"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.
Actually what I said is that this is the popular (not necessarily your) notion of what "neocon" is, if only from the point of view of ignorant French journalists and the like. I'm glad your understanding of the term is more accurate, good for you!
Nor have I tried to "claim the mantle of 'true conservatism'" for myself,
Whatever. You could if you wanted, and I wouldn't care.
and nor have I stated that you (as in "the rest of us") are neoconservative
No, you just said that Krauthammer and Coulter and the like are "neoconservative" (lol)
It's what you're hawkish about that makes the difference.
So "neocons" are hawks in cases where you don't prefer hawkishness?
Neocons get hawkish in order to make things better in other countries.
Really?? This is the pigeonholing part. You can't conceive that Krauthammer, Coulter, Jacoby were hawkish on Iraq because they sincerely thought that doing so would make things better in our own country? No, of course you can't.
Or maybe you're saying that it's not their support of war on Iraq which made them "neocons", it's something else. Then what pray tell?
Or maybe you'll acknowledge they aren't "neocons" in the first place. So who is? (besides Podhoretz Horowitz & I. Kristol) and why am I supposed to care?
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).
Ah, they say they're doing so for nat'l security but you know better, you've looked into their souls and discerned their true motives, they all boil down to wanting to MTWSFD. You just know it. And don't listen to their protests to the contrary, don't pay attention to their deep explanations either. They're just saying it.
y'know, you're kinda proving my point here, this is precisely what I've been complaining about y'see.
That's about the most concise description I can give you.
Fair enough, but as it stands "neocon" seems to boil down to "conservative hawks you disagree with". Big deal.
Hey Doc, you wanted to know what constitutes neocon beliefs? Look no further.
I don't get it. You're saying "neocons" are folks who draw a particular, peculiar lesson from the Cain-Abel story to teach us that we should protect Israel? So "neocons" are the "Old-Testament-inspired pro-Israel lobby"?
You're all over the map here but I guess it can be summed up as "neocons = conservatives who take hawkish/strong foreign policy positions you happen to disagree with". Military support of Israel being but one example; war against Iraq perhaps being an example, perhaps not.
It's all very well and good to say "there are conservatives I disagree with and I've taken to calling them 'neo-cons'", but uh what about for those times when you're not around to consult? How am I supposed to tell who's a "neocon" and who's not if, perish the thought, the day ever comes when you're simply not available, and I can't ask you for your foreign policy position so as to invert it (thereby deriving the "neocon" position)? One wonders.