Conservatives on crack

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-21 04:57pm

Durran Korr wrote:Well, it does have a position, but a fairly-middle-of-the-road position, not the arch-conservative position you are imagining it to have.

Pardon me. I had assumed NeoCon was someone was extreme conservatist in all things, not just foreign policy.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-10-21 05:01pm

SirNitram wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Well, it does have a position, but a fairly-middle-of-the-road position, not the arch-conservative position you are imagining it to have.
Pardon me. I had assumed NeoCon was someone was extreme conservatist in all things, not just foreign policy.

Actually, it's a moderate conservative in foriegn policy alone.

Mike was the one that started throwing around the term Neocon as a subsititute for far right conservative and his camp picked it up from him.

Rhadamanthus · Post by **Rhadamanthus** » 2003-10-26 12:12am

Meh, if you want to know what a neocon is, read Leo Strauss.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-10-26 12:17am

What is funny (or perhaps scary) is that both parties would appear to be on the right-of-centre in many other Western democrocies

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-26 12:36am

Crown wrote:What is funny (or perhaps scary) is that both parties would appear to be on the right-of-centre in many other Western democrocies

In the United States most major political parties from other countries would appear to left-of-centre to far, far left-of-centre.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-26 12:36am

Durran Korr wrote:
Crown wrote:What is funny (or perhaps scary) is that both parties would appear to be on the right-of-centre in many other Western democrocies
In the United States most major political parties from other countries would appear to left-of-centre to far, far left-of-centre.

That's obvious given Crown's statement.

aronkerkhof · Post by **aronkerkhof** » 2003-10-26 01:01am

Stormbringer wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Well, it does have a position, but a fairly-middle-of-the-road position, not the arch-conservative position you are imagining it to have.
Pardon me. I had assumed NeoCon was someone was extreme conservatist in all things, not just foreign policy.
Actually, it's a moderate conservative in foriegn policy alone.

Mike was the one that started throwing around the term Neocon as a subsititute for far right conservative and his camp picked it up from him.

That's bugged me as well, but its far more widespread then just here. I've seen neocon thrown around as a sort of conservative slur from just about any left-leaning blog you can think of. I've always heard neocon's described as "a liberal who has been mugged by reality." It certainly wasn't intended to mean "psycho far-right crazy", though that's rapidly becoming common usage.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-26 01:16am

As far as I'm concerned, a neo-con is somebody who's far right on both economic and international policy issues. And since I haven't yet seen a neo-con who is not "coincidentally" a standard-issue "the market is God" economic far-right conservative, I see no reason to modify that definition.

Post by **Kuja** » 2003-10-26 01:18am

I happen to believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton were the worst presidents in our nation's history.

:banghead::banghead:

OK kiddies, gather round. See what happens when you try too hard?

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-10-26 01:04am

Kuja wrote:
I happen to believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton were the worst presidents in our nation's history.
:banghead::banghead:

OK kiddies, gather round. See what happens when you try too hard?

I just noticed something in the statement: By saying "Bill and Hillary Clinton were...", isn't it insisting that both of them were president?

Post by **Kuja** » 2003-10-26 01:05am

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:
Kuja wrote:
I happen to believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton were the worst presidents in our nation's history.
:banghead::banghead:

OK kiddies, gather round. See what happens when you try too hard?
I just noticed something in the statement: By saying "Bill and Hillary Clinton were...", isn't it insisting that both of them were president?

THAT'S MY POINT.

aronkerkhof · Post by **aronkerkhof** » 2003-10-26 01:28am

Darth Wong wrote:As far as I'm concerned, a neo-con is somebody who's far right on both economic and international policy issues. And since I haven't yet seen a neo-con who is not "coincidentally" a standard-issue "the market is God" economic far-right conservative, I see no reason to modify that definition.

But neoconservatism already has an accepted definition. As you note, currently most neocons are also free-market proponents, but that hasn't always been the case and will probably not be the case in the future. Joseph Liberman could be described as neoconservative, after all. It would be similar to saying that as far as I'm concerned an atheist is somebody who denies the existance of a higher power and likes to debate sci-fi, and since I haven't seen anyone around here that isn't a standard issue sci-fi geek, etc.

Do what you want, but the blurring is getting so rediculous that I've seen social policy linked to neocon philosophy, to the extent that neocon is just another slur tacked on to rants associated with GWB and company.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-26 01:36am

aronkerkhof wrote:But neoconservatism already has an accepted definition. As you note, currently most neocons are also free-market proponents, but that hasn't always been the case and will probably not be the case in the future. Joseph Liberman could be described as neoconservative, after all.

Accepted by whom?

The dictionary definition of neoconservatism is "a former liberal espousing political conservatism", which has nothing to do with this "conservative only with respect to international policy issues" definition I keep hearing about. And the word "neo-conservatism" is simply "conservatism" with a prefix on it, so technically, it actually means "new conservatism". Since there is a recent upsurge in political conservatism and (quite frankly) pathetic George Bush ass-kissing, it would be perfectly reasonable to term anyone subscribing to the current batch of ideologically correct right-wing positions in America as a neo-con.

