'Neocon' Becomes a Confusing Code Word

Sematics to say the least. What we have here is the faithful running after false gods. I'M the only 'real' conservative I know. I am convinced we lost it all when we gave the vote to any but male land-holders.

You might lơk at Hillaire Belloc's "Crusades". It is the best short(1 volume) account and explanation in the English language.

Neo-con - A liberal one-world chickenhawk posing as a conservative.

Paleo-con - A former KKK and current anti-semite posing as a super patriot.

You are both screwballs.

The Paleos are NOT libertarians Buchanan is a paleoconservative but he does not define the genre. His apparently growing anti-Semitism is not characteristic of the genre.

My dander was up by the efforts to lump since and principled men, like Ron Paul or even Lew Rockwell, with David Duke.

I don't know about "principle" when it comes down to Rockwell. I think of him as a stupid son-of-a-bitch (and, yes, people may quote me on that one):

"[Clarence] Thomas calls the segregation of the Old South, where he grew up, 'totalitarian.' But that's liberal nonsense. Whatever its faults, and it certainly had them, that system was far more localized, decent, and humane than the really totalitarian social engineering now wrecking the country."
— LLEWELLYN H. ROCKWELL

Statements like these give me reason to give Rockwell a one-fingered solute.

You should love it
Way more than you hate it
What? You mad?
I thought that you'd be happy I made it...

Okay I can agree that some neos are not necessarily big government. But it does seem to tend toward that. The same with paleos. I know there are people like Buchanan that have racist tendencies and are given the name of paleo. Personally I think it's a bit more difficult than just the two brands within the party. Even from what I've seen on FR, I'd say there are a good three or four different groups within the 'conservative' party. The issue is that when Republicans are taking our rights, along with spending more of our money, I can't as a conservative condone that. The same as I can't condone some of the things Buchanan said either

(just when I was getting all ready to claim #300 for myself)

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

Look, you wanted a definition that you could refer to without having to ping me for my divination, and I'm providing you with one. You'll then be able to see from there, as you read their opinions, whether it describes them or not, and I suspect you will see that it does in quite a number of cases.

But all that aside, I see you're still having trouble with the definition. Like I said earlier, they may well say and believe that taking a certain action would in some way or another improve national security. That's not the same as going after a direct threat.

To give another example, probably the first occasion for a paleo/neo rift was the Korean War. The advocates of that war pushed what was known as the domino theory, which I'm sure you've heard of. I highly doubt that any of them thought that North Korea posed a military threat to us, or that the conquest of the South, by itself, would have put the Communist conspiracy in a materially greater position to do us harm. It was more of a "slippery slope" type of argument, whereby if we allow it in one instance... you know the drill. And the fear expressed was that as totalitarianism claims more victims, our position is going to be weaker. They may not have specifically used the phrase "make the world safe for democracy" ('cause they didn't want to sound like mushy Wilsonians), but their arguments added up to the exact same thing.

I'm no big of Rockwell and believe that the Mises crowd are often insenstitive on the oppression of blacks in U.S. history. To jump from that, however, to conclude that Rockwell and company are "racists" is not responsible or justified, certainly if based on the quote you provide.

Let me also point out that though I think that Lott *should* have resigned as ML because he comments were equally stupid and insenstive, I would not call him racist either.

Racism is an extremely serious charge. The word should not be thrown around lightly or it loses all meaning.

To jump from that, however, to conclude that Rockwell and company are "racists" is not responsible or justified, certainly if based on the quote you provide.

I didn't say "racist." I said "stupid." And he is indeed one stupid SOB.

You should love it
Way more than you hate it
What? You mad?
I thought that you'd be happy I made it...

I won't argue with you on that.....I have problems with him myself and have had some run-ins with the Mises crowd...though I must say I find many of his articles to be worthwhile.

Look, you wanted a definition that you could refer to without having to ping me for my divination, and I'm providing you with one.

Yes, that's great. And I dutifully applied it, and came up empty (no "neocons" actually exist). You don't have to prove me wrong, if you don't want; I'm happy to leave it at that.

But all that aside, I see you're still having trouble with the definition.

Quite possible :-) Must be all my fault, can't be that the definition makes no sense, is self-contradictory, relies on subjective judgments, or is simply vacuous....

Like I said earlier, they may well say and believe that taking a certain action would in some way or another improve national security. That's not the same as going after a direct threat.

It is if they think it is. (I assume we're talking about them and their motivations, not you and your opinion of their policies.)

You might say, "but they don't think it is". To which I'd have to ask: "Who's 'they'?"

domino theory

But now you're saying that the "domino theory", and the way we fought the Cold War, was a "neocon" thing. Which implies that practically all Republicans in the last 60 years have been "neocons".

You keep bouncing between a vacuous definition of "neocon" (according to which there aren't any) and a redundant one (according to which all non-paleo conservatives qualify). Confusing.

And the fear expressed was that as totalitarianism claims more victims, our position is going to be weaker.

