I think the term is something less than what I would call terminology. It is first, of all, a coined word--a bit of newspeak or popspeak, if you will--which has several different meanings to contemporary Americans. There is first of all, the obvious one of a someone newly conservative. That is a somewhat useful one. Beyond that, it has become a term of identification for people who identify themselves with one or another particular sets of beliefs, some of which are conservative and some of which definitely are not. In this latter case--and it is from these latter usages that all this silly rant emerges--it is no more useful to understanding than a term such as the "log cabin republicans" or "yellow dog democrats." The terms have meanings, to be sure, to those that use them. But those usages are purely subjective. They certainly do not involve any precision of language.
As for the implied notion that "neo-cons" are some sort of misunderstood minority within the American political spectrum, that seems pretty paranoid to me. Most of us, who simply call ourselves Conservatives, certainly welcome the support and cooperation of others, regardless of labels. On the other hand, we will oppose others, regardless of labels, when we disagree with them. The labels really do not add anything at all to the debate on any particular issue. And the article in question, does not add any sanity to any issue.
I jumped on the silly first paragraph to make a point. There is really nothing in the article that suggested any profundity or clarity. And that was the point I sought to make.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
no argument there. It still, by coinage and original usage, has a definition that's more precise than "Bad People We Hate"
which has several different meanings to contemporary Americans
This may be so but that's partially due to the term being hijacked, used incorrectly, used as all-purpose label for Bad People, etc., which is what the author (and I) seeks to correct
There is first of all, the obvious one of a someone newly conservative. That is a somewhat useful one.
In fact that's what it actually means. I know a lotta people want another word which means "Bad People We Hate", but neo-conservative already has a definition, you can't just alter it at will.
As for the implied notion that "neo-cons" are some sort of misunderstood minority within the American political spectrum, that seems pretty paranoid to me.
You misunderstood. That's not what I said.
There are "neo-cons", but lots of people being called "neo-cons" aren't even "neo-cons" in the first place. (the article mentions Jay Nordlinger..) The point is not that the group "neo-cons" is being misunderstood, the point is that people are taking the group "Those With Whom I Disagree About Iraq War" and slapping the term "neo-con" onto them, whether or not this is appropriate.
And the article in question, does not add any sanity to any issue.
To each his own.
I think it is a much-needed article because it's quite obvious to me that tons of people are using the word "neo-con" towards others and don't actually know JACK SQUAT about what it means. In their mind it means no more/less than "Bad People I Disagree With"
honestly: don't think think that's a BAD development, BAD usage of a term?