Posted on 05/03/2003 8:44:59 AM PDT by quidnunc
No, you make the mistake of not reading my posts. I said that the leftist definition "may or may not have a different meaning than what's understood by conservatives." Personally, I don't care whether it does. Their use of it, if it becomes widely used, will either a) make them look like idiots, or b) create the impression among the general public that there's such a thing as respectable conservatism, or c) both.
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
Only if you assume that being insufficiently committed to conservative causes at home, is the same as being a leftist. You can pretend that that's what I'm saying, but it'll only make it clearer that you're just being difficult for the sake of being difficult.
Fair enough prediction of likely effects, I s'pose. Regardless, I'd still like to see the term's meaning clarified so that it's not used as bogus a manner as it is currently by so many. Hence my appreciation for articles such as above
[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] Only if you assume that being insufficiently committed to conservative causes at home, is the same as being a leftist.
Is this your explanation for why Clinton is not a "neocon", or is there more to it? Because I really don't understand it.
I do not assert that the statement "being insufficiently committed to conservative causes at home, is the same as being a leftist" is true, for the record. At the same time, I do assert that IMHO Bill Clinton was insufficiently committed (but not wholly uncommitted mind you - cf. welfare reform, "school uniforms") to conservative causes at home. His signing of a tax increase, for example, betrayed a depressing lack of commitment to one of the core tenets of conservatism. I assume you agree.
That all being settled then, how is Clinton not a "neocon"?
P.S. I can not believe that I actually spelled "symptomatic" that way!! ;-)
He pursued liberal policies, displays liberal attitudes, shows no inclination to consider himself a conservative, does not seek their company in politics, and they don't seek his. He is, by any commonsensical understanding, not a conservative, and therefore not a neoconservative.
tell me about it, isn't that just like a damn neocon? their evangelical zeal makes them so prone to all sorts of leftist crap
The two "conservative" things that he's most remembered for - the balanced budget and welfare reform - were forced on him by a Republican Congress.
which just shows how we gotta keep on top of these neocons, if we're to accomplish anything. now i see your point, why you're so keen on emphasizing their distinctness
He pursued liberal policies, displays liberal attitudes, shows no inclination to consider himself a conservative,
comme les neocons
does not seek their company in politics,
sure he does, he's a "new Democrat", a "centrist" one. it's only those extreme arch-conservatives he had to stand up to...
you might have a point though, in the end he didn't gain many conservative allies, maybe this was simply a mistake on his part. maybe he really should have built more bridges to conservatives, being such a neocon and all. especially neo conservatives like Bill Kristol, who, ipso facto, would have been more than willing to work with him on their common democracy-evangelist goals. the down side is that this wouldn't have worked unless more conservatives realized he was a neocon they could work with .. which most don't, evidently
and they don't seek his.
maybe we should've, he may not be a conservative but at least he's a neocon. remember: he got welfare reform passed! he also bombed that baddie Saddam several times. that's a start
He is, by any commonsensical understanding, not a conservative, and therefore not a neoconservative.
but but c'mon, as i understand, neocons (like Clinton) aren't actually very conservative, either domestically (lax on socialism) or internationally (not true to isolationist "trade with all, alliances with none" roots of conservatism), isn't that the whole point of this exercise?
if neocons are cons then no need for word neocon
Clinton acts every bit like you've explained to me a neocon would: soft socialist domestically, adventurist internationally. how'm I s'posed to tell the difference then, except by reading the guy's mind? (i.e. to discover that while he's acting like such a neocon he's thinking "i'm a leftist" and "hooray for Che Guevara" all the time)
confusing code word. funny how you cling to it so. do you really need it that much? are you simply unable to talk politics, state your point of view, and counter the arguments of those with whom you have disagreements, without it?
That is ever so sad.
P.S. for the record: current, complete, confirmed list of neocons. 1. Norman Podhoretz 2. Irving Kristol 3. David Horowitz
let me know if/when you're ever able to think of any more, cuz I'd like to know just how deep this conspiracy goes. it's so important!!