It would be similar to saying that as far as I'm concerned an atheist is somebody who denies the existance of a higher power and likes to debate sci-fi, and since I haven't seen anyone around here that isn't a standard issue sci-fi geek, etc.

Except that your definition would be a huge violation of the literal definition of the word based on a much smaller group, while I have seen no evidence whatsoever that this definition of neo-conservatism which you claim as "accepted" is exclusive or (for that matter) accepted.

Do what you want, but the blurring is getting so rediculous that I've seen social policy linked to neocon philosophy, to the extent that neocon is just another slur tacked on to rants associated with GWB and company.

Why shouldn't it be? There has been a dramatic upsurge in political conservatism on all issues since Sept. 11, 2001, hence a new atmosphere of conservatism in American politics. Unless you think the term should really be restricted to people who jumped the fence, in which case you need to find out about someone's personal past before you know whether the term is applicable.

aronkerkhof · Post by **aronkerkhof** » 2003-10-26 01:50am

Darth Wong wrote: The dictionary definition of neoconservatism is "a former liberal espousing political conservatism", which has nothing to do with this "conservative only with respect to international policy issues" definition I keep hearing about.

Neoconservative describes the foreign policy component of GWB et al. A liberal can be a neocon, and a conservative can not be a neocon. I don't see the difficulty here?

[qupte]And the word "neo-conservatism" is simply "conservatism" with a prefix on it, so technically, it actually means "new conservatism". Since there is a recent upsurge in political conservatism and (quite frankly) pathetic George Bush ass-kissing, it would be perfectly reasonable to term anyone subscribing to the current batch of ideologically correct right-wing positions in America as a neo-con.[/quote]

So, what you're wanting is a term like neo-neocon. Or maybe ultraconservatism.

Except that your definition would be a huge violation of the literal definition of the word, while I have seen no evidence whatsoever that this definition you claim as "accepted" is exclusive or (for that matter) accepted.

I'm not sure how to refute that. Neoconservatism has a political meaning, which can be verified by checking definitions at political resource sites and publications. Outside the blogosphere and opinion pages, you'll be hard pressed to find a neocon definition that rolls up fiscal and social issues into it. Search for "what is neoconservatism" in google and the first 10 results all back up the "accepted" definition.

There has been a dramatic upsurge in political conservatism on all issues since Sept. 11, 2001, hence a new atmosphere of conservatism in American politics. Unless you think the term should really be restricted to people who jumped the fence, in which case you need to find out about someone's personal past before you know whether the term is applicable.

I don't dispute the term is being morphed as we speak. I'm just saying its being hijacked in a manner similar to the way "hacker" was in the 90s. I'm not saying this is an unacceptable use of the English language, terms shift meaning all the time. But that is what's happening here.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-26 02:10am

As far as I'm concerned, a neo-con is somebody who's far right on both economic and international policy issues. And since I haven't yet seen a neo-con who is not "coincidentally" a standard-issue "the market is God" economic far-right conservative, I see no reason to modify that definition.

Neoconservatism is a ideology founded on hawkish foreign policy and it remains that way. Domestic policy has not and never will define neoconservatism.

Neocons (there is no hyphen, FYI) tend to support a small welfare state, and they don't really have the animus towards big government often found among hard conservatives (which is no surprise, given that the Irving Kristol was an ex-Trotskyite). As for being arch-capitalists, well, they actually tend to conflict with the more pro-capitalistic conservatives on some issues, China especially (they do not believe the U.S. should trade so much with China, as they see it as a threat). John McCain - not a hard economic conservative by any stretch of the imagination - and his policies were also quite popular among neoconservatives - The Weekly Standard even endorsed him over Bush.

aronkerkhof · Post by **aronkerkhof** » 2003-10-26 02:11am

Well, damn. I guess the change has already occured.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search? ... nservative

An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-26 02:14am

What change? As I said, the most literal interpretation of the word "neo-conservatism" is simply "new conservatism". People can choose to call themselves "neo-cons" and make up some strange exclusive definition if they want to, but they happened to choose a word with an obvious meaning.

aronkerkhof · Post by **aronkerkhof** » 2003-10-26 03:19am

Darth Wong wrote:What change? As I said, the most literal interpretation of the word "neo-conservatism" is simply "new conservatism". People can choose to call themselves "neo-cons" and make up some strange exclusive definition if they want to, but they happened to choose a word with an obvious meaning.

The literal interpretation of the word neoconservatism had already been used to describe a specific line of political thought. It was new, but it was new a long time ago. The new conservatism of which you speak has nothing to do with the old neoconservatisms. The literal definition of turbo laser is "souped up laser", which is fine and dandy until you realise that the term is already in use for something else which doesn't fit the literal definition.

