I didn't know I was picking an argument with you, but I will repeat that for most who use the term "neo" the intent is to shut down the argument by ad hominem without addressing the actual policy disagreement. If your policy dispute is with Kristol and Boot, then the term may have some validity. But I normally see it used to apply to anyone who favors the war against the Talibs and the Baathists, and who sympathise more with the Israelis than the Palestinians. If that is your position, then defend it and we will enjoy the exchange.
If I happen to agree with Boot or Kristol on some items, I probably also agree with you on some others. Labelling me a "u89er" would do little to advance an argument, nor does labelling me a neo, or a parrothead, or anything else.
Boot adds: ''I prefer the more forthright if also more controversial term American Empire - sort of like the way some gays embrace the `queer' label.''
I repeat what I said earlier. I laugh at writers who invoke the term "empire" with regard to the US. They use a term they half understand to describe something they don't at all understand. That includes Boot, and Buchanan, and every leftist writer I ever read.
I refer you to Irving Kristol... he says neocons are all for the welfare state
Again, if your target is Kristol, your comments and your use of the term "neo" is apt. But the term is normally used in shotgun fashion against everyone who favors confronting our enemies on their own turf, rather than on ours. If they wear an "R" next to their name, they probably do not favor the welfare state, so the term would be misapplied. Its only purpose, then, in this case would be to shut down discussion.
I recognize that there could be a legitimate utilitarian argument concerning whether or how or where we confront our enemies, and I would still recognize you as a fellow Republican, or a fellow conservative if you disagreed with me on those terms. You at least agree on the founding principles of the republic, and most probably agree that they are worth defending, differing with us on the how and where. I respect that position even if I disagree with it.
For the folks on the left, they don't even accept the founding principles, and they do not agree to defend them anywhere, not in Central Asia, not at the borders, not anywhere.
He also thinks... great nations like the US are ideologically driven... and should spread their vision throughout the world.
The US is ideologically driven. It is not an ethnic nation in the sense that France or Germany is, it is ideology that binds us. The fact that half the country no longer believes in the founding principles does not alter that fact, that it is the values closely held by the other half that hold us together. And as for whether or not we "should", the fact remains that we "do" spread our vision thoughout the world. Whether we should do so by design is fodder for discussion, but the fact is that we do, just by breathing, just by existing, just because that is the way we are. You are a revolutionary on the world stage without planning to be, without wanting to be, because your, our, values put the lie to the values that undergird most of the rest of the world. That makes us a magnet for trouble. Some of us err on the side of bold, some of us err on the side of prudence. Post 9/11, I vote for "bold".
I don't look at debate as an argument. I was simply trying to respond to what I interpreted as a differing view on the subjects at hand.
> but I will repeat that for most who use the term "neo" the intent is to shut down the argument by ad hominem without addressing the actual policy disagreement.
I submit the charges of anti-semitism against critics of neoconservatism are used for precisely the reasons you stated above. Please see the contents of my selected neocon quotes in the main post and several of the following "rebuttals."
As far as labeling someone or ones neocon it seems to be a logical necessity as we humans need to label things in order to communicate. How can we discuss a certain vision of the world if the adherents deny they exist, as has been the attempt of serveral "neocon" columns"? Just because neoconservatives do not share a monolithic and uniform view of every issue does not mean there is no such thing as a group or school of thought. Since no two people agree on every topic naturally there will be variations of neoconservative thought just like every other group. Generalizations simply are conducive to communication. I have experienced neocons arguing trivialities simply because they do not wish to have the main topic examined i.e. the ramifications of their foreign policy and to a lesser extend their domestic policies.
As far as empire is concerned there is the historical definition which you use and therefore reject the current usage. Then there is the new and revised version which is what we now have. It is not simply the opponents of current policies that use the term empire. The proponents have written fairly extensively trying to whitewash and polish the term so it can become respectable and embraced.
Lastly there is a difference between the US being founded by a certain ideology, living by it and being an example to others and exporting that ideology through military conquest. Kristol and his fellow travelers (first generation neocons) were communists of the Trotskyite order in their youth. They opposed Stalin because Stalin (in the 20s and 30s) set about to consolidate power in the USSR and build up the nation. The Trotskyites wanted a world socialist revolution to be waged. They were dreamers and Stalin was a realist. It is obvious from their writings that Kristol and Co. may have shifted their earlier communist views (though they still believe in quasi- socialism) but they have not lost the world revolutionary zeal of their youth. Using their own statements to understand them the rest of us can then see a a wrong headedness in and danger to the implimentation of their vision. National Defense is used as their justification and most conservatives reflexively leap on board. Who could be against National Defense? Well some see their plans as dangerous, risky, perhaps even suicidal. It is our patriotic defense of the nation that brings us to oppose neocons.