I don’t mean critical of specific acts, but of policy–perhaps of the sort that Chomsky levels. I’m only talking about Chomsky’s ideas on Israel, not his other views.
Well, certain prominent conservatives - James Baker chief among them - ae perceived as being relatively hostile to Israeli interests. However, this isn’t seen to derive so much from any sympathy to the Palestinians as from realpolitik, as well as from their close connections with the Saudis and other Gulf Arabs.
Strictly speaking, though, I’m not sure those Republicans could be called “neocons.” One defining charactersitic of the neoconservative movement - if such a thing actually exists, and is’t just a media construct - is a pro-Israeli attitude. One True Scotsman, and all that.
The term “neoconservative” isn’t known for its precision these days, especially after it was turned into an epithet tossed around carelessly at protests and on blogs and messageboards.
And American policy overall is friendly toward Israel - it should be noted that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain all addressed the AIPAC conference earlier this year.
So I don’t know what your point is, frankly.
Define “neocon”.
I’ve always read it as “Jews who once listed more to port than they currently do.” At least that’s what the codespeak always seemed.
Mr. Moto is right. “Neocon” might have meant something once, but these days it’s it’s just a meaningless put-down. It’s basically the Democratic version of calling someone a dork.
Hell, neoconservatism had a hold in the Democratic Party at one time. Daniel Patrick Moynihan dabbled with it, Jeanne Kirkpatrick and William Bennett both came from the Democratic Party, and many neoconservatives revered the foreign and military policies of Senator Scoop Jackson. Had Humphrey lived longer, he might have become one - he was no coward or dove, and he hated Communists. He never repudiated the Vietnam War at all.
At one time, all it was was a reaction to McGovernism - it was an essentially centrist bipartisan movement that called for a return to Democratic Party strength in foreign and military affairs (exemplified by Senator Jackson) and on the Republican side a deemphasis on social policy in the political realm - and it was focused outward, since these folks at the time thought the greater threat wasn’t domestic bickering but our external enemies in the Cold War.