Posted on 04/10/2008 1:09:09 PM PDT by Jbny
I know there are a few competing priorities, but at this moment in our long life as a nation I can think of no more urgent task for Congress than to pass emergency legislation banning the further use of the word “neocon.” At least until a committee of deep thinkers can get together to agree on a commonly accepted definition. (A starting point may be the Robert Kagan essay I referred to in an earlier posting.) Until that happens, its use will only continue to muddy and obfuscate the debate over otherwise important issues.
Exhibit 2,348,485 of this terminological confusion may be found on today’s front page of the New York Times.
(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...
I consider myself a neo-con. I bet a lot of people on here do.
To answer all of the questions that Max Boot posed about Elizabeth Bumiller and Larry Rohter of the NYT:
Dude...they call themselves “progressives.”
Does that answer your questions?
I’m sure a lot of Freepers here do call themselves neocons, but I don’t. If anything, I think I’m more of a paleocon. Or, a paleoconitarian, to throw in some of my libertarian leanings.
I know my handle says Republitarian, but the neocon and Dem-lite Republicans have been disappointing me.
"Neo-conservative" is what protectionists, Troofers, tinfoilers, Birchites, Paulestinians, goldbugs, Klansmen and all the other various kook groups trying to usurp the conservative movement call actual conservatives.
Neoconservative is what Neoconservatives use to describe themselves. It’s not a name imposed by political opponents, although they abuse it. The definition is foggy, but neocons of the first generation were anti-Soviet liberals of the 1940’s-60’s who turned right-wing during the cold war (hence the Neo)... today it basically means a hawkish, pro-Defense interventionist, cConservative or Moderate. Because many prominent Neoconservatives are Jewish, the kooks and the left use “Neocon” to describe any Right-wing Jew or pro-Israeli politician.
No, “neoconservatives” is what they call themselves. On the masthead of the magazine that published Mr. Boot’s article. You really shouldn’t say such unkind things about Mr. Kristol and his freedom-loving friends.
Neo-con - see also Big Government Republican.
According to the NYT, the leader of the Neocons is Emmanuel Goldstein.
He is supposedly the author of a terrible book, a compendium of all the heresies, of which Goldstein is the author and which circulated clandestinely here and there. It is a book without a title. Liberals refer to it, if at all, simply as The Book.
There are suspicions that Emmanuel Goldstein is just a pen name for Ann Coulter, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney or David Horowitz.
“see also Big Government Republican.”
Yep. That ain’t me.
Frontpage describes neo con as an antiword since its purpose is to obscure meaning and intent.
That specific group called themselves neo-conservatives because they were literally new to the conservative movement and they brought with them a unique knowledge of the "other side" as disenchanted leftists.
Being raised a conservative and therefore never having undergone such a personal transformation, the title doesn't really apply to me.
You really shouldn’t say such unkind things about Mr. Kristol and his freedom-loving friends.
I haven't said anything unkind about them at all.
I have pointed out that the name of their group has been turned into a blanket pejorative by faux-conservative fringe types with ugly prejudices and sinister motives.
Im more of a con-neo
“Neo Conservatives use the term neo conservative. The Paleo Cons such as Buchanan and Taki use the term neo con as a shorthand for dirty Jew.”
When you have no argument just shout RACIST. Long standing liberal tactic.
The best definition of neocon is those who sent too few troops to Iraq.
Most of our elected officials, the White House and some here on FR are Neo-Liberalists.
Anti-Semite actually describes Pat Buchanan quite well.
Kristol (arguably one of the neoconservative mouthpieces) advocated since years more troops for Iraq. That’s why he loudly supported McCain or Lieberman over Rumsfeld.
Not exactly but it’s just easier to keep saying that than actually explore the truth.
I have been expecting war with Saddam since before most people were aware of him, and I supported Bush Jr. in part because reading between the lines of some of his remarks before the election, I believed he intended to take care of unfinished business there.
When the Towers fell, one of the first things I wrote was to assert that getting Bin Ladin wasn’t enough, we needed to finish Saddam as well.
Nothing has happened in the years since to change my mind about any of this.
If I’m a conservative, neo-conservative, classic liberal, neo-classic liberal, or a paleo-classic liberal doesn’t interest me particularly. In my mind I’m a Lockean Burkean, and I’m convinced Saddam needed to go.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.