attempt to deny that those who supported Iraq war could have done so out of any other belief besides Making The World Safe For Democracy. An attempt by whom? By me?
If the shoe fits. To you the common thread is this "passionate belief in MTWSFD". Certain people who have this pass. bel. are "neocons". Earlier you asserted that, oh, Charles Krauthammer is a "neocon". Conclusion: You deny that Kraut holds the opinions he does for any other reason than a Passionate Belief In MTWSFD. You assert he has this passionate belief, and *that's* why he believes what he does (and in particular supported Iraq war). Had he the chance, he might explain to you that his beliefs, and support for the war, are a thousand times more complex than that, that he has no love for Woodrow Wilson, etc, but you deny him the courtesy of granting sincerity on his part. To you, he's a "neocon", you've found the label, and it "fits" him, and his motivations fit into that little MTWSFD box. all evidence to contrary notwithstanding.
Pigeonholing, like I said.
[I don't really care about the term.] Sure sounded like you did at #191.
How about back in #185 when I wrote (and I quote) "I don't really care about the term, I find it pretty uninteresting. I'm just sick of people tossing it around because they find it a convenient boogie man"
Seriously, if you wanna have a knock down drag out argument with me about what I care about and don't care about, that's fine, but you're gonna lose. I'm the world's expert in that field. ;)
I've based my conclusions on the common beliefs exhibited in their writing.
Let's be clear here: the common beliefs discernible among writers Kraut, Coulter, Limbaugh, Jacoby are those of (drumroll) conservatism. The attempt to horseshoe 95% of today's conservatives into the "neo-con" box so you can claim the mantle of "true conservatism" for yourself is understandable enough in psychological terms, I suppose, but don't expect the rest of us observing this little exercise to stand up and applaud.
Let's be honest here, you're talking about a split that doesn't trace to Podhoretz or Trotskyites, it traces back to dec 7, 1941. Which is fine and all, but what's interesting about that is that we've already got terms which are perfectly sufficient: "isolationists" vs. "hawks". "neocon" is what you are calling "conservative hawks". And 95% of conservatives since 1941 - Reagan, Godlwater, everyone who has mattered in 60 years - qualify.
What's the point of the exercise then? answer: to claim rhetorically that to isolationists belong the mantle of "true conservatism". The whole exercise is disingenuous and self-serving from the get-go. you wanna paint yourself as the "true conservative" be my guest, that conversation completely bores me, but stop trying to paint the rest of us with this broad "neocon" brush in the process, it's ridiculous and you know it.
Rush Limbaugh is not a "neo" anything and he's not part of any "wing", he's the definition of the Middle of the conservative road. (and you know it)
"neocon" is what you are calling "conservative hawks".
Not true. One can be quite hawkish and paleoconservative at the same time. It's what you're hawkish about that makes the difference. 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 (There's your Iraq example). 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). That's about the most concise description I can give you.