6 ms·
I 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.
by xhevahir 4y ago
I 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.