Talk:Neoconservatism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Jan-June 2005

External citation

• The following seems to be a link to a story-less page. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:33, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC) Does anyone have any idea why it's here? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:39, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Leo Strauss

Leo Strauss wasn't a neo-conservative. (added anonymously 25 Sep 04 by User:4.171.6.9)

I agree with that and would say that callin him one is anachronistic. Anyone disagree? -- Jmabel 18:08, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Leo Strauss was a conservative who influenced neo-conservatives. Read Irving Kristol's book, Neo-Conservatism: Autobiography of an Idea.

Besides Kristol and his son, what other conservatives has Leo Strauss influenced? And what are the Straussian ideas that influenced Irving Kristol?

In answer to your first question: Paul Wolfowitz, Abram Shulsky (Pentagon's Office of Special Plans) [1], Carnes Lord (worked for Dan Quayle). FrontpageMag.com says that all of the following are either " his students or students of his students", but I don't know who is which: Clarence Thomas. Robert Bork, Alan Keyes, William Bennett, Allan Bloom, John Podhoretz, former National Endowment for the Humanities Deputy Chairman John T. Agresto. [2]. I'm sure this list could be much expanded.

In very partial answer to your second: I'm no expert on Strauss. He is most famous for his commitment to extreme close readings of ancient texts, which is neither here nor there politically. I gather that he is known for agreeing with Plato on the importance of a ruling elite that understands the true nature of things and does not share its true motivations with the general public, which many feel leads to a rather Machiavellian politics. Yes, that's probably a biased view: I'd love to see this addressed by someone more knowledgable on the subject. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:24, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I don't totally understand the foundation for the question here. Let me put my question this way: I have had many teachers, and I maybe agree in general with 20% of them, and of those 20%, I don't agree 100% of the time, so how can you classify a person based on who taught them?

--Noitall 04:42, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Strauss was one of those people who almost everyone agrees was, above all, a classroom teacher and a moulder of minds, the kind of teacher who doesn't so much have students as disciples. By several accounts, his written works, even transcriptions of his lectures, don't catch what he was like in person in the classroom. Not all of his students took a right-wing interpretation of his views -- like many other notable philosophers he was open to a certain degree of interpretation -- but I've never heard of anyone who studied under him who didn't count him as an important influence. I don't think that is a particularly controversial matter. The importance of Strauss as an influence on those not in a direct lineage is, however, controversial. In other words, whether there is any meaningful influence from Strauss to, say, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, is another question entirely. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:07, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Judaism and neo-conservativism

This community needs to decide which way the page is to go. Does it want to have a broad definition of neocons which encompasses most conservatives in existence today, or does it want to focus on those anti-communists who felt abandoned by the democratic party. If it wants the broad definition, then I suggest removing the Jewish references altogther because they would not have probitive value, and would tend to reinforce the already sometimes pejorative tag with an element of anti-semitism and jewish conspiracy. If some prominent neocons are from Eastern European jewish families, then instead of casting this as a general characteristic of neocons, those specific neocons should be named that lead someone to conclude this is a theme or pattern. Also, the reference to neocons in the 1960s seems a stretch, since that is back in the time of scoop jackson, when anti-communists were not that uncomfortable in the democratic party, is someone tracing the past of or characterizing specific current neocons with this point?--Silverback 08:49, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Several points:

