Neocon

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_Wright
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Peter_Wright

Guest
I am starting a thread for discussion of the acceptability of the term Neocon. I have heard it used in multiple contexts and usually in a derogatory manner. I want neocon definitively defined and well-stated and respectful opinions regarding this term. The use of the term will then be discussed and a decision will be made by Robert Bay as to whether or not this term is appropriate to use in discussion, as well as penalties for violating the Forum rules in the event that you can’t help yourself.
 
The term is used often in place of the word Jew. If it is used in that manner I would be against its use because it really is being used an anti-Semitic way and I don’t think there is any room on our forum for anti-Semitism.

The problem is sometimes it is difficult to tell the motivation of the author.

Another problem with banning the term is that it is used in many editorials and news articles. It has become part of the American political vernacular.
 
It probalby hinges on whether the people who ‘are’ the neo-cons - Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rove, etc. - are happy with the term or think it is an insult. It could conceivably be like ‘New Labour’ where they are quite happy to be called that, or alternatively it may be viewed as an insult (though it has to be said it is a convenient shorthand for a particular type of policy and politician, and I can’t think of anything remotely similarly short).

As for the Jew thing - I wonder how many people hadn’t thought about it until it was pointed out to them? (One at least - me). I have issues with their politics, I don’t care about their religion.

Mike
 
40.png
MikeWM:
It probalby hinges on whether the people who ‘are’ the neo-cons - Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rove, etc. - are happy with the term or think it is an insult. It could conceivably be like ‘New Labour’ where they are quite happy to be called that, or alternatively it may be viewed as an insult (though it has to be said it is a convenient shorthand for a particular type of policy and politician, and I can’t think of anything remotely similarly short).

As for the Jew thing - I wonder how many people hadn’t thought about it until it was pointed out to them? (One at least - me). I have issues with their politics, I don’t care about their religion.

Mike
Click to expand...
This is the problem in the forums. People use it without having any ideo what it really means. If we are going to continue using this term in the forums, with the exception of it being referenced in linked news articles, we had better define it in such a way that everyone understands and agrees with it.
 
Peter Wright:
This is the problem in the forums. People use it without having any ideo what it really means.
Click to expand...
To me it means a set of political policies and ideas, and the politicians who subscribe to those ideas.

The religion of such people ought to be irrelevant. It doesn’t seem to be any different to the way some people here use ‘socialist’ and assume that it means the person is atheist/godless. This may have been true (though I doubt it) at the time of Rerum Novarum; it certainly isn’t true today.

Mike
 
Peter Wright:
Thank you. At least someone added something of substance to the conversation. I still do get the feeling though that this term is more perjorative than helpful or descriptive.
Click to expand...
I have read the wikipedia entry. I feel that the pejorative tone associated with ‘neocon’ is simply the sneer attached when addressing people who follow neocon political philosophy: the same sneer attached to the legitimate term ‘libertarian.’ The sneer is not going to go away simply by forbidding the use of the term ‘neocon.’

If neocon in and of itself meant something disrespectful then I would be more hardline about forbidding the use of the term. But it has no such intrinsic meaning. If a decision is made to forbid the term then what are we going to call ourselves/them? The new right? Nouveaux conservateurs? It ends up being six of one and half a dozen of the other imho.

Perhaps the problem also lies in the overfamiliar abbreviation of ‘neo-conservative.’ But we have already had that out. That is already a rule and has only to be applied.

I am not aware of the indirect slur against Jews. I would like to know more about that because, if this is the case, I am definitely against using ‘neocon.’ I think the test is whether the term can be used legitimately or is always a slur.
 
As I stated in the other post (of which I cannot find), I consider it a derogatory term just as the Radical Traditionalists find a certain term use here to describe them.

I ofter here neo-con and Nazi (who were really socialists) used interchangeably. I think it should be banned.

PF
 
40.png
MikeWM:
It probalby hinges on whether the people who ‘are’ the neo-cons - Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rove, etc.
Click to expand...
I don’t think any of these guys consider themselves neocons. And, believe it or not, they all have dramatically different political leanings within American Conservatism.
 
40.png
gilliam:
I don’t think any of these guys consider themselves neocons.
Click to expand...
Would it matter? If they fit the description sufficiently to warrant some label, they can’t avoid it by saying that they don’t consider themselves to be such.

BTW, and I may be wrong, but while Rumsfeld and Rove haven’t referred to themselves as neo-cons, I think that Wolfowitz has acknowledged that he is such.
 
40.png
WanderAimlessly:
I often here neo-con and Nazi (who were really socialists) used interchangeably. I think it should be banned.
Click to expand...
Calling a person a Nazi isn’t a reference to their political philosophy but a reference to the brutality the Nazis demonstated.
 
I’ve always taken Neo-Con to mean very, very conservative: taking the everyday conservative views and pushing them to the extreme.
 
40.png
WanderAimlessly:
I ofter here neo-con and Nazi (who were really socialists)
Click to expand...
…except as I said, in the other thread, they weren’t. They took a few ideas off the socialists but they hated actual socialists. The real socialists in Germany were the only people who voted against Hitler’s Enabling Act in March 1933.

I don’t think banning words helps, personally, but then I’m not a moderator. If people want to say something, they will manage to find a way, even if some words are banned.

Mike
 
40.png
wabrams:
I’ve always taken Neo-Con to mean very, very conservative: taking the everyday conservative views and pushing them to the extreme.
Click to expand...
I agree. Neo-con to me is a person at the very far edge of “respectable” conservatism; any more to the right and the person becomes a right-wing extremist. IMO.
 
Arba Sicula:
Would it matter? If they fit the description sufficiently to warrant some label, they can’t avoid it by saying that they don’t consider themselves to be such.

BTW, and I may be wrong, but while Rumsfeld and Rove haven’t referred to themselves as neo-cons, I think that Wolfowitz has acknowledged that he is such.
Click to expand...
Of the 3, Wolfowitz is the closest to my definition of a neocon being a ‘compassionate conservative’, and that part of him is coming out again. You will see him genuinely helping people less fortunate in the next few years.

I don’t see a lot of liberal social causes in Rumsfeld’s past or future. I could be mistaken here, so let me know.

And no one quite knows what Rove is except a very good political boss. So other than by associating him with Bush, I don’t see how anyone can say what he is.
 
Arba Sicula:
I agree. Neo-con to me is a person at the very far edge of “respectable” conservatism; any more to the right and the person becomes a right-wing extremist. IMO.
Click to expand...
You are incorrect

Neocons are liberal on social causes.

There are people who don’t have liberal views on social causes who are more to the right of neocons. The current description of those are paleocons.

Then you have the Isolationists who are in the extreme.
 
40.png
WanderAimlessly:
I ofter here neo-con and Nazi (who were really socialists) used interchangeably. I think it should be banned.

PF
Click to expand...
Yes, but some people are Nazis and identify themselves as such. Just because someone does not like the term ‘Nazi’ does not mean it should not be used where such use is indicated. The trouble comes when people attempt to call people Nazis who are not Nazis.

Same for neo-con. If we eradicate all the terminology that we don’t like just because we don’t like the political philosophy to which it refers, we will end up with two words: ‘doubleplusungood’ and ‘good.’
 
How about:

Avoid categorizing people by a term which could be considered derogatory (e.g., Nazi or neocon) unless they have embraced that title. In which case, you may qualify them with the term as long as you preface it with the word “avowed.” Posters are asked to use their best judgement when posting articles using such terms.

Will that work?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top