![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
Jan-June 2005
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Leo Strauss wasn't a neo-conservative. (added anonymously 25 Sep 04 by User:4.171.6.9)
Leo Strauss was a conservative who influenced neo-conservatives. Read Irving Kristol's book, Neo-Conservatism: Autobiography of an Idea.
Besides Kristol and his son, what other conservatives has Leo Strauss influenced? And what are the Straussian ideas that influenced Irving Kristol?
-- Noitall 04:42, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
This community needs to decide which way the page is to go. Does it want to have a broad definition of neocons which encompasses most conservatives in existence today, or does it want to focus on those anti-communists who felt abandoned by the democratic party. If it wants the broad definition, then I suggest removing the Jewish references altogther because they would not have probitive value, and would tend to reinforce the already sometimes pejorative tag with an element of anti-semitism and jewish conspiracy. If some prominent neocons are from Eastern European jewish families, then instead of casting this as a general characteristic of neocons, those specific neocons should be named that lead someone to conclude this is a theme or pattern. Also, the reference to neocons in the 1960s seems a stretch, since that is back in the time of scoop jackson, when anti-communists were not that uncomfortable in the democratic party, is someone tracing the past of or characterizing specific current neocons with this point?-- Silverback 08:49, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Some good points are raised. But, the tendency is to underestimate the relationship (and alliance) between neo-conservatives and the religious right in the US. Read Irving Kristol's Neo-conservatism: Autobiography of an Idea or the works on domestic and social policy written by many so-called "neo-conservatives" (including Jewish conservatives). They call for a greater role for religion (including, if not primariliy meaning, the Christian religion)in public life (This would also be consistent with Leo Strauss's purported influence on their thought). Likewise, the Christian Right types are onside as vocal advocates for many of the neo-conservative's foreign policy initiatives, like a pro-Israel stance. While the liberal media has suggested Pat Robertson was anti-semitic, he actually received the State of Israel Friendship Award. -- Rexrexilius 07:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you, Jmabel, that these are two distinct positions/factions. My primary point is that when you read the writings of the core group of these intellectuals being characterized as neo-conservatives, you realize that they take positions that encourage and cultivate a space in public life for religious positions on social issues, such as those taken by the Religious Right. In Irving Kristol's book, Neo-Conservatism: An Autobiography of an Idea, in the "An Autobiographical Memoir" chapter, Kristol writes:
"And here, I think, is where what we call "neoconservatism" has made its major contribution in these past two decades. By enlarging the conservative vision to include moral philosophy, political philosophy, and even religious thought, it helped make it more politically sensible as well as politically appealing. Supply-side economics, in one version or another, offered neoconservatism an economic approach that promised steady economic growth--a sine qua non for the survival of modern democracy. Neoconservatism, for its part, has provided traditional conservatism with an intellectual dimension that goes beyond economics to reflections on the roots of social and cultural stability. If the Republican Party today is less interested in the business community than in the pursuit of the happiness of ordinary folk, and if--as I think is the case--this has made the party more acceptable and appealing to the average American, then I believe the work of neoconservative intellectuals has contributed much to this change."
In addition, while Kristol does not endorse a "literal interpretation" of scripture (it is unlikely that he has read much of the Christian version of the Bible afterall), he has joined with evangelicals in arguing that where Darwinian evolutionary biology is taught, they should also be teaching "intelligent design" theory (of which "Creation Science" is a part). See, for example: Why do neoconservatives doubt Darwin?
So, according to Irving Kristol, introducing moral/religious/philosophical debate into American politics is one of the defining contributions of neoconservatism to US (Republican) politics. I agree that Kristol et al did not do this singlehandedly, as the religious right were also angling for a larger role. (It could very well be that Neoconservative intellectuals who are secular Jews are playing with fire by helping to empower the evangelical right--there is undoubtedly a history of anti-semitism for some, but not all. But, based strictly on Kristol and what he says (and recognizing that not all of the so-called Neocons agree with each other on everything), I would suggest that neoconservatism rests on three bases: 1. Advocating a place in the public realm for moral debate and morally based social policy (rather than restricting moral issues to the private realm) 2. Aggressive Nationalism/Foreign Policy (accompanied with intense patriotism, though earlier in his career Kristol was critical of nationalism/extreme patriotism) 3. supply-side economics (though this on it own is not enough for Kristol, as it does not address "social and political health"). -- Rexrexilius 01:49, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It is possible that he may have read the Christian version, the New Testament. He has an interest in these moral issues. But his interest would be academic/intellectual not spiritual, was my point. His Jewish heritage is a big part of his personal identity. His background will inevitably mean he is coming to the topic at hand from a different perspective than someone coming from an Evangelical Southern Baptist perspective. I think you would agree to that, and your own comments in this section are consistent with this. -- Rexrexilius 07:05, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Have you seen this latest edit of the article by Jacquerie? ("Neoconservatism as a "Jewish Movement")? If it is not removed, it should probably be moved to the critics section. While Jacquerie is simply commenting on a commentator, it does seem to leave a lingering distaste of anti-semitism. It alleges that neoconservatism has an "agenda" similar to other "Jewish movements". Several points: 1. I can't help but think that the so-called "Jewish Conspiracy" theories have their roots in 19th century opposition to Jewish emancipation, whereby Jews became entitled to participate in public life. It seems that some people think that Jews aren't entitled to get involved in public affairs and influence political thought and decision-making (and win people to a perspective through persuasion), just like everyone else. 2. It implies that non-Jews are being used to further "Jewish Interests," like they are dupes. This is kind of like the flipside of leftists alleging that minority members of conservative movements are "tokens", being used to further white male interests. 3. Neo-conservative committment to mass immigration-- It is interesting that right-wing economic thought (free trade etc.) leans towards the free flow of people (it is also a Libertarian theme). So, it is unique for social conservative thought (which has also influenced neo-conservatism and vice versa), but not to conservatism necessarily. Anyhow, nothing dispells these concerns like educating yourself. Here is a link to a recent article by Irving Kristol that goes into the ideology in more detail (and is less focused on history and personalities, though that is in there, too: The Neoconservative Persuasion. This hits on many of the themes I discussed in a previous discussion post. If you disagree, like most people will, fine, but defend his right to argue his position just like everyone else does and can. Cheers. -- Rexrexilius 02:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Amazing how I know less about neoconservativism after reading the front page than before I read it. nobs
It looks like Rex inserted a lot of stuff written by others, including me, I'm not quite sure what happened, I'm trying to understand the sequence.-- Silverback 06:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I quoted Irving Kristol at length. I think my point was consistent with some of the points you were making, but I didn't amalgamate your comments into mine at all. The history page is working. -- Rexrexilius 07:09, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I read the article, there is no research, it is just generalizations, insinuations and speculation. What about it is evolutionary psych? Where is the evidence of "recruitment"? Where is the evidence that the arguments with "mass appeal" are not valid positions on their own merits? The MacDonald article makes unsubstantiated statements about neocons such as "they are attempting to rearrange the entire Middle East in the interests of Israel." I have left the MacDonald paragraph largely untouched, because it is about his opinions, but I have tried to cut out this POV material where it has krept into the rest of the article.-- Silverback 12:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Since Leo Strauss, a philosophy professor, taught several of the putative founders of the neoconservatism, MacDonald concludes he is a central figure in the neo-conservative movement and sees him as 'the quintessential rabbinical guru with devoted disciples'." Hmmm. Is it just me or has MacDonald managed to make Strauss into a Jesus figure? -- Christofurio 03:51, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
I notice the recent addition of Joe Lieberman to the list of neoconservatives. I've never particularly thought of him as one. Does someone have a decent citation for this? Otherwise, I am inclined to remove this. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:22, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm. I think we are just repackaging old theories here. Don't the actions of the neo-conservatives across many sectors just reflect the continuing powers of church, business and the old aristocracies. Why don't we just call them right wing, corporatist, judasim/christian facists.
Is there any link from this topic to Neoliberalism?-- Nerd 17:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I removed a link to The New Republic in the text of the article and gave a plausible explanation. My edit was promptly reverted by JamesMLane, with reference to a discussion on this talk page. I've gone through both this portion and the archives, and I simply cannot find a discussion of TNR anywhere. Can someone point me to where this discussion took place if I'm merely glossing over it? If it is not here anywhere, I recommend removing the reference to TNR. Jersyko 02:24, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
User:Zantastik writes (in an edit summary) that "the occidental quarterly proclaims itself to be white nationalist and is clearly paleoconservative". Certainly the latter is true, and even a quick read of its web site will confirm that "white nationalist" is on the mark, but I was wondering if there is actually a citation for them calling themselves "white nationalist"? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:46, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
IMHO this section should be deleted. It's too opinion-based and incoherent, and always will be. (unsigned User:Mirror Vax, 9 Apr 2005)
From our lead: "Whereas the term was originally used for former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but aggressively opposed the Soviet Union, now the term is primarily used to describe those who support an aggressive worldwide foreign policy against radical Islam and terrorists. The term is also used to descibe those who are accused of adopting a 'unilateral' foreign policy rather than relying on United Nations concensus and actions." Well, yes, but the evolution is mainly in the politics of the individuals involved, or their progeny. Obviously, no politics today could be defined largely by aggressive opposition to the Soviet Union: it might as well be defined by opposition to the Ottoman Empire! -- Jmabel | Talk 18:37, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
There is now no unifying theory or application. Whereas before the term formerly referred to former Democrats turned Republican, now it does not. Whereas the term formerly dealt with domestic issues, now it sometimes does. When paleoconservatives use the term, it refers to domestic issues along with foreign policy issues, but when Democrats use the term, it solely refers to foreign policy. Now, the term is solely about politics and not any underlying theory. The only commonalities from the old definition to the new definition are that the term primarily refers to Republicans. A term that had a use in the days of the Soviet Union and the Cold War may have little usage today. That does not mean that it is proper to resurrect the term if now it means something entirely different. And if the term is resurrected in any event, then we must acknowledge if the meaning has changed or is otherwise meaningless. -- Noitall 21:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Warning Jmabel - I see that you reversed an edit that was accurate on the basis that you found one person who wrote a book that did not find that the term neoconservative was pejorative. A useful term applied to U.S. politics will describe millions of people, and likely hundreds in the public eye. The fact that you found one who did not mind using a pejorative term to describe their own political views does not mean that it is not pejorative. If those who are called or are thought of as "neoconservatives" do not generally describe themselves as such, and those who use the term to describe them, whether from the left or right, do so to demean or criticize, then the term is pejorative -- by definition (see Dictionary). I would request that you return my edit to its original or improve it, but do not erase it, especially when you are incorrect. -- Noitall 21:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
My source is quite valid, see edit in bold above. -- Noitall 03:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I responded once. I will not respond again to stupidity when the answer is before your nose. -- Noitall 04:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
-- Noitall 04:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
On the pejorative argument, you win the spelling bee, but I believe my argument is sound. To comment above, the term "liberal" is commonly understood by the ordinary person, and it is very frequently used by politicians to refer to themselves, especially Democrats in a primary campaign. The term "neoconservative" is not a term generally used to support or defend a person or describe someone in a good way, and certainly not by any politician that I know of to refer to themselves. I addressed the ordinary person understanding of the term above, which is appropriate for the definition of the term.
On the resurrection and history argument, you make some points and I will have to think the issue through more. I'll get back later.
-- Noitall 05:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
The general use of the term -- and it has been used quite frequently in the last couple years -- refers to political appointees, who are politicians even if not directly elected. A week can't go by without Senator Biden perjoritively calling Wolfowitz (he refers to him by last name without salutation), Rice and Rumsfeld neoconservatives before criticizing everything they have done in foreign policy (and Iraq). If a term is commonly used before millions of people, and millions know that it is is used in a derogatory manner, it should be noted as such. Any other lesser known definitions or branches by "intellectuals" can be noted in the body. -- Noitall 06:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Ok. I give up. I tried to make reasonable arguments and you want to chase me off "your" page. I made my arguments on the talk page and not on the article, but you want to be in control. Just look at this talk page, you Jmabel are in control of almost every edit and argument. I think your attitude here and inability to listen to reason is contrary to Wiki policy.
I am also offended that you make arguments without either reading my response or thinking it through. One more time: The term "liberal" is not inherently pejorative because it is commonly understood among the general public. Newspapers routinely refer to someone as a liberal or conservative, even a liberal Republican, and they would not do so if the term were commonly thought of as pejorative. Also, people routinely refer to themselves as liberals as a badge of honor. None of this is the case with the term "neoconservative." -- Noitall 07:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
Jan-June 2005
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Leo Strauss wasn't a neo-conservative. (added anonymously 25 Sep 04 by User:4.171.6.9)
Leo Strauss was a conservative who influenced neo-conservatives. Read Irving Kristol's book, Neo-Conservatism: Autobiography of an Idea.
Besides Kristol and his son, what other conservatives has Leo Strauss influenced? And what are the Straussian ideas that influenced Irving Kristol?
-- Noitall 04:42, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
This community needs to decide which way the page is to go. Does it want to have a broad definition of neocons which encompasses most conservatives in existence today, or does it want to focus on those anti-communists who felt abandoned by the democratic party. If it wants the broad definition, then I suggest removing the Jewish references altogther because they would not have probitive value, and would tend to reinforce the already sometimes pejorative tag with an element of anti-semitism and jewish conspiracy. If some prominent neocons are from Eastern European jewish families, then instead of casting this as a general characteristic of neocons, those specific neocons should be named that lead someone to conclude this is a theme or pattern. Also, the reference to neocons in the 1960s seems a stretch, since that is back in the time of scoop jackson, when anti-communists were not that uncomfortable in the democratic party, is someone tracing the past of or characterizing specific current neocons with this point?-- Silverback 08:49, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Some good points are raised. But, the tendency is to underestimate the relationship (and alliance) between neo-conservatives and the religious right in the US. Read Irving Kristol's Neo-conservatism: Autobiography of an Idea or the works on domestic and social policy written by many so-called "neo-conservatives" (including Jewish conservatives). They call for a greater role for religion (including, if not primariliy meaning, the Christian religion)in public life (This would also be consistent with Leo Strauss's purported influence on their thought). Likewise, the Christian Right types are onside as vocal advocates for many of the neo-conservative's foreign policy initiatives, like a pro-Israel stance. While the liberal media has suggested Pat Robertson was anti-semitic, he actually received the State of Israel Friendship Award. -- Rexrexilius 07:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you, Jmabel, that these are two distinct positions/factions. My primary point is that when you read the writings of the core group of these intellectuals being characterized as neo-conservatives, you realize that they take positions that encourage and cultivate a space in public life for religious positions on social issues, such as those taken by the Religious Right. In Irving Kristol's book, Neo-Conservatism: An Autobiography of an Idea, in the "An Autobiographical Memoir" chapter, Kristol writes:
"And here, I think, is where what we call "neoconservatism" has made its major contribution in these past two decades. By enlarging the conservative vision to include moral philosophy, political philosophy, and even religious thought, it helped make it more politically sensible as well as politically appealing. Supply-side economics, in one version or another, offered neoconservatism an economic approach that promised steady economic growth--a sine qua non for the survival of modern democracy. Neoconservatism, for its part, has provided traditional conservatism with an intellectual dimension that goes beyond economics to reflections on the roots of social and cultural stability. If the Republican Party today is less interested in the business community than in the pursuit of the happiness of ordinary folk, and if--as I think is the case--this has made the party more acceptable and appealing to the average American, then I believe the work of neoconservative intellectuals has contributed much to this change."
In addition, while Kristol does not endorse a "literal interpretation" of scripture (it is unlikely that he has read much of the Christian version of the Bible afterall), he has joined with evangelicals in arguing that where Darwinian evolutionary biology is taught, they should also be teaching "intelligent design" theory (of which "Creation Science" is a part). See, for example: Why do neoconservatives doubt Darwin?
So, according to Irving Kristol, introducing moral/religious/philosophical debate into American politics is one of the defining contributions of neoconservatism to US (Republican) politics. I agree that Kristol et al did not do this singlehandedly, as the religious right were also angling for a larger role. (It could very well be that Neoconservative intellectuals who are secular Jews are playing with fire by helping to empower the evangelical right--there is undoubtedly a history of anti-semitism for some, but not all. But, based strictly on Kristol and what he says (and recognizing that not all of the so-called Neocons agree with each other on everything), I would suggest that neoconservatism rests on three bases: 1. Advocating a place in the public realm for moral debate and morally based social policy (rather than restricting moral issues to the private realm) 2. Aggressive Nationalism/Foreign Policy (accompanied with intense patriotism, though earlier in his career Kristol was critical of nationalism/extreme patriotism) 3. supply-side economics (though this on it own is not enough for Kristol, as it does not address "social and political health"). -- Rexrexilius 01:49, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It is possible that he may have read the Christian version, the New Testament. He has an interest in these moral issues. But his interest would be academic/intellectual not spiritual, was my point. His Jewish heritage is a big part of his personal identity. His background will inevitably mean he is coming to the topic at hand from a different perspective than someone coming from an Evangelical Southern Baptist perspective. I think you would agree to that, and your own comments in this section are consistent with this. -- Rexrexilius 07:05, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Have you seen this latest edit of the article by Jacquerie? ("Neoconservatism as a "Jewish Movement")? If it is not removed, it should probably be moved to the critics section. While Jacquerie is simply commenting on a commentator, it does seem to leave a lingering distaste of anti-semitism. It alleges that neoconservatism has an "agenda" similar to other "Jewish movements". Several points: 1. I can't help but think that the so-called "Jewish Conspiracy" theories have their roots in 19th century opposition to Jewish emancipation, whereby Jews became entitled to participate in public life. It seems that some people think that Jews aren't entitled to get involved in public affairs and influence political thought and decision-making (and win people to a perspective through persuasion), just like everyone else. 2. It implies that non-Jews are being used to further "Jewish Interests," like they are dupes. This is kind of like the flipside of leftists alleging that minority members of conservative movements are "tokens", being used to further white male interests. 3. Neo-conservative committment to mass immigration-- It is interesting that right-wing economic thought (free trade etc.) leans towards the free flow of people (it is also a Libertarian theme). So, it is unique for social conservative thought (which has also influenced neo-conservatism and vice versa), but not to conservatism necessarily. Anyhow, nothing dispells these concerns like educating yourself. Here is a link to a recent article by Irving Kristol that goes into the ideology in more detail (and is less focused on history and personalities, though that is in there, too: The Neoconservative Persuasion. This hits on many of the themes I discussed in a previous discussion post. If you disagree, like most people will, fine, but defend his right to argue his position just like everyone else does and can. Cheers. -- Rexrexilius 02:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Amazing how I know less about neoconservativism after reading the front page than before I read it. nobs
It looