Most would. Perhaps Presidential candidates would not. I was speaking generally here. Listen to a talk radio station (of centrist or leftist bent), the callers, if on the left, will begin their call by "first of all, I consider myself pretty liberal...". That's who I'm talking about.
Nobody calls in to radio stations and says "First off, I'm a big true-blue 'neo-conservative'." On the other hand, there are about three or four guys who have written books or opinion columns admitting to being "neo-conservatives". (That's why they're on my official list.)
Same with neocon since people are recognizing them as liberals in conservative clothing.
Who is "them"? Name some of these people you have in mind. (And then tell me why they're "neocons". You know, by defining "neocon" and then showing me that the definition fits the person you have in mind.)
You would not settle for ANY definition however loose or tight
So now you're a mind reader? If we're going to get into an argument about what I would settle for, uh, you lose :-)
several posters have pointed out certain political beliefs that are generally held by those who are being called neo-conservatives
Not really. Several people have caricatured the political beliefs of people they mentally call "neo-conservatives", and then pretended this caricature was accurate, and finally proclaimed "...and that's what 'neo-cons' believe". For example, you said in Post #124, "For them, government IS the solution, not the problem." You also asserted in the very same post that you'd put Newt Gingrich and CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER for crying out loud on your mental list of "neocons".
Is it really true that CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER thinks "government IS the solution, not the problem"? Is that how he would describe his views? Is it even close? Or is that simply the best way you could think of to put down his beliefs? Give me a break here.
by those of us that are so ignorant that we can hardly chew gum and walk simultaneously.
??? what are you talking about? You're saying you're ignorant? I'm sorry to hear that. (???)
Contrary to what you guys say, the term Neo-conservative was NOT embraced by those "former" leftists cum "conservatives".
Uh, whatever. It's not like I actually care, I was relating the story as I've gleaned it from several articles. My understanding was that some of them (I never said ALL) embraced the term. I don't really think it's an important point Whether Or Not "Neo-conservatives" Embraced That Term.
Norman Podhoretz stridently maintained that he was a liberal until it became too obvious even to him that liberalism had been hijacked by the radical left and they had to distinguish themselves from the others somehow.
Ok I'll take your word for it.
They still believe in liberalism albeit in a more classical definition of the word
In fact, so do "conservatives" (=classical liberals).
The paleos are annoyed because they STILL don't think that FDR or JFK were great men, the neos do.
List the people who, you think, think FDR and JFK were great men. And then explain to me why those people you've listed are "neos". (I know I keep repeating myself, but seriously, you really do have to actually dot these i's and cross these t's, otherwise you're just carelessly slappin' meaningless labels on people. I'm just sorry I had to be the one to break it to you.)
With political terms constantly morphing or rather, being morphed by power hungry elites that want a label that carries a certain fashionable cachet, it is hard to keep up.
Tell me about it. Especially when so many people are so willing to embrace a phony label and toss it around disingenuously without ever bothering to define it.
Some feminists think pornography is great and some see it as evil; does that mean there is NO definition of feminism except "women I don't like"?
No. I don't see your point.
can we please not play the I have NO idea what anyone is talking about because this particular group of politicos doesn't exist.
Well, sure. I don't have NO idea what people are talking about when they say "neocon". After all, I know about at least four (4) certified "neocons": Podhortez, I. Kristol, Schwartz, and.. oh I forget the fourth but you see my point. I acknowledge that there are "neocons" and I know about some. I just don't understand what kind of definition of "neocon" would include Newt frickin' Gingrich, or how such a definition would relate back to the original definition of the term.
As for Irving Kristol defining the term (which of course has NO definition) he ought to be congratulated. He is the only person in the last two centuries to define a (non-existent) political term that did not in any way evolve or mutate with the times.
I really don't understand what you're trying to say here.
Again, please pardon my colossal ignorance on these matters as lexicography and lib- er, neo-conservatism are not my areas of expertise.
Still don't know what the hell you're talking about with this "ignorance" stuff, when did I call you ignorant? You seem t'have gotten suddenly pretty ticked at me, why is that?
["you've just described the Republican party."] No kidding. And Guess who's running the show.
Republicans!
(Oops, I was supposed to say "a shadowy, dark, maybe-Jewish Cabal with Trotskyist links", wasn't I? ;-P )