Says who? You're contradicting yourself. If you accept that a "neocon" is a former liberal turned conservative, and you point to someone and say "he's a neocon", it then follows that he's (drumroll) conservative now. Not "conservative over foreign policy and nothing else", but conservative. Remember, the definition of "neocon" (which you said you accepted) is a former liberal turned conservative. Not a "former liberal turned conservative over foreign policy and nothing else".
Now, if you want to talk about people who are former liberals who turned conservative over foreign policy and nothing else (I'm sure some exist), that's fine. It's just that such people can't be "neocons" because that's just not what the term "neocon" actually means. Maybe you could use a different term, "foreign-con" or whatever. Alternatively, you could have a change of heart and start insisting that the dictionary definition is wrong, and needs to be modified.
But then the confusions start to multiply. Let us suppose that I accept that these "neocons" are people who turned conservative over foreign policy and nothing else.
Why on earth do you call Newt Gingrich a "neocon" then? He's the dang Contract With America guy (which had little if anything to do with foreign policy) who at least tried or pretended to try to cut back the government. Something doesn't add up. If I accept your current definition, I then have to reject your labeling of Gingrich as a "neocon". I can't accept both! My brain will explode! (Seriously, I can not figure out why some are suddenly trying to draft Mr. Contract With America into the "neocon" movement.. it makes no sense whatsoever to me...is it merely because he supported Iraq war?)
Another thing that doesn't add up is that I think most people who toss around the term "neocon" would actually assert that the "neocon" foreign policy isn't conservative in the first place. Isn't that, after all, what Buchanan and his followers are trying to say? That the supposed "neocon" policy on Iraq etc. "isn't really conservative"? So your definition (even if I accept it for its self-contradictory nature) actually contradicts the definition of "neocon" used by most others. To you a "neocon" is conservative on foreign policy, to others a "neocon" is anti-conservative on foreign policy. Which is it?
How am I supposed to understand and reconcile all these contradictions if no one will define their terms?
Well, I've defined my terms. I'm content to use the dictionary definition. And if others come up to me and use these same terms in ways that make no sense or contradict themselves, I'm gonna call 'em on it. You can see why, right?
[those darn sinister Weekly Standard guys] Can we make the assumption that perhaps some of the subscribers whose names we do not know believed the same things as the writers
Sure. In fact if you recall, that's exactly what I did. 1. I took your word for it that "the guys at Weekly Standard" are "neocons". 2. Using the definition of "neocon", I concluded that "the guys at Weekly Standard" are conservatives - have conservative views. (Otherwise we wouldn't call them "neocons".) 3. I presumed that most subscribers to a magazine whose writers/editors hold conservative views would be, themselves, conservative. Thus I decided that most Weekly Standard subscribers are conservatives. (Remember?)
Some of them may be, in addition to being conservatives, former liberals. Those people are then "neocons" (I guess). I have no idea how many such people there are. Nor do I think it's particularly important.
Now the reason why I would hesitate to call Newt Gingrich a conservative is his praise of FDR,
Yeah, that bothered me too. But whether his praise of FDR bothered us or not, I don't see how that makes him a "neocon" though unless (1) he's a "former liberal turned conservative", or (2) you use a different definition of "neocon" from the dictionary's (in which case: what is that definition?)
Remember, if "neocon" is going to make coherent sense as a political term, it's gotta mean something objective and measurable over and above simply "a conservative I disagree with about stuff". My objection to the way the term is used is precisely because most people now seem to use it as "a conservative I disagree with about stuff". That's not a valid way to use a political term.
and his helping to expropriate more money than the democrats for favored social programs.
Dunno what you're referring to exactly here. Sounds bad. But again, try to keep this straight: just because you or I may have disapproved of something Newt Gingrich did or didn't do doesn't make him a "neocon". The definition of "neocon" isn't "a conservative I dislike"; or, if it is, it's a totally phony term.
Charles Krauthammer favors interventionist foreign policy among other things that presently escape me, but conservatism never favored that.
Wow, now you're totally contradicting yourself. Remember earlier in this post when you said that "neocons" turned conservative on foreign policy and nothing else? So let's summarize:
1. "neocons" turned conservative on foreign policy on nothing else
2. you'd add Krauthammer to your list of "neocons"
3. Krauthammer favors interventionist foreign policy
4. in your opinion that's not the "real" conservative thing to do ("conservatism never favored that")
5. thus Krauthammer isn't really conservative on foreign policy
6. In conclusion, you think Krauthammer the "neocon" (people who are conservative on foreign policy on nothing else) favors an anti-conservative intervenionist foreign policy. On foreign policy, Krauthammer is anti-conservative, and that's why you call him conservative on foreign policy (but nothing else).
How can you think all of this stuff at the same time and not have your brain explode? :-)
As for kwyjibos, I am not aware that that is a term in the political lexicon,
Maybe it should be. It makes no less sense than the way "neocon" is currently being used. (Neither have been adequately defined, for example.)
whereas, the term neo-conservative is. Like it or not.
I think it's clear that I don't. If it were being used honestly according to some coherent definition, I'd have nothing to say against it. But it's not - I think this recent post of yours proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt - and that's my point. Best,