Edited on September 12, 2005 at 1:55 PM. Reason : arggh]

9/12/2005 1:45:51 PM

wtf does "far right week" mean?

9/12/2005 1:46:53 PM

this thread is clear evidence of why posting in the soap box is a waste of time

9/12/2005 1:48:25 PM

Quote :

"wtf does "far right week" mean?"

I have no idea, perhaps I heard the word "week" on the tv while typing that post.

9/12/2005 1:54:35 PM

Quote :

"well its not as simple as I am %100 pro-god vs a moderate who is 59% pro-god. There have to be some real issues there."

Of course not. I am a Christian but I feel that God gave us free will and intended for people to make their own choices and live with their own decisions. I think the very idea of imposing strictly Christian derived laws on people is asinine simply because it goes against the spirit of the religion (having the choice to believe/obey/follow). For example, if I believe that homosexaulity is a sin but I don't necessarily think that laws should be passed forbidding those acts/relationships. Forcing someone to live by Chrisitan law does not make them Christian or any more favorable in God's eye. Blue Laws also fall into this category... absurd.

9/12/2005 1:58:50 PM

Quote :

"this thread is clear evidence of why posting in the soap box is a waste of time"

Well I suppose asking a question in the soap box is different than the usuall standing on the soapbox and yelling your opinion or copy & pasting your favorite new news article. But I think asking what the different idealogies held by conservatives isn't inappropriate for a discussion area for politics and social issues.

Quote :

"Conservative Libertarians are a rising factor for sure. Know lots of registered GOP'ers who will tell you their political alignment is just that. I don't think anyone is stupid enough to stray from the Big 2. You have a better chance at changing the political climate within a party than you do convincing the general public that there is a viable 3rd option."

Whats the relative strength of the different factions of conservatives?

9/12/2005 2:01:29 PM

right now, Jesus is winning

9/12/2005 2:17:11 PM

9/12/2005 2:20:11 PM

I've had enough of Jesus and his insatiable lust for glory.

9/12/2005 2:20:27 PM

well, He is God.

9/12/2005 2:22:40 PM

jesus was all about invading other peoples countries for other peoples freedom

there are lots of examples.

9/12/2005 2:23:07 PM

like?

9/12/2005 2:23:24 PM

Quote :

"Whats the relative strength of the different factions of conservatives?"

Too hard to judge at this point. THe problem is that the baby boomers are now hitting the senior citizen age, which makes them even more active in politics, so its gonna take awhile before there is true turnover. I honestly think that fifteen to twenty years from now the GOP will look very different (much more conservative Libertarian in flavor).

9/12/2005 3:37:33 PM

well, right now, you have the Religious Right, which kinda runs the show along with the Neocons (Congress being fairly religious right, President Bush being a mix of the two, and the rest of his administration leaning to the neo-con side). they vote mostly according to social concerns, and they take a right-wing stand...usually WAY to the right. think: SNL's Church Lady

then you have your fiscal conservatives ("Rockefeller Republicans"). these guys don't give a shit about social issues so much as they are hardcore free-marketeers who want low taxes, flatter tax brackets, little gov't intervention into the corporate world, etc.

then there are the libertarianish Republicans, who are fiscal conservatives who tend to be social moderates (they aren't usually really to the LEFT, socially, or they'd be real Libertarians, with the exception being those who are but put more weight on fiscal matters and belonging to a party with a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected). this is what the Republican Party (aka "GOP") has historically at least given lip service to, and i think that this group is indeed on the rise (partially as a backlash to the religious right being such a pain in the ass to everyone else). this is where i fall in, and if you'll notice, most of the really well-versed, intelligent Republicans on this board are of the same mindset (with a couple of exceptions). this group is fairly ideologically opposed to President Bush and most other big-name Republicans in office right now (considering that they belong to the same party).

Neocons are not, in my mind, an ideologically simply defined group like the others. they are characterized by a hawkish, interventionist foreign policy. they are usually fairly free-trade supporting, but they are big domestic spenders (the term's roots go back to liberals who kind of defected), so they aren't fiscal conservatives. they are big-government, big-spending Republicans. Kind of a weird animal, but they're all the rage these days, it seems.

those are the four big groups. you have the Log Cabin Republicans (gay republicans), and just generally moderate Republicans, and a few other special interests, but most Republicans can be loosely categorized into those 4 groups.

[Edited on September 12, 2005 at 3:53 PM. Reason : asdfasdf]

9/12/2005 3:51:37 PM

Quote :

"Whats the relative strength of the different factions of conservatives?"

The strength of any parties substructures lies in its primary turnout.

right now (circa late 98-present) GOP primary turnout has been utterly dominated by the religious right.

they're easily motivated because they are people who violently believe in their causes (double entendre), and the fervor with which they espouse their beliefs is the reason they come out in droves, i believe.

the moderate wing, unfortunately usually doesnt mobilize like the religious right does. whats maddening is that the religous wing of the party is one of teh smallest "groupings" of the party, but like i said, as a voting group, its also one of the most politically active and mobile.