In other words, communism posed a direct threat to our national security, and had to be resisted. What's "neocon" about this position? It involves action against perceived threats - not "to make things better in other countries" or "based on how other governments treat their citizens" (remember these little characterizations of the "neocon"? hmm?)

One post "neocons" are all about philanthropy, the next they just long-term strategizing hawks. One post nobody's a neocon, the next post 99% of conservatives since 1941 are neocons. You're all over the map. You can see that, right?

The Coming Totalitarianism

Rockwell. The stupidity is unfathomable...

You should love it
Way more than you hate it
What? You mad?
I thought that you'd be happy I made it...

You keep bouncing between a vacuous definition of "neocon" (according to which there aren't any) and a redundant one (according to which all non-paleo conservatives qualify). Confusing.

The only reason it's confusing is that you insist on keeping yourself confused. Very few people are going to fall neatly and entirely into a single category - even one as broad as liberal or conservative. These words don't exist so much as to define people as to define points of view. It's only when a person's ideology is dominantly characterized by a particularly category of viewpoint that we say that he's a [insert whatever noun applicable]. If you don't approach it with that attitude, then everything is going to keep vacillating between "vacuous" and "redundant", and you wouldn't be able to make sense out of anything in life.

So as regards the Cold War, there was a significant neoconservative element to Republican thought, which should come as no surprise, as it was the the original (Xxxxxxxtz) Neoconservatives who did a lot of the heavy lifting to make that a reality.

The only reason it's confusing is that you insist on keeping yourself confused.

Yeah that's probably it. Couldn't be anything else.

Sarcasm aside, in case you sincerely don't understand my logical problem with what you've been trying to say, here it is.

You claim "neocons" are people who advocate stuff like X, Y, Z for reason A.

When pressed for examples of "neocons", you tend to say stuff like "well take those people, Them, who advocated Y." Thus conveniently forgetting the "for reason A" part of the argument.

And when I ask you "but what if they were advocating X for reason B", you're silent or change the subject a little.

There's a loose end in there that you continually fail to tie up, which results in your "neocon" definition being either vacuous (because you never quite demonstrate the existence of anyone who advocates X, Y, Z for reason A) or straw-man (because you implicitly deny the logical possibility of advocating X, Y, Z for reason B). It's never both vacuous and straw-man at the same time, of course, because you vacillate between the two constantly, when the discussion demands it.

That's about the long and short of why your spirited defense of the "neocon" term confuses, and I don't know how else to explain it, and don't really want to write any more opuses about it. But frankly, I shouldn't have to, because I believe that you're more than smart enough to see what I'm saying.

You just really, really need the word "neocon". For some reason.

You just really, really need the word "neocon".

I think your hangup is that you really believe that I do. That seems to be why you're making such a complicated issue out of something really so simple. A neoconservative is a conservative interventionist. That may involve some gray areas as with anything else, but most people don't need to have explained to them in trifling detail what a conservative is (to the point where they "honestly" can't understand why Bill Clinton isn't a conservative) and what an interventionist is.

There's a loose end in there that you continually fail to tie up, which results in your "neocon" definition being either vacuous (because you never quite demonstrate the existence of anyone who advocates X, Y, Z for reason A) or straw-man (because you implicitly deny the logical possibility of advocating X, Y, Z for reason B).

This is a case in point of you making things more complicated than they need to be. Some liberals may believe in social welfare because it's "for the children". Others may say that they advocate it for more practical reasons, such as keeping society from falling apart, and some of those may actually even believe it. In the final analysis, none of this really makes them any less leftist.

It's a similar principle with neoconservatives. Whether they do it because they're following some imagined biblical command, or because it's a good long-term insurance policy, or for some other reason, what's clear is that they have an interventionist political instinct in foreign affairs that's loosely analogous to the domestic liberal interventionist bent. It's thus referred to as "neo"conservatism because it represents a new (relatively speaking) trend in conservatism, which traditionally has disdained interventionism. Back to that difference I pointed out to you earlier, about pushing in one direction vs. pushing in the other.

A neoconservative is a conservative interventionist.

There aren't any. Prove me wrong. (You know, by naming a couple.) The people you cite as "interventionists" aren't. Prove me wrong. (You know, by explaining why they are.)

to the point where they "honestly" can't understand why Bill Clinton isn't a conservative

Make fun of me if you want :) but don't misrepresent what I was saying. I can understand why he's not a conservative, but I honestly can't understand why he's not a "neoconservative" (as you (think you) understand it).

[how the "whys" don't matter since a leftist is as a leftist does] It's a similar principle with neoconservatives.

No it's not. You said neoconservatives want to do things not for nat'l defense but "to make things better in other countries", "because of how other governments treat their own people", "because we're our broter's keeper", and the like. The whys do matter, otherwise we're just talking about conservatives. Don't you even remember your own definition?

