Replies

However, I’d like to point out that neocon has no agreed definition, and most of those accused of being neocons don’t define themselves as such. As used, it tends to just mean anyone more in favor of intervention than I am.

So being opposed to neocons is pretty much a straw man situation.

I fully concur.

It's the most overused yet totally meaningless term used.

Jesus Christ: You can’t impeach Him and He ain’t going to resign.

With the possible exception of “fascist.”

Neocon originally had little if any foreign policy connection. It referred to liberals who “had been mugged,” and had switched over the conservative or sorta conservative POVs on domestic issues, particularly those involving welfare and government dependency. As such, for quite a long time, conservatives of a more traditional bent were generally quite happy with neocons joining them.

For some obscure reason, during the GWB administration I believe, the term got transferred to proponents of spreading the American way of life around the globe, by military force if need be. This was usually, though perhaps not always, a cartoonish interpretation of the “neocons” actual opinion.

The term itself is based, apparently, on the absurd notion that conservatives are proponents of such intervention. The actual fact is that in US history there is little or no consistent correlation between liberal or conservative views and interventionist ideas in foreign policy.