1. There is no reasonable argument directly connecting Judaism, which is a religion, to neoconservatism. The issue is its putative origin among a certain group of (mostly secular) Jews. The distinction is as important, unless you are planning to call FDR and JFK "Christian leaders".
2. Clearly "most conservatives in existence today" are not neocons, although it is arguable that neocons dominate the foreign policy of the present U.S. administration. It is relatively hard to find neocons outside the U.S., and certainly the U.S. does not hold the majority of the world's conservatives. But even in the U.S., I have no trouble rattling off a lot of prominent conservatives who are not neocons: William Buckley, John McCain, and Jack Kemp leap to mind. John Ashcroft. Clarence Thomas. G.W. Bush himself: he may have several of them in high places in his administration, but he is not one of them himself.
3. Equally clearly, the term most refers to a certain current of thought originating in liberal anti-communism (and even in Trotskyist anti-Stalinism). This doesn't make the liberal anti-communists and Trotskyist anti-Stalinists retroactively neoconservative, but it does make them important as the history and origin of this current of thinking. It is a bit anachronistic to call Henry Jackson (or Max Schactman) a neoconservative, but entirely appropriate to indicate them as intellectual ancestors. Similarly, G.W. Bush is not a neocon, but is influenced by them in his thinking about foreign policy.
4. Speaking as an ethnic Jew, and not a conservative of any sort: at the point where neoconservatism became an identifiable movement it was overwhelmingly a movement of Ashkenazaic Jewish intellectuals. There is nothing conspiratorial or secret about this: this core group includes a goodly number of co-authorships and even marriages, and initially clustered around a relatively small number of intellectual journals and, later, foundations. They may not like the label "neoconservative", but it has stuck, and there is certainly a need to have a term for what is clearly a current in American politics (or, more precisely, among American political intellectuals). Jewish origin is important on several counts. I think it largely accounts for the strong commitment to the prerogatives of the Israeli government (if not, in my view, always to Israel's best interests, but that is neither here nor there) and the distance retained from the Christian Right. Similarly -- and this is harder to demonstrate -- I believe that a lot of the intellectual style of Krisol, Himmelfarb, et. al. is best understood in terms of their origin in the secular intellectual Jewish left. I wish I had a way to formulate that better, but even though I very much disagree with their politics, when I read them, I recognize the intellectual style as coming from the same culture as my own. I think a lot of other secular intellectual Jews would say the same, regardless of their individual politics. I suspect some have, in print, and that citations could be found to that effect. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:23, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

It this article is to identify neo-conservatism with mainstream conservative institutions like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, then why delve into the minutia of the background of a few intellectual contributers? If identifying mainstream institutions as neocon in public discourse, is pejorative rather than probative, we should document it as such. If neocon has been watered down so much, that it is merely a synonym for conservative, then perhaps this article should just become a redirect, and the minutia discussed here should be relegated to a section on the now obsolete origins of the term.--Silverback 08:55, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some good points are raised. But, the tendency is to underestimate the relationship (and alliance) between neo-conservatives and the religious right in the US. Read Irving Kristol's Neo-conservatism: Autobiography of an Idea or the works on domestic and social policy written by many so-called "neo-conservatives" (including Jewish conservatives). They call for a greater role for religion (including, if not primariliy meaning, the Christian religion)in public life (This would also be consistent with Leo Strauss's purported influence on their thought). Likewise, the Christian Right types are onside as vocal advocates for many of the neo-conservative's foreign policy initiatives, like a pro-Israel stance. While the liberal media has suggested Pat Robertson was anti-semitic, he actually received the State of Israel Friendship Award. --Rexrexilius 07:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Soooo, I'm not sure what your point is, are you supporting a broader definition of neocons that includes the Christian Right?--Silverback 08:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would think that documentable linkages should be mentioned, while keeping it clear that these are two distinct positions/contingents, sometimes allied as a matter of principle, sometimes allied as a matter of convenience, sometimes disagreeing. For example, the Christian Right and the neoconservatives both support Israel, but on different principles. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:45, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, Jmabel, that these are two distinct positions/factions. My primary point is that when you read the writings of the core group of these intellectuals being characterized as neo-conservatives, you realize that they take positions that encourage and cultivate a space in public life for religious positions on social issues, such as those taken by the Religious Right. In Irving Kristol's book, Neo-Conservatism: An Autobiography of an Idea, in the "An Autobiographical Memoir" chapter, Kristol writes:

"And here, I think, is where what we call "neoconservatism" has made its major contribution in these past two decades. By enlarging the conservative vision to include moral philosophy, political philosophy, and even religious thought, it helped make it more politically sensible as well as politically appealing. Supply-side economics, in one version or another, offered neoconservatism an economic approach that promised steady economic growth--a sine qua non for the survival of modern democracy. Neoconservatism, for its part, has provided traditional conservatism with an intellectual dimension that goes beyond economics to reflections on the roots of social and cultural stability. If the Republican Party today is less interested in the business community than in the pursuit of the happiness of ordinary folk, and if--as I think is the case--this has made the party more acceptable and appealing to the average American, then I believe the work of neoconservative intellectuals has contributed much to this change."

In addition, while Kristol does not endorse a "literal interpretation" of scripture (it is unlikely that he has read much of the Christian version of the Bible afterall), he has joined with evangelicals in arguing that where Darwinian evolutionary biology is taught, they should also be teaching "intelligent design" theory (of which "Creation Science" is a part). See, for example: Why do neoconservatives doubt Darwin?

So, according to Irving Kristol, introducing moral/religious/philosophical debate into American politics is one of the defining contributions of neoconservatism to US (Republican) politics. I agree that Kristol et al did not do this singlehandedly, as the religious right were also angling for a larger role. (It could very well be that Neoconservative intellectuals who are secular Jews are playing with fire by helping to empower the evangelical right--there is undoubtedly a history of anti-semitism for some, but not all. But, based strictly on Kristol and what he says (and recognizing that not all of the so-called Neocons agree with each other on everything), I would suggest that neoconservatism rests on three bases: 1. Advocating a place in the public realm for moral debate and morally based social policy (rather than restricting moral issues to the private realm) 2. Aggressive Nationalism/Foreign Policy (accompanied with intense patriotism, though earlier in his career Kristol was critical of nationalism/extreme patriotism) 3. supply-side economics (though this on it own is not enough for Kristol, as it does not address "social and political health"). --Rexrexilius 01:49, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Side issue: "...it is unlikely that he has read much of the Christian version of the Bible..." Why unlikely? Do you think it burns Jewish fingers when we touch it? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:49, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

