Posted on 06/16/2003 5:03:58 PM PDT by ComtedeMaistre
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....
First, thanks for naming some "original neocons" whom you have in mind. I believe this really helps to advance the discussion and you are to be praised for that. So, your earlier assertion becomes this: Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, among other original "neocons", became conservative on foreign policy but nothing else.
Here's the problem. I don't think that's actually true. Is it?
These ORIGINAL neocons became "conservative" over a foreign policy issue, namely standing against the Soviet Union.
I could add here that standing against the Soviet Union wasn't necessarily a "conservative" position, and not all "neocons" may have thought of it as such. They may have thought of it in terms of standing up for liberty (in the sense that "liberals" historically stood up for liberty) against totalitarianism. But that's a minor point. In general we are on the same page: the original (real) "neocons", by my understanding, are/were mostly ex-leftists who came to their conservatism by way of anti-communism.
(That's fine, but now I gotta figure out just how exactly Newt Gingrich ended up making your list.)
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
Why do you think that definition is "unacceptable" to me? Heck, that's the definition I already knew about.
The definition I don't understand is the one which includes Newt Gingrich for some reason.
I have seen nothing else in the writings of those ORIGINAL neo-cons that indicates that they are conservative on any other issue.
Well, me neither. But that's mostly because I've never really read anything by either Irving Kristol or Norman Podhoretz. (I didn't know until very, very recently - i.e. when these "neocon" articles started appearing on FR - that I. Kristol and Podhoretz were the two most important political figures of the 20th century and that it was absolutely necessary to analyze and label their views.)
Fortunately, perhaps Google can help. Here is a page of selected quotes from Irving Kristol's writing. There's a lot there which is mushy and vague, and lots more which perhaps you and I would both disagree with. However, there's also this (1975 - from "The Question of Liberty in America"):
[California's 1978 Proposition 13 which limits tax increases without public approval] It was a new kind of class war -- the people as citizens versus the politicians and their clients in the public sector.
This writing of his, doesn't seem to be about the USSR, anti-communism, or even foreign policy at all. He is discussing the California property-tax revolt of the 1970's. Also, he seems to be taking what I assume you'll agree is the conservative position (lower taxes), at least if one can assume that his sympathy lies with "citizens" rather than "politicians and their clients in the public sector" (as I think one can). Elsewhere in the essay he has similarly harsh words for these bureaucrat types:
you find them mainly in the very large and growing public sector and in the media. They share a disinterest in personal wealth, a dislike for the free-market economy, and a conviction that society may best be improved through greater governmental participation in the country's economic life. They are the media. They are the educational system. Their dislike for the free-market economy originates in their inability to exercise much influence over it so as to produce change. In its place they would prefer a system in which there is a very large political component. This is because the new class has a great deal of influence in politics. Thus, through politics, they can exercise a direct and immediate influence on the shape of our society and the direction of national affairs.
What a damn liberal! /sarcasm
So whaddya know, I went and found a writing of I. Kristol in which he takes the conservative position on something other than standing up to USSR. That would seem to completely disprove your assertion that the "original neocons" (i.e. all of them) became conservative on foreign policy and nothing else. We see now, that that is incorrect.
What about Norman Podhoretz, you ask? Click here for an article entitled "America the Beautiful". (Yup, he's "only conservative on foreign policy", huh?) Go down near the end where he starts discussing affirmative action:
we need to recognize when, how, and why we have lost faith in those principles and institutions, and therefore departed from them. .... the policy of preferential treatment for minority groups. Even many opponents of this policy often fail to realize that it violates the single most revolutionary idea of the American Revolution and the one that more than any other enabled it to achieve its objectives .... The idea to which I refer is that individuals are to be treated as individuals, in accordance with their own merits, without regard--in the old formula so many of us were reared on--to race, creed, color, or country of national origin. .... In other words, we have discarded an American tradition that has resulted mainly in wonders and imported an alien practice that has resulted mainly in murder. Here we have a striking case of the damage that is done by departing from our tested traditional way of conducting our affairs.
And people call him a conservative! he's still a damn leftist! once a leftist always a leftist! he's brought his leftist worldviews with him! /sarcasm
Get real. By anyone's reading, Podhoretz is not only against affirmative action, but strongly so, on highly conservative grounds. He even calls it "preferential treatment for minority groups" and links his opposition to it explicitly to the ideals of the Revolution, talking about how it is the "tested traditional way of conducting our affairs"! How on earth could he POSSIBLY sound more conservative than that? So there you go, evidence in Podhoretz's writing that he too, like Kristol, is conservative on issues besides anti-communism.
Thus neither Kristol nor Podhoretz are "conservative only on anti-communism". I have proven it to you beyond a shadow of a doubt. Do you have any other points to make besides that one (which has now been proven wrong)? If not, then perhaps we are done here.
And just to be clear: my point here is not that I love either I. Kristol or Podhoretz or agree with them about everything. Like I said, I had never really read much by either one. My point here is just this: the way you are using the term "neoconservative" in most of the sentences you are typing, makes no sense. It makes no sense because it is ill-defined, you use it inconsistently, you give examples (Newt Gingrich) which don't seem to fit, and you make sweeping generalized statements ("conservative only on foreign policy") which upon inspection turn out to be false using your own terms, definitions, and examples.
Tom Daschle is pro-life but that doesn't make him a conservative.
Indeed. To be a conservative, he's gotta do lots more than oppose abortion. (I didn't know that he did.) I don't recall claiming Daschle was a conservative to begin with though. What are you referring to here?
Perhaps you're responding to my statement that Bill Clinton meets your every condition (as far as I could tell) for being a "neocon". Well, he does. I'm just the messenger. If you don't think Bill Clinton is a "neocon", then you should be able to explain why not. If you can't, perhaps that should be a sign that something is wrong with your definition of "neocon", and assumptions behind it, to begin with.
Now, when Reagan was president it became cool to be conservative, whether paleo, neo, fiscal or social or whatever.
It was? I don't remember that. Perhaps we move in different circles.
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.
Who's "they"? You've lapsed back into vague shadow-speak again. Are you resuming your narrative about "the neocons" and your psychological theories about "them"? (how it "makes sense" that "they" would be mostly Jews, etc?)
I still don't know who's the "they" you are talking about. Examples?
Except that the single issue which differentiated the neo-cons from other leftists ended with the fall of the Berlin wall.
Not at all. See above. Podhoretz was writing against affirmative action just a couple of years ago, and Kristol had sympathy for the Prop 13 movement. You're all wet.
Anti-communism was a legitimate conservative position. Foreign intervention and foreign aid are not. Why would you think otherwise?
I never said otherwise. You seemed to ("neocons became conservative on foreign policy" + "neocon foreign policy is interventionist" = you think interventionist foreign policy is conservative). I was just trying to use logic to understand all of your statements as a whole. My mistake..?
You want lists of names but for what?
So that I may understand who it is you are talking about.
I could ask what is a Republican?
You most certainly could. Here are some examples: George Bush, Dick Cheney, Trent Lott, Tom Delay, Bill Frist, Orrin Hatch, Jack Kemp, Rick Santorum, Dennis Hastert. That's nine. Let me know if you need more.
But the real problem is that you don't seem to understand the reason I need examples. The reason is that you've spent a great deal of time on this thread telling little stories about "the neocons". You say things like "the neocons resemble JFK politically", "the neocons used the label neocon because it had the cachet of Reagan", "the neocons became conservative on foreign policy and nothing else", "with their one conservative plank [anti-communism] gone, all that was left was their liberalism", etc.
Then, I read these statements. Quite naturally I wonder whether they are true, or false. But I can't figure that out unless I know who (i.e. WHICH PEOPLE) you mean by the phrase "the neocons". That's why I alternately ask you to identify one or some such people whom you have in mind by "the neocons", or define the term with enough precision that I can figure it out for myself. (It is a perfectly fair request.)
I hasten to add that you'd most certainly ask the same of me if in light of a recent comment by Orrin Hatch, I were to say something like, "The Republicans want to destroy your computer." (I'm sure there are leftists saying this as we speak.) If you read this, you'd think "wait a second, that doesn't sound right. I don't think that Ron Paul, Republican from Texas, wants to destroy my computer. I can think of lots of other Republicans who would probably leave my computer alone, as well. It's not as if destroying-computers is part of the definition of 'Republican'. So, who the hell is he talking about?" You would then ask me to specify which "Republicans" I have in mind by the statement. (Wouldn't you?)
Well, I'm just doing the same thing. It's not as if liking FDR, liking JFK, being conservative on anti-USSR and nothing else, "interventionist" foreign policy, etc, etc are part of the (dictionary) definition of "neocon". So that's why you need to answer either (a) who, in particular, are you talking about when you insist that "the neocons" are these things? Or, (b) what (non-dictionary) definition are you using?
[Republican] What's the definition?
Asked and answered, in an earlier post.
And then I could attack your definition because this or that Republican does not belive X, Y, and Z.