No. And if you can't see it, then there's not much more I can do to help you. Most people, when struggling with the word neoconservative, have trouble with the "neo" part. You seem to be having trouble with the "conservative" part. For my part, I simply find it very hard to believe that you honestly can't distinguish between the pushing of socialist policies, and insufficient or distracted opposition to socialist policies.
Right, cuz in practice it doesn't actually seem to mean "neo" (new). Instead, what it seems to mean is "hawkish in a way which causes folks like inquest to disagree with their strategical thinking about national security". Of course this is confusing. How could it not be? That's been my point, this whole time.
You seem to be having trouble with the "conservative" part.
Well, I'll admit, I guess I don't understand - from your scanty description of "neoconservatives" - just exactly why you think they're conservative, and about what. You don't think their foreign policy is "really" conservative and you don't like their domestic policy either (if they have one, it's not clear to me that they actually think about domestic politics or have a coherent, well-defined stand on domestic policy). What does that leave?
For my part, I simply find it very hard to believe that you honestly can't distinguish between the pushing of socialist policies, and insufficient or distracted opposition to socialist policies.
I can distinguish, I suppose, but it's only a matter of degree, not of kind. Let's call Clinton an extreme neocon then, because not only did he fail to resist socialist policies, he pushed some of 'em.
But what this all goes to show is just how gosh darn useful the word "neoconservative" is. Quite! Why, political debate just wouldn't be the same without it. It is ever so illuminating.
neocons to date:
Podhoretz, I. Kristol, Horowitz.
too neocon to be neocon:
Clinton
Ping me someday if you actually come up with any additions. Meanwhile I'll keep a keen eye on the 3 true neocons we know about. Best,
No, it's a difference of kind, not of degree. It's the difference between pushing in one direction, and pushing in the opposite direction. If that to you doesn't constitute a difference of kind, then it's an absolute wonder that you can make sense out of anything at all in the world around you.
You know, the difference between blue and red is just a difference of wavelength. Sheesh.
But as I understand 'neocons' they don't push in the opposite direction (of socialism), and that's your beef (or one of your beefs) w/em in the first place.
If they do, as you insist, push in the opposite direction, then I would have to call them "conservatives" and we're back to the original dilemma: I see no real way to distinguish between a "conservative" and a (wide sense) "neo-conservative" other than to consult you, inquest, to discover whether you approve of their position on such-and-such foreign policy thingie.
Which is really what "neocon" boils down to. Admit it.
Here's what's really going on. You have a genuine, sincere disagreement with a bloc of people in the conservative camp about the wisdom of doing something.
They: think doing X is a good and direct way to improve nat'l security.
You: don't, you think it's roundabout or "indirect" and too fuzzily long-term for you, and perhaps you have other problems with it.
My problem with you is, instead of actually engaging in and continuing that argument (which would be perfectly fair and acceptable), you're trying to bypass that argument by dressing it up as something different. You're trying to pretend that the argument is really something else altogether, along these lines:
They: "passionately want to Make The World Safe For Democracy", and (perhaps) are a little too infatuated with a certain foreign country which shall remain nameless. They're "neo-conservatives".
You: think that by golly that's all just wrong and counter to the wonderful traditions of our country. "Conservatives" shouldn't allow themselves to be fooled by these "neo-conservatives", they're "not really conservative".
Now, I can certainly see why you'd rather engage in the latter argument than the former. I would too. It's much simpler, and you don't even need any facts. The problem is, if I go and consult Them and show Them what you're saying They are saying, most of Them wouldn't recognize your caricature of Their position.
Know why? Cuz it's a straw-man. You've reduced their position to a cartoon for your convenience, and the word "neo-conservative" is so crucial to you here because it's the semantic trickery by which you think you'll be able to pull it all off. (Because practically nobody actually knows just what the hell it really means.)
What's interesting is that this all betrays a certain lack of confidence on your part in your own positions, whatever they may be. If you felt confident you could argue your positions without the crutch of "identifying the neo-con influence on conservatism", you wouldn't be so desperate to cling to the term. You'd just say what's wrong with doing X, and why.
