Posted on 05/03/2003 8:44:59 AM PDT by quidnunc
Um, the author explained that the term is being used INCORRECTLY, and in what way.
If the people who use the term INCORRECTLY do so in a disproportionate way towards Jews, that's their own damn fault.
P.S. author's a female
Who says it is? many paleocons get defensive at being called as such, but that's their own fault
His Son's
A Jew.
I thought
You knew.
--Anonymous
You do a nice job of attacking the author's "polarities" sentence, I suppose, but not the rest of it.
The remainder of the article is a coherent explanation of: what "neocons" actually are and what they are not, who is being called "neocon" nowadays, and why this is wrong. If you don't think such an account is necessary (because it's just "terminology") then presumably you haven't become as annoyed as I have by seeing about a million different people use about a billion different definitions of "neocon" in the past year or so. Good for you! The rest of us, meanwhile, enjoy it whenever a little sanity is injected back into the paranoid labels and conspiracy-mongering.
Where's MHking's graphic when you really need it?
Uh, see, that's why you need to read the article. There may be lotsa people who put their party before country, and it's fair for you to be angry at them, but this has nothing to do with the term "neo-conservative". Why you would attach the sequence of letters "neocon" to "someone that puts their little political party before country" is something only you can explain, I think.
What's happened here is that a lot of people have received the following message: "neocons are the Bad People That We Hate". After getting this message, people like you have apparently thought to yourself "well gee, who are the bad people that I hate?" You came up with an answer - "someone who puts party before country" - and then thought to yourself "aha! I guess such people are neocons".
But, no. That's why you need to read the article.
That is my definition of a neocon
That's cute, but words typically do not have personal, unique definitions from person to person. If you want to communicate with others you can just make up your own word definitions. Words mean things.
It's completely appropriate to have an identity crisis if/when there are honest fundamental disagreements.
I'm not sure that's the case here. Seems to me what's happened is that the antiwar lobby misconstrued the meaning of "neo-conservative", decided they could use it to slander pro-war people because it sounds sinister, and following this a lot of anti-war conservatives bought into it.
Now we get the spectacle of seeing each and every anti-war conservative spout off about what "their" personal definition of "neocon" is. It's embarrassing, but I'm not sure it's a big fundamental split here. Articles like the above may be able to make some headway in clearing up the mis-labelling that has taken place. I can hope...
So you are a principled person fighting evil, just like Hitler and Stalin?
F the article. What do you think? There is some exact definition for neocon? One that should be accepted by all? F that. That's what I believe, you don't like like it? To efing bad Frank.
I think the term is something less than what I would call terminology. It is first, of all, a coined word--a bit of newspeak or popspeak, if you will--which has several different meanings to contemporary Americans. There is first of all, the obvious one of a someone newly conservative. That is a somewhat useful one. Beyond that, it has become a term of identification for people who identify themselves with one or another particular sets of beliefs, some of which are conservative and some of which definitely are not. In this latter case--and it is from these latter usages that all this silly rant emerges--it is no more useful to understanding than a term such as the "log cabin republicans" or "yellow dog democrats." The terms have meanings, to be sure, to those that use them. But those usages are purely subjective. They certainly do not involve any precision of language.
As for the implied notion that "neo-cons" are some sort of misunderstood minority within the American political spectrum, that seems pretty paranoid to me. Most of us, who simply call ourselves Conservatives, certainly welcome the support and cooperation of others, regardless of labels. On the other hand, we will oppose others, regardless of labels, when we disagree with them. The labels really do not add anything at all to the debate on any particular issue. And the article in question, does not add any sanity to any issue.
I jumped on the silly first paragraph to make a point. There is really nothing in the article that suggested any profundity or clarity. And that was the point I sought to make.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
As far as those being labeled "paleo-con," I think it's really dumb to make enemies of all of them. Some are an embarrassment, but not all. I'd like to take some from each group and form a new group myself, one that doesn't mind war debate.
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but yeah. "Neo-conservative" is a little thing called a "word". A "word" is a basic unit of "language", which is how you and I are "communicating". "Words" have little things called "definitions".
You can't just make up this "definition". That's not how it works!
Now, it's all very well and fine and good if you want to find a word that encompasses and describes The People You Hate. But "neo-conservative" isn't necessarily such a word. You must go and consult its "definition" to see if it fits. It might not!
Now, you might be right to question the exactness of the definition. Nothing is ever completely exact, there's wiggle room. On the other hand, it's almost certainly not the case that the "definition" of "neo-conservative" is "anyone who Joe Hadenuf hates".
You can't just MAKE UP definitions of words! I hope you understand that, someday.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.