# WHY BUSH WON IN 2004: Neoconservatism needs an enemy. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 28, 2004, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638 "2004-10-28T08:46:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/21 "2004-10-28T15:57:45Z")
> [@](#): > > Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz are all admirers and former students of Leo Strauss. Apologies - my syntax was sloppy. Not all neoconservatives are former students of Strauss - only Wolfowitz and Perle specifically qualify in that regard. > [@](#): > > The Soviet Union did not coordinate with terrorist organizations woldwide, and the CIA made up propaganda to the contrary. I cannot prove that Soviets _didn’t_ coordinate global terrorism any more than I can prove the nonexistence of garden fairies. I can only question the intelligence agency evidence which the neoconservatives appealed to, such as Claire Sterling’s book “[The Terror Network](http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/071304.html)”, which _Specialists at CIA dismissed…, knowing that much of it was based on CIA “black propaganda,” anticommunist allegations planted in the European press_ - Melvin Goodman, then head of the CIA. > [@](#): > > The current administration sees power of government dependant on an external threat. This is the essence of [Straussianism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss): that relativism and liberalism decay the power of government because it becomes less _necessary_ than when the fear of a foreign enemy abounds. > [@](#): > > Gorbachev wanted to create a Afghan democracy. Gorbachev admitted the necessity of withdrawing from Afghanistan almost as soon as he came to power, in his 1986 “bleeding wound” speech (negotiations with the UN had actually begun in 1982): the only question was how, and when. Before finally withdrawing in 1989, the Soviets repeatedly asked the US to [stop](http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_n2144_v89/ai_7537775) outside interference and funding of [Osama Binladen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_laden#Afghan_Jihad) and Islamic fundamentalists like him in order to stabilise the extant regime and allow the Afghan army to repel the Islamists and avoid a civil war upon withdrawal. The US replied that it [would not](http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id337.htm), until the last Soviet troop and aid-money had left, even though this clearly doomed Afghanistan to a world of shit at the hands of Osama’s side. Gorbachev, who had foreseen a _stable_ Afghanistan under the tutelage of Pakistan, could see exactly what would happen if the mujahideen beat the Afghan army after the [1988 elections](http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_n2144_v89/ai_7537775/pg_4) which were part of his agreement with the UN. He was right. > [@](#): > > The current administration holds fundamentalist christians in contempt. I apologise and withdraw this: “contempt” is too strong a term. But the neoconservatives themselves are clearly _not_ Christain Fundamentalists - I contend that they merely find it _useful_ as a societally binding myth. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/22 "2004-10-28T16:03:11Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > _Teacher_: And we all know what those psychopaths did _next_. I don’t know it. What happened next, exactly? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/23 "2004-10-28T16:13:14Z")
There, **John** , I’m afraid I’ll have to ask you to use your imagination, since the way you vote depends upon it. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/24 "2004-10-28T16:17:11Z")
> [@](#): > > **Captain Amazing** : He just wants to say the neoconservative movement is evil No, I am arguing that _this is what neoconservatives do_, electorally successfully. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/25 "2004-10-28T16:20:31Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > There, **John** , I’m afraid I’ll have to ask you to use your imagination, since the way you vote depends upon it. Can you give us a one sentence statement of what the debate here is? If it’s this, I absolutely disagree: > [@](#): > > The US electorate had one chance to finally reject neoconservatism, on November 2nd 2004. They blew it. Bush is not a neocon. He has a number of infuential neocons in his administration, but it’s unlcear to me that they will retain their influence if Bush wins for one simple reason: Had Bush not invaded Iraq, he probably would have had a cakewalk to his reelection this year. As it is, if he does win, it will be by the skin of his teeth. Bush and the leaders of the Republican party are not going to miss that in planning future policy. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/26 "2004-10-28T16:22:03Z")
> [@](#): > > Can you give us a one sentence statement of what the debate here is? Neoconservatism needs an enemy. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/27 "2004-10-28T16:25:42Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Neoconservatism needs an enemy. I agree. And it has many-- both inside and outside the Republican party. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/28 "2004-10-28T16:30:14Z")