Apparently, you can't, or don't think that you can, without reference to the term "neocon", and in particular calling various unsuspecting people "neocons" at your leisure. That's truly sad.
Sure they do. It's just been my complaint that they don't push hard enough. And even then, I didn't say it was a defining characteristic, and it may not even apply to all of them. It's just an observation I've made. You don't even have to accept it if you don't want to, since it's not critical to the definition of the word.
The rest of your post is just your typical psychologizing of the type you accuse me of.
Which, for the record, is
conservative hawks who are hawkish in a way which causes folks like inquest to disagree with their strategical thinking about national security
I'm glad that after 300 posts you've been able to clarify the meaning of "neo-conservative" to such an amazingly unambiguous extent.
The rest of your post is just your typical psychologizing of the type you accuse me of.
Well, granted there's some psychologizing in there - speculation about why you insist on attacking a straw man. The important point, however, is that you're attacking a straw man ("they've a passionate belief in MTWSFD"). Just why you insist on doing so is, indeed, something only you can truly explain.
Explain, in objective and clear terms, how to tell with reasonable certainty whether someone is a "neocon", without asking you.
Frankly, I don't even know whether or not I'm a "neocon"; I've never thought of myself as one, and still don't, but I do tend to agree with many so-called (by some) "neocons" about certain things. The problem is that you never clarified whether merely agreeing with "neocons" on substantive policy issues was enough to be a "neocon" or whether that Passionate Belief In MTWSFD was necessary too (my "thought experiment" of #189). Also, I suspect (though I'm not sure) that most of the "neocons" you've listed are unaware, themselves, of being "neocons". So, clearly even you'd agree that the definition of the word is a little fuzzy and occult, but furthermore, you seem to hold the key. Won't you shed light on this mystery?
The Most Concise Definition you've been able to give was in #237. In addition to being conservatives, and hawks, "neocons" seem to satisfy the following:
Paleos, to the extent that they get hawkish, do so against people that they perceive as a more or less direct threat to our country ... Neocons get hawkish in order to make things better in other countries. They may say that doing so will ultimately advance our national security as well, but it seems a rather indirect relationship (at least from my paleocon perspective).
One problem with this definition is that it's really all about you. It's little more than an autobiographical statement on your part. There's no way to find out, from this statement, whether someone's a "neocon" without consulting you to see whether you think that policy proposal X is "directly" or "indirectly" related to national security. (It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, especially the accused "neocon" in question, because even if he thinks X is Directly related to national security, you might not, and that's what really counts.)
Another problem with this definition is that it's either (1) vacuous or (2) involves a straw man.
Why vacuous? (1) If a "neocon" is someone who truly takes hawkish positions not because they perceive Direct threats but namely because they want to "make things better in other countries", I'm honestly not sure that there are any "neocons" in the world to begin with. Who the hell is more hawkish (or, exclusively hawkish?) to Make Things Better In Other Countries as against perceived direct threats? Perhaps no one. I ventured "Clinton", but evidently he is disqualified on other grounds. So who is a "neocon"? Anyone?
(2) Well, uh, "Charles Krauthammer", you answer. "Jeff Jacoby". Fine, so it is demonstrated by brute force that there are "neocons", because you insist that these guys are, so there. The problem there is, you gave a definition, and you also gave an example. Thereby implying, without proof, that your example fits the definition. In other words, there's an implicit assertion in here that whatever "neocons" you decide to list for whatever reason, are Not Hawkish Against Perceived Direct Threats But For Philanthropy. But that's a straw man. Krauthammer is Not Hawkish Against Perceived Direct Threats But For Philanthropy? Says who?? You??? But where's the argument, did I miss the part where you actually showed, objectively, why Krauthammer's advocated position X is only Indirectly related to national security?
No, I didn't miss it, because you never offered it. You didn't even think it was necessary; it was sufficient for you to tell me how the supposed "neocon" position "seems", to you. This once again just shows that the definition boils down to you, and your subjective take on whether X is Directly or Indirectly related to national security.
