[TradicalRC]

You fellas make for some interesting reading.

Dr. Frank has a point in asking for definitions. What is a Trotskyist? What is a neocon?

Someone who was politically active during the red decade of the 1930's could probably give you a good definition that distinguishes his thought from other versions of communism.

Regarding neocon; everyone seems to have their own definition which makes for sloppy logic and therefore sloppy arguments. We must be precise. The only thing off the top of my head that unites the aforementioned groups is utopianism. Anyone who is genuinely conservative would recognize the intrinsic folly in utopianism, and for that matter all ideologies. Man is imperfect and seems equally capable of doing evil as well as good. And willfully does both. There is an old joke about communists loving humanity, it's just people they can't stand. That actually puts them one up on environmentalists who regard humanity as intrinsically evil.

Neocons strike me as folks who like to be where the power is and are willing to adopt different labels depending on the zeitgeist. They also seem to be politicos who are pragmatically conservative but still believe that liberals have the monopoly on good intentions.

Finally, to say that one is unaware of certain writings or thoughts so therefore one is NOT influenced is to disregard culture. They say that a fish has no concept of water because he's never known anything else. People who've never read Shakespeare seem to quote him all the time. I've run across libertarians who have never read Ayn Rand but I'm willing to bet that they've been influenced by her. BTW, there is an interesting chapter at the end of Barbara Branden's book on Ayn Rand where she lists the various members of the culturati that have been influenced by her.

Thanks for taking the time to read this unusually lengthy post.

[DPB101]

Finally, to say that one is unaware of certain writings or thoughts so therefore one is NOT influenced is to disregard culture.

What R. Emmett Tyrrell and others have termed "Kultursmog." It takes effort to notice it is there. But when you notice, breathing it in is most unpleasant. And warning those who don't even smell the pollution is often a thankless task.

[Destro]

Utopian--a good way to put it--I wrote my version of a definition up i this thread-care to read and let me know your thoughts?

[Dr. Frank fan]

The only thing off the top of my head that unites the aforementioned groups is utopianism.

Maybe, but to tie up all loose ends here you'd have to (1) define "neo-cons" (as you acknowledge), (2) identify one or more people you think are "neo-cons", (3) explain how their views are utopianist, and probably (4) demonstrate that their views being utopianist is connected with them being "neo-cons" and not just some coincidence.

Hard to do all that when no one can agree on the definition of "neo-con" in the first place. At the very least, you seem to have kick-started this process somewhere in the middle.

If the definition of "neo-con" is the standard one (former leftist turned conservative) then it's hard to see how, precisely, "neo-con" is supposed to be connected with utopianism. If we all agree that conservatives abhor utopianism, and that "neo-cons" are conservatives, then they pretty much can't (now) be utopianists. (If they were we wouldn't call them "neo-cons", but something else.) They could have been utopians in the past of course (since they are former leftists), just not now.

So the assertion "what they have in common is utopianism" doesn't quite add up, unless/until someone actually comes along and demonstrates this.

On the other hand, if the exercise being undertaken here is more like the following: (1) some conservatives are identifying some fellow conservatives they disagree with, and whose ideas they think "utopian" or find convenient to call "utopian", and (2) calling them "neo-cons" or attributing their ideas/existence to a movement called "neo-conservatism", and then (3) going back and filling in all the definitions where convenient to make this argument seem to hold together, then everything becomes much more understandable. (Just illegitimate.)

Neocons strike me as folks who like to be where the power is and are willing to adopt different labels depending on the zeitgeist. They also seem to be politicos who are pragmatically conservative but still believe that liberals have the monopoly on good intentions.

Which "neocons" are these? Is this your definition of "neo-conservatism" or a property you think you've observed of "neo-conservatism"?

If the former, are there any "neo-conservatives" at all? Who?

If the latter, who are the "neo-conservatives" you think you've identified who, you think, have these properties? (And then why are they "neo-conservatives" to begin with?)

Finally, to say that one is unaware of certain writings or thoughts so therefore one is NOT influenced is to disregard culture.

I was asking for something different. If there is "influence" (conscious or unconscious) of Trotskyism in "neo-conservatism" that is worth spending the time to talk about, then surely it ought to be possible to find some evidence for this in the form of characteristically "Trotskyist" ideas present and prominent in the writings/thoughts of "neo-conservatives". You're right that the "neo-cons" need not necessarily be aware that "Trotskyism" is their source, but the ideas should be there nevertheless.

Yet no one has been able to point to a single specific idea common and unique to both "Trotskyism" and "neo-conservatism" other than the really stupid observation that neither are pacifists. Other candidate "links" from this thread are:

-"neocons" are in practice Zionists and "Trotskyists" are too (but then why not just cut out the middle man and forget the "Trotskyism" stuff, and come out and say "neo-conservatism is linked to Zionism"?)

-"neocons" want to Spread Something On A Global Scale and "Trotskyists" did too (nevermind that "neocons", as far as I can tell from the vague definition, want to spread democracy and freedom, while "Trotskyists" want to spread communism... that's but a mere trifle I suppose...??)

I could try to discern more "links" but if any others have been listed on this thread, they're even stupider than the preceding two.

[nopardons]

There is actually ONE deffinition of neocon;however, so many disparate people have now purloined the term, made up their own and quite different deffinition of the term, that it is now almost meaningless; it is certainly debased.

Irving Kristol coined the term, wrote about it, and therefore, his explination, and his alone, should be the one used. It isn't, sadly, and far too many here, have decided that they know far better than one of the founders of neoconism, does.

No, neocons aren't UTOPIANS; but, many of those who now use the term perjoratively, certainly are !

Shakespeare's words, like passages from the Bible, have become part of everyday speech. Any Rand ? NO !