Clearly you don't, or are pretending not to, since you're shifting definitions. This is why I'm confused.

what's clear is that they have an interventionist political instinct in foreign affairs that's loosely analogous to the domestic liberal interventionist bent.

It's not "clear" because it's not "clear" that any such people exist. You haven't actually named any. The "examples" you gave, were not necessarily examples of "interventionism". Perhaps they were merely examples of hawkish self-defense in action - you haven't shown otherwise, anywhere on this thread. (This is the process I just described: you tend to say stuff like "well take those people, Them, who advocated Y." Thus conveniently forgetting the "for reason A" part of the argument.)

It's thus referred to as "neo"conservatism because it represents a new (relatively speaking) trend in conservatism,

Not if it doesn't exist, it doesn't. (You haven't shown otherwise.)

which traditionally has disdained interventionism

but traditionally has favored self-defense hawkishness. Which is what your "examples" are examples of. (You haven't shown otherwise.)

I can understand why he's not a conservative, but I honestly can't understand why he's not a "neoconservative" (as you (think you) understand it).

That's a distinction with no consequence, and this is indicative of your attitude on this entire thread. What makes him not neoconservative is precisely what makes him not conservative. It's not his foreign interventionism that makes the difference; it's his domestic interventionism. You may honestly not understand why this is, but I honestly can't understand how you can't see this.

You said neoconservatives want to do things not for nat'l defense

Wrong. Specifically wrong, as I've acknowledged to you that they may in fact entertain that notion.

but "to make things better in other countries", "because of how other governments treat their own people", "because we're our broter's keeper", and the like.

These things are the means to the end (national security), if they happen to believe that these means do in fact advance that end. Whether they do or not is not essential to the definition of neoconservative.

Your point seems to be that if two different people are pursuing the same end (in this case national security), the difference in their approach does not rise to the level of an ideological difference. But it most certainly can. An American conservative and a European fascist may both believe in law and order, but their approaches are very different, and most people would recognize it as an ideological difference. The latter would cross lines that the former, as a matter of principle, would not.

[Clinton] What makes him not neoconservative is precisely what makes him not conservative. ... I honestly can't understand how you can't see this.

Argh. Lemme just splain it this way and I'm not gonna mention Clinton again.

When you describe "neocons" in broad terms ("interventionist"), I think "Clinton, maybe"

When you place the additional constraint "they gotta be conservative", ok, duh, that removes Clinton - but it also removes everyone else - so I think "ain't no such thing"

Understand now? either "Clinton types" (if no need to be con) or "ain't no such thing" (if need to be con). You haven't shown otherwise

[You said neoconservatives want to do things not for nat'l defense { but "to make things better in other countries" } ] Wrong.

It's not wrong, you've said this, look it up, I'm not gonna argue w/you about what you've said if you're gonna lie about it

These things are the means to the end (national security), if they happen to believe that these means do in fact advance that end. Whether they do or not is not essential to the definition of neoconservative.

yes it is, you've said many times that neocons want to do things "to make things better in other countries", not for national security. "neocons" have different ends than "national security", they have "brother's keeper" type ends. Hey, I'm just going by what you've said

Your point seems to be that if two different people are pursuing the same end (in this case national security), the difference in their approach does not rise to the level of an ideological difference.

Whoa, here you're starting to backtrack, as if suddenly you acknowledge/grant that "neocons" have the same ends as cons.. (nat'l defense, direct threats) but then if that's true (suddenly, after 300 posts) then what's the difference?

just strategy!

Big deal! You don't like what you perceive as "neocon" strategy, you think it's wrong, not an effective/good way to pursue nat'l defense.

News flash: I don't give a rat's ass, tell your spiel to someone who does.

I'm really getting damn sick of this and I think I'll let you have the last word for why "neocon" is so essential to the English language and a hot-damn great word despite the fact that apparently nobody on earth besides you (not even the original self-described neocons) knows what the hell the frickin word means. buh-bye

just strategy!

No, "just" principle. Did you read the rest of the paragraph from which you quoted, or did you just continue with your usual habit of reading what you want to read and injecting whatever meaning you wanted to be there?

I'm really getting damn sick of this and I think I'll let you have the last word for why "neocon" is so essential to the English language and a hot-damn great word despite the fact that apparently nobody on earth besides you (not even the original self-described neocons) knows what the hell the frickin word means.

Actually, there's very little need to do that, since I've explained it to you several times, and haven't reversed myself. For whatever reason, you seem highly allergic to the word, and therefore will do everything possible to avoid seeing any sense in any explanation surrounding it. I've tried to be reasonable about it, frankly beyond the patience that most would have, but it doesn't seem to have had any effect.

It doesn't matter much, though. To most normal people, I could just say it means "conservative interventionist in foreign affairs", and most people would have a pretty decent idea of what that means, even if the boundary lines, as with anything else, can be subject to some interpretation. The same little game you're playing can be played with dichotomies like liberal/conservative, libertarian/authoritarian, etc. That fact doesn't quite establish that "nobody on earth knows what the hell it frickin means."