Does anyone have a clear summary of what neocons think? I am so confused.

3

I have my politics notes for conservatism split into 5 sections: all strands of conservatism, traditional + one-nation conservatism, traditional conservatism, one-nation conservatism and new-right conservatism. However, it's very difficult to figure out what exactly should go in the first 2 as the beliefs of neoconservatives (who are part of the new-right) often overlap with what both traditional and one-nation conservatives think. For example, in my textbook it says traditional + one nation conservatives believe in human imperfection, whereas the new-right believes in the rationality of humans. However, I am pretty sure neoconservatives also believe in human imperfection, or else they would not want the law to be strictly enforced to deter people from committing crimes. Such a view usually correlates with seeing humankind as innately selfish and thus incapable of achieving moral perfection.

Also, do I have to explicitly make a distinction between the strands within the new-right when I'm talking about something that all conservatives agree on, or will the examiner know that I am obviously referring to neoconservatives, since what I am saying clearly does not apply to neoliberals?

Reply 1

penvira

5

Basically with moral imperfection, neoconservatives think people are morally flawed, so not necessarily evil, but often to making bad choices.
This means that they push for strict law and order (to stop people from acting selfishly and destructively and traditional values (like family, religion, patriotism) to guide people’s behaviour- so similar to traditional
But, unlike traditional cons, they don’t think people are irrational or totally dependent- people can be responsible only if there’s strong moral leadership and social discipline (more about keeping them in line?)

•

Traditional cons: people are flawed in lots of ways (emotionally, intellectually, morally), so we need stability, tradition, and gradual change.

•

Neocons: people are mostly capable, but morally weak, so we need clear rules, authority, and strong leadership to keep them on track.

I would suggest that if you talk about neocons mention them within the new right if that makes sense? (e.g. this contrasts with some new right ideas like... for example neoconservatives argue that...) But honestly, I never really mention them, I sometimes talk about atomism and the thinkers but its pretty simple without it (i get like 18-22/24) and you dont have to do the mental loops because they can be confusing. Hope this helps!

Reply 2

notes100

OP

3

Original post

by penvira

Basically with moral imperfection, neoconservatives think people are morally flawed, so not necessarily evil, but often to making bad choices.
This means that they push for strict law and order (to stop people from acting selfishly and destructively and traditional values (like family, religion, patriotism) to guide people’s behaviour- so similar to traditional
But, unlike traditional cons, they don’t think people are irrational or totally dependent- people can be responsible only if there’s strong moral leadership and social discipline (more about keeping them in line?)

•

Traditional cons: people are flawed in lots of ways (emotionally, intellectually, morally), so we need stability, tradition, and gradual change.

•

Neocons: people are mostly capable, but morally weak, so we need clear rules, authority, and strong leadership to keep them on track.

I would suggest that if you talk about neocons mention them within the new right if that makes sense? (e.g. this contrasts with some new right ideas like... for example neoconservatives argue that...) But honestly, I never really mention them, I sometimes talk about atomism and the thinkers but its pretty simple without it (i get like 18-22/24) and you dont have to do the mental loops because they can be confusing. Hope this helps!

If I am answering a socialism question (Edexcel spec), can I just use the term ‘Revolutionary socialists’ to cover all forms of Marxism and Communism or will the examiner punish me for being too vague?

Reply 3

penvira

5

Original post

by notes100

If I am answering a socialism question (Edexcel spec), can I just use the term ‘Revolutionary socialists’ to cover all forms of Marxism and Communism or will the examiner punish me for being too vague?

No definitely not- I would probably talk about the revolutionary socialists and then if referencing Marx i might add the idea of 'marxism' with his ideas specifically if that makes sense?

Does anyone have a clear summary of what neocons think? I am so confused.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Articles for you

How The Student Room is moderated