Replies

you make the mistake of thinking that any appreciable number of people use either term according to its actual definition.

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.

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.

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!! ;-)