'Neocon' Becomes a Confusing Code Word

Insofar as PJB was educated by the Jesuits, it is perfectly logical to wonder about his "original intent."

As to immigration: PJB's rant at illegals is still valid, even though one may postulate that INS is at fault. Perhaps INS should also be a target of elimination by true conservatives...or at least root-and-branch reform.

However, PJB's rant about LEGAL immigration makes a point which is far more meaningful. He claims that LEGAL immigration (from Islam and Buddhist countries) is far more dangerous to the Republic based on CULTURE differences--specifically, they ain't Judaeo-Christian. This will be a significant problem, if it is not already.

Your prior-post shot at Wisconsin is well-deserved. But at least we are consistent (until quite recently.) We usually had an ultra-clean Government at all levels. Socialist-inclined, but clean.

No more. Now we have borderline criminals occupying almost every office worth naming in the State and 9% of the population up here works for Gummint (and THAT doesn't count the FedGummint workers.)

Now lemmeeesee. Does the 10th Amendment allow municipalities to secede from States??

On the other hand, it seemed to me that paleocons were people who reacted to the atrocity with almost a sense of cheerfulness, a "we had it coming" smugness--again, I point to Justin Raimondo's posts here that afternoon.

Well I guess I'm more of a paleocon and I wanted war for 9/11 as well. In fact alot of us paleocon's have been wondering why the hell we went to war in the gulf in the first place and not finish the job. Alot of us paleocons have been wondering why we told the Iraqi people to rebel and when they did, the US turned its back on them. So Saddam stayed and his support of terrorists remained in Iraq.

Havent a certain group of paleocons been complaining about illegal aliens in this country and the threat of terrorism? But the response has always been "isolationist", "paranoid", "racist" etc.. 9/11

We still have a problem with illegal aliens and our borders, we still have china and north korea to threaten us with nuclear weapons. Instead of avoiding collisions I guess we'll do things the neocon way and just crash.

If you found the article to be totally without merit why on earth are you wasting your precious time posting replies to it?

Because the imprecise, made up word, that you seem to think enhances our living language, seems always to stir a frenetic bout of name calling among people who in each case have at least some Conservative principles, but do not agree on a particular agenda, or share the same priorities.

To post something, which does not really enlighten, but very definitely stirs resentments among those whom one would like to see working together, where they do have common beliefs, is counter-productive.

While I, personally, am a straight Conservative, with no modifier required or desired, I am not just finding fault with those more moderate Conservatives, who prefer a modifier, or seek a special niche. I would also fault some of my fellow Conservatives, who go over-board in their denunciations of more moderate, recent recruits to that more moderate stance from an originally "liberal" or leftist position. Obviously, none of us can expect to win many battles carrying around a purge list, of those we find less than perfect.

There are not many areas where we can learn from our common foe. But this is surely one. Over and over again, in the mess they made of the 20th Century, different factions on the Left combined at the right moment to achieve a common objective. Oftentimes those so combining hated one another before the combination; oftentimes, they hated one another, again, after the victory. But they understood when it was tactically wise to combine forces.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

Ohioan wrote: (If you found the article to be totally without merit why on earth are you wasting your precious time posting replies to it?) Because the imprecise, made up word, that you seem to think enhances our living language, seems always to stir a frenetic bout of name calling among people who in each case have at least some Conservative principles, but do not agree on a particular agenda, or share the same priorities. To post something, which does not really enlighten, but very definitely stirs resentments among those whom one would like to see working together, where they do have common beliefs, is counter-productive. While I, personally, am a straight Conservative, with no modifier required or desired, I am not just finding fault with those more moderate Conservatives, who prefer a modifier, or seek a special niche. I would also fault some of my fellow Conservatives, who go over-board in their denunciations of more moderate, recent recruits to that more moderate stance from an originally "liberal" or leftist position. Obviously, none of us can expect to win many battles carrying around a purge list, of those we find less than perfect. There are not many areas where we can learn from our common foe. But this is surely one. Over and over again, in the mess they made of the 20th Century, different factions on the Left combined at the right moment to achieve a common objective. Oftentimes those so combining hated one another before the combination; oftentimes, they hated one another, again, after the victory. But they understood when it was tactically wise to combine forces.