It is possible that he may have read the Christian version, the New Testament. He has an interest in these moral issues. But his interest would be academic/intellectual not spiritual, was my point. His Jewish heritage is a big part of his personal identity. His background will inevitably mean he is coming to the topic at hand from a different perspective than someone coming from an Evangelical Southern Baptist perspective. I think you would agree to that, and your own comments in this section are consistent with this. --Rexrexilius 07:05, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly agree with that, but please don't presume that Jews are ignorant of Christian scripture. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:28, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Have you seen this latest edit of the article by Jacquerie? ("Neoconservatism as a "Jewish Movement")? If it is not removed, it should probably be moved to the critics section. While Jacquerie is simply commenting on a commentator, it does seem to leave a lingering distaste of anti-semitism. It alleges that neoconservatism has an "agenda" similar to other "Jewish movements". Several points: 1. I can't help but think that the so-called "Jewish Conspiracy" theories have their roots in 19th century opposition to Jewish emancipation, whereby Jews became entitled to participate in public life. It seems that some people think that Jews aren't entitled to get involved in public affairs and influence political thought and decision-making (and win people to a perspective through persuasion), just like everyone else. 2. It implies that non-Jews are being used to further "Jewish Interests," like they are dupes. This is kind of like the flipside of leftists alleging that minority members of conservative movements are "tokens", being used to further white male interests. 3. Neo-conservative committment to mass immigration-- It is interesting that right-wing economic thought (free trade etc.) leans towards the free flow of people (it is also a Libertarian theme). So, it is unique for social conservative thought (which has also influenced neo-conservatism and vice versa), but not to conservatism necessarily. Anyhow, nothing dispells these concerns like educating yourself. Here is a link to a recent article by Irving Kristol that goes into the ideology in more detail (and is less focused on history and personalities, though that is in there, too: The Neoconservative Persuasion. This hits on many of the themes I discussed in a previous discussion post. If you disagree, like most people will, fine, but defend his right to argue his position just like everyone else does and can. Cheers. --Rexrexilius 02:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I just saw User:Jacquerie27's edit and I'm appalled. I'm not going to pass judgement on whether Kevin B. MacDonald's views on Jews are anti-Semitic, but, to say the least, treating the Jewish people primarily in terms of evolutionary biology is out of the mainstream of scholarship. It's also a bit dehumanizing. Surely we can find a better source to cite, who does not view Jewish culture as an entymologist views insect culture. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:21, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Your spelling of entomologist suggests that you might need to learn a bit more about science before you start passing judgment (etymology is something different). Suppressing a source because someone is "appalled" by it would leave very little in many articles on Wikipedia. Jacquerie27 09:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, please don't be condescending, it suggests only that it was late at night and I was very angry at you, and not proofreading myself carefully. This is not a matter of "suppressing" a source, it's a matter of how that source is handled, and what other sources are added. I had agreed -- indeed, argued -- above that neoconservatism arises from a primarily secular Jewish intellectual tradition. That is a very different matter than whether it is (as your latest edit has it) a "movement designed to advance primarily Jewish interests". And, my, does that word "designed" smack of conspiracies and ulterior motives. Is it MacDonald's or yours? Frankly, MacDonald's views (with which I am only marginally familiar, so perhaps I should say "MacDonald's views as you present them") border on the Great International Jewish Conspiracy. There are plenty of people we could quote on the Jewish roots of neoconservatism rather than quote someone who appears to be hostile to both neoconservatism and Jews. I continue to say that I find the choice appalling. Might it deserve mention? Possibly. Does it deserve to be the main thing we say on the subject of Jewish roots of neoconservatism. Absolutely not. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:52, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

My choice of word, but I'm not sure it has quite those connotations. MacDonald's essay on neo-conservatism has been in the external links for some time and his scientifically based, peer-reviewed theory ties neo-conservatism into a larger pattern, which I'm not sure anyone else's more informal ideas about n.c. do. Jacquerie27 22:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I suppose he's peer reviewed in socio-biology circles, but I view that as being only one step up from being peer reviewed in cold fusion circles. This is almost (though admittedly not quite) like saying we should have Marxist views on everything because Marxism is "scientific". -- Jmabel | Talk 00:43, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Some of the most severe critics of sociobiology (no hyphen) have been Marxist, or heavily influenced by Marxism, and sociobiology is much more widely accepted than cold fusion. He would call himself an evolutionary psychologist. Jacquerie27 10:09, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Amazing how I know less about neoconservativism after reading the front page than before I read it. nobs

Anybody know what happened to the history?

It looks like Rex inserted a lot of stuff written by others, including me, I'm not quite sure what happened, I'm trying to understand the sequence.--Silverback 06:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I quoted Irving Kristol at length. I think my point was consistent with some of the points you were making, but I didn't amalgamate your comments into mine at all. The history page is working. --Rexrexilius 07:09, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is this compare that I don't understand, [3]. All the additions were by you, but my comments are in there somehow? --Silverback 07:57, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, it seems fine now. I was having technical trouble with it, as the page would seem to freeze up on my computer. --Rexrexilius 08:06, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no indication that the MacDonald article is "research", evolutionary psych or otherwise

