4 ms·
It is a play on neo-con, which is a term that was used to great affect in American conservative political circles to ostracize those who would cooperate with th
by LastTrain 4y ago
It is a play on neo-con, which is a term that was used to great affect in American conservative political circles to ostracize those who would cooperate with the opposition party - a.k.a. moderates. It is now used with similar goals by the American far left (to the extent that such a thing exists..). Both terms are often coopted by the the opposition party to demonize moderate counterparts.
That said, it sounds cool to mouth-breathers so they often use it completely out of context, like this author did.
- xhevahir 4y agoThat sense of "neoliberal" is peculiar to American politics, as far as I can tell. I'd say it's more likely the blogger means a person who wants free trade, deregulation, etc.
- LastTrain 4y agoI would say, given the sum total output we've seen by the author (a blog with two articles), they have no idea what it means, other than a vague sense that it is some kind of sick burn. [Edit - look, I know the term has an academic origin, but we aren't discussing academic papers, I'm talking about how it is abused everyday in the vernacular]
- hot_gril 4y agoI've heard neocon many times, always in a different context. As far as I'm concerned, the word has no meaning.
- xhevahir 4y agoI don't see how it's any less meaningful than "liberal," or "conservative." Each of these terms labels a set of family resemblances and is dependent on context.
- hot_gril 4y ago"Liberal" is at least a really imprecise synonym for Democrat party in the US, ditto for "conservative" and Republican.
- xhevahir 4y agoThere are other meaningful political categories besides the ones that designate parties. Irving Kristol, the closest the movement has to a founder, himself embraced the label. And it's pretty uncontroversial which people decidedly belong and which don't: Richard Perle is one, Pat Buchanan is not; Jeane Kirkpatrick and James Q. Wilson are, Samantha Power and Noam Chomsky aren't.
- hot_gril 4y agoTo be honest, I'll have to take your word for it, because I don't know a single person you listed. Maybe they're from an older generation. Seems like this was a real movement but isn't so relevant anymore, and now people are misusing the term. Now "hawkish" or "interventionist" is pretty close to the old meaning of neocon. I'm willing to accept it as a term for a historical movement, but if someone tells me X newly relevant person is a neocon, I'll basically discard that.