[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

I never said that the Contras were
good, I said that the author's article is laughable. He's too one-sided.

You're right. We should see the pleasant side to hired killers, such
as "opening up elections." I mean, democracy has a price, right? In
this case, it tended to be innocent people and their families. But
ya know the old saying, can't make an omlette.....

I never said they didn't oppose each other. I said that they aren't
polar opposites.

And what I said..ugh...is that in this country, confined within a two-party structure, they in fact do. I also said that Reagan and FDR symbolize that fundamental divide. They were, in essence, the physical products of the "great debate." NOTE: I realize there is a lot of gray matter betwen both of these men, and I do not dispute you on that. My point before however was that you can't dismiss the "polar" concept merely b/c they were both "interventionists." To do that, you would have to create a strict definition of what conservatism really is, which as I tried to display in my misunderstood Metternich/Neo-cons example, is quite difficult to do.

Neocons are not only typified by being war hawks, but also by
stronger support for social welfare programs (though still far less
than the left). They also tend to be stronger in their advocation
for government involvement in the preservation of moral standards
than their predecessors.

Metternich, and other CONSERVATIVES, believed in the aristocratic responsibility to aid others, and do charitable deeds. Some have called FDR (OH NO!) "conservative" in the way he, being a well-to-do aristocrat, took on public service to aid the lesser man (Your head is about to come off, I know). This example (the Metternich one) wasn't supposed to be so much about neo-cons, as it was to be about the ambiguity of conservatism itself. Afterall, you're very right about what you've said of neo-conservatism, but you also missed my point. I'm not saying the label neo-con came out of 18th and 19th century conservative movements. I'm saying the very ambiguity of "neo-conservatism" (the label in itself a sort of oxymoron) leads us back to your point about FDR and Reagan. What is a conservative, OAO?

And besides, Irving Kristol is considered the founder of
neoconservatism.

And....?