Well, I'm tempted to just say "that's right, I don't" ;-), but that's a brief (inexact) summary of a much larger point. For the record, as I understand the story, (a) there was a certain set of leftists-turned-conservative who started getting called (not by their own volition) "neo-conservatives", (b) some of them (presumably not all) ended up just embracing the term (which was intended to be somehow derogatory), (c) this became a semi "movement" centered around, as you mention, a magazine or whatever. This petered out in the '70s or so when one of them (Podhoretz?) wrote a book about neoconservatism's "death". There seems to have been some semi controversy in the Reagan administration centered around Jeanne Kirkpatrick, but basically that was the last we'd heard of "neoconservatism" for about 20 years. And all along, very few people would have actually called themselves "neo-cons"; some of those who used to, presumably no longer do. As a "movement" it simply does not have a very good case.
Now, suddenly they've been resurrected and you've got leftists joined with Buchananites in perceiving the dark hand of "neoconservatism" behind each and every thing they disagree with. My perception is that this is a facile conspiracy-label and not a description of any real thing. I am still waiting to be disproven about this.
The point being you've now got people writing vanity essays on FR about what they think the neocons are up to, what they think their motivation is, what they've "observed" or "noticed" about the neocons, why they don't like them, why their conservative credentials are lacking and we should stop following them... and it's just not clear to me that they're actually talking about any real human beings (as opposed to projecting their dislikes onto mental bogeymen "the neocons" and then composing narratives in which "the neocons" figure prominently).
Yes, Podhoretz, I. Kristol, etc., these guys rallied around and embraced the term, it meant something at one time, to them. The problem is that I have no confidence whatsoever that when someone throws out say "those guys at NRO!" as "neocons" that they are using word in anything like the same way.
One way out would be to define "neocon", but then you have to actually establish that a given person you're talking about is a "neocon" according to that definition, which is presumably why nobody goes that route. Instead what people do is make a little mental list of guys they (I'm guessing) don't like. At the top of that list they put the word "Neocons!", and voila. But that doesn't prove a darn thing. One may as well put the phrase "People I Don't Like" at the top of such a list for all it tells me.
So yes, "neocons" exist, I can list at least four. But "neocon", as people use the term, doesn't have a comprehensible meaning independent of "People I Don't Like".
Again, anyone could prove me wrong by putting forth a reasonable, objective definition of the term and applying it consistently.
You seem to sneer at the three or four guys mentioned as though, perhaps that's it.
As far as I know, that is it. My list is growing though; this guy Stephen Schwartz is a recent addition. Let's just say the list is a work in progress.
A couple of those guys had their own magazines and I'm pretty sure that there were probably several hundred thousand subscribers to them.
Meaning what? Every subscriber to a magazine edited by a "neocon" is therefore a "neocon"? Why? If I take a subscription to The Nation does that make me a socialist?
I of course presume that generally people who subscribed to those magazines did so for the conservative views contained therein. ("Neocons", remember, hold conservative views, otherwise the term would make no sense.) Thus most of them, I presume, are conservatives.
I would add the guys at Weekly Standard to the list.
"the guys at Weekly Standard"? all of them?
Okay, so what you're saying is, "the guys at Weekly Standard" are "neocons". I assume you've come to this conclusion by comparing the views of "the guys at Weekly Standard" to the definition of "neo-conservatism" and observing that the term fits them. Great!
Can you tell me which definition of "neo-conservatism" you used to accomplish this taxonomy?
If not, then what exactly did you just do, besides slap a meaningless label on "the guys at Weekly Standard"?
It shouldn't bother you that there is no hardcore definition of neoconservatism etched in stone
I'd settle for a loose definition painted with fingerpaint at this point ;-)
as far as I know, there is no definition of conservatism or Americanism or liberalism either.
Well but there's an important difference here. Most of the people we refer to as "conservatives" or "liberals" would actually call themselves that if prompted. There is also more or less widespread agreement on what the two stand for in broad terms. By contrast, most neoconservatives don't call themselves such (for example, a favorite supposed "neocon" of many people, Bill (not Irving) Kristol, ain't no such thing; he's a "National Greatness Conservative" whatever that is - I know this because I've heard him say it.) Some would laugh at the idea, and the only reliable way I have of discovering whether this or that guy is a neocon is to ask the person I'm talking to whether the guy in question appears on his mental "neocon" list. And as you can imagine it's tedious to do this with every single person I correspond with, especially when the lists are all different. (To some, Bush is a "neocon".)
I would add people like Newt Gingrich, David Frum, and Charles Krauthammer to the list. Also a lot of the newer guys at National Review would fall into the category.
That's all very interesting, but why would you "add" those people to the list of "neocons"? How are they "neocons" (i.e. what characteristic "neocon" views do they hold, which of course requires you to list some characteristic "neocon" views..)
What "category"? All I see is a list of people you've tossed off. You can call that list "neocons", you can call it "kwyjibos" for all I care, but I don't see what you're accomplishing or what I'm supposed to take away from it.
Some aspects of neoconservatism that I have noticed are an interventionist foreign policy, fiscally conservative but socially liberal, and a general tendency to be where democrats were three or four decades ago.
How can you "notice" aspects of something you can't define in even the broadest of terms? I filter this through my "neoconspeak" filter and here's what you're really saying:
If what you're saying makes any sense, you're really defining "neocons" to be conservatives who believe in, among other things, "an interventionist foreign policy, fiscally conservative but socially liberal, and a general tendency to be where democrats were three or four decades ago."
And ok, that's fine by me then. One problem though, many people who fit this definition don't necessarily have much in common with the historical "neocons", do they? None of this stuff is all that unique to historical "neocons". In fact most Republicans actually fit this definition. Ronald Reagan fits this definition for example.
So what you've done is hijacked the term to describe an overlapping but different group of people from those who used to be called "neocons" (=former leftist turned conservative, anti-communist etc). Now, that's ok I guess, but it leads to confusion and I wonder why you would do it.
For them, government IS the solution, not the problem. There is little of the last half century of liberalism that they have any problem with: they do not seek to abolish ANY liberal program, they merely talk about reform. And they'll spend even more of my money than the liberals did to do it. Vote for us: we stand for everything they stand for, but we'll do it more slowly and more efficiently.
You've just described the Republican Party.
Perhaps your personal definition of "neocon" simply redundantly coincides with "Republican".
Again, that's ok, but it's confusing, and I wonder why you need the term when we've already got the term "Republican".... :-)