The Artificial Neocon
- 04.10.2008 - 3:52 PMI know there are a few competing priorities, but at this moment in our long life as a nation I can think of no more urgent task for Congress than to pass emergency legislation banning the further use of the word “neocon.” At least until a committee of deep thinkers can get together to agree on a commonly accepted definition. (A starting point may be the Robert Kagan essay I referred to in an earlier posting.) Until that happens, its use will only continue to muddy and obfuscate the debate over otherwise important issues.
Exhibit 2,348,485 of this terminological confusion may be found on today’s front page of the New York Times. In an article entitled “2 Camps Trying to Influence McCain on Foreign Policy,” Times correspondents Elizabeth Bumiller and Larry Rohter posit a nonexistent death struggle between John McCain’s “neocon” advisers (including yours truly) and those of a more “pragmatic” bent. Several bloggers have already noted the article’s shoddy sourcing and tendentious nature.
For my part, I’m simply mystified by how Bumiller and Rohter decided to assign certain personages and policies and not others to the “neocon” camp. Why, for instance, is John Bolton a neocon and John Lehman a “pragmatist” (as the graphic that accompanies the article has it)? I have no idea–and I bet Bolton doesn’t either, since he has repeatedly said he’s not a neocon. Indeed, he’s been a vocal opponent of the idea that democracy promotion should be at the center of American foreign policy (as many neocons argue). A conservative yes, even a hawkish conservative, but not a neocon.
Support for the Iraq War cannot be the test of “neocon-ness.” It was supported by virtually all conservatives, neo- and otherwise, and by many liberals as well. Aware of this difficulty, Bumiller and Rohter imply that pragmatists display their superior wisdom by criticizing the conduct of the war effort. In assigning Colin Powell and Richard Armitage to the pragmatist camp, for example, they write:
While Mr. Powell and Mr. Armitage supported Mr. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq while they were in office, they have become critics of the management of the war.
By that standard, I’m a “pragmatist” too. So are Bob Kagan, Bill Kristol, Fred Kagan, and just about every other “neocon” you can think of.
Another test that Bumiller and Rohter seem to apply is willingness “to work more closely with allies” –something that pragmatists are for and neocons are supposedly against. Bumiller and Rohter write that, in a recent Los Angeles speech, McCain hewed to the pragmatist path because he “rejected the unilateralism that has been the hallmark of the Bush administration’s foreign policy in favor of what he called ‘being a good and reliable ally to our fellow democracies’.”
How do they square this with their earlier assertion that the “author who helped write much of the foreign policy speech that Mr. McCain delivered in Los Angeles on March 26″ was none other than arch-neocon Robert Kagan? Can it be that “neocons” might actually be in favor of working with other countries and not simply bombing them? What a revolutionary idea. Rest assured, it is not a thought that has ever entered the heads of the MSM–or at least affected their coverage.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
April 10th, 2008 at 4:55 PM
“neo con” is a shorthand way of introducing two concepts: “con” meaning “Conservative,” of course, and “neo” meaning “Jewish.”
The alternative definition is “unwilling to admit that the Bush Administration is the source of evil in the modern world.” Doesn’t matter if you criticize one or another policy or even the conduct of the Iraq war, if you can still say something nice about Bush in ‘08, then you’re a Dreaded NeoCon and obviously beyond the pale. “Pragmatists,” on the other hand, have long since given up on the Bush White House — which is why Powell and Armitage qualify.
April 10th, 2008 at 5:52 PM
I’ve written in to the New York Times and asked them to cease using the term “neoconservative”. It’s not only meaningless, but it’s offensive. The idea of neoconservativism is synonymous with a secretive, powerful cabal of Jewish administration officials (Wolfowitz, Feith) and journalists (Kristol, this magazine) usurping power and acting against the nation’s interests. Very similar to anti-semitic themes in Europe over the past 1000 years.
April 10th, 2008 at 6:15 PM
lol you’re “offended” by neo con. so was irving kristol an anti semite for writing “the neoconservative persuasion”.
and of course john bolton and max boot are neocons. the article is showing how even the most clueless republicans are starting to get the drift that americans aren’t interested in global domination anymore. basically, “working with allies” and “talking to leaders we may not like” means nothing more than saying they aren’t worth our time. Like dick cheney said about saddam opst gulf war and was absolutely correct. iran is a backward third world country in an unproductive part of the world. hassling them isn’t tough, it’s a waste of time.
April 10th, 2008 at 6:19 PM
I think you’re overthinking it. In the Times, “neocon” equals “bad guy,” “pragmatist” equals “good guy.”
April 10th, 2008 at 7:21 PM
No rational argument will convince people to name their opponents the way the opponents would like.
April 10th, 2008 at 7:32 PM
Thank you, Max. I’ve been steamed all day since I read about the New York Times story, in which the term “neocon” is never defined. Is a neocon like pornography? I don’t know how to define it, but I know one when I see it? Typical leftist claptrap — in the absence of a real idea, use jargon.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:55 PM
Clearly Bill Walsh is correct but not complete — the definition of neoconservative is a PC way of saying “Jew bad-guy”. The article, as pointed out already, is a typical New York Times hit-piece.
My question is — why does John McCain allow New York Times reporters on his campaign plane? Why doesn’t tell them to arrange and pay their own dam transportation. Why does he even talk to them?
I am a Canadian but why should he not clearly call them out for what they are? The US is at WAR. People who aid and abett the enemy used to be called traitors. The NYTimes has aided and abetted the enemy. Am I missing something here since I am a dumb Canuck?
Best Regards and
God Bless America!
April 10th, 2008 at 9:12 PM
i’m pretty sure most liberals don’t know what the actual definition of neocon (just like most don’t know what Haliburton actually does other than serve as an all purpose bogeyman). neocon is simply a blanket slur to them. i think one reason they like it is it’s similarity to “neo-nazi”… so you can get away with calling someone a nazi without actually using that term.
once the neocon thing is hashed out, it’d be nice to move on to the blue state/red state thing. the color coding was always open prior to 2000 as i fondly remember the 84 Reagan landslide map on ABC as a calm sea of smoothing blue…
April 10th, 2008 at 9:14 PM
’smoothing’ should be ’soothing’
April 11th, 2008 at 6:35 AM
[…] Commentary » The Artificial Neocon [Max Boot] In an article entitled “2 Camps Trying to Influence McCain on Foreign Policy,” Times correspondents Elizabeth Bumiller and Larry Rohter posit a nonexistent death struggle between John McCain’s “neocon” advisers (including yours truly) and those (tags: media_bias New_York_Times politics mccain election 2008 foreign_policy war Iraq) […]