Well, but the problem with the OP is that I don’t think anyone thinks NeoCon is interchangable with Jew. I also don’t think Republicans mind the term. Heck, Neoconservatives call themselves neoconservatives.
You know, something has struck me…
I have been wondering for a long time why you, December, have been so idolatry of the Neocons, jumping up and defending them everywhere you can.
Is it maybe that you equate neocon with Jew?
It’s not as if they’re a minority of the party, leading the rest of it around by the nose through extra-democratic means such as intimidation and control of the conservative press and using its positions of leadership to pursue its own hard-line agenda.
Oh, wait a minute. For some reason I thought we were talking about Yassir Arafat’s Fatah. Nevermind.
I repeat my earlier question: does the term “Republican” have the same connotation for you, that same trace of anti-Semitism?
By your own logic, it should. It is used on the same examples you cited, and in the same context, often in the same sentence. Are you equally affronted by the shocking use of the epithet of Republican in your cites?
Or, are you willing to concede that both terms are simply adjectives, thrown in haphazardly in a poorly-written hateful commentary?
Also, Captain Amazing brings up an excellent point… neoconservative is often not a pejorative term at all. When I see modern conservatives using it to describe themselves, they often use it interchangably with “compassionate conservatism.” They seem to use both terms as a way to differentiate themselves from the conservatives of the 1990’s, known in some circles as paleoconservatism.
When many conservatives use the term neoconservative to describe themselves, as a way of saying that they are different (better) than conservatives of the past, how can it be considered offensive?
Neocon may have originated one way but that aint how it is used now.
It is used to distinguish those conservatives without fundamentalist Christian leanings from those with? Talk about having a monolithic view. Everyone who is not a neocon conservative is a fundamentalist?
Seems like it is used to seperate out one group of conservatives, and used for different purposes by different folks.
For some it is a focus on Zionist interest (which sorry, to many implies Jewish or Jew-controlled),to some it means “not one of us”,to some it means very hawkish and imperialistic in leaning, and so on. But it is usually perjoritive nowadays, not self-referential, and apparently with implication of “in the Jews pocket” on occasion.
I doubt the last is its main meaning, or its most common. But it is one of the negative connotations made in use of this ill defined term. It seems like a silly word to use since it seems to have so little current meaning consistly applicable. (I had first heard it in context of blaming Iraq on the Jewish neocons in the Bush administration …)
A little etymology/history is called for here, by the way.
The term “neoconservative” has been around since the mid-to-late 1970’s, and originally referred to a fairly small and specific group of people. More precisely, it referred to intellectuals who USED to be liberals but who gradually shifted toward the right, for a variety of reasons. Among the best-known and most prominent examples: Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. They were called “neoconservatives” (and generally embraced the term) because they were new to conservatism.
The neoconservatives certainly weren’t a monolith (there were serious differences among just the four people I named earlier), but they tended to have several things in common:
-
They were intellectuals.
-
They were USUALLY Jewish (though people like Kirkpatrick and Moynihan weren’t) .
-
They were usually moderate or even liberal on social issues. What drove them to the right, in general, was foreign policy concerns, and a growing fear that the American Left (where most had positioned themselves earlier) was dangerously naive on national security issues and irrationally hostile toward the United States.
During Norman Podhoretz’s tenure as editor, Commentary magazine became the de facto voice of the budding neo-conservative movement. If you want to find out what the original neocons were about and what they thought, it shouldn’t be hard to dig up old issues of “Commentary” and read it for yourself. This wasn’t a secret society! They left a paper trail, for everyone to see.
Of course, a lot of time has gone by since then, and today, a lot of people toss the word “neoconservative” around without really knowing what it means or what it meant. It has become shorthand in SOME circles for “Jewish conservatives” or for “young, intellectual hawks.” But increasingly, its original meaning has been lost (a LOT of people rgularly called “neocons” today were NEVER part of the Left in the first place, so the term doesn’t seem to fit them).
Do I have to re-post the repulsive list of articles from Vanguard News Network? You asked for it:
No, “Neocon” is not used like “Republican” here.
And, some black people use the term “nigger.” And, some gay professors call their curriculum “Queer Studies.”
holmes, I apprecite your posting the full relevant quote from the OP. You interpret that to merely mean that “the word NeoCon isn’t interchangable with Jew.” I don’t agree. Dopers can read your quote of the OP and decide for themselves.
However, I would agree with your version of the OP. Neocon isn’t interchangable with Jew. Many people use the term Neocon without any implication of Jewishness. But, some others do, and these usages are generally from people who disapprove of “Neocons”.
Tsk, tsk, december. Bad form to ignore your own cites. From your own Carol on the Web cite, quoted earlier (I won’t link to it here):
Care to revise your statement now? “Republican” used in the same way as “neocon”… does it have the same meaning? If not, why not?
