I’ve read the label ‘neo-conservatist’ on pundit blogs and in op-eds and I’m wondering what it means to US writers. Can someone give me a definition?
And what does anti-american mean? Is it more than one thing?
Does it have a different meaning when used against US citizens versus the rest of us?
It is a word that is used a great deal on Republican blogs and is pretty much directed at anyone of any persuasion that disagrees with the blogger.
Is is a label of personal choice or are there some solid definitions?
For example: is Dick Cheney a neo-conservative?
People who find Cheney’s extremism as vice president surprising have not looked at his congressional voting record. In 1986, he was one of only twenty-one members of the House to oppose the Safe Drinking Water Act. He fought efforts to clean up hazardous waste and backed tax breaks for energy corporations. He repeatedly voted against funding for the Veterans Administration. He opposed extending the Civil Rights Act. He opposed the release of Nelson Mandela from jail in South Africa. He even voted for cop-killer bullets.
Link via Jordon Cooper from Rolling Stone
Published 4 years, 2 months ago
Search
Subscribe 
You are currently browsing the Bene Diction Blogs On weblog archives.
Related Entries
For blog design, Wordpress or MovableType coding or blog consulting, see cre8d design.
It’s interesting how these labels enter the vocabulary, often with very imprecise meanings. Presumably “neo-con” came in at some definite point in time, and no doubt somebody out there could point to when and by whom.
I’m getting more and more concerned (and irritated) about the way labels are used in blogs. For example, if John Kerry can be described as a socialist, then the word socialist ceases to have any useful meaning. Nazi, fascist, marxist, and lots of others are in danger of being merely perjoratives rather than having any real-world meaning.
Bene,
***I’ve read the label ‘neo-conservatist’ on pundit blogs and in op-eds and I’m wondering what it means to US writers. Can someone give me a definition?***
Mainly it’s used as a codeword for “conservative Jew.” ; )
Here’s a good primer (http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html)on what neo-cons believe.
***And what does anti-american mean?***
It’s a term used to refer to any foreigner who doesn’t agree that the U.S. is the greatest nation in the history of the world. Or to anyone who likes the French.
Well, my sister is well to the left of me politically, and a while back she was throwing the word “neocon” around constantly. It seems to be a word left-leaning folks use to label anyone who disagrees with them. I have heard about the anti-Semitic origins of the word, but I don’t think people like my sister are aware of that.
“Anti-American” should not be thrown around carelessly. To me, it refers to those who wish us ill, those who think we deserved 9/11, those who think America and Americans are always evil, always wrong and always venal. No, I don’t think it refers to anyone who disagrees with me, or who doesn’t think America is the best country on earth.
No, I would not consider Cheney to be an ideologue but rather an extreme partisan.
Many neo-cons started out as liberal Jewish thinkers who became disillusioned as liberal ideas failed to work within the conflict between Israel and it’s Arab enemies.
Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle are two high profile neo-cons and are both noted hawks.
I had read of the anti-Jewish origin of neo-con also, but have been unable to trace the source.
Merci Susan and Joe - Je le regarderai vers le haut.:^)
Thank you for your honest answers.
The labels are discouraging to those of us outside the US, because they lose meaning, don’t have similar meaning, or are used without historical knowledge of the profound cost to human beings.
I have people in my life that lived in Nazi camps, came from Cambodia, Poland, Russia, Korea, China. To fling these labels around demeans their life experience in my humble view.
I’ve been labelled anti-american (among other things) on more than one occasion and it has emotional connotations. I believe I can speak freely in saying other non US citizens that blog find it difficult also. Government policy and citizens are not one and the same.
I see the internet and blogging as a tremendous opportunity to learn and listen - and in some forms blogs are ambassadorships.
I’ve wondered for quite some time if the labels tossed out are more than pre-election hyperbole.
To be labelled anti (etc.) is to start with a negative. Heck of a way to discourage dialogue.
What do non-US bloggers need to be doing to help our US blogger friends move through? Blog on!
While neo-con is a legitimate label, just as in theological circles there are labels (evangelical, neo-orthodox [Karl Barth was one]) which describe certain camps of thought, the use of them in many blogging circles is generally used to deride and dismiss someone, not to engage in dialoge with them. When Dick Cheney calls John Kerry a “liberal”, he does not do it to engage in a dialogue about how control the state should have over the people or whether or not he believes in civil liberties, he does it to smear him and get a cheer from conservatives.
Same with blogging. The labels are so unfortunate because they dismiss a person and say that nothing he or she says from that worldview has any value. That is the nature of American and to a lesser degree Canadian political debate. The main problem is that there isn’t debate. The media has reduced campaign coverage to sound bytes through away lines and blogging has followed their lead.
Fair enough Jordon.
As a media person I don’t disagree one iota.
As a follower of Jesus Christ, I’ll leave the theological labels to those more educated in such matters. I gave up caring about what camp religious people chose to put me in a long time ago.
