I've conceded several times that there are "neocons". I've even listed three or four. Why do you keep lying about what I am saying? My point is not that there is no such thing as a "neocon" but that the term is not used in any kind of coherent way by almost anyone, particularly here on FR or in certain editorial columns of conspiratorial bent.
or paleo con
I never mentioned "paleocons". I don't really use the term.
and the heated debates between the two gruops are a tempest in a teapot
You think there are heated debates between the two groups "paleocons" and "neocons"? All I keep seeing are a bunch of conspiracy-minded articles by Buchanan types (and, even stupider conspiracy-minded articles by left-wing types) about what "the neocons" are up to.
Other than that, it's clear to me that there is a significant disagreement between what you call "paleocons" and mainstream conservatives, or mainstream Republicans, etc. I don't know how "neocons" are supposed to fit into the equation; remember, all the supposed properties you listed of "neocons" really describe nothing but your average Republican congressman.
Or is it that neither of them exist until someone gives you a definition of them?
Well, let's turn that around. Do kwyjibos exist? Yes or no? Come on, thirty seconds, I want an answer.
(Can you answer if I don't actually define the term? Think about it.)
Y'know, I've observed that kwyjibos like to be stroked behind the ear, but don't leave them out in the sun! And it's kwyjibos that wrote the "Road Map For Peace". Boy the kwyjibos must be jumping in their galoshes now. But I think they're losing their influence.
(Does the above make any sense if I don't define the term? Think about it.)
I did some more thinking, and to my list of kwyjibos I'd add Tom Lantos, the guys at Field & Stream, Dennis Miller, and Donna Brazile. They're all kwyjibos, just look at 'em. None of them will admit it of course, that's how blind they are to their kwyjibo-ness.
(Doesn't the above sound idiotic if I can't define the term? Think about it.)
I am merely responding to your dismissal of any poster trying to point out anything that they perceive to be neoconservative
But you've got it all wrong. I don't "dismiss" someone for pointing out what they perceive to be "neoconservative". Instead what I do is ask them, How do know know such-and-such is "neoconservative"? What makes this or that view "neoconservative"?
These are perfectly fair questions and if "neoconservative" were being used coherently or honestly as a political term, the answers would be forthcoming. They are not.
and watching you kvetch about how meaningless their posts are.
Yes, it must be frustrating to have it pointed out how meaningless your posts are.
Now you ask for my working definitions. Fair enough:
Radical. The most appropriate definition in this context would be: of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change
Leftist. (one who holds) a radical as distinguished from a conservative position
Communist. (one who holds to) a theory advocating elimination of private property; (if capitalized) one who belongs to the Communist Party, if one exists in their country
Stalinist. (one who holds to) the political, economic, and social principles and policies associated with Stalin
Liberal. (one who holds to) a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; (if capitalized) one who belongs to the Liberal Party, if one exists in their country;
Paleo-Liberal. no freaking clue. "old" liberal?
Neo-Liberal. a liberal who de-emphasizes traditional liberal doctrines in order to seek progress by more pragmatic methods
Progressive. (traditional definition:) one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action; (modern/ probably more accurate:) a socialist afraid to call himself as such
Marxist. (one who holds to) the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society
Democrat. (if capitalized) a registered member of the U.S.'s Democrat Party; (if not) an adherent of government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
Moderate. professing or characterized by political or social beliefs that are not extreme; (when used by leftist writers:) a Republican who is not conservative
Republican. (if capitalized) a registered member of the U.S.'s Republican Party; (if not) one who seeks a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
Libertarian. (if capitalized) a registered member of the U.S.'s Libertarian Party; (if not) a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action
Socialist.
(one who holds to) any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Neo-Conservative. a former liberal espousing political conservatism
Conservative. (one who holds to) a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
Paleo- Conservative. No clue. "old" conservative? Seems to have some association with Buchanan followers nowadays, but I don't know why exactly.
Reactionary. (one who has) resistance or opposition to a force, influence, or movement; especially : tendency toward a former and usually outmoded political or social order or policy
Right Winger. (one who holds to) a conservative position
Socialist. already listed
Now, I got all those definitions, with few exceptions and some minor modifications/additions, from webster.com.
Interestingly, the definition of "neo-conservative" is worth re-visiting:
(1952) a former liberal espousing political conservatism
Now you see why I get confused? You are obviously not talking about the same word. After all,
is Newt Gingrich a former liberal (espousing political conservative)?
Charles Krauthammer?
(all of) "the guys at Weekly Standard"?
Bill Kristol?
Paul "Vulfervitz" Wolfowitz?
David Frum?
Richard Perle whoever that is?
anyone?
Bueller?
In some cases, maybe. (I don't know the entire biography of all of these guys or even any of these guys.) But I think it's safe to say that for most of the people who get called "neo-conservative" by people like you, the answer is NO. They're NOT "neo-conservatives", at least if you pay any attention whatsoever to that little thing known as the DEFINITION of the word.
(You may have heard of this thing called "DEFINITION" before. Most words have them, and those that don't, often aren't actually useful words.)
So, you can use the word "neo-conservative" if you want, and if you pay attention to its DEFINITION. It's clear to me that it's fair to say Stephen Schwartz is a "neo-conservative". He calls himself one, it doesn't seem to contradict the definition, so fine.
But when you come along and say Well golly gee, you'd like to add Newt Gingrich or Charles Krauthammer to the list, you can't just do that without destroying the term. (You can't just add "frog" to the list of things called "fruits" without destroying the meaning of the word "fruit"...)
One thing you could do, of course, is say "well phooey on you, the dictionary's definition sucks, I'm using my own". Which would be fine, except you won't tell me what it is.
Which is what makes the whole exercise, quite frankly, disingenuous and intellectually bankrupt.
You've made a list of people you disagree with. Big whoop. You wanna call them "neocons" or "kwyjibos", be my guest. Just don't expect me to applaud or to pretend that you're making a damn bit of sense. Cuz you ain't. Later,
"Doug Macdonald of Colgate University had a fine response this week to the tiresome overintellectualized prattling over how Leo Strauss is supposedly the father of neoconservatism. On a listserv I'm on, he wrote:
"As a self-defined neoconservative for the last twenty years or so, who is neither a Straussian nor Jewish, two groups often conflated with neoconservatism, the former incompetently and the latter sometimes recklessly, I welcome Brian Auten's corrective to Wesley Yang's facile generalizations about a rather amorphous group of people. I might only add that this thread has concentrated too much on ideas without tying them to concrete events. Neoconservatism arose in the mid-to-late 1970s in reaction to what was perceived as an American political establishment that had come to see the United States as the major problem in the world, both in the East-West Cold War and in the Third World. Neoconservatives, on the other hand, saw the United States as the major solution in the world, especially with a Cold War still on in both East-West and North-South terms. The real "father" of neoconservatism, for many of us, was not Leo Strauss but Jimmy Carter.
"Indeed."
I would give LBJ major credit as well.
I am trying to remember when I first though of myself as a neconservative. It was probably sometime in the 1980's, but I was hard wired that way at birth really.