Not at all the same thing, and I suspect you know it. If you’re seriously trying to equate “neocon” (which astorian has kindly provided some background on) with “nigger” or “queer,” then you’ve got some serious ignorance which needs fighting.
By the way, thanks for the rundown, astorian… most informative. Some people (coughdecembercough) should have a read through it.
First of all, neocon is hardly equivalent to a racial, sexual or religious slur.
It is a perfectly polite word.
It is not USUALLY used as secret code for “Jewish”.
But is is sometimes used that way, just like “East-coast media”, “Hollywood”, “Bankers”, “Rootless Cosmopolitans”, “Pushy” or “Capitalists” are sometimes used as code for “Jewish”, even though the words are not usually used that way.
If the OP wanted to argue that most uses of the term are not anti-semitic then he is correct. If he wanted to argue that the term is never used in an anti-semitic way, or hardly ever used in an anti-semitic way, then I believe he is wrong. Yes, almost all mainstream media uses of the word are not anti-semitic. But when you get to the fringes…the Pat Buchanans, the Louis Farakhans, the Al Sharptons…then I believe they very often DO use the word that way.
The people who use the term as code are typically Paleoconservatives of a particularly neanderthal bent, old-school Fascists, or racial ideologues.
Now you must be killed.
“some blog called Carol…”
Wasn’t this the title of a movie starring Jamie Lee Curtis?
More examinations of the word “neo-con”:
I’m actually glad this thread came about. I see countless posters bashing the Evil Neo-Con Menace, typically said posters having exactly zero clue as to what a “neo-con” is. All they know is that liberal commentators like to use the term to mean “someone I don’t like”, thus it must be cool. I’ve been hoping for something to come about that might eradicate the immense amount of ignorance surrounding the term, and this seems as good a place as any.
Captain Amazing and astorian both gave good historical accounts of where neoconservatism came from, but the question as to what it means now is still somewhat murky. Originally, a neo-con, as stated above, was an ex-liberal (frequently ex-Communist) who was concerned about Communism, and decided to fight it. As such, they had a unique perspective on the nature of both Communism and liberalism. Practically speaking, one of their defining characteristics was that they could attack liberalism using the language of liberalism itself; less colloquially, this means that they were well versed in the social sciences, and could use the exact same type of arguments as the liberals. This was important, as prior to that time, a lot of conservatism was based on sheer common sense. A neo-con would cite studies, delve into complex sociological theories, and eventually conclude that a traditional man/woman couple was better for raising a child than a single man or woman. A classical conservative would say, “Duh, I coulda told you that.”
Nowadays, though, neo-conservatism is a wily beast. The media has effectively removed all meaning from the term through overuse and demonization, in much the same way that the term “fascist” has been butchered beyond all recognition. Both terms once had very distinct meanings. Both of them now, frequently, simply mean “something bad” when used by those on the left.
Really, there isn’t an “official” meaning to neo-conservatism. Opposition to Communism isn’t terribly relevant, anymore. I suppose it could be used as a method of describing pro-Israel tendencies, but this is a pretty widely held conservative position, so the “neo-” seems almost redundant. About the only people who consistently aren’t pro-Israel are the self-described paleo-conservatives. I suppose it could still be used to describe conservatives who use the language of the left, but nobody really uses the term in this way anymore. Truth be told, there isn’t much of a “neoconservative movement” anymore, by any credible definition. Most of those who frequently get labeled neos would just consider themselves plain old conservatives. Most of those who throw the label around have no idea what they mean. Really, when you see the term used in the media, the best way to interpret it nowadays is “pro-Israel people who agree with Bush”, unless it’s a NYT commentary, in which case you can interpret it as “evil conservatives”.
If you want to read some excellent commentary on the various flavors of conservatism (as well as much disdain for the art of ideological subdividing of conservatism in the first place, given conservatism’s historical role as the lack of ideology), head over to National Review Online, and do a search. Much to be read, from the people who actually understand conservatism.
To address the OP specifically, the “neo-con” label can be used as an anti-semitic slur, but it gets slapped onto plenty of non-jews, too (though it’s still typically a slur). When used by, say Pat Buchanon, there’s probably an anti-semitic element to it. When used by Maureen Dowd, probably not. Just read between the lines, and you can figure it out on your own.
Jeff
In outer space no one can hear you kvetch.
So, does anyone feel that neocon is a useful word? Or just a broad pejorative with various negative connotations despite its original meaning of former liberal now foreign policy hawk/real politiker?