There is abundant proof of the pre-existing exclusive definition of neoconservatism, as the aforementioned search of google shows. What happened is that people who knew what it meant used it to describe various aspects of the Bush doctrine, and then people who didn't know what it meant thought it was some new term made up to label the Bush administration, and in less than four years the new definition has superceded the old one. I'll grant you the change, but I'm puzzled as to why you deny there ever was a change, or as it appears above, saying that the "old" definition is a weird made up spin for the correct "new" definition.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-26 04:26am

aronkerkhof wrote:The literal interpretation of the word neoconservatism had already been used to describe a specific line of political thought. It was new, but it was new a long time ago. The new conservatism of which you speak has nothing to do with the old neoconservatisms.

Doesn't "old neoconservatism" qualify as an oxymoron?

The literal definition of turbo laser is "souped up laser", which is fine and dandy until you realise that the term is already in use for something else which doesn't fit the literal definition.

Actually, the "turbo" prefix does not mean "souped up". That is the riceboyz definition of "turbo". The "turbo" prefix normally means that it relies upon gas pressure and a turbine, so "turbolaser" ends up being a technically meaningless term, unlike "neoconservative". People who think "turbolaser" means "laser" just don't know what "turbo" means (not uncommon; technical terms are often misinterpreted because the average person has the scientific and technical knowledge of a monkey).

There is abundant proof of the pre-existing exclusive definition of neoconservatism, as the aforementioned search of google shows. What happened is that people who knew what it meant used it to describe various aspects of the Bush doctrine, and then people who didn't know what it meant thought it was some new term made up to label the Bush administration, and in less than four years the new definition has superceded the old one. I'll grant you the change, but I'm puzzled as to why you deny there ever was a change, or as it appears above, saying that the "old" definition is a weird made up spin for the correct "new" definition.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that a term with a very obvious meaning (unlike "turbolaser", whose meaning is only "obvious" if you have no idea what "turbo" means) was co-opted by a specific group.

It's not a matter of us perverting it from its original definition; the people you speak of perverted it from its correct definition. Saying that a word like "neoconservatism" can originally mean something other than "new conservatism" is like saying that if a group crops up calling itself "anti-theists", they can make anti-theism mean something other than "against theism". Certain prefixes, like "pro" and "anti" and "neo" have very specific, clear meanings. Sticking them in front of something generates a universally recognized definition.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-10-26 05:15am

"Neoconservatism" is neither new or conservative. Merely fascism in a slick package.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-10-26 11:23am

What? I thought this thread was gonna be about Rush's drug abuse.

aronkerkhof · Post by **aronkerkhof** » 2003-10-26 01:13pm

Darth Wong wrote:
aronkerkhof wrote:...

What does post-modern thought mean? Does that mean thought set into the future? When the future becomes the present, is it no longer post-modern, but modern?

Labels often have specific meaning not associated with their literal ones, especially in philosophy and political "science". Things are far worse in the art world. Its ironic that you correct me in usage of the rice-boy definition (or really, the marketing definition, as there has been turbo cleaning power in detergents long before guys started modding their civics) of turbo in favor of the correct one, as that's what Durran Korr did with neocon to start this thing off. I get your argument that neocon means new con and you feel GWB is a new type of conservative and thus, viola. But we're at the point now where I just say "yes, but..." and around we go.

Anyway, I feel this conversation is starting to get silly, so I'll just conceed whatever points are at stake here. Curses, you've foiled me yet again! I'll just have to take my revenge when my Colts bury your Bills next month, since I clearly can get no satisfaction in the intellectual arena.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-26 01:21pm

So because marketing companies don't know what 'turbo' means, we should throw away the relatively wide-known definition of 'neo' for the benefit of a few people who don't like what a name means in plain English?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-10-26 01:22pm

SirNitram wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:
SirNitram wrote: The Left Wing Extreme(All things controlled by the government, Communism) is criminalized and demonized in the 50's-60's.
I believe you left out a little thing involving Senator McCarthy and
his subsequent self-destruction in 1954. And the American Communist
party was never criminalized. I believe you're getting America and Europe
mixed up.
McCarthy Trials existed, massive anti-Communist propaganda existed, the Black List... I realize you want to remove anything that'll paint your country as the true massive-Right Wing place it is, but I'd appreciate you not outright lying. McCarthy did self destruct, but his influence lives on.

McCarthyism and the Second Red Scare was largely dead by 1960. I don't see in the midst of the first large social programs and social upheaval that we were heading backward--to the right.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-26 01:23pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
MKSheppard wrote: I believe you left out a little thing involving Senator McCarthy and
his subsequent self-destruction in 1954. And the American Communist
party was never criminalized. I believe you're getting America and Europe
mixed up.
McCarthy Trials existed, massive anti-Communist propaganda existed, the Black List... I realize you want to remove anything that'll paint your country as the true massive-Right Wing place it is, but I'd appreciate you not outright lying. McCarthy did self destruct, but his influence lives on.
McCarthyism and the Second Red Scare was largely dead by 1960. I don't see in the midst of the first large social programs and social upheaval that we were heading backward--to the right.

So much for trying to find out why America has leaned so far Right of the rest of the world.