"Neo-Con"

[Merceditas]

Let's not start using this name for those of us from a 'conservative' viewpoint.

The origins of this term, from what I understand originated in Britian and have nothing to do with the way the term is tossed around.

For some reason there are people in the US who have been taking it up for use against anyone who doesn't hold a viewpoint like theirs. And it's meant to be derogatory, not simply defining a political view or position.

I really object to this label. The use of it has gotten way out of control.

It reminds me of the way people, black and non-black, who will use the term 'African-American' as an insult to a person who is black.

In trying to find some links on this subject, I ran across this one.....I'll be looking for more, and if anyone here has other links, I'd appreciate it.

www.doktorfrank.com/archives/002612.html

July 09, 2003
Neo-con Carne

Oliver Kamm writes of the trend among British journalists to use the term "neoconservative" as a "pretentious synonym" for conservative. He's right, as so often, and the article he cites as an illustration of this is indeed an illustration of it. (It's from Elsbeth Lindner of the Evening Standard, and features a photo of Ann Coulter captioned "leading neo-con author".)

I suppose the British journalists who write this way intend, by adding "neo," to denote the "latest" right-ward tack in the political culture, and merely to refer to the current crop of conservatives. (When they don't mean simply "Jews" which is a can of worms I'll refrain from re-opening at the moment.)

Many of them seem genuinely unaware that "neoconservatism" refers to something more or less specific (though argued about), and that using it as a blanket term for Today's Right Wing Bastards is inapt and confusing, and reflects an ignorance that would surely be quite embarrassing to them if their politically mono-chromatic daily lives ever brought them in contact with any person or writer who knew enough, cared enough, or found it irritating enough, to point it out. Kamm hints that this ignorance may be willful, and I think that may well be the case.

Of course, it would be quite easy for any of these star journalists to educate themselves by taking a few minutes to type "neoconservatism" into a google box. Let us imagine the world of possibilities, yet refrain from wild, utopian speculation: these are journalists, after all. (Lindner went so far as to read an issue of Vanity Fair in researching her article, which is a start. However, breezing through Tanenhaus's cursory crash course in Neoconservatism for Dummies failed to deter the references to Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh as "leading" neo-con intellectuals.)

[Merceditas]

www.polemics.us/archives/000557.php

A paleoconservative, in my obviously biased judgment, is a real conservative. There is a complete and total difference between one who calls himself a "mainstream" conservative nowadays and one who could call himself a conservative of the '40s and early 50s.

Those older, mid-century conservatives, the predecessors of paleoconservatives, were fervently anti-New Deal. They wanted to abolish federal programs. In general they were isolationists and they wanted strict immigration policies. They were also traditionalists in the sense that the virtues of classical learning and agrarian societies were to be praised and even promoted. They were also anti-Communists ... and this is where the problem begins.

In the late-'60s when the college campuses were revolting, many on the Left were shocked by the rebelliousness of these new college radicals. Many of these Leftists were former Marxists who eventually became faithful democrats or progressives, but they were very much pro-New Deal and they were in favor of the welfare state. What happened was, these Leftists, dissatisfied with the radicalness of the Left, drifted towards conservatism. They were particularly attracted by the anti-communist stance that conservatives took. So these Leftists drifted towards the Right and began calling themselves conservatives, yet still holding many Leftist views. In fact, this is where we get the term "neoconservative." That's who these people are. Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz are two examples of former Leftists who switched sides. (Not all neoconservatives nowadays are former Marxists, obviously, but many of their intellectual forefathers were.)

Anyway, through the '70s and '80s these neoconservatives came to power and triumphed over the paleos in a series of power-struggles. The neoconservatives were pro-welfare state, they generally wanted open-door immigration with cultural assimilation, and they regularly praised FDR, Harry Truman, and Woodrow Wilson (three figures that the paleos deplored). They still have all three of these features, by the way.

So the neoconservatives are in power everywhere and they are the conservatives you see on TV and read in the newspaper. The most recognized ones are Bill Kristol, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, George Will, anyone on Fox News, etc., etc. The only paleoconservative who you ve probably heard of is Pat Buchanan, who has been called every name in the book and has been marginalized quite successfully. This is typical, because neocons like to yell racist or anti-Semite before dealing with actual arguments. They are good at kicking out the people they don t like. I can name many of the names of the disenfranchised if you are interested.

I m not saying that Pat Buchanan is the perfect paleoconservative. He s more of a populist than a thinker, and he served in the Nixon adminstration(!). But he is the best example I have of a popular paleo.

Getting back to the differences ... The neocons talk a lot about limiting the federal government, but they are all for the "advances" of the New Deal. They like the centralized welfare state. So any time you hear them talk about lowering taxes, they don t have a paleoconservative reason for this. Their theory is that lower taxes will allow the federal government to take in more revenue. That was Reagan s plan, the plan that Rush Limbaugh extols. After all, it's what central planners want: more cash for the government to play with, which gives them more power. Paleoconservatives, on the other hand, want to lower taxes as much as possible to limit the federal government s ability to centrally plan as much as possible. This is a key difference. Paleoconservatives would abolish federal departments and agencies. Neocons create federal departments and agencies (for example, see the Department of Homeland Security).

See how confusing this is? I don't think there is anyone who truly can say for sure what the definition is anymore.

[101ABN]

Here's another link...

www.lewrockwell.com/north/north180.html

[Merceditas]

Thanks, 101!

[stratagosv]

I've got my own def... it changes depending on the situation... hey don't give me that look!

[toejam]

stratagosv said:

I've got my own def... it changes depending on the situation... hey don't give me that look!

I have the same definition for moonbats all the time: idiots.

[Merceditas]

stratagosv said:

I've got my own def... it changes depending on the situation... hey don't give me that look!

What look would that be?

Are you writing your own dictionary now too?

[stratagosv]

Not a bad idea merceditas

[Merceditas]

stratagosv said:

Not a bad idea merceditas

Let us know when it's published, okie dokie?

[juvenal]

Thanks, Merc and 101, for that information and the links you provided. That sets up a useful basis for defining what a "neoconservative" really is.

Make no mistake though: The use of the "Neo-con" a perjorative that we mostly see, from left-wing idiotarians, neo-Nazis, and their allies in the lazy, moronic Euro press is about as ignorant and hateful as it can be.

First of all, any conservative is NOT a "neo-con." I attribute this misunderstanding to the hatefulness and ignorance of our Idiotarian adversaries.

For the skinheads, the term unmistakably means "Jew."

For the leftist ideologues, the term can mean one of two things, or a combination: "Any conservative, or someone I wish to identify as a conservative = 'Neo-Con,'" or else "Jew." Sometimes both.

The press, more so in Europe but in the States as well, uses the term in its blind acceptance of the left's twisted lexicon.

You may, of course, disagree with me on this assessment of the word's use and misuse. But in my experience and reading, this is exactly what's going on.

I agree with Merciditas in that I'm offended by 90% of the use of this word, as it is MISused most of the time, and misused in a frightening way.

It's a marker of just how much anti-Semitic language and beliefs (not to mention totalitarian language and beliefs) are creeping back into the mainstream.

We should not be granting these people their premise that President Bush is a "neo-con," when what the truth is that he's a (relatively speaking) conservative. We should not allow them to label Paul Wolfowitz a "neo-con" merely because he is Jewish. We have to insist that people who hear and read this stuff be under full advisement of what "neoconservative" really means, or they will fall victim to the lies.

We should be resisting this trend toward cloaked anti-Semitism, because I believe that it's more than just a fight between conservatives and "liberals." I think that in the next few years, it will be apparent that this is a fight between good and evil, whereever they are found.