Bosh!

Neo-consefvatives have been under attack recently not only by the loony paleo-con wingnuts but by the mainstream left as well.

There is much confusion about who and what are included under the neo-con umbrella.

This article helps clear up that confusion.

By the way, the purpose of language is to communicate.

New words are being added constantly and obsolete words are for all intents and purposes discarded according to the needs of society.

Today's English is vastly different from the English of Edward the Confessor, Chaucer, Shakespeare and Cotton Mather.

English is becoming the lingua franca because it is so flexible and the last thing we need is the equivalent of the Academe Francais to ossify it.

You said they "may say" they're doing it for national security, but....

But what? I didn't say they were being insincere. I said they had a very indirect (or what they might call a long-term) approach. Iraq is a bad example to examine, because there was a direct national-security aspect to the conflict (or at least so there seemed). But there are highly influential conservatives - whom I and others identify as being of the "neo" variety - who've openly stated that regime change in many other places is a desirable goal even when the connection to national security is much less direct than it was in Iraq. Note that in no sense am I accusing them of being insincere or misrepresenting their views.

I take it this means you disagreed with some other anti-"neocon" posters on this thread, who dislike "neocons" partially because, in their eyes, their evangelism lessens their zeal for fighting socialism at home.

Uh, no, I don't disagree with them. In fact, I made the same point on this thread. There's beliefs, and then there's commitment to those beliefs. That they're still conservative doesn't necessarily mean they push the fight against socialism with the same fervor as those who don't share their globalist ideology. So they're conservative in that they're decidedly not liberal, which was my point about Wilson and Clinton. As I see it (and this is just my take - you can take it or leave it), they've transferred their liberal inclinations to the international sphere. The general paleo criticism of their position (which I share) is that when nations become imperialistic abroad, even for "good" reasons, they tend to become less free at home.

Again, how'm I supposed to tell whether a conservative hawk is a "neocon" without consulting your opinion about the situation in question? (Even if he says he's hawkish for national security reasons, that may not be enough. He may only be saying it after all, and secretly just wants to MTWSFD...)

We're back to the business of me allegedly imputing secret motives to their stated beliefs, which I have not done. I wouldn't really know how to identify a closet neocon. I only know how to identify open ones. Look for "brother's keeper" type of arguments. And signs of being a conservative otherwise.

I didn't say they were being insincere. I said they had a very indirect (or what they might call a long-term) approach.

Ok, great. So, they say that they advocate their positions for nat'l security reasons. And you believe them. You just think their reasoning is "long term". But, that's not relevant to the question of whether they're (a) nat'l security hawks or (b) democracy evangelists, now is it? Whether they're short or long term, they're still nat'l security hawks, because that's what they say they are, and you don't doubt them. So uh but then what pray tell is the difference between them and other, Regular conservatives?

The time-scales involved in the foreign policy strategizing? is that all?

But there are highly influential conservatives - whom I and others identify as being of the "neo" variety - who've openly stated that regime change in many other places is a desirable goal even when the connection to national security is much less direct than it was in Iraq.

Direct, to whom? To you? Or them?

If the connection with national security is direct to them (the so-called neo-cons), and this informs their opinion, then they are (drumroll) hawks. The only difference between you and they is that they think doing X is more directly related to national security than you do. You have a fundamental disagreement with them about the facts of the matter, not about ideology. (And instead of arguing with them on the facts - whether doing X is in the national interest - you dress up the whole thing as some kind of ideological difference - "you're all neocons")

[do you disagree w/anti-neocons who complain that neocons don't fight socialism] Uh, no, I don't disagree with them. In fact, I made the same point on this thread.

Ok, then well you lied or erred when you stated that neocons were just like other cons in all things. And as a result, my assertion that people like Bill Clinton fit your definition of "neocon" stands unchallenged.

Is anyone else you can name besides Clinton, Blair, and xxxxxtz a "neocon"? (a real neocon, not a phony one like George Will)

So they're conservative in that they're decidedly not liberal, which was my point about Wilson and Clinton.