I contend very strongly that bloggers do not have to follow the media lead. It’s lazy:^)
I don’t know if labels are being lazy, although in some contexts they are helpful (more from a academic overview type of thing than any use in debate), I think when they are used in blogs, they are used to attack, hurt and ridicule.
As a Christian, I find it unsettling. It is probably brought on by many people’s dualistic nature which is Christianity and real life are separate things. That’s why people can talk about the faith of the President but overlook when he lies about things because that is “politics”.
When Christians and bloggers attack other people, it is often with the same justification. I find it rather unsettling.
There are many labels that I don’t understand, and I think that using an undefined term can border on perjorative. It is one thing if a person or group self labels (ie I refer to myself as an orthodox Catholic) but very different if some one else labels me a neo-con (which has happened) because I have become morally ‘conservative’ (pro-life) while remaining socially ‘liberal’ (labor rights, access to affordable health care, a living wage).
Great discussion and thoughts here.
The problem is, those that use labels the most (e.g. political bloggers) will probably not comment, it’s easier to use them than to argue their added value.
What if you wrote a political post and took out all the unnecessary labels?
You are probably correct Rachel.:^(
I suspect that ’some’ use the label of ‘anti american’ to describe anyone who doesn’t agree with their own personal agenda.
For example I received an email today accusing me of an ‘anti american sentiment’ for writing a post that was about the situation in Beslan.
Now I don’t mind people disagreeing with what I wrote there - but to call it ‘anti american’ is just bizarre to me when I didn’t mention the US in the post at all.
Now of course this is just a one off incident, probably written by some wacko with some agenda - but it illustrates something that I’ve experienced a few times - people accusing me of being anti US for expressing a personal opinion about an issue.
I’m not anti America or Americans - I’m anti things like injustice and oppression. I think all governments, countries, people groups have shady times in their history. I think in such instances its a good thing to speak out - for debate to happen - for individuals from outside that group of people to ask questions. I don’t think that makes those people anti the ones they are asking the questions of - I think it makes them ‘pro’ humanity.
Anyway - just some thoughts.
I don’t see you commenting at US pundit blogs anymore Darryl, or your outstanding Aussie counterparts. Jordon, Rachel or I don’t anymore either.
I could name a lot of other non US bloggers that attempted to connect and gave up.
Other than Richard H, one or two occasional Brits, and Dr. Warnock the international silence on US pundit blogs is loud. I wonder if the US pundits prefer we remain quiet.
Why do you think that is?
I can only answer for myself.
Were you talking to me? Or is Darryl lurking here Bene?
I gave up for a number of reasons:
- it was consuming a lot of time.
- I didn’t feel it was life giving to me or anyone else.
- I found it rather boring - I’d much rather post about something I’m a little passionate about.
- I found the personal attacks each took a little something from me - life is too short.
- I was frustrated that despite my best efforts to dialogue - to listen and to be listened too - that very few were truly interested in that approach. I felt like we were a bunch of kids all screaming our point at the top of our voice and getting nowhere in the process.
That is just a few of my reasons for withdrawing from regular pundit posting.
As a quick and dirty answer, I associate “neo-con” with Commentary magazine, and a sense that public liberal intellectuals in the late 1960s and early 1970s repudiated some…all… of the excesses of American popular culture of that era.
Here’s another view:
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/neo-conservative_families.html#Anchor-(4-18997
We get more evidence about the liberal roots of neoconservatives in the words of Harvard social scientist Nathan Glazer. In October, 1971, in an article in Commentary magazine called “On Being Deradicalized”, Glazer asks,
How does a radical - a mild radical, it is true, but still someone who felt closer to radical than to liberal writers and politicians in the late 1950s, end up by early 1970 a conservative, a mild conservative, but still closer to those who now call themselves conservatives than to those who call themselves liberals? [This article seems to be on a website in France, but every time I have tried to access it, my computer has crashed, not a good sign.]
Rather than being a group organized as a political party, Hodgson notes, the men mentioned above “were a cross between a generation of New York intellectuals, a coterie, and a tendency.” Together, they reflected a narrow alcove of American society: essentially, they are products of Ivy League graduate schools and “a corner of the New York literary world.” Claims Hodgson,
Commentary Magazine:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/masthead.asp
the original article is available here for a fee
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Archive/digitalarchive.aspx
Most major university libraries should have it in their holdings.
So the anti-Semitism may lie in the ear of the hearer. If, as an American, you were at all politically aware as the 1970s wore on (assuming you were born before say 1960) you should known that “neo-con” sometimes means “I was a Red-diaper baby but now I am fiercely conservative.”
I answered your shout-out with two posts, one on neocons and another on the label “anti-American.” I tried adding links, but they don’t seem to be enabled. I put the Anti-American one in the URL slot below, the Neocon one is right behind it.
On the Cheney critique, his opposition to Mandela needs to be taken in the context of the Cold War where Mandela was leading a Marxist-friendly rebellion against a American-leading (albeit racist) state. At the time, Mandela seemed more likely to be the next Mugabe than the secular saint that he is today; while he’s come out with some rather pointed rhetoric against US foreign policy as of late, his rule was far better than people on the American right expected, being more of a social democrat than a Marxist.
