Barack the neocon

[Torie]

In my opinion, the term "neocon" has lost its usefulness, and should be retired to the ash heap of history. The thought occurred to me when reading this rather pedestrian and un-arresting article, that takes a few Obama phrases about lofty American intentions, and assumes that it really has some meaning as to specific policies that the neocon's embraced in international affairs back when. I don't think so. Just because you are not isolationist, does not make you a neocon. Beyond that, each foreign policy issue is unique, and yes, yet another instance where grand unified theories are just not very helpful.

What do you think?

[Vepres]

The term has been morphed to mean "somebody whose foreign policy views are more hawkish than mine". It really doesn't have much real meaning anymore, having merely becoming a pejorative.

[Beet]

Obama was a student of Leo Strauss?

[Torie]

Obama was a student of Leo Strauss?

Leo was dead, so I doubt it, unless it was in a seance mode. Cropsy, his acolyte maybe, whom I had as a professor.

[Senator Libertas]

Barack Obama has been a neocon since at least the time he began running for president, probably going back to 2004.

Most of the people who want to "retire" the term "neocon" are themselves neocons-in-denial.

[Senator Ben]

The term has been morphed to mean "somebody whose foreign policy views are more hawkish than mine". It really doesn't have much real meaning anymore, having merely becoming a pejorative.

Exactly.  It's pathetic; the term used to actually mean something, representing a good, legitimate ideology.  Now it's just describing someone liberals/wackjob libertarians don't like.

[SvenssonRS]

Most of the people who want to "retire" the term "neocon" are themselves neocons-in-denial.

Untrue. Personally, I think it's lost all significant meaning in use, since literally everyone throws it around to describe people they don't like. It's not even a viable way to describe those with insane foreign policy views any more.

[Senator Libertas]

The term has been morphed to mean "somebody whose foreign policy views are more hawkish than mine". It really doesn't have much real meaning anymore, having merely becoming a pejorative.

Exactly.  It's pathetic; the term used to actually mean something, representing a good, legitimate ideology.  Now it's just describing someone liberals/wackjob libertarians don't like.

LOL

Oh, and another example of what I described earlier.

[SvenssonRS]

The term has been morphed to mean "somebody whose foreign policy views are more hawkish than mine". It really doesn't have much real meaning anymore, having merely becoming a pejorative.

Exactly.  It's pathetic; the term used to actually mean something, representing a good, legitimate ideology.  Now it's just describing someone liberals/wackjob libertarians don't like.

LOL

Oh, and another example of what I described earlier.

Of course he'd call insane foreign policy a good idea. Ignore him.

[Free Palestine]

The term has been morphed to mean "somebody whose foreign policy views are more hawkish than mine". It really doesn't have much real meaning anymore, having merely becoming a pejorative.

Exactly.  It's pathetic; the term used to actually mean something, representing a good, legitimate ideology.  Now it's just describing someone liberals/wackjob libertarians don't like.

Are you implying that the only people with a "legitimate ideology" support an interventionist foreign policy?  Because if so, you've reached the pinnacle of arrogant hackery right there.

[Beta Ray Bill is the best pony]

Most of the people who want to "retire" the term "neocon" are themselves neocons-in-denial.

Untrue. Personally, I think it's lost all significant meaning in use, since literally everyone throws it around to describe people they don't like. It's not even a viable way to describe those with insane foreign policy views any more.

Kind of like "fascist".

[Senator Libertas]

The term has been morphed to mean "somebody whose foreign policy views are more hawkish than mine". It really doesn't have much real meaning anymore, having merely becoming a pejorative.

Exactly.  It's pathetic; the term used to actually mean something, representing a good, legitimate ideology.  Now it's just describing someone liberals/wackjob libertarians don't like.

Are you implying that the only people with a "legitimate ideology" support an interventionist foreign policy?  Because if so, you've reached the pinnacle of arrogant hackery right there.

Of course, didn't you get Ben's memo? If you don't support nuking all those dirty Moslems, you are an isolationist appeaser who loves Hitler.

[Senator Ben]

Are you implying that the only people with a "legitimate ideology" support an interventionist foreign policy?  Because if so, you've reached the pinnacle of arrogant hackery right there.

Not at all.  I'm saying that neoconservativism is a legitimate ideology.

[Free Palestine]

Are you implying that the only people with a "legitimate ideology" support an interventionist foreign policy?  Because if so, you've reached the pinnacle of arrogant hackery right there.

Not at all.  I'm saying that neoconservativism is a legitimate ideology.

Fair enough.

[wormyguy]

Are you implying that the only people with a "legitimate ideology" support an interventionist foreign policy?  Because if so, you've reached the pinnacle of arrogant hackery right there.

Not at all.  I'm saying that neoconservativism is a legitimate ideology.

I'm not exactly sure what an "illegitimate" ideology would entail.  Neoconism is an idiotic ideology.  An idiotic, legitimate, idiotic ideology.

[Beet]

The definition of a neoconservative is a Marxist who thought that the Great Society was too left-wing.

There, debated settled. Please refer back to this post for all future debates and queries regarding that term.

[Torie]

I seem to have opened a Pandora's Box here.

[Free Palestine]

Are you implying that the only people with a "legitimate ideology" support an interventionist foreign policy?  Because if so, you've reached the pinnacle of arrogant hackery right there.

Not at all.  I'm saying that neoconservativism is a legitimate ideology.

I'm not exactly sure what an "illegitimate" ideology would entail.  Neoconism is an idiotic ideology.  An idiotic, legitimate, idiotic ideology.

Careful now.  Supporting a non-interventionist foreign policy is tantamount to worshiping Hitler.

[wormyguy]

Are you implying that the only people with a "legitimate ideology" support an interventionist foreign policy?  Because if so, you've reached the pinnacle of arrogant hackery right there.

Not at all.  I'm saying that neoconservativism is a legitimate ideology.

I'm not exactly sure what an "illegitimate" ideology would entail.  Neoconism is an idiotic ideology.  An idiotic, legitimate, idiotic ideology.

Careful now.  Supporting a non-interventionist foreign policy is tantamount to worshiping Hitler.

I wouldn't go that far.  You're probably just too embarrassed to admit you masturbate to pictures of Neville Chamberlain.



Sexylicious.