Liberal (I assume you mean "leftist") is as liberal does. Clinton signed welfare reform, maybe he's not so "liberal" after all, maybe he's just one of these "neocons" you're talking about. Like I said.

As I see it (and this is just my take - you can take it or leave it), they've transferred their liberal [leftist] inclinations to the international sphere.

Possibly, so Clinton still stands as our #1 "neocon" example. I'm with you.

The general paleo criticism of their position (which I share) is that when nations become imperialistic abroad, even for "good" reasons, they tend to become less free at home.

Perhaps. This isn't a criticism of much of anything said by people like Krauthammer or Rush Limbaugh or George Will however, since they don't advocate "becoming imperialistic abroad" in the first place. (You can try to parody their views in this way, but your saying it doesn't make it so.) I guess they're not "neocons" after all then. But perhaps more purely democracy-evangelist/anti-national-interest types like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair are, why not direct your ire (and "neocon" label) at them? By your description of the term, it fits them much better.

We're back to the business of me allegedly imputing secret motives to their stated beliefs, which I have not done.

Au contraire. You said they had a passionate belief in MTWSFD, that indeed this was the salient characteristic of the neocon. So unless/until you dig up that old Krauthammer column in which he says "I have a passionate belief in MTWSFD", you do seem to have divined a motive in him which is, as of now, hidden to the rest of us laypersons. "Secret", if you will.

I only know how to identify open ones.

Not really. You bogusly identified Krauthammer as one and meanwhile a true "neocon" (by your def.), Bill Clinton, has been staring you in the face for eight years.

> Do not for a moment indulge the fantasy that ANYONE involved in the Rockford Institute is describable as libertarian.

Well, now, I didn't, did I? I've said over and over that the libertarians are libertarians and should not be lumped under the false label of paleo-cons. I'm not the one lumping Tom Fleming at Rockford with Lew Rockwell at Auburn; they have very different views. I don't think any of them should be tarred with this "paleo-con" brush.

I have argued only two things: that we should use the old labels (if any), in which paleo-con should be a badge of honor -- a Goldwater conservative, one of those early ones before the neo-cons arrived. Certainly we should not adopt a second set of definitions at odds with the first, such as the blast offered by David Frum. It causes only confusion. Witness this thread.

What then would be left to call the veteran members of the conservative movement who built it all? They are not neo-cons and the "paleo-con" as you use it is purely pejorative. What shall we call Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Bill Buckley? This usage will not do.

My other point was not to shoot to the rear. There are socialist targets enough for all. We don't need to echo the not-so-impartial David Frum's attacks on people who don't agree with every jot and tittle of the neo-con Party Line. Conservatism doesn't have a party line -- we tolerate many other opinions so long as they don't get into kissing the Pharaoh's toes and crusading against Western civilization.

In his article, Mr. Frum mentioned being at a meeting of the Philadelphia Society some years ago when the neo-cons were invited to meet with us paleos to discuss our differences and common interests. That is imo the most distinguished mainline conservative scholarly group. The present director of that group and others who were present that day, including me, were unanimously of the view that Frum offered a flawed and biased account of it. The current issue of NR indicates that it is being flooded with responses. I'm sure they'll have plenty of support, but I'll bet some of NR's old guard readers -- the true paleo-cons -- are furious.

If you wish to continue your attacks Tom Fleming or Sam Francis or Lew Rockwell or Joe Sobran, take it to them, not to me. All four are exceptionally intelligent men and they can defend their diverse views. Free Republic is no place for personal attacks.

And when Whittaker Chambers writes an reflective essay explaining why he is not a conservative, it not your place or anyone's to contradict him and announce that he was too a conservative.

> Fleming is a neo-isolationist jackass who is all mouth and no action.

Then why keep attacking him with such anger? He has practically no influence on conservative thinking; never did. Forget him.

> Does Llewellyn Rockwell take Ludwig von Mises's name in vain to establish non-existent credentials of Rockwell?

Now, cut that out. Lew was my successor in a senior editor position in 1969. His credentials are lengthy and excellent. I think he's done a great job with the Mises Institute. We do not always agree, but then, we're not required to, are we? He's a staunch defender of liberty and I approve the hell out of that. The libertarian spirit has an essential, enduring and honored role in the conservative view.