I don’t know about those other votes, but there may well have been valid reasons to oppose the bills in question
I’d like to point out that “anit-American” is being increasingly used as a label for certain USAmericans, not just for people outside the US. You could see some of this happening at the Republican National Convention. And I think the meaning intended is an extension of the one given by susan b. above. It’s used (improperly certainly, and I’m not trying to connect susan to the definition I’m about to give — hers is quite clearly more tempered and reasonable) to attack people who attack US foreign policy. Some USAmericans really want to believe that the USA is “the greatest country in the world.” So when people start questioning that, or bringing up the potential world-wide problems caused by US foreign and economic policy, they often get labelled as anti-American. Michael Moore and his new film “Fahrenheit 911″ is a great example of this. He would probably characterize himself as loving the US and wanting to make it better, but he gets called anti-American all the time.
Let’s face it, the USA sometimes isn’t ‘the best nation on earth’. That will generally be wherever the reader lives. So as a Yank, I don’t care if you don’t like us [or me]. That’s your problem, not mine.
If you’re happy with your own government, great! If you think your own government is perfect, you are a fool. After all, as a believer you are merely an alien here on earth, anyway,
But when you criticize my country, please remember to take into consideration that - unlike mother England - we really aren’t empire builders. We don’t want another’s land - or oil. [Though we might like to become trading partners, but that's off topic].
So whether you agree with our actions or not, just be thankful that we are here - and if the worse comes to worse in your homeland, there is always a free-er place to which you might emmigrate. Or not - your choice.
And Bene, the next time you are ’slammed’ with a cruel label please consider the immaturity of the source - and Christ’s response to Herod, et al. I encourage you to not give up blogging and seeking.
David,
***Some USAmericans really want to believe that the USA is “the greatest country in the world.” So when people start questioning that, or bringing up the potential world-wide problems caused by US foreign and economic policy, they often get labelled as anti-American.***
You make a good point. I think one misunderstanding comes from the fact that when citizens of the U.S. think of “America” they are thinking about the country as a whole. When those from outside our borders criticize “America”, though, they are tending to refer to our government or our policies. The two can’t really be seperated, of course, but I think that’s what it stems from.
I think the key to understanding the American mind is that Americans tend to think that there is no reason the rest of the world could not also have what we have, be what we are, or do what we do. Whether that is true or something any other country would aspire to be is another matter entirely. But I think it helps explain why we tend to be defensive.
I read a very interesting article on the word ‘frontier’.
That is a fantastic word to US citizens, it is a word of great promise, great hope, openess, westwardness. It is a whooo hooo! let’s go do! word.
To other countries ie:in Europe it is a word of dread, of oppression, of war, of loss.
Same word, different history. Same word, different attitudes and baggage.
**and if the worse comes to worse in your homeland, there is always a free-er place to which you might emmigrate. Or not - your choice.**
Merci.:^) Blog on!
So far Joe, all the international commenters with one exception have been to the US. Interesting eh?
You brought something up I think is quite important.
**when citizens of the U.S. think of “America” they are thinking about the country as a whole. When those from outside our borders criticize “America”, though, they are tending to refer to our government or our policies. The two can’t really be seperated, of course, but I think that’s what it stems from.**
When I was on a US based web site, I told the US owner that the new statement of faith was too American. I meant no harm.
He lost it - I got a blazing email full of fury and hurt. I was told in no uncertain terms that I was questioning the very core of who he was, that I was asking him to deny his God, his faith, his country. It was blistering.
I apologized and backed off. A few days after the site went online apologetic/theological/academic types had to revise the statement. I took no joy in the fact.
There really was was no room for non-US’ers.
There still isn’t, dispite the occasional protestration. I believe it is more about ignorance than intent.
I find what you say rather frightening Joe, probably because it is true, and becoming more true.
I’ve found it to be a bit less so in my travels, but not much. And yes, I know international bloggers make the distinction between a citizen and government, and most of the criticism I see is directed at policy and implementation, not people.
I’ve been overseas but not for years, and I deal with immigrants to the US on a daily basis. What I find fascinating is the common concept among those who haven’t been to the USA that sees us as a monolithic culture and views us through the lens of Hollywood.
The USA is huge (as is Canada and Mexico) especially compared to more European countries. We have an enormous variety of cultures from the Amish to the Silicon Valleyites, from Manhattan NY to Manhattan KS, from Tex-Mex to Boston Brahmin, to name only a few. In my nearly 50 years of life, I have lived in Southern California, Northern California, rural England (East Anglia) rural France ( a little village in the Aisne called Premontre), Alabama, Massachussets, and now New Hampshire. Even when we theoretically speak the same language, we really don’t.
I have tried explaining to Europeans that it is farther to travel from Los Angeles to Washington DC than it is from Paris to London and am greeted with incredulous looks.
USA bloggers are also insular, thinking that the USA is the center of the universe, but I think that we and Canadians can also be excused for navel gazing, given that we have large navels with lots of lint!