Earlier terms like “interventionist,” “internationalist,” and “isolationism” were similarly imprecise, everybody recognizes that there are some situations where one has to intervene.
“Capitalist,” “socialist,” and “Marxist” are likewise imprecise terms. Pelosi says she’s a capitalist, and her husband certainly is, but some people call her a socialist or a Marxist.
We are involved with the rest of the world and can’t avoid that, but some interventions go too far and are unwise. Neocons supported most of those, so the term, though overused, still has meaning and is appropriate in many cases.
Capitalism is an economic system. As is socialism. Communism is socialism on steroids, and is international (at least in theory); nazism is socialism, but with a national focus, and snappier uniforms.
Nancy Pelosi is very much an economic capitalist on a personal level, but is a socialist with other people’s money as long as it inures to her benefit. Thus, while she is not an economic Marxist, she is very much a POLITICAL Marxist.
“We are involved with the rest of the world and can’t avoid that...”
Of course.
“...but some interventions go too far and are unwise.”
Yes, but that is dependent upon one’s perspective.
“Neocons supported most of those, so the term, though overused, still has meaning and is appropriate in many cases.”
No, it’s not; because it is a broad-brush application. Now, if you had said SOME “neocons” instead of the blanket “neocons” your statement might have some credibility. There is no organization known as “neocon;” there is no recognized and accepted hierarchy that speaks for the body. There is no consensus of belief among them, as the critical element of intervention is situational; and while it may apply to some “neocons” at any given moment it does NOT apply to others. You see, the term “neocon” has become a throwaway term to denigrate one’s political opponent. It was originally trotted out by the American anti-war left to describe Democrats who were “hawkish” in foreign affairs.