NeoCon

It's difficult to know what a person's point is when the person doesn't say what his point is. But anyhow I got interested in the article duckman cites and choose to report what I found out:

THE FIRST ARTICLE DUCKMAN CITES:

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/joelmowbray/2003/05/27/170051.html

This article criticizes an article in the strongly conservative Business Week magazine for claiming that neoconservatives were strongly advocates of invading Iraq. Hmmm. Surely you don't believe that, do you? It says nothing at all about the left, or about liberals or about Democrats.

From this article:

'Neocon': Slang for 'Jew'?
In an article titled "Where do the neocons go from here?" Richard Dunham attempts to explain to a lay audience what a neocon is and where the "movement" is headed.

"May 27, 2003
by Joel Mowbray

"Hitting at what may be a new low in the "neocon" code-word game, Business Week magazine recently ran a "news" story that practically screamed "Jew"--without saying the word at all.

"But in the current era, there seems to be a strong tendency to use neocon as a label for someone who strongly supported the war in Iraq or to describe someone who is, well, Jewish. Mr. Dunham's Business Week piece at first only seems to be doing the former. Using neocon interchangeably with "superhawk," he further writes, "The close-knit intellectuals who make up the neoconservative movement have been called extremists, warmongers, American imperialists -- and even a Zionist cabal." Eschewing the traditional news reporting practice of countering criticism with praise, Mr. Dunham allows those shockingly harsh adjectives to go unchallenged.

"To anyone who has taken the time to fully understand the worldview of so-called "neocons" like Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Perle, however, the word superhawk is silly."

THE SECOND ARTICLE DUCKMAN CITES:

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/joelmowbray/2003/05/27/170051.html

The subtitle of this article is "Don't call me a "neocon" unless you are a friend." The article doesn't say where the author got the power to impose that rule on people.

It does, however, make clear what it required of us:

"So let's go over the rules: Just because we call ourselves "neocons," it doesn't mean you can. Of course, if you're right-leaning and don't intend the word disparagingly, you get a pass. Just know that unless you're aware that "neoconservative" also includes last names like Bennett, Kirkpatrick, Sowell, Kemp and Ashcroft, when you refer to someone as a neocon, you're saying "Jew." We might suggest reverting to previous, less codey expressions such as "Jewish conservative" or "Republican Jew"--especially since not every right-leaning Jew is neo. But not to worry: We neocons, Republican Jews, Jewish conservatives and Jews for Bush won't take offense, since we don't want American Christians to feel even more paranoid than they already do (particularly during "holiday" season)."

It is a little hard to decipher what the author requires of us, but apparently if you know that there are non-Jewish neocons it's okay to call a neocon a neocon.

About the Maureen Dowd article, which is wrongly cited as naming only Jewish neocons:

The article is mainly a complaint about the way President Bush treated Colin Powell.

Here is the part naming the neocons:

"In The Post, nearly all of the names of those who could move up if Mr. Powell moves out are Iraq hawks: Condi Rice, Paul Wolfowitz and Newt Gingrich were mentioned as candidates for secretary of state; Wolfie, Cheney Chief of Staff Scooter Libby and Condi deputy Steve Hadley, who may be radioactive after the uranium mistake, were mentioned for national security chief."

The Christian Science Monitor, another conservative magazine, has an article at http://search.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html entitled Neocon 101, describing what it considers neocon to mean. Strangely, the only mention of Jews is a comment that the original conservative movement was started by a group of, dare I say the word?, Jews.

Here is the article:

Neocon 101
Some basic questions answered.
What do neoconservatives believe?

"Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power ? forcefully if necessary ? to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.

Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Hussein's ouster.

Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. Believing that authoritarianism and theocracy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the Middle East, neocons advocate the democratic transformation of the region, starting with Iraq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily hampered by multilateral institutions, which they do not trust to effectively neutralize threats to global security.
What are the roots of neoconservative beliefs?

The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world.

Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans.

What is the difference between a neoconservative and a conservative?

Liberals first applied the "neo" prefix to their comrades who broke ranks to become more conservative in the 1960s and 70s. The defectors remained more liberal on some domestic policy issues. But foreign policy stands have always defined neoconservatism. Where other conservatives favored d

some asked about the origins of the term. Don't read if you don't like

I just think it would have been better if you had stated what your purpose was in posting them, especially since the articles were mainly about criticizing certain people with little attention paid to the source of the term "neocon".

known what he was getting at, as you kind of started it here
http://reviews.cnet.com/5208-6130-0.html?forumID=50&threadID=137452&messageID=1547592
And since the thread was locked he had to start a new subject to prove his point.

... loses all credibility when you get to this:
Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire.

When used by the left in this country considering the makeup of the current administration, it means influential Jewish conservatives. Those who oppose neocons are the "no war for Israel" types

does nothing to validate anyone's argument. They are snide attempts to provoke. They defect truth from reaching the ear.

to the mooreons and moveons that fling it around?