I read the article, there is no research, it is just generalizations, insinuations and speculation. What about it is evolutionary psych? Where is the evidence of "recruitment"? Where is the evidence that the arguments with "mass appeal" are not valid positions on their own merits? The MacDonald article makes unsubstantiated statements about neocons such as "they are attempting to rearrange the entire Middle East in the interests of Israel." I have left the MacDonald paragraph largely untouched, because it is about his opinions, but I have tried to cut out this POV material where it has krept into the rest of the article.--Silverback 12:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As soon as I saw your user-name I made a hypothesis about your behaviour and testosterone levels. Pantroglodytes would have been better, IMO. Jacquerie27 14:04, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The difficulty I have with your introduction of MacDonald, is that you move from identifying him as an evolutionary psychologist to stating that he "conducted research", which would lead one to conclude that his paper or article was scientific and peer reviewed. Rather, his is a "research" paper in the sense that it is footnoted and the facts should be able to be relied upon, if not the generalizations and the theories. His paper is more analogous to the research a historian might do, who is defending his theories rather than uncovering new "facts". I am not irreparably opposed to characterizing his paper as a "research" paper, but the language as put forward so far, would give a misimpression. Can you propose a compromise or does the current language suit you? --Silverback 14:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think saying he conducted research is fair, because neo-conservatism is obviously an historical/sociological topic and not (yet) a scientific one. All the same, science can (and will increasingly) illuminate it and he's identifying well-established psychological phenomena. It's also fair to note that The Occidental Quarterly is a journal of opinion, but I don't know that many proper scientific or historical journals would have wanted to touch the paper: MacDonald thanks "an expert on Leo Strauss for his comments" and notes that "at his request, he must remain anonymous".[4] That may say rather disturbing things about the way the topic is being policed. Jacquerie27 21:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Since Leo Strauss, a philosophy professor, taught several of the putative founders of the neoconservatism, MacDonald concludes he is a central figure in the neo-conservative movement and sees him as 'the quintessential rabbinical guru with devoted disciples'." Hmmm. Is it just me or has MacDonald managed to make Strauss into a Jesus figure? --Christofurio 03:51, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Lieberman?

I notice the recent addition of Joe Lieberman to the list of neoconservatives. I've never particularly thought of him as one. Does someone have a decent citation for this? Otherwise, I am inclined to remove this. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:22, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps he is just a fellow traveler. He does seem on board for the foreign policy initiatives, and presumably is more liberal on social issues than the paleo-conservatives, so unless one views the label as a pejorative, it would seem to be appropriate. If the label is a pejorative, then we probably should not use it on anybody without their explicit self identification with it.--Silverback 04:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here are some cites:

• http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:s_4F1u7fwvYJ:www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese97.html+f+Joe+Lieberman+to+the+list+of+neoconservatives&hl=en,
• http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:XkzKisJIP2QJ:www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/000919.shtml+f+Joe+Lieberman+to+the+list+of+neoconservatives&hl=en.

I didn't add it, but it seems to make sense idealogically. -Willmcw 04:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Sobran piece also points to Gore and Clinton as adopting neoconservative positions. Reese is using it as a pejorative, accusing Liebermann of a "love-in" with Cheney. --Silverback 06:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think we are just repackaging old theories here. Don't the actions of the neo-conservatives across many sectors just reflect the continuing powers of church, business and the old aristocracies. Why don't we just call them right wing, corporatist, judasim/christian facists.

Unsigned one, wouldn't calling them leftists Rooseveltian internationalists or leftist Wilsonian internationalists be more evidence based?--Silverback 08:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Neoliberalism

Is there any link from this topic to Neoliberalism?--Nerd 17:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The New Republic

I removed a link to The New Republic in the text of the article and gave a plausible explanation. My edit was promptly reverted by JamesMLane, with reference to a discussion on this talk page. I've gone through both this portion and the archives, and I simply cannot find a discussion of TNR anywhere. Can someone point me to where this discussion took place if I'm merely glossing over it? If it is not here anywhere, I recommend removing the reference to TNR. Jersyko 02:24, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I got sidetracked before posting my comment here. The reference to The New Republic didn't say that it's a neocon magazine. Instead, as an illustration of the neocons' influence, it identified The New Republic as one of the magazines that host their writings. That's certainly true according to at least one author ([5]). I've restored The New Republic to the list. JamesMLane 02:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