But, you see, that's not helpful. I don't care about you or your opinions about this or that policy proposal; whatever policy disagreement you may have with George Will does not necessarily interest me even if you cartoonize his position and then dress it all up as a deep ideological dispute so you can short-circuit that whole "argument" part. I am simply trying to understand what - I am assured by you - is a very "handy" political term (despite the fact that everyone uses it differently and no one really understands it). And as things stand I see no real way to do that without simply consulting you for your opinion all the time (so as to discover the non-neocon con position). That's not what you want, is it? Surely not.
So define it objectively, if you can. Remove yourself from the word's definition. Can you?
Anyway, the objective definition you asked for is as follows. It refers first of all to a conservative - some who walks and talks like a conservative, and seems reasonably comfortable (politically speaking) in the company of other conservatives, and who doesn't make a habit of continually advocating socialist policies, and even has at least the occasional tendency to speak out against such policies.
And secondly, it refers to someone who generally advocates a policy of intervention in the affairs of other countries. There may, even by his own stated understanding, be little if any suggestion that the countries in question are in any serious position to attack us imminently. Nonetheless, they advocate it for any number of reasons, either because they consider it the right thing to do in and of itself (occasional code phrase: "brother's keeper"), or because they feel it's a good insurance policy for long-term security (occasional code phrase: "great and general interests of peace"), or perhaps for some other reason.
This is in contrast to paleoconservative philosophy, which holds that military force should only be used to repel an actual attack, or one that's clearly imminent, or at minimum, a very clear and palpable threat to national security. An example of the last would be a country that has access to weapons of mass destruction, and has shown a clear inclination to either use them on us, or to blackmail us in some way.
This may depend on what exactly "imminently" means, but it seems to me that by this definition, many if not most (conservative) advocates of war against Iraq are "neocons". Including myself.
Thanks for the clarification.
I wouldn't think so. If they were in favor of the war on the grounds of Iraq's dispostion towards us, then they wouldn't qualify as neocons. It's only when they base their desire to go to war on its government's disposition towards its own society (or even surrounding societies, but not us). That's what "interventionism" means.
Oh. Actually I didn't read the final paragraph of your previous post sufficiently carefully, and indeed I think this further clarification helps, thanks. Perhaps I'm not so "neocon" after all.
Now I'm not sure there are any "neocons" in the world. I'm not even sure that the original self-described neocons were "neocons". (Boy wouldn't they be surprised!)
Of course, you could prove me wrong by actually identifying one or more "neocons" and then showing conclusively that they systematically Base Their Desire To Go To War against countries on countries' governments' dispositions towards their own societies rather than for national security reasons. (I'm assuming here that isolated cases don't count, it has to be a systematic temperament to count as a new School Of Thought, right?)
What you describe may be what "interventionism" means but the primary "interventionists" which come to mind (Clinton, etc) are apparently not conservative and therefore do not qualify as "neocons". So, who does?
I'll be here. Best,
To start with one example, those conservatives who advocate aid to Israel based on all the horrible things Palestinian terrorists do to the people of that country would objectively qualify as neoconservative.
1. What if Israel's just a special case and an exception to the rule, for such people? Can a normal conservative really be transmogrified into a "neocon" simply because of their stance on Israel?
If so, doesn't this just prove the critics of the word correct - that it's a "code word" used by folks who are anti-"pro-Israelists", and in some cases, anti-Semites?
2. Uh, you weren't very specific here. Who are "those conservatives" you're talking about above?
a. Name one or three, and for those you can name,
b. Demonstrate that they advocate aid to Israel "based on" the terrorism, and not "partially based on" the terrorism and partially based on something else, like our nat'l security (I'm assuming you understand that the difference between "based on" and "partially based on" is crucial to your original definition of "neocon")
And your definition of "neo-con" is far off base.
I know one thing. As I am now in the conservative camp, so-called "Paleos" aren't my friends. That's my personal observation. They would just as soon advise someone like me to go back to being a Democrat.
You should love it
Way more than you hate it
What? You mad?
I thought that you'd be happy I made it...
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.