0 comment Tuesday, June 10, 2014 | admin
I find this piece by George Will to be rather odd. He takes 'neoconservatives' to task for their dubious policies in the Middle East, and even goes so far as to call 'neoconservatism' a 'spectacularly misnamed radicalism.'
I won't argue with him on that definition, but somehow I don't recall Will disagreeing much with these neocon policies over the last several years.
I do know that in many 'respectable Republican' circles, to even use the term 'neocon' was to risk being called 'anti-Semitic'; some people declared it to be a 'code word' used only by anti-Semites. I found this claim to be somewhat Orwellian; the idea seemed to be to quash all discussion of 'neoconservatism' by declaring it to be beyond the pale, a matter of bigotry. So, the whole subject was off limits, in a sense; how can one criticize what cannot even be named? Some of us used neologisms like 'metrocon' to describe the neos, (after all, they are more often the urban, metrosexual type 'conservatives', as compared to red-state, rural conservatives who are probably much more numerous), but the alternative names didn't seem to gain currency.
So now, does Will's mention of that dreaded word make its usage respectable? After all, Will epitomizes 'respectable' Republicanism, does he not?
More importantly, I hope the article signals that we can now examine neoconservatism, and cease treating it as above criticism, or denying its very existence. 'Neoconservatism' has largely usurped the mantle of mainstream conservatism, which title is not merited.
I hope there will be some honest discussions of the very nature of conservatism; we are in dire need of an honest discussion, as a prerequisite to rediscovering some principles. Blind party loyalty just won't cut it in these dangerous times.
I won't argue with him on that definition, but somehow I don't recall Will disagreeing much with these neocon policies over the last several years.
I do know that in many 'respectable Republican' circles, to even use the term 'neocon' was to risk being called 'anti-Semitic'; some people declared it to be a 'code word' used only by anti-Semites. I found this claim to be somewhat Orwellian; the idea seemed to be to quash all discussion of 'neoconservatism' by declaring it to be beyond the pale, a matter of bigotry. So, the whole subject was off limits, in a sense; how can one criticize what cannot even be named? Some of us used neologisms like 'metrocon' to describe the neos, (after all, they are more often the urban, metrosexual type 'conservatives', as compared to red-state, rural conservatives who are probably much more numerous), but the alternative names didn't seem to gain currency.
So now, does Will's mention of that dreaded word make its usage respectable? After all, Will epitomizes 'respectable' Republicanism, does he not?
More importantly, I hope the article signals that we can now examine neoconservatism, and cease treating it as above criticism, or denying its very existence. 'Neoconservatism' has largely usurped the mantle of mainstream conservatism, which title is not merited.
I hope there will be some honest discussions of the very nature of conservatism; we are in dire need of an honest discussion, as a prerequisite to rediscovering some principles. Blind party loyalty just won't cut it in these dangerous times.
Labels: Neoconservatives