TOQ

User:Zantastik writes (in an edit summary) that "the occidental quarterly proclaims itself to be white nationalist and is clearly paleoconservative". Certainly the latter is true, and even a quick read of its web site will confirm that "white nationalist" is on the mark, but I was wondering if there is actually a citation for them calling themselves "white nationalist"? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:46, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

While I completely agree that the term "white nationalist" fits perfectly, at least one of the Quarterly's writers prefers the term "European American separatist" (whatever) instead. I couldn't find a citation (on the Quarterly's homepage or via Google) of the Quarterly describing itself as "white nationalist". Jersyko 04:22, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Calling them paleoconservative appears to be original research. We need some citations here, especially since Zantastik seems to claim he already has one for the white nationalist.--Silverback 08:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Their own web site claims them to be "a third school", "emerging" from paleoconservatism. Reading the web site, the only distinction I see is that they are more overtly racialist, precisely where the "white nationalism" comes into the picture. Silverback: (1) Have you looked at their web site? (2) Are you saying that the characterisation is inaccurate? Or simply insisting that we find some reasonably authoritative third party to quote on the matter? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:37, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

The home page of their website used to be titled something to the effect of "a Journal of nationalist opinion". I believe the changed it recently. -Willmcw 17:36, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad they don't claim to be paleoconservative, but something different, because apparently people can call themselves whatever they want. Paleoconservatives are not nationalistic, they are strong supporters of the constitution, not because they love the government, but because they don't trust it. This occidental group is obviously emphasizing other things on their web site.--Silverback 13:48, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

All that matters for this discussion is that the TOQ's editorial perspective is very clearly not neo-conservative. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:34, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Prominent neoconservatives

IMHO this section should be deleted. It's too opinion-based and incoherent, and always will be. (unsigned User:Mirror Vax, 9 Apr 2005)

Deleted. Mirror Vax 13:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It should be OK to list those who self-identify as neocons, also, whatever standard is applied to make the list, should also be applied to be identified in the text and by one of the photos as a neocon.--Silverback 13:56, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

A list, unlike the main text, does not allow for nuance and multiple points of view. At best it is redundant. Mirror Vax 14:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the list. It's not really helpful in understand neoconservatism as an idea. The Social democracy page went back and forth over including a list for months. If you have a list 90% of the time spent editing the article degenerates into a back-and-forth nitpicking about who ought to be on the list and who oughtn't. It's a pointless waste of time. Since not very many people self-identify as neocons, such a list would be misleadingly short, and unrepresentative of how the term is used popularly. Further, there would be little to prevent people from adding their pet favorite neocons to the list, causing us endless headaches having to revert the additions and inform every last conspiracy-clown about the overly restrictive self-identification criterion. It's not worth it. —thames 17:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In any case, there is already a list as a standalone article, list of neoconservatives. -Willmcw 19:47, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Evolution of meaning of term

From our lead: "Whereas the term was originally used for former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but aggressively opposed the Soviet Union, now the term is primarily used to describe those who support an aggressive worldwide foreign policy against radical Islam and terrorists. The term is also used to descibe those who are accused of adopting a 'unilateral' foreign policy rather than relying on United Nations concensus and actions." Well, yes, but the evolution is mainly in the politics of the individuals involved, or their progeny. Obviously, no politics today could be defined largely by aggressive opposition to the Soviet Union: it might as well be defined by opposition to the Ottoman Empire! -- Jmabel | Talk 18:37, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

