| | Ed, your latest post doesn't help. Simply saying "the teaching of Leo Strauss" only suggests that you aren't able to give a precise definition.
Again, I have to say that if you can't even come up with a good definition, something that really explains the essentials and differentiates it from others, it's not being used to intellectually identify anything. It's being used as a form of slander or insult.
It's fine for a word to also have negative connotations. If we called someone a statist, socialist, welfare-statist, fascist, racist, collectivist, etc., there would be negative connotations. But we'd primarily be making an intellectual identification of the person's ideology, and the negative part would come from our evaluation of that ideology. Neocon implies some kind of horrible monster, but does not do a good job at all when it comes to actual identification. And you haven't improved it.
Democrats believe in noble lies, pretending to be religious, and big government. If 3/4 is all it takes, then why aren't you calling all politicians "neocons".
If the nation building is the important thing, than state it clearly. Call someone a nation-builder, or something.
And if it doesn't take all four, then why are those part of the definition? If neo-con is supposed to be a proper noun, identifying those people who explicitly follow the neo-conservative philosophy (i.e., the teachings of Leo Strauss), how many of the people who are called neo-cons actually do? How many have read his works, and agree with it all?
The way "neo-con" is used, the term seems to refer to evil white men bent on world domination. Selling blood for oil. All getting kickbacks from Haliburton. Whatever. It's just an insult. Even the way you've approach it is a list of random attributes that if any person displays one or more of them, they're a neo-con.
Clarity needs to be our concern. We need a definition based on essentials, which a clear ability to integrate and to differentiate. We don't have that. So why the desire to keep using this anti-intellectual slur?
|
|