I’m agreeing with those who suggest that neocon isn’t a particularly useful word anymore. Generally what used to be neocon positions are now pretty much mainstream conservative positions. Nowadays “neoconservative” and “conservative” pretty much mean the same thing. The old-style conservatives–the religous right, the Pat Buchanans, and such–are the ones that you have to have a special word for.
Perhaps “neocon” really means what “liberal” used to mean. Paleoconservatives are conservatives, neocons are liberals, and liberals are–well, I’m not really sure–maybe social democrats.
Lemur866:
Wow, someone who gets it. Color me impressed. You can’t imagine how hard it is explaining to someone that you’re called a conservative, but really you’re a liberal, and liberals aren’t really liberal anymore, and…
As to what the liberals are nowadays, I think “social democrats” is about as close as you can get to a meaningful label. Socialism certainly plays a large part.
And as a side note, you wouldn’t believe how much the average conservative would love to distance himself from the paleos. They tend to give us a very bad rap, and every tawdry thing they do or say (and they’re in a tiny minority, btw) gets slapped onto conservatives as a whole.
Jeff
So if someone calls me an “idiot cocksucker,” “idiot” becomes a homophobic slur?
For people looking for more inside thinking with regard to neocons, I recommend the book Blinded by the Right by former right-wing idealogue David Brock. It’s a fascinating read, and helps explain a lot about where neo-conservatives came from (politically speaking; astorian’s synopsis is in line with this and other source readings), what happened to them when communism more or less seemed to collapse world-wide, and what has become of the movement since.
David Brock reports that they didn’t often call themselves “neocons,” although he used the term freely in the book. They usually just referred to “the movement,” according to Brock.
ElJeffe’s comments also seem quite apropos, but I must disagree that it is necessarily a slur. I haven’t gotten that feeling at all, excepting in the way that words such as “liberal” or “athiest” are used as slurs. The word itself isn’t a slur, though some people try to use it that way.
One of the common traits of neocons since the global collapse of Soviet-style communism is that of placing liberals as the primary enemy. Demonizing opposition voices (as teasonous, immoral, communist, etc.) is characteristic of the movement. One recalls neo-con voices within the current Bush administration all but labeling as “traitors” those who are in open disagreement with Bush’s domestic and foreign policies regarding terrorism. Luckily, this despicable rhetoric has rather subsided of late (Bush keeping the troops in line, since he is facing another election?), but it was rather frightening in the year and a half or so after Sept. 11.
Certainly, merely demonizing the left isn’t sufficient to place what neoconservatism means anymore. Plenty of conservatives do that, who never had any particular connection to the neocon movement, other than as allies. I think the progression of neocons has been mostly defined by opposition to something: first communism, then Clinton-style liberalism (don’t try to explain to a neocon that Clinton was a moderate!)–during which time the neocons seem to have had an uneasy alliance with right-wing Christian activists–and now the threat of terrorism. Certainly hawkishness is a central characteristic, whether that means fighting wars against communism, liberals, or terrorists.
One could say much the same thing to many on the so-called liberal side of things. It’s hard to be a moderate liberal who sides with some degree of environmental protections when there are people like “Earth First” running around. The temptation to be reactionary is all too easy, which is what I think spawned many of the neocons–a reactionary response to left-wing excess.
However, a minority of conservatives the paleos may be, but oh man do they make a lot of noise, and they have an inordinate amount of influence in the Bush administration.
Paleoconservatives are isolationists, which is not a label that can be applied to the post 9/11 Bush administration. Who are you referring to?
Knorf, thanks for bringing up this thread from the ashes of SDMB history - what a whiff of nostalgia to revisit those epic december/collounsbury tete-a-tetes. 
Knorf:
I have a lot of sympathy with this statement, and elJeffe’s. I have no use for the reactionary politics of the paleos. I’m liberal on pretty much every social issue. I cringe when I hear some of the crap thrown around by Limbaugh and Coulter. And I do admit that after going to college around the apogee of PC absurdity, I have allowed myself a small measure of enjoyment watching how some self-righteous lefties have degraded themselves by covertly/overtly supporting truly despicable dictators.
I’ve got to take issue with this statement, though. I think paleos and the religious right have been completely marginalized in this administration. You know they’ve got to be pissed about all the spending - sure, they like the tax cut, but things like the Medicare bill on top of a huge deficit have them angry.
They’re isolationists - I think the paleos hate the Iraq war almost as much as the left does.
Bush did throw them a bone with the Partial Birth Abortion ban, and he’s still holding the line on opposing gay marriage, but it’s clear that the so-called neocons hold more sway in the Bush administration, and it’s clear to me the neocons have no use for the Buchanan/Falwell/Robertson wing of the party except to use them as obedient voting blocs when necessary. Buchanan has defected from the Republican Party, and you don’t hear much from Jerry and Pat these days, do you?