[Edited on September 12, 2005 at 4:04 PM. Reason : .]

9/12/2005 4:03:42 PM

I think the difference is between economics, and morals.

The Reagan republicans were interested in reduced taxes and reducing red tape. Then came the religious right. They are concerned about the culture wars, and are interested in getting their hands into cultural changes - getting involved in people's day-to-day lives.

9/12/2005 4:13:20 PM

Quote :

"then there are the libertarianish Republicans, who are fiscal conservatives who tend to be social moderates"

I might prefer someone in office who would be responsible, who I could debate with on social issues to a large extent off the reccord, but who wouldn't try to legislate morality or aggressive foreign policies and instead focus on economics.

If we can't agree on all the social issues it seems wise, especially when my party is falling behind, to put weight behind those on the opposite side who will aim at a focus on a good economy which in itself can prevent many problems, and the socially moderate part would allow for some of the government support of those in need that us liberals have come to know and love.

What political opperatives out there fit this description?

9/12/2005 4:44:30 PM

well, one thing is that people differ in their opinions on what constitutes sound fiscal policy. look at Kris, for example. he puts lots of weight on the fiscal matters, but his ideas and mine aren't gonna be the same at all.

[Edited on September 12, 2005 at 5:38 PM. Reason : Neil Boortz, John McCain, Barry Goldwater (except that he's dead), arguably Newt Gingrich]

9/12/2005 5:18:56 PM

well big money spent the way i like it has a lot of potential, but i figure those who don't spend alot (fiscal conservatives) don't have as much room to screw up.

9/12/2005 5:20:28 PM

big money is gonna be spent regardless to a large degree.

fiscal conservatives would rather it not be done by the federal government, with the result being that it's spent the way you want, just like you said.

9/12/2005 5:39:02 PM

On the "what's a neocon?" question...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp

Quote :

"The Neoconservative Persuasion From the August 25, 2003 issue: What it was, and what it is. by Irving Kristol 08/25/2003, Volume 008, Issue 47 ===== "[President Bush is] an engaging person, but I think for some reason he's been captured by the neoconservatives around him." --Howard Dean, U.S. News & World Report, August 11, 2003 ===== WHAT EXACTLY IS NEOCONSERVATISM? Journalists, and now even presidential candidates, speak with an enviable confidence on who or what is "neoconservative," and seem to assume the meaning is fully revealed in the name. Those of us who are designated as "neocons" are amused, flattered, or dismissive, depending on the context. It is reasonable to wonder: Is there any "there" there? Even I, frequently referred to as the "godfather" of all those neocons, have had my moments of wonderment. A few years ago I said (and, alas, wrote) that neoconservatism had had its own distinctive qualities in its early years, but by now had been absorbed into the mainstream of American conservatism. I was wrong, and the reason I was wrong is that, ever since its origin among disillusioned liberal intellectuals in the 1970s, what we call neoconservatism has been one of those intellectual undercurrents that surface only intermittently. It is not a "movement," as the conspiratorial critics would have it. Neoconservatism is what the late historian of Jacksonian America, Marvin Meyers, called a "persuasion," one that manifests itself over time, but erratically, and one whose meaning we clearly glimpse only in retrospect. Viewed in this way, one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy. That this new conservative politics is distinctly American is beyond doubt. There is nothing like neoconservatism in Europe, and most European conservatives are highly skeptical of its legitimacy. The fact that conservatism in the United States is so much healthier than in Europe, so much more politically effective, surely has something to do with the existence of neoconservatism. But Europeans, who think it absurd to look to the United States for lessons in political innovation, resolutely refuse to consider this possibility. Neoconservatism is the first variant of American conservatism in the past century that is in the "American grain." It is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic. Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked. Of course, those worthies are in no way overlooked by a large, probably the largest, segment of the Republican party, with the result that most Republican politicians know nothing and could not care less about neoconservatism. Nevertheless, they cannot be blind to the fact that neoconservative policies, reaching out beyond the traditional political and financial base, have helped make the very idea of political conservatism more acceptable to a majority of American voters. Nor has it passed official notice that it is the neoconservative public policies, not the traditional Republican ones, that result in popular Republican presidencies. One of these policies, most visible and controversial, is cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth. Neocons are familiar with intellectual history and aware that it is only in the last two centuries that democracy has become a respectable option among political thinkers. In earlier times, democracy meant an inherently turbulent political regime, with the "have-nots" and the "haves" engaged in a perpetual and utterly destructive class struggle. It was only the prospect of economic growth in which everyone prospered, if not equally or simultaneously, that gave modern democracies their legitimacy and durability. The cost of this emphasis on economic growth has been an attitude toward public finance that is far less risk averse than is the case among more traditional conservatives. Neocons would prefer not to have large budget deficits, but it is in the nature of democracy--because it seems to be in the nature of human nature--that political demagogy will frequently result in economic recklessness, so that one sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth. It is a basic assumption of neoconservatism that, as a consequence of the spread of affluence among all classes, a property-owning and tax-paying population will, in time, become less vulnerable to egalitarian illusions and demagogic appeals and more sensible about the fundamentals of economic reckoning. This leads to the issue of the role of the state. Neocons do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state and are happy to study alternative ways of delivering these services. But they are impatient with the Hayekian notion that we are on "the road to serfdom." Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his "The Man Versus the State," was a historical eccentricity. People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today's America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not. Though they find much to be critical about, they tend to seek intellectual guidance in the democratic wisdom of Tocqueville, rather than in the Tory nostalgia of, say, Russell Kirk. ..."

