'Neocon' Becomes a Confusing Code Word

The Tallahassee Democrat ^ | May 2, 2003 | Suzanne Fields

[quidnunc]

Chipata wrote: ("The Crusades weren't "perpetrated", they were Europe's reaction to Islamic expansionism. Don't forget, until it was overrun by the Muslims the Holy Land was in large part Christian. Furthermore, Europe itself was in danger of being overrun. When it comes to the Crusades, the West has no need to apologize." And you imagine that the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were murdered in cold blood in a genocide unmatched until the Holocaust was quite legitimate? To evade the fact that Christianity was responsible for over two thousand years for the most terrible acts of barbarism against the Jewish people makes you just as guitly as the murderers themselves. You sound not very different from the apologists for 9/11.

Pfui!

See my reply #65 above.

I refuse to be sent off on a guilt trip for something which happened nine centuries ago.

As for the Holocaust, that wasn't committed in the name of Christianity, nor were the pogroms of the Russian czars.

In both cases Jews were scapegoated in order to distract the people from social and economic problems.

If you want to wear sackcloth and ashes for events which happened nearer to the Dark Ages than our own time then go right ahead, but don't expect me to join you.

[Ohioan]

I am not quite sure why anyone would post an article, such as this, which from its first paragraph is little more than a demonstration of superficiality:

Politics is all about polarities. Republican vs. Democrat, conservative vs. liberal, right vs. left, hard thinking vs. soft thinking. The labels are pervasive, but the ground frequently shifts, requiring a new prefix to freshen up the label.

Politics does sometimes involved polarities, but that is not the typical situation. It is more likely to involve personalities and rival groups of office seekers. There are very few real clashes of basic principle in most contested races. Indeed, at the Federal level, there is an almost frenzied battle for the middle of the road; an almost desperate shunning of real polarity. And this is not something new. We tend to over-estimate the clashes that have occurred historically, because they stand out, and history tends to flatten out perceptions. But just look at the level and nature of debate in most local elections. It is not polarities, it is exposure and personality.

I only bother to comment, because this posting has brought out another pointless battle over newspeak terminology, rather than any serious intellectual issue. It serves to dumb down discussion over the course we should follow, and lends support to those who see a difference of opinion as a reason to smear the motivations of their foes.

William Flax

[wardaddy]

You're broad brushing.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Hmm....does this mean you are comparing Hitler and Stalin to Ron Paul? That's a new one.

[T'wit]

Pat's economic views have changed drastically over the years, from a free-trader to a protectionist / populist. Murray's never wavered as a libertarian. If Rothbard ever "supported" Buchanan, I know nothing of it, but there may well have been common interests or tactical reasons in years past. Labels are too slippery for any serious examination of such points.

[wardaddy]

I am caught in the same quandry as you.

I hate these labels...or at least how they are percieved.

I am defintely paleo culturally...no doubt...even a hair libertarian on a couple of issues (did I say that?)

But I'm what passes for Neo insofar as Israel and military power projection...but then so where a lot of other traditionalists like me from whom I prefer to get my guidance.

I do not like the watering down of social conservatism....especially from an administration that I so admire otherwise.

But...there is as you said...no other choice. The alternative is unthinkable. We have the power right now..no doubt...but we have moved to the center domestically. I don't think W does this for his own ambitions but because he and others fear that with the drastically shifitng demographics here that it is the only way to keep the obviously base-playing mostly hard left Dems out of power.

[wardaddy]

Well said...again.

[denydenydeny]

Anyone who became conservative because of 9-11 is more than welcome but we will have issues if they bring their social liberalism with them....and many do.

It always seems to me that the paleos care only about the issues on which they disagree with other conservatives. And those issue all seem to be about how America deals with the rest of the world: trade, immigration, foreign policy.

On the real "social" issues--abortion, guns, culture--there is general agreement between paleos and neocons. But the paleos always seem more interested in fighting than agreeing.

denydenydeny, member since 10/21/98, by the way.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Well...we do agree on one thing. Use of these labels are becoming nonsense. My dander was up by the efforts to lump since and principled men, like Ron Paul or even Lew Rockwell, with David Duke. I am more of a libertarian than a paleocon and thought Rothbard made a big mistake by supporting Buchanan. You are right. He did it mostly for strategic reasons though Rothbard was downplaying some of his purer libertarian views by the time he died.

[Fraulein]

ping

[Austin Willard Wright]

that's "is becoming nonsense."

[Cacique]

bump for l8r

[stands2reason]

Do you have a problem with Christians? Hatred hurts only you.

[T'wit]

Thank you kindly! I've been hanging around long enough to know most of these folks. It's certainly intriguing to see how a new generation of conservatives wielding new labels see my old comrades-in-arms :-) In time we'll get it sorted out, and in the meantime, the socialists are such fat targets, there is no need to shoot to the rear.

[Joe Hadenuf]

I have always believed that a neocon is someone that puts their little political party before country. At any cost, no matter what *their* politician says, he is right! No matter what issues their party supports or ignores, they are right in doing so! Party before country.

That is my definition of a neocon

[wardaddy]

This forum has become markedly more socially/culturally liberal just in the wake of 9-11 as we have had an explosion of new members with newfound reactive conservatism. During the war of the past two months, they came in droves and I noticed they flocked to culture threads espousing what i consider to be fairly liberal perspectives.

I did not as I recall question your credentials of membership here.

I have qualms about unrestrained immigration which will inevitably cause me to be labeled a bigot here by social neocons....to use the labeling. They believe that we can and must turn this influx into good Pubbies even though with the exception of the wonderful Cubans that has not been historically the case going by voting stats from the post WWII era.

[quidnunc]

Chipata wrote: ("It is unreasonable to judge the actions of the 10th century Crusaders by modern standards of morality") The excuse of evil men throughout the ages.

The world of Middle Ages was by and large a barbaric place by our standards.

What happened happened and there's no undoing it.

To attempt to tar the present-day West with the brush of Crusader atrocities is ridiculous.

The Crusades served two purposes; they attempted to reconquer formerly-Christian lands and they gave unlanded second-and third-son knights an outlet for their aggressive tendencies which wouldn't disturb the European status-quo.

[T'wit]

> I am more of a libertarian than a paleocon

So am I, but I have long worked with no ideological misgivings with -- let me call them Buckley conservatives. I also think that general philosophical questions are wider than the libertarian view, which is the key to the kingdom on economic and political questions but sheds no light on religion and related moral questions. From which perspective, traditional conservatism has a good deal to add to a libertarian spirit.

[denydenydeny]

Unless you are a follow of Hitler this term is, except in a linguistic sense, a nonsense. I assume you mean that you are of German origin.

Thanks for the vocabulary lesson. Here's one for you:

Irony

n 1: witty language used to convey insults or scorn; "he used sarcasm to upset his opponent"; "irony is wasted on the stupid" [syn: sarcasm, satire, caustic remark] 2: incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" 3: a trope that involves incongruity between what is expected and what occurs

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

[heckler]

In the words of an old German politician who's name escapes me, If you are not a Socialist at age 20 you have no heart. If you are still a Socialist at age 30 you have no brain.