There is now no unifying theory or application. Whereas before the term formerly referred to former Democrats turned Republican, now it does not. Whereas the term formerly dealt with domestic issues, now it sometimes does. When paleoconservatives use the term, it refers to domestic issues along with foreign policy issues, but when Democrats use the term, it solely refers to foreign policy. Now, the term is solely about politics and not any underlying theory. The only commonalities from the old definition to the new definition are that the term primarily refers to Republicans. A term that had a use in the days of the Soviet Union and the Cold War may have little usage today. That does not mean that it is proper to resurrect the term if now it means something entirely different. And if the term is resurrected in any event, then we must acknowledge if the meaning has changed or is otherwise meaningless. -- Noitall 21:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Warning Jmabel - I see that you reversed an edit that was accurate on the basis that you found one person who wrote a book that did not find that the term neoconservative was pejorative. A useful term applied to U.S. politics will describe millions of people, and likely hundreds in the public eye. The fact that you found one who did not mind using a pejorative term to describe their own political views does not mean that it is not pejorative. If those who are called or are thought of as "neoconservatives" do not generally describe themselves as such, and those who use the term to describe them, whether from the left or right, do so to demean or criticize, then the term is pejorative -- by definition (see Dictionary). I would request that you return my edit to its original or improve it, but do not erase it, especially when you are incorrect. -- Noitall 21:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

One source is better than none. What source do we have for "neoconservative" being a pejorative term? Cheers, -Willmcw 22:36, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

My source is quite valid, see edit in bold above. -- Noitall 03:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

What source? I don't see a source above. Is there a particular dictionary that calls "neoconservative" a pejorative term? Thanks -Willmcw 03:56, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I responded once. I will not respond again to stupidity when the answer is before your nose. --Noitall 04:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• Are you saying that when Irving Kristol remarked, "A neoconservative is a left-winger who has been ambushed by reality" he was using a pejorative? About himself? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:25, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Editor Noitall seems to be arguing the "neoconservative" is a pejorative term simply because he says so. If that's the case then he is wrong. On Wikipedia all of our edits should be supported by verifiable sources (wikipedia:cite your sources). I apologize for being such a stupid editor, but this stupid editor [i.e. me] needs to see a source that explicitly calls "neoconservative" a pejorative term. Thanks, -Willmcw 04:33, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

• (Please don't call other editors stupid. I think he's wrong, and I don't understand what source he claims to have cited for the word being pejorative, but that doesn't make him stupid.) -- Jmabel | Talk 04:55, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Responding to Jmabel: What Irving Kristol said is certainly relevant to the discussion, especially for providing context, history, detail and development of the term. I am arguing about the definition, however. Inside baseball information is not relevant to that. What is relevant is what the ordinary person thinks listening to the Sunday morning talk shows. Any time the term "neoconservative" is used, whether by Pat Buchanan or Michael Paroutka on the right or Senator Bidden on the left, it is always in a disparaging and disapproving way -- which is the definition of the term pejorative.

--Noitall 04:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• I do not believe there is a US Senator named "Bidden". Are you perhaps referring to Joe Biden? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:03, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Also, the term has not been "resurrected", there is clear continuity between 1970s neoconservatism and present-day neoconservatism, and no break along the way. In some cases we are talking about the same people, in other cases about their literal progeny, in yet others simply about their intellectual heirs (often overtly mentored through internships, staff positions, etc.). Have their politics shifted? Yes, somewhat. Some of this is clearly just changes in the world (the collapse of the Soviet Union), some of it tracks changes in the Republican Party and the American body politic (e.g. the breakdown of the liberal consensus on welfare programs that extended clear over to Richard Nixon). But the key continuities are (1) a belief that democracy can (and should) be exported by means including military force, (2) a distrust of the "nativist" aspects of some conservatism, instantiated in the self-declared paleoconservatives, and (3) a consistent embrace of intellectualism.

-- Jmabel | Talk 05:03, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Noitall, the fact that they are not liked by their political opponents does not make the term pejorative. That's just a tautology. Would you say that "liberal" is pejorative because G.W. Bush from the right and Alexander Cockburn from the left use it disparagingly?