And maybe that would be legitimate. For example, if I gave - as my definition of Republican - "someone who wants to institute communism in America", and then listed a lot of people I think are "Republicans", and most or all of the people on that list (George Bush, Condi Rice, Tom Delay..) don't seek communism in America, you could point out that I have contradicted my own definition.
That's all I'm doing to you. Your definition of "neocon" seems to include this "conservative only regarding anti-USSR" notion. But then as "neocons" you list people like Gingrich and Krauthammer, who are NOT conservative only regarding anti-USSR. Or, as "original neocons" you list people like Irving Kristol and Podhoretz, who (as I've shown) are NOT conservative only regarding anti-USSR. So you see, there is a problem with either (a) the way you are classifying people as "neocons" or (b) the way you are defining the term "neocon" in the first place. (You tell me.)
The dictionary definition is essentially true, but NOT exhaustively true.
Is it the OPPOSITE of true? Because Newt Gingrich doesn't qualify at all (according to the dictionary), not even by a large stretch of the imagination, yet you still call him "neocon".
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?
No, you wouldn't have to ask for those definitions. Remember, you already did, and I already gave them to you (from the same dictionary). (Of course, there is a more basic problem involved in defining words with other words, in the sense that ultimately everything becomes circular, but that can't be what you mean here ;-)
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.
Oh. Ok then, what is your definition of "neocon"? I am still at a loss to figure out why you think Newt Gingrich is a "neocon".
Are you truly unable to explain? This must be about the fifteenth time I've asked. Admit it, this whole phony exercise is about the Iraq war, isn't it? You've latched onto the "neocon" thing to explain why the Iraq war happened, cuz you opposed it, and the "neocon" explanation allows you to blame it (and, in retrospect, other stuff you disagree with) on a "cabal" which has "taken over" conservatism, rather than actually confront and refute the ideas you dislike.
I'd really be able to respect someone who had the guts to just come out and admit that that's what he's doing with this "neocon" stuff.
I stand corrected then. It was just a guess. Perhaps if you used the word "neoconservative" in a consistent and comprehensible way, I wouldn't have to engage in such speculation in order to try to fill in the gaps in your posts and understand what you are trying to say, and why.
Your "definition" of Republican was one who is a member of the republican party.
If the "R" is capitalized, yes.
That's not a definition, that's a tautology.
No, it's the definition. A capital-R Republican is nothing more and nothing less than a person who is a registered member of the Republican Party.
If one is a registered member of the Republican Party, he is a "Republican".
If one is not a registered member of the Republican Party, it makes no sense to call him a "Republican". (At best, he may "lean Republican" or "vote Republican".)
That's my definition anyway. Why, what's yours?
What is it that this party believes in?
Frankly, I don't know the answer to that, with any degree of accuracy anyway. Perhaps you could share your thoughts about this with me (just as soon as you've explained why you categorize Newt Gingrich as a "neocon", of course.)
No. Uh, I guess I should've explained (since you don't seem to realize) that there is a significant difference between the examples of "Republican" and "neoconservative" for this discussion.
"Republican" is a political party with a well-defined membership. It is not a political philosophy per se.
There is no political party called "the Neoconservative Party" or anything like that. It is (supposedly) some kind of political philosophy or ideology.
That's why to say "a neocon is someone who believes in neoconism" is circular, but "a Republican is a member of the Republican party" is not. There actually is a "Republican party" with a well-defined list of names who are "members" of it; there's no "neoconservative party" with a list of names of people who "believe in neoconservatism".
And that's why your current line of argument is messed up. You are mixing apples ("Republican" political party) with oranges ("neoconservative" which is not a party, but it supposedly a philosophy or ideology). I hope you understand now.
I asked what the Republican party stands for/believes and you do not know. You gave me a list of Republicans, but other than the name "Republican" there is nothing that they have in common?
There are probably a few things one can glean from all of the views of my examples which the people known as "Republicans" tend to have in common. I don't know with much certainty what those things might be, beyond the fact that I could make a few rough guesses. Nor does this have any bearing on our discussion.
I remind you that nowhere have I seriously made any sweeping generalizations or psychological theorizing about, or constructed any folk tales about, "the Republicans", as you have repeatedly with "the neocons". Again, if I had said something like "the Republicans want to smash your computer", you would be perfectly justified in seeking all this information (which Republicans? what's my definition of "Republican"? why does Ron Paul not fit my claim, isn't he a "Republican" or am I using the word differently?) from me and expecting me to be able to give reasonable answers. But as it stands you are mixing apples and oranges.
