[Dr. Frank fan]

You seem to believe that definitions are Platonic forms that exist in perfect purity

No, I don't "seem to" believe that at all. Well, at least, I don't believe that. I guess on some level whether you think I "seem to" believe that, is your problem.

no room for nuances or exceptions

I'm all for nuances and exceptions. But nuances and exceptions have to be nuances of, and exceptions to, something.

You know, like a "definition". It makes very little sense to talk about nuances and exceptions to a definition if you can't even explain what your definition is in the first place.

They are either purely liberal or purely conservative, nothing in between.

No, I never said this or anything like it.

As I tried to qualify the term neocon, you shot down any qualifiers as being contradictory.

Sort of. Let me try to explain yet again.

You can either (a) "qualify" the term "neocon" (i.e. modify its definition, refine it, etc.) Or you can (b) accept the definition as-is and start talking about "neocons" (people who meet that definition).

You did neither. You said, (1) "I accept your definition (the dictionary's)", and then (2) "My problem is that 'neocons' believe X, Y, Z" (stuff which has nothing to do with the dictionary definition).

You can't do that.

If you (b) accept the dictionary definition (former liberal turned conservative) you can't go around assuming that all "neocons" are conservative on foreign policy and nothing else. That's not what "neocon" means, or even a "nuance" of what "neocon" means, according to the dictionary definition.

If you (a) think the dictionary definition needs modification, that's fine, as long as you clearly explain what your modification is so the rest of us can figure out what the hell you're talking about.

Finally, if you think you've made an observation about "neocons" - that they're conservative over foreign policy and nothing else - you have to actually explain why you think this. After all, it doesn't follow from the word's definition and so it's not at all obvious why it would be true that "neocons" are conservative over foreign policy and nothing else. So, you have to demonstrate that it's true, as an observation: name some "neocons", explain why you think they're "neocons", and then show that their conservatism is confined to foreign policy and nothing else.

You haven't even gotten halfway in this process, and not only that, you've muddled things up so much that it's impossible to believe all the things you say using the same brain. For example, you've named some "neocons", but Krauthammer is on your list. Is Krauthammer "conservative over foreign policy and nothing else"? Not even close! You've also named as "neocons" people such as Newt Gingrich, but you can't explain why you think he's a "neocon" in the first place. (And even if you did, he ain't "conservative over foreign policy and nothing else" either.) Finally the "neocon" foreign policy in question ("interventionism"), I thought, wasn't really conservative to begin with. So, exactly none of the pieces of this argument add up to your statement "neocons are conservative over foreign policy and nothing else", and yet you believe its truth anyway. As if it is holy writ or something.

Obviously, the term neocon is something other than conservative or they would not have coined a new term for themselves.

They didn't "coin it for themselves" in the first place. I thought you knew that. It was a derogatory term invented by leftists to discredit those leftists who had a change of heart. At least as I understand the whole fascinating oh-so-important "neocon" history.

And you're wrong to imply that the term "neocon" wouldn't have been coined if they weren't different from conservatives. Remember that it only refers to their "neo" (=new) status as conservatives. Why can't a term separate those conservatives who were once leftists, from those who weren't? People sometimes refer to "black conservatives", "gay conservatives", etc., as well. No one who does so is saying that a "black conservative" necessarily has different views from other mainstream conservatives; they're just saying he's a conservative who's black. Similarly, a "neo-conservative" (according to the dictionary) is merely a conservative who is "new", i.e. was once leftist.

Look how bogus your thinking is. According to you, because of the fact that there is a word "neoconservative", you assume that whoever they are they must believe something significantly different from other conervatives. What, exactly? Well, the dictionary doesn't say. And they don't say. (And nobody can agree just exactly who "they" are.) So you go ahead and fill in those blanks yourself (they believe government is the solution to every problem, or whatever). Alternatively, you go find some people you don't like (Newt Gingrich) and say "well golly I think I'll call him a 'neoconservative'", even though that makes no sense whatsoever. The connection with that thing known as the "definition" of "neoconservative" is completely unclear.

The reason you can (usually) get away with this dishonest intellectually bankrupt tripe is because no one's ever forced you to pin down your definition of the term. So that's what I'm trying to do. (Without success so far.)

As I also stated, political terms have become so malleable due to politicl co-opting of terms in order to gain political mileage

Indeed, I agree with this completely. In fact, you are Exhibit A of this: you have co-opted the term "neoconservative", which at one time had a coherent understandable definition, and you're now trying to bend the term in an attempt to gain political mileage.

You're right to say that this happens a lot in politics. That doesn't mean I can't resist it when I see it happening.

I did NOT contradict myself, I pointed out that the ORIGINAL neocons became conservative over foreign policy and nothing else

1. But look, you contradict yourself just by saying this. After all, in part of your posts you put forth this "conservative over foreign policy and nothing else" line. Then the rest of your posts is spent explaining why the supposed "neocon" foreign policy Isn't Really Conservative. I guess I'm just confused why you would label the "neocon" foreign policy as "conservative" in parts of your posts but not in other parts. Maybe you'd better just come and and tell me: In your opinion, is "neocon" foreign policy conservative? (Yes or No)

2. "The ORIGINAL neocons" were conservative on foreign policy but nothing else, huh? Wait: which ones? All of them? Doubtful. Since it's not part of the definition of the term, you must be saying that you've observed that one or more "ORIGINAL neocons" were conservative over foreign policy and nothing else. Well, ok then, name these "ORIGINAL neocons" who, in your opinion, became conservative over foreign policy and nothing else. Give me one or more names so that I know just who the hell you're talking about. (This is a perfectly fair request.)