And how might a voter _reject_ neoconservatism? ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/29 "2004-10-28T16:31:37Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > You’re lucky I do debate with people calling me a girl. I didn’t call you a girl. I was looking for the proper word to use so I checked your profile and noticed you didn’t specify. Consequently I used my default pronoun. If you care how posters refer to you I suggest you inform them of your gender. > [@](#): > > - And, no, he didn’t call the neocons running our foreign policy psychopaths. He called neocons in general psychopaths.\* I don’t think so. The sentence is “And we all know what those psychopaths did _next_.” If he ( Are you sure it’s “he”? “His” profile doesn’t specify either. ) was refering to neocons in general then what possible act could this refer to? Public lynchings? No, I think it is pretty safe to presume this refers to some further atrocity in foreign policy which necessarily restricts the meaning to those who control foreign policy. But perhaps I’m wrong. The question is easily settled presuming you would take “him” at “his” word. > [@](#): > > _And I’m ignoring the substance of the debate because it’s not a debate, it’s a rant. He’s not interested in debating whether neoconservativism is good or bad, or what extent Strauss influenced neoconservative thought, or even to what degree the invasion of Iraq was influenced by neoconservative ideas. He just wants to say the neoconservative movement is evil, that the Bush administration is evil, and that the war in Iraq was evil._ ## That’s a mighty convenient assumption. This isn’t the Pit, after all. Even if only broad assertions are offered in this forum they are subject to contradiction and debate. And there are specific assertions in the OP. The claim that the neocon view is elitist, for instance, that could be challenged without addressing the overall moral standing of the neocon position. BTW- are you actually claiming the label? You would be the first person I recall doing so. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/30 "2004-10-28T16:34:54Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > And how might a voter _reject_ neoconservatism? I knew you’d figure that out-- and that’s the REAL debate, right? It depends. The most obvious way would be to vote for Kerry. But it’s not that simple, as you seem to want to imply. I agree that Iraq is the major issue in this election, and it’s the main reason I didn’t vote for Bush (I’ve already cast my vote). But there are other issues, and it all depends on how one weighs the importance of those issues. Plus, as I said previously, it is not at all clear that the neocons will survive even if Bush is reelected. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/31 "2004-10-28T16:50:54Z")
Neoconservatism has an enemy. It is called reality, and I guarantee it will win eventually. Might not be too pretty for a while, but ultimately this too shall pass. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/32 "2004-10-28T18:06:39Z")
It’s the number of people who get killed in the process that’s the problem, though. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/33 "2004-10-28T18:17:22Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Neoconservatism needs an enemy. Could you define Neoconservatism? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/34 "2004-10-28T18:19:54Z")
In the June 2004 issue of _Harper’s,_ Earl Shorris published an article: “Ignoble Liars: Leo Strauss, George Bush, and the Philosophy of Mass Deception.” His thesis is that the worldview of the neocons is heavily influenced by the philosophy of Leo Strauss (1899-1973), who taught at the University of Chicago in the '50s and ‘60s (and on whom The Master wrote a column last December – [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031212.html](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031212.html)). Strauss’s thesis is that all great philosophical texts contain “hidden meanings.” Philosophers and intellectuals cannot and should not write clearly enough say what they really mean – cannot because it is too dangerous (Strauss was a refugee from Hitler’s Germany, which experience influenced his thinking all his life), and should not because true wisdom is the proper province of an elite. Strauss was also an aristocratic elitist and a natural-law theorist. From Shorris’ article: > [@](#): > > **WISE MEN TELL NOBLE LIES** > > The President of the United States told the world that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. His secretaries of defense and state made the same assertions. They claimed to be telling the kind of truth that enables good countries to go to war against evil ones. . . . > > One of the great services that Strauss and his disciples have performed for the Bush regime has been the provision of a philosophy of the noble lie, the conviction that lies, from being simply a regrettable necessity of political life, are instead virtuous and noble instruments of wise policy. The idea’s provenance could not be more elevated: Plato himself advised his nobles, men with golden souls, to tell noble lies . . . to keep the other levels of human society (silver, iron, brass) in their proper places, loyal to the state and willing to do its bidding. Strauss, too, advised the telling of noble lies in the service of the national interest, and he held Plato’s view of aristocrats as persons so virtuous that such lies would be used only for the good, for keeping order in the state and in the world. He defined the modern method of the noble lie in the use of esoteric messages within an exoteric text, telling the truth to the wise while at the same time conveying something quite different to the many. > > For Strauss, as for Plato, the virtue of the lie depends on who is doing the lying. If a poor woman lies on her application for welfare benefits, the lie cannot be countenanced. The woman has committed fraud and must be punished. The woman is not noble, therefore the lie cannot be noble. When the leader of the free world says that “free nations do not have weapons of mass destruction,” this is but a noble lie, a fable told by the aristocratic president of a country with enough nuclear weapons to leave the earth a desert less welcoming than the surface of the moon. > > **ALL MEN ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL** > > William Kristol has written that "Strauss, by way of his students, is in large part responsible for making the thought and principles of America’s founders a source of political knowledge and appeal, and for making political excellence more broadly a subject of appreciation and study. America’s founders thought it self-evident that all men are created equal, and yet increasing inequality has been the hallmark of the Bush Administration, as it was of the Reagan and Clinton administrations. Donald Rumsfeld’s primary task under Ronald Reagan was to rid the country of the Great Society programs of the early 1960s. Irving Kristol, an early Straussian, advised Reagan and Rumsfeld and their staffs of the need to stop coddling hungry children, educating the poor, and helping the aged, the infirm, victims of prejudice. The current Bush Administration works more boldly toward inequality. It has adopted a tax system suggested by Grover Norquist, another Straussian, a man who publicy compared the inheritance tax to the Holocaust. > > Robert Maynard Hutchins, the founder of the Great Books Program, said, “The best education for the best is the best education for all.” In 1959, Strauss wrote that “Liberal education is the necessary endeavor to found an aristocracy within democratic mass society.” In one sentence he had stated his elitism and his distaste for what he called the vulgarity of democratic society. Three years later he made the ruling elite permanent: “We must not expcet that liberal education can ever become universal education. It will always remain the obligation and privilege of a minority.” Arrogance follows elitism. It leads to cruelty, the capability, even the desire, to use people, to make them into things. No follower of Strauss can agree with Kant’s description of human dignity: man is not a means but an end in himself. The Straussians assign dignity to the few, and those who are deprived of dignity cannot pursue happiness. The study of Strauss’s work does lead to thinking about the Founders: not how they would agree with Straussians but how they would oppose them. > > **DEMOCRACY IS THE RULE OF THE UNWISE OVER THE WISE** > > Plato believed that the wise should rule – and who could quarrel with that? But who then decides among competing wise men, and what should be the limits of the wise statesman’s power? It is instructive to listen to Strauss: “It would be absurd to hamper the free flow of wisdom by any regulations; hence the rule of the wise must be absolute rule. It would be equally absurd to hamper the free flow of wisdom by consideration of the unwise wishes of the unwise; hence the wise rulers ought not to be responsible to the unwise subjects.” Strauss explains that this would result in the subjection of what is by nature higher to that which is lower. His reading of Plato comes down to this: true democracy is an act against nature and must be prevented at all costs. Seen in this light, the Bush Administration’s public claim to be bringing “democracy” to Iraq, all the while working to ensure that elections do not take place, takes on new meaning. > > **NATURE ABHORS A CONTRACT** > > Long before the events of September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration – goaded on by Wolfowitz, Kristol, the American Enterprise Institute, the Project for the New American Century, and others on the right – had made a decision to oust Saddam Hussein. Bush seems to have had a personal vendetta, but the others had more philosophical reasons. There was nothing Machiavellian about the attack. It was based on principles the planners derived from natural law. One suspects that President Bush, with his simplistic messianic mind-set, was attracted to this line of reasoning: The natural law in the very heart of human beings, the innate ability to know right from wrong, took precedence over mere convention. And so the Bush regime flouted the contract that was agreed to when the United States joined the United Nations; it flouted the U.S. Constitution, which is also a contract, by attacking without the required declaration of war by Congress; and it disregarded the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in other secret detention camps around the world. > > The administration’s wise men held up Strauss’s version of natural law as the model, dismissing contracts as mere laws of men. Natural law, interpreted by Bush’s “wise counsels,” gave the President permission to launch a pre-emptive war through an appeal to the higher power. Natural-law theory assumes that men seek the good and that by asking the perennial questions – what is virtue? what is justice? – they will come to wisdom. Straussians, like Kristol, hold that the Founding Fathers espoused natural-law theory, saying that natural law was both divine and self-evident. But the Founders were concerned with inalienable natural rights. After much debate in their convention, they wrote a contract. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/35 "2004-10-28T18:23:42Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Could you define Neoconservatism? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism\_(United\_States):](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_%28United_States%29:) > [@](#): > > **Neoconservatism** is a somewhat controversial term referring to the political goals and ideology of the “new conservatives” in the United States. > > Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives are characterized by an aggressive stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and lesser dedication to a policy of minimal government. The “newness” refers either to being new to American conservatism (often coming from liberal or socialist backgrounds) or to being part of a “new wave” of conservative thought and political organization. > > Neoconservatism is a controversial term whose meaning is widely disputed. The term is used more often by those who oppose “neoconservative” politics than those who subscribe to them; indeed, many to whom the label is applied reject it. The term is sometimes used pejoratively, especially by the self-described paleoconservatives, who oppose neoconservatism from the right. Critics of the term argue that the word is overused and lacks coherent definition. For instance, they note that many so-called neoconservatives vehemently disagree with one another on major issues. > > As a rule, the term refers to journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and institutions affiliated with policy think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Heritage Foundation and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and periodicals such as Commentary, Policy Review and The Weekly Standard. The neoconservatives, often dubbed the neocons by supporters and critics alike, are credited with (or blamed for) influencing U.S. foreign policy, especially under the administrations of Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) and George W. Bush (2001-present). Neoconservatives have often been singled out for criticism by opponents of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, many of whom see this invasion as a neoconservative initiative. > > **Beliefs** > > This political group supported a militant anticommunism; more social welfare spending than was acceptable to libertarians and mainstream conservatives; and sympathy with a non-traditionalist agenda, being more inclined than other conservatives toward an interventionist foreign policy and a unilateralism that is sometimes at odds with traditional conceptions of diplomacy and international law. They feuded with traditional right-wing Republicans, and the nativist, protectionist, isolationists once represented by ex-Republican “paleoconservative” Pat Buchanan. > > But domestic policy does not define neoconservatism; it is a movement founded on, and perpetuated by an aggressive approach to foreign policy, opposition to communism during the Cold War, free trade, and opposition to Middle Eastern states that are perceived to pursue terrorism or anti-Israel policies. Thus, their foremost target was the conservative but pragmatic approach to foreign policy often associated with Richard Nixon, i.e., peace through negotiations, diplomacy, and arms control, détente and containment (rather than rollback) of the Soviet Union, and the beginning of the process that would lead to bilateral ties between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the U.S. Today, a rift still divides the neoconservatives from many members of the State Department, who favor established foreign policy conventions. > > Intellectually, neoconservatives have been strongly influenced by a diverse range of thinkers from Max Shachtman 's strongly anti-Soviet version of Trotskyism (in the area of international policy) to the elitist, ostensibly neo-Platonic ideas of Leo Strauss. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/36 "2004-10-28T18:24:38Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > Student: So, no WMDs were found in Iraq? > > Teacher: Not initially, but later large caches were found in Jordan and adjoining countries. No definitive proof was found linking them to Iraq, but that’s almost certainly the case. Talk about fiction… :rolleyes: Anyway, in regards to the OP, I quote George Orwell: “A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or Eastasia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.” ---
**Author:** ![hazel-rah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/73ab20/32.png) [@hazel-rah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hazel-rah)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/37 "2004-10-28T18:36:17Z")
I’m enjoying watching **Debaser** ’s Zeno’s Paradox style of debating. Perhaps one day, after infinity plus one years, **Debaser** will actually make some sort of counterargument instead of infinitely regressing in ever more niggling demands for cites. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/38 "2004-10-28T19:10:26Z")
Anybody reading the OP can see that it makes some pretty wild statements without any backing at all. It isn’t until post #26 that **John Mace** manages to steer the OP into something resembling a debate. My questions and requests were entirely reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/39 "2004-10-28T19:17:14Z")
**BrainGlutton** , I’m familiar with the Wilkepedia definition for Neocon. It’s an interesting one because it basically admits that the term has a very murky and muddled meaning. > [@](#): > > Neoconservatism is a controversial term whose meaning is widely disputed. The term is used more often by those who oppose “neoconservative” politics than those who subscribe to them; indeed, many to whom the label is applied reject it. I submit that the term doesn’t really have any value. It’s more an insult than a useful label. The OP up for debate is “Neoconservatism needs an enemy.” This can be true, or untrue depending on how you want to define neoconservatism. But, since it’s used mainly as a meaningless insult, especially by those on the far left such as **SM** , it doesn’t matter. It’s like going to Stormfront and trying to debate them about the **Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG)**. It’s pointless because I won’t be using the terms they will be with the same underlying assumptions that they will all have. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2004, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638/40 "2004-10-28T19:23:41Z")
> [@](#): > > **Debaser** :It isn’t until post #26 that John Mace manages to steer the OP into something resembling a debate. Like the **title of the thread** , you mean? If debating me is akin to debating Stormfronters, debating you is like trying to draw a fractal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-bush-won-in-2004-neoconservatism-needs-an-enemy/271638.md?page=3)