Once again: there is no political party called "Neoconservative". I'm just a little bit surprised you didn't know this ;-P
Some wag once said that the Socratic dialogue is not a game at which two can play.
I have no idea what that means.
Still waiting for your explanation for why you categorize Newt as a "neocon". Why do you keep avoiding or ignoring that question?
I seem to have an annoying habit of falling into discussions with certain bizarrely obtuse or stubborn Freepers in which I ask a straightforward question somewhere around post 30 and then can't for the life of me drag the damn answer out of him even after dozens of exchanges. What is it with Freepers who won't answer straightforward, perfectly fair questions? Do I have to shout it?
WHY DO YOU CATEGORIZE NEWT GINGRICH AS A "NEOCON"?
There. Did you see the question this time? Let me know,
Actually I just want some understandable, coherent definition which I can use to understand the "neocon" folk tales/morality melodramas being thought up by people like you (i.e. "neocons never left liberalism behind. it makes sense that most are Jews". etc.)
I have already stated that political definitions seem subject to quite a bit of change over the span of a short period of time.I have already stated that political definitions seem subject to quite a bit of change over the span of a short period of time.
And I already agreed with you but that's no excuse for you not to reveal your definition of a term which you're repeatedly using. Unless perhaps your definition is continually changing as you use it? That would certainly explain why you have such a hard time putting it into clear terms....
By your logic no one should criticize the political parties because there does not seem to be a political philosophy behind them.
I haven't said this or anything like it.
One cannot make sweeping generalizations about republicans or democrats because a handy google search will produce a speech by a member of either party which contradicts any of the original criticism.
No, one could make generalizations (though perhaps not "sweeping" ones) about Republicans or Democrats, as long as they were accurate. For example, a numerical survey of Republicans might (although it might not, I can't say for sure) statistically indicate that a probable majority of Republicans seek lower income taxes. If this were the case, then the generalization "Republicans tend to be people who seek lower income taxes" would be reasonably justified. One or a small number of exceptions wouldn't necessarily invalidate that generalization; you'd need a large number of exceptions (for example: I found that all the Neocon Founder examples you listed (all two of them) were exceptions to your claim that "the Neocon Founders were conservative on foreign policy and nothing else", which, I submit, really tends to cast doubt on that claim of yours).
See, if you want to support a statement like "neocons never left their liberalism behind", you have to show that it's true by doing the same thing: you have to make some kind of survey of (people whom you think are) "neocons" and then show that some majority of those people "never left their liberalism behind", in some sense.
And obviously to do that, a non-trivial step along the way is to make that list of - or, equivalently, define accurately - who you think are "neocons".
As I've asked you to do about umpteen times now.
So you see, all I've been doing is asking you to do something perfectly reasonable which would be expected in any other similar political discussion: define your terms and substantiate your claims. Until/unless you do that, you're just tellin' weird morality-folk tales starring these vague shady characters "the neocons" which reveal more about you and your proclivities than they do about anyone/anything else in the real world.
Okay. I made sweeping remarks. Sorry.
WHY DO YOU CATEGORIZE NEWT GINGRICH AS A "NEOCON"?
Since then, by my count I've specifically questioned in my posts to you, in one way or another, your categorization of Newt Gingrich as a "neocon" at least 18 (eighteen) times.
Since the first time I asked you this (perfectly fair) question, in response to the posts in which I question this categorization, you've made at least 10 (ten) posts to me, without giving a satisfactory answer.
What exactly seems to be the problem?
Here's the closest you came to actually acknowledging my question and attempting to answer:
the reason why I would hesitate to call Newt Gingrich a conservative is his praise of FDR, his sneering at the pro-life Republican platform, and his helping to expropriate more money than the democrats for favored social programs
There are some things to note about this "answer".
First, you have given me reasons why you would hesitate to call Gingrich a conservative, not why you would call him a "neocon". Even I agree with you that he's Not A Conservative for these three reasons, why does that make him a "neocon"? Maybe it just makes him a Green or something else.
Second, if I take the answer seriously, what you are asserting is that Newt Gingrich is a "neocon" because (1) he likes FDR, (2) he's not strongly pro-life, and (3) something unclear about him having helped raise some kind of taxes (I guess). If what you are saying makes sense then, you can only be saying: In your opinion, if a Republican and semi- or pseudo-conservative (1) likes FDR, (2) isn't strongly pro-life, and (3) doesn't oppose all tax hikes, then he qualifies a "neocon".
I'll just ask: is that your definition of "neocon"? (Note: it's okay if it is; I have just been seeking to understand your usage of the word on this thread!)