Had they become conservative on most issues, then they wouldn't have felt it necessary to coin a new political term,

Again, they didn't. "Neocons" didn't coin that term for themselves. If you don't even know that then it's no wonder we have such a hard time communicating. Go look it up first before you reply.

I have always maintained that the neocons never got over their liberalism.

Well goody for you. "Maintain" away, "maintain" till your heart's content.

But is that true? (I can "maintain" but 2+2=5 but if it ain't true, then what am I doing?)

If you are trying to assert that "neocons never got over their liberalism", that's ok. But if you want people to believe you, you can't just say this and expect people to applaud; you have to actually do the leg-work. You know, (1) name some people who you think are "neocons", (2) explain why you think they're "neocons", and (3) show that they never got over their "liberalism".

It wasn't until late in the game that i found out that most of those guys also happened to be Jewish.

Most of what guys? "Neocons"? Is that true? Is it even true that "most" "neocons" are Jewish? News to me. Why do you believe this to be the case? I am not sure I believe that "most" "neocons" are Jewish in the first place.

You could of course make me start to rethink my position by listing lots of "neocons" and showing that most people on that list are Jewish. (That wouldn't "prove" it unless you listed all "neocons", which would be difficult, but it would at least be a start.)

That actually makes sense in that ... [your historical explanation for why something you believe without proof or even definitions "makes sense"]

Isn't it possible that you have basically started from these propositions that "make sense" to you ("there's a cabal called 'neocons' who have taken over the conservative movement", "neocons are conservative over foreign policy and nothing else", "neocon foreign policy Isn't Really Conservative", "neocons never got over their liberalism", "most neocons are Jews", etc), and then gone backwards and filled in the definitions of terms like "neocon" so as to support this conclusion which you already wanted to support?

Just wondering.

[neocons and anti-communism] With their one conservative plank gone, all thats left is their liberalism.

Who are you talking about? Give me a name or three. You can't seriously be talking about "neocons" in general (because let's remember, you think Newt Gingrich is a "neocon").

Hence, their interventionist foreign policy and their lack of concern over social issues such as abortion, sexualizing of teens, homosexual marriage etc.

I'm sure that there exist many people who (a) have an interventionist foreign policy but (b) are not anti-abortion, pro-abstinence, and favor homosexual marriage.

I'm just not sure that they are "neocons", nor am I sure that "neocons" have a monopoly on this way of thinking.

In short, if you oppose people who think this way, that's great, why use the term "neocon"? "Neocon" has nothing to do with it. Just say that you oppose interventionist foriegn policy and gay marriage etc, and thus you dislike people who favor those things.

I mean, for crying out loud, Bill Clinton fits the above description, do you think he's a "neocon"?

They resemble JFK politically

Who does? Krauthammer? Give me a frickin' break, your thinking is so disconnected from logic it's getting impossible to follow you. You're reverting back to the "People I Disagree With" definition of "neocon".

and quite honestly, I do not know how that makes them conservative.

Then they're not "neocons" either. Unless you use a different definition of that term.

So who the hell are you talking about? Or, what definition are you using?

Back to square one. Just so you know, I can keep this up as long as you can, but it'd really be a whole lot easier for both of us if you'd just come clean and actually tell me in a small number of clear words what your definition of "neocon" is....

[TradicalRC]

First of all I must say, I admire your tenacity.

I will try to keep this as simple as possible. You actually acknowledged that there were about four guys who can legitimately be called neocons. The ORIGINAL neocons. The two leading lights in this group were Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz. There were others but I do not want to get sidetracked.

These ORIGINAL neocons became "conservative" over a foreign policy issue, namely standing against the Soviet Union. The leftists that thought unilateral disarmement was a nifty idea got upset that some of their own did not agree. The term conservative was the political equivalent of the 'N' word for those guys and the term neo-conservative was born.
Podhoretz was insisting that he was a liberal but finally gave up and accepted the term. I'm not sure but I think Kristol had less of a problem with the neo-con term.

I am pointing out that it was only the ORIGINAL neocons that fit the definition that apparently is unacceptable to you, to wit: leftists who stood alongside of conservatives on the issue of anti-communism. I have seen nothing else in the writings of those ORIGINAL neo-cons that indicates that they are conservative on any other issue. Tom Daschle is pro-life but that doesn't make him a conservative. And like every other political group you can name, you are going to find individual persons that subscribe to a majority of the espoused views, but rarely will you find someone who espouses 100% of any ideology or party line.

Now, when Reagan was president it became cool to be conservative, whether paleo, neo, fiscal or social or whatever. That was where the power was and that was where a lot of the "new" conservatives come in. They could use the label neo-con because it had political cachet.

Except that the single issue which differentiated the neo-cons from other leftists ended with the fall of the Berlin wall. Anti-communism was a legitimate conservative position. Foreign intervention and foreign aid are not. Why would you think otherwise?

You want lists of names but for what? I could ask what is a Republican? What's the definition? And then I could attack your definition because this or that Republican does not belive X, Y, and Z.

The dictionary definition is essentially true, but NOT exhaustively true. And of course EVEN IF you stuck with the dictionary definition then I would have to ask what a liberal is? What's the definition? WHO is a liberal? And the same for conservative?

As far as the definition "people I don't like" which is YOUR definition, not mine; I never said anything about disliking any of those guys.