> Again, go to chronicles.com and read the insanity.

Why?? If it's insane, it's the last thing anyone should read. Tiptoe away and read something uplifting and enlightening.

> Conservatives must respond in kind and oppose "paleo-conservatism" and its adherents who wish to hijack the good name of the movement.

Oh, c'mon, every one of these guys has been out in the open for decades. They did not suddenly join forces two weeks ago in a conspiracy to highjack the conservative movement. They are, like all of us, selling their views in the free market of ideas. Not many sales, huh? If you don't like them, fine, don't buy. If you think some are eccentric, or nuts, or cranks, fine, the market will take care of it. But shoot forward.

But, that's not relevant to the question of whether they're (a) nat'l security hawks or (b) democracy evangelists, now is it?

Yes it is. I really have no idea whether they believe that the fight to spread righteousness around the world will improve our national security. Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't. I'll take them at their word that they do (if they claim such). The fact remains, it's a highly different approach to the matter than going after people who are either attacking us or are in a good position to attack us and have shown every motive for doing so. The difference is analogous to a cop who makes arrests based on the overall character of the arrestee, and one who makes arrests based on probable cause.

Ok, then well you lied or erred when you stated that neocons were just like other cons in all things.

If you want to say I erred then have at it. Personally I think you're engaging in a pointless semantic game. They come across as conservatives. Many conservatives, paleo- or otherwise, would have a lot of common ground with them (in that, among other things, we're all attracted to FR). I think you understand perfectly well what I'm saying but are trying to throw a monkey wrench into it for the sake of doing so.

I really have no idea whether they believe that the fight to spread righteousness around the world will improve our national security.

They are not "fighting to" spread righteousness around the world in the first place. They are trying to improve our national security. So they say. And you said you didn't doubt their sincerity (remember?). The fact, or possibility, or assertion, that in the process of trying to improve our national security righteousness ends up being spread around the world doesn't mean spreading righteousness around the world per se is their goal. I think you're more than smart enough to understand this.

The fact remains, it's a highly different approach to the matter

Different approach? Sure. They're strategizing more "long term", and all that. But so what? They're hawks, you're a hawk, they have a different way of going about "hawk"ing than you on certain matters (perhaps, I don't know much about your approach on anything, and it's not that important). Again, you're arguing about strategy, not motives. Can't you argue against policy proposal X on its own terms, without making reference to confusing, ill-understood political labels?

The difference is analogous to a cop who makes arrests based on the overall character of the arrestee, and one who makes arrests based on probable cause.

I'll have to take your word for it. I don't really know who you're talking about, or what view; and similarly I don't know what your alternative view is. Is this Iraq you're talking about? I just can't tell, it's a little fuzzy.

Personally I think you're engaging in a pointless semantic game.

That makes two of us. ;-)

It bears emphasizing, however, that we are engaging in a discussion underneath an article entitled "'Neocon' Becomes a Confusing Code Word". In this context semantics certainly is not irrelevant. And if nothing else, I think that the thesis of the article has been substantiated.

I'm sure there are still people who think of themselves as "neocons", and I'm sure there are (perhaps other) people who have ideas influenced by or similar to the original "neocons" and therefore can be called accurately by the term. I just have no real idea who these people are, apart from the few obvious ones (mostly they have a name of the format XXXXXXXXtz, far as I can tell). Neither, for that matter, do 99% of the people who use the term "neocon". Take a look at this article, which was posted on FR. It's a kind of pseudo film review in which some leftist writer onanistically derives comforting political lessons from the action movie X-Men 2. It contains the following sentences:

It’s just that the stunningly quick defeat of the Iraqi regime has amplified the neoconservative voice and made the protestors seem congenitally weak. [..] In a country where people deplete Home Depot of duct tape for fragile Homeland Security, the neocon call for war has struck a more resonant note as a form of patriotism than the liberal call for peace.