-- Jmabel | Talk 05:12, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Encyclopedic use of the term reflects only secondarily what partisans (such as the Noitall cites), on either side of its divides from other schools, mean by it. It is much more important to see what usage predominates among the more objective scholars and journalists who use the term to describe relationships and events without trying to score points for one side or the other.

--Jerzy~t 05:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

On the pejorative argument, you win the spelling bee, but I believe my argument is sound. To comment above, the term "liberal" is commonly understood by the ordinary person, and it is very frequently used by politicians to refer to themselves, especially Democrats in a primary campaign. The term "neoconservative" is not a term generally used to support or defend a person or describe someone in a good way, and certainly not by any politician that I know of to refer to themselves. I addressed the ordinary person understanding of the term above, which is appropriate for the definition of the term.

On the resurrection and history argument, you make some points and I will have to think the issue through more. I'll get back later.

--Noitall 05:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

You remark that no "politician" refers to themself as a neoconservative, but on the whole the term has not been applied to politicians; it's been mostly applied to political intellectuals. I can't think of a politician who calls him/herself a paleoconservative, either. The one politician I can think of being typically called a neoconservative is Daniel Patrick Moynihan, especially in the 1970s (he drifted back left after becoming a senator), and it was largely on the basis of (1) his writings and (2) his being the one high-ranking member of the Kennedy/Johnson administrations to join the Nixon administration. In general, the neoconservatives have been political thinkers, and even political actors, but not politicians. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:50, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

The general use of the term -- and it has been used quite frequently in the last couple years -- refers to political appointees, who are politicians even if not directly elected. A week can't go by without Senator Biden perjoritively calling Wolfowitz (he refers to him by last name without salutation), Rice and Rumsfeld neoconservatives before criticizing everything they have done in foreign policy (and Iraq). If a term is commonly used before millions of people, and millions know that it is is used in a derogatory manner, it should be noted as such. Any other lesser known definitions or branches by "intellectuals" can be noted in the body. --Noitall 06:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• 2 things: (1) I gather that pretty much everyone calls Wolfowitz just by his last name, except for those who are close enough to him to call him "Wolfie". Some people just become known by their last name. (2) Again, this same rationale would say that "liberal" is inherently pejorative because of how it is used by G.W. Bush and Rush Limbaugh. Many millions use "liberal" as a pejorative, but that doesn't make it inherently so. Ditto "neoconservative". -- Jmabel | Talk 06:29, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Biden supported Wolfowitz for the job of head of the World Bank.[6] I searched but could not find an instance of Biden being reported to have called Wolfowitz (or anyone else) a "neoconservative". Maybe someone with lexus/nexus can find somes. Sources please. -Willmcw 06:44, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record: on my user talk page, Noitall is suggesting that my conduct here makes me unfit to be an administrator and accuses me of "controlling" the page (of which I believe I wrote about 10%, maybe 15%). -- Jmabel | Talk 06:54, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I give up. I tried to make reasonable arguments and you want to chase me off "your" page. I made my arguments on the talk page and not on the article, but you want to be in control. Just look at this talk page, you Jmabel are in control of almost every edit and argument. I think your attitude here and inability to listen to reason is contrary to Wiki policy.

I am also offended that you make arguments without either reading my response or thinking it through. One more time: The term "liberal" is not inherently pejorative because it is commonly understood among the general public. Newspapers routinely refer to someone as a liberal or conservative, even a liberal Republican, and they would not do so if the term were commonly thought of as pejorative. Also, people routinely refer to themselves as liberals as a badge of honor. None of this is the case with the term "neoconservative." --Noitall 07:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I made an entirely accurate edit, and it was dismissed as "vandalism", which it is surely not. It is quite clear that American "neoconservatives" favor Israel over their own country. Anyone with a couple of functioning brain cells knows this.

Is it quite clear enough for you to document?--Silverback 06:04, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

BTW, for the record, the anon complainer above was 172.171.212.130, not me. The issues argued previously in this section are mostly done. --Noitall 14:07, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)