If it is your definition of "neocon", then just say so, and we could be done here.
If not, then what is it? And specifically: why do you categorize Newt Gingrich as a "neocon"?
Including my previous post, this is by my count the 20th time I've asked you this perfectly reasonable and straightforward question.
What exactly seems to be the problem?
I'm beginning to think that the reason you have such a hard time answering is that maybe you yourself don't even know exactly why you categorize Newt Gingrich as a "neocon", or, for that matter, just what exactly a "neocon" is in the first place. In fact, based on what you've posted so far to this thread, there is absolutely no reason to believe anything other than that it is a term you just slap onto certain people willy-nilly for personal reasons of your own which remain unclear.
You could always prove me wrong just by answering the damn question, of course. I'll be here,
Destro, in my review of the thread I noticed that I'd missed this article you linked, sorry about that. Thanks for the link :)
Interestingly, these "neocon" people who appear in the "neocon" story as written by Gary North seem altogether different (apart from a few names in common - Irving Kristol etc) from the "neocons" who are recurring characters in TradicalRC's "neocon" stories.
Gary North's "neocon" Origins Story goes like this:
Initially, neoconservatives focused more on economic policy than foreign policy. The movement's first major publication, The Public Interest, began in 1965. It featured readable, footnoted essays by scholars who had grown skeptical of the Federal government's programs to eliminate poverty, crime, racial discrimination, and similar domestic evils. To some extent, Commentary, the publication of the American Jewish Committee, also began to feature articles critical of existing government policy. The same authors wrote for both publications. ...
The "neocons" in this story seem to be, let's say, educated honest good-government types who took a skeptical eye towards utopianist government programs, exposed them, etc. Of particular interest is the fact that these people (North's original "neocons") "focused more on economic policy than foreign policy".
Meanwhile, TradicalRC's "neocon" Origins tale goes like this:
the original neocons got conservative over foreign policy and nothing else
The Origins Story of TradicalRC's "neocons" also seems to significantly involve Jews - Jews taking a jaundiced eye towards communism based on Jews' historical mistreatment in Russia/USSR. But unlike North's "neocons", their focus in doing so was still on foreign policy, in fact at times, TradicalRC makes these "neocons" seem as if opposing the USSR was the only thing they had in common with conservatives:
That ol' conservative Reagan took a strong stand against the evil empire and these liberals were going to back him because of that. The empire collapsed and yet the same guys who supported him Largely on that issue, no longer had that issue, but still had the label neocon. With their one conservative plank gone, all thats left is their liberalism.
There's more (unlike North's "neocons" who were goo-goos writing papers about the failures of government policy i.e. Moynihan, TradicalRC's "neocons" have a "lack of concern over social issues"
Now if one thing is clear it's that North's original "neocons" and TradicalRC's original "neocons" are two different (if overlapping - they both somehow include Kristol) groups of people. The latter "became conservative over foreign policy and nothing else", while the former was not really concerned with foreign policy at all.
I don't know who's "right" and "wrong". Nor does it make much difference to me. (After all I don't believe in this tripe to begin with, so one person's comic book folk tale is as good as another's....) The important thing to note is simply that they use the word in such different ways that it would make more sense to coin two different words; for lack of better terminology we might speak of "North-neocons" and "TradicalRC-neocons", and (extending this pattern) "Buchanan-neocons", "Alterman-neocons", "Dr.Frank-neocons" and so forth.
Widespread adoption of this convention would make it more clear that no two peoples' definition of this word "neocons" is at all the same, and thus would aid communication (in the true sense of the word). On the other hand, it suffers from the drawback that if it were made clear to everyone that no two peoples' definition of "neocon" is the same and that what's really going on is that everyone's drawing up little lists o'neocons willy-nilly, then nobody would be interested in or fooled by people using the word in conspiratorial tones anymore. And that, in the end, seems to be the point of the exercise, at least as long as it's believed that there's political mileage to be gained by this conspiracy-talk.
So I guess I shouldn't hold my breath.
What Chesterton said back then has come true. He predicted that big business and big government would be working together against the little guy, that being you and me. What we have today is a form of national socialism. I believe the we fought a war to defeat that.
My favorite statement of Cheserton's is from his book called EUGENICS and OTHER EVILS. In which he said, quite rightly that INdustrial Capitalism is an admitted failure because it can't afford to pay one man enough to support a family as large as he would freely choose. This is of course recognisable when compared to a farm that can support a family without having to corner the market on one crop, or to state it more clearly without being a commercial enterprise.
Bump for relevance.
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.