Those are the only two occurrences of "neoconservative" or "neocon" in the whole thing, and there is no background, context, or explanation about what a "neocon" is. Now please, in all honesty, can you really tell me with a straight face that this usage of "neocon" is correct? What does the guy even mean by it? Is it at all clear what is meant? Does he mean anything different from "conservative hawk"? And, what percentage of the MSNBC.COM readership is likely to read the word with the understanding that you have of it (or, think you have)? Conversely, what percentage is likely to read the term as "conservative hawk" (or, in many cases, "Bad Sinister Scary People")?

I remember a time, about ten years ago, when it was far more common to see the phrase "arch-conservative". How, exactly, the sequence of letters "arch" was supposed to modify "conservative", I could never figure out. All I knew was that Robert Bork or Ronald Reagan or Pat Buchanan or whoever was an "arch-conservative". Not just a conservative mind you but an "arch-conservative"! It soon became obvious to me that leftists put that "arch" in there for no other reason than that it sounds scarier. After all, we have "arch-villains", and those are scary, so "arch-conservatives" must be scary too, right? ;-) Well, nowadays, as other posters have pointed out, there are "neo-Nazis", so "neo-conservatives" must be something in the same vein.

Admit it: that will be the connotation for most people, and that's the intent of many who use the term.

"Neo-conservative" has become little more than the new "arch-conservative", for many. Your understanding may be stellar and clear as crystal (though I still don't get why you don't think Clinton's a "neocon", by your terms), but it does not contribute positively to everyday political debate.

Which is what the article points out and explains quite well.

Admit it: that will be the connotation for most people, and that's the intent of many who use the term.

Like I said, most people don't even see the term. It doesn't show up on CNN, or NBC Nightly News, or the New York Times front page. To the extent that it's used by liberals at all, it's pretty much only used by trendy liberals as a code word among themselves, which may or may not have a different meaning than what's understood by conservatives.

The reason it's unlikely that most people even will see the term, is that by using it in the way that you say they're using it - that is, to create the impression of a sinister strain of conservatism - they'd be implying that there's a such a thing as respectable conservatism, which I'm sure they don't want to do. Personally, it sounds to me like nothing more than an expression of sour grapes on the part of frustrated liberals. Let 'em indulge in it. It'll only make them look more foolish.

As for "arch-conservative", though it may be a somewhat childish term, it has a very clear meaning: someone who's considerably more conservative than those in the mainstream of American politics, and who usually lets the world know it. "Neoconservative" isn't likely to replace it.

And in any case, neither liberals nor conservatives are mistaking Bill Clinton for a neocon, so the objection you raised on that score is still as specious as it ever was.

To the extent that it's used by liberals at all, it's pretty much only used by trendy liberals as a code word among themselves

glad we all agree then, finally

is that by using it in the way that you say they're using it - that is, to create the impression of a sinister strain of conservatism - they'd be implying that there's a such a thing as respectable conservatism, which I'm sure they don't want to do

this explanation doesn't bear scrutiny, given the popularity of "arch-conservative". perhaps you just credit leftists with more thought than they're capable of ;-)

Let 'em indulge in it. It'll only make them look more foolish.

only if we ACTUALLY POINT OUT how bogus the term is. as long as there are people willing to pretend the term actually makes sense, the folly goes unnoticed

[arch-conservative] "Neoconservative" isn't likely to replace it.

already has. you make the mistake of thinking that any appreciable number of people use either term according to its actual definition. they don't. (which is my point, and the author's)

neither liberals nor conservatives are mistaking Bill Clinton for a neocon

p'rhaps they should, if they thought about the term as you've explained it

the objection you raised on that score is still as specious as it ever was

for the record - how's Bill Clinton not a neocon?

you can't say "because he's domestically 'liberal' [=leftist]". remember: that's no evidence of not being a "neocon". in fact, it's sympotatic of being a "neocon". you said so y'rself

P.S. By the way, I just want to make clear: I'm not calling Bill Clinton a "neocon" just to make a rhetorical point. I actually do sincerely believe he fits the definition -- at least
(1) according to the least incoherent definitions I've seen (there's no such thing as a coherent definition..), and
(2) if I'm supposed to agree with the "neocon" users' protests that it has nothing to do with anti-Semitism (which is a big "if" but I'm willing to assume it for the sake of argument), so that "neocons" aren't necessarily "Jews and their lackeys" per se

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.