9/12/2005 9:23:19 PM

[continued]

Quote :

"... But it is only to a degree that neocons are comfortable in modern America. The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives--though not with those libertarian conservatives who are conservative in economics but unmindful of the culture. The upshot is a quite unexpected alliance between neocons, who include a fair proportion of secular intellectuals, and religious traditionalists. They are united on issues concerning the quality of education, the relations of church and state, the regulation of pornography, and the like, all of which they regard as proper candidates for the government's attention. And since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power. Because religious conservatism is so feeble in Europe, the neoconservative potential there is correspondingly weak. AND THEN, of course, there is foreign policy, the area of American politics where neoconservatism has recently been the focus of media attention. This is surprising since there is no set of neoconservative beliefs concerning foreign policy, only a set of attitudes derived from historical experience. (The favorite neoconservative text on foreign affairs, thanks to professors Leo Strauss of Chicago and Donald Kagan of Yale, is Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War.) These attitudes can be summarized in the following "theses" (as a Marxist would say): First, patriotism is a natural and healthy sentiment and should be encouraged by both private and public institutions. Precisely because we are a nation of immigrants, this is a powerful American sentiment. Second, world government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny. International institutions that point to an ultimate world government should be regarded with the deepest suspicion. Third, statesmen should, above all, have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies. This is not as easy as it sounds, as the history of the Cold War revealed. The number of intelligent men who could not count the Soviet Union as an enemy, even though this was its own self-definition, was absolutely astonishing. Finally, for a great power, the "national interest" is not a geographical term, except for fairly prosaic matters like trade and environmental regulation. A smaller nation might appropriately feel that its national interest begins and ends at its borders, so that its foreign policy is almost always in a defensive mode. A larger nation has more extensive interests. And large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns. Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal. That is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II. That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary. Behind all this is a fact: the incredible military superiority of the United States vis-à-vis the nations of the rest of the world, in any imaginable combination. This superiority was planned by no one, and even today there are many Americans who are in denial. To a large extent, it all happened as a result of our bad luck. During the 50 years after World War II, while Europe was at peace and the Soviet Union largely relied on surrogates to do its fighting, the United States was involved in a whole series of wars: the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Kosovo conflict, the Afghan War, and the Iraq War. The result was that our military spending expanded more or less in line with our economic growth, while Europe's democracies cut back their military spending in favor of social welfare programs. The Soviet Union spent profusely but wastefully, so that its military collapsed along with its economy. Suddenly, after two decades during which "imperial decline" and "imperial overstretch" were the academic and journalistic watchwords, the United States emerged as uniquely powerful. The "magic" of compound interest over half a century had its effect on our military budget, as did the cumulative scientific and technological research of our armed forces. With power come responsibilities, whether sought or not, whether welcome or not. And it is a fact that if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you. The older, traditional elements in the Republican party have difficulty coming to terms with this new reality in foreign affairs, just as they cannot reconcile economic conservatism with social and cultural conservatism. But by one of those accidents historians ponder, our current president and his administration turn out to be quite at home in this new political environment, although it is clear they did not anticipate this role any more than their party as a whole did. As a result, neoconservatism began enjoying a second life, at a time when its obituaries were still being published. Irving Kristol is author of "Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea.""

[Edited on September 12, 2005 at 9:26 PM. Reason : part 2]

9/12/2005 9:25:18 PM

Their are basically two types of conservatives. You have traditional conservatives and social conservatives. Traditionals are pro business and favor tax cuts, minimal governent, low regulations, ect.. Social conservatives focus on morality and lifestyle and favor the establishment of social controls by government. Also note that nearly 2/3rds of the population who attend church regularly vote Republican.

Moderates are just what the name suggests. They can swing on issues, but generally favor the Republican thoughts of federalism, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, ect...

9/12/2005 9:42:17 PM