Your post was just an opportunity that presented itself at, what I thought was, an appropriate time and relevant considering some of the discussions that take place here. If one wants to make a point....fine. If one wants to take a verbal jab...fine as well. But a blow to ones ear blocks the ability to hear anything else of importance. Just my opinion.

although I see many instances which seem to me to be a much more appropriate time to bring up the subject that is the case with my putting "if anything" in my title.

Hope you don't mind but I was unable to respond to, what I thought, was a legitimate question of yours. This topic is related enought but the other is no longer "available" for comment. It so happens that the rapid fire nature of some postings will mean that one may be typing a reply while others are posting as well and these comments are cannot be seen or reponded to. Such was the case for the ones you mentioned. I also cannot find it in myself answer as to why I did not show displeasure with other posters comments. I might do this directly to them but not mention to a third person as this is akin to gossip. I do appreciate your taking the time to respond, however. It's nice to know that folks take the time to read ones remarks and there is no better way to know if what is being said is what is being heard.

Grandpaw7, my reply about labels is attached to Duckman's and not yours. It might look that way but it's not. I was confused by your "if anything" comment but my mind isn't always so quick after the extra coffee I tend to drink on Sunday's I did not remember responding to anything of yours but errant mice and keystrokes can happen. In this case, it's just an "optical confusion" and my reply was to duckman.:)

for this and your prior post. Goodness, there are not too many people who are as conscientious as you. I'm afraid I am one of them. I hope you rub off on some of us.

My apologies for that part of the title to my post that reads "if anything".

Keep up the good work, Steven. This forum needs a lot of policing.

policing if members went out of their way to present topics that aren't deliberately put out there to bait and inflame....if members went out of their way to stop throwing personal zingers into their posts, even when the post itself contains good, factual information.....if members didn't feel justified with getting 'down and dirty' on a personal level and stick with the debate/discussion at hand.

Please, remember what your first, original posts were like, grandpaw7 because you believed when you came here that it was a free-for-all forum, and stop being such a hypocrite at this stage of the game.

TONI

No, Toni, you are quite wrong when you say that when I first participated in the forum a number of years ago I was thinking it was a free for all, although after I joined there were many posts, some by you, that made me wonder. While I certainly have crossed the line at times and said things I wish I hadn't, I have hardly stooped as low as many posters whose stock in trade is mainly snide remarks which are totally nonsubstantiive, such as the one in this thread to the effect that if I were to delete all of my nonsubstantive posts, there wouldn't be any left (though it is true that if one were to delete all the snide, nonsubstantive posts from some threads, there would be little left). I am making an effort not only to restrict myself to substantive posts but to quit responding to snide posts, although when I am falsely attacked as in this case I sometimes feel I should respond. Even if what you claim happened many years ago were true, isn't it about time you got on with your life?

someone else's comments.

"This forum wouldn't need so much policing if members went out of their way to present topics that aren't deliberately put out there to bait and inflame..."

OK. So let's see. A member posts something about how horrible Israel is and some other members freak out and call it a bait and the thread may as well get locked and the initial poster gets some kind of warning or a messager to stop the inflaming and baiting posts, since he/she knows very well that it is a sensitive topic to some members. They might as well write something negative about the USA and a member starts to freak out and the reason is that he/she is passionately a nationalist who loves this country and that should be respected.

Other people present topics about how bad the Muslims are and those who reply to that by saying NO are the baiters... How does that equation sum up? Because if you do a search on Israel and Muslims you will see clear examples of this.

and the descriptions, I see confirmation in my feelings that I was being insulted when I'm being referred to as a 'neocon' mainly because of the tone used to say it....I picture a sneer when I read the word as it gets bandied about.

I looked at the various descriptions, and feel that I am not a 'neocon'....I'm an independent free-thinker who makes every attempt to gather all the facts AS WE KNOW THEM AT THE TIME and then make my own decision about what I believe is right. I consider myself to be more of a 'jurist' at a trial that is on-going every day I wake up. As the trial progresses, I may or may not change my mind based on NEW FACTS BEING SHOWN INTO EVIDENCE before rendering a verdict.

I think many politicians actually view and decide on the facts presented AT THE TIME, make public statements about their verdict, putting foot in mouth publicly and onto documents, then when the facts change years later, they don't have the guts to just flat out say, "Hey, I thought I was doing the right thing based on what we were presented, and now that years later NEW evidence is being presented, I need to take a whole new look at the first decision. That doesn't mean that the OLD evidence was wrong at that time or that somebody cooked the books in order to sway my decision....it just means that sometimes it takes a long time to get MORE evidence to show that things are different now and calls for a NEW decision."

Unfortunately, in that case, we may not find out until years later that even the NEW evidence was wrong. You go with what you have AT THE TIME and the finger pointing years later doesn't do any good and is nothing more than attempts to cover their butts politically. Somewhere along the line, the CYA theory becomes more important than getting to the truth and diversionary tactics then enter the big picture to throw the heat in another direction.

Thank you for the links....

TONI

... is that it is never spoken.

If one were to read some of the libertarian websites take on neoconservatism it is difficult to miss.

Your impression of neoconservatism as being more hardline than Goldwater conservatism is rather interesting. It is actually FAR more moderate as it evolved from disaffected liberals. Irving Kristol defined neoconservatives as "liberals that were mugged by reality". I accept that definition to describe my own politics as I was a liberal in my youth.

IAC, when bantied about by the left in the context of this current Administration, is a codeword for the Wolfowitz's and the Perle's, IOW the "Jewish cabal" that has infiltrated and taken over the White House to use the American military for the Zionist cause. Since Bush is a devout Christian having his puppet strings pulled by these and the "religious right", it all gets lumped into an innocent-enough sounding slur that rolls easily off the tongue.

Evie

... that he considered me to be a neoconservative. Based on the links he provided, he intended, I'm sure, to refer to the "classic" definition. Most that refer to me as such here are not doing so using the same definition.

Evie

people on Speakeasy are calling you a neocon as a religious slur?

Dan

Evie says:

"When used by the left in this country considering the makeup of the current administration, it means influential Jewish conservatives. Those who oppose neocons are the "no war for "Israel" types."

"The point about the Jewish thing Angeline ...
... is that it is never spoken. If one were to read some of the libertarian websites take on neoconservatism it is difficult to miss."


"IAC, when bantied about by the left in the context of this current Administration, is a codeword for the Wolfowitz's and the Perle's, IOW the "Jewish cabal" that has infiltrated and taken over the White House to use the American military for the Zionist cause. Since Bush is a devout Christian having his puppet strings pulled by these and the "religious right", it all gets lumped into an innocent-enough sounding slur that rolls easily off the tongue."

It's strange how Evie thinks she knows what is in the mind of people when they use the term "neocon". Even more strange to lump all the "left" together and accuse, not a few, but all, all the millions, of having the same thoughts.

And the support for such accusations? There isn't any. "You can trust me, I'm a conservative".

I and I am sure millions of other liberals do not think along ethnic lines when using the term "neocon". I really dislike being accused by people who have no way of knowing what they are talking about.

As Irving Kristol, the father of William, who some call the father of neoconservativism, said:

"And if you can give your foes a collective name ? liberals, fundamentalists or neocons [OR THE "LEFT"]? you can rob them of their individual humanity. All inhibitions are removed. You can say anything about them. You get to feed off their villainy and luxuriate in your own contrasting virtue."

As David Brooks, the conservative columnist, said:

"Some people have dumb ideas. I personally believe that the neocons have dumb, naive ideas. (Incidentally, they believe the same about me.) But I'm not an anti-Semite. They simply can't have it both ways: expounding on a coherent, named political philosophy to each other, but saying that disbelievers who use the term are anti-Semites."

It is shameful how much anti-semeticism there is. And it is shameful how some people want to convict all their enemies of being anti-semetic.

... using words. For starters it helps to know what they mean (learn the definition of oxymoron yet?), and additionally it helps to know what the contemporary connotations are.

One of duckman's links supplies sufficient evidence of the codeword antisemitism that exists. If one doesn't know that connotation out of ignorance (dictionary definition, not insulting) then a "pass" is given. When one is informed of the general usage (and neocon is used as a pegorative by self-described "enemies" of those using the label about 99% of the time) then its continued use can no longer be excused without infering intent.

To say that one cannot see the Jewish connection to the term is to say that one cannot detect even a hint of anti-semitism in the writings/speeches of Pat Buchanan.

If you don't like being lumped with the tin-foil hat wearing, anti-semetic faction of the left, I suggest finding another term for your "enemies".

around. The meaning of the word isn't going to change because you want it to. It is understood quite well these days what the term means.

seem to regularly bring up. This time it is a Jewish Zionist cabal in the WhiteHouse. After awhile it becomes boring. But then again we all know that the JEWS invented the holocaust in order to further their ambitions to rule the whole world! The same goes for polio vaccine and the
hidden agenda of A. Einstein and his diabolic E=MC2.

They also invented terrorism via the Stern Gang of the late forties and early fifties. And I am sure there are websites galore which will support all of these statements! Including the ones who think that the Catholic Church is nothing more than the Christian equivalent of a vast JEWISH cabal!

What is the same old nonsense? Who are you criciticizing?

.... but what I understand is that he gave examples of some of the wild stuff presented as "facts" on the internet, and in the minds of some people.

I actually knew a woman who firmly beoieved that we did not go to the moon - that all of the photos came from a Hollywood set.

I also recall the time when the fluoridation of water was some sort of conspiracy.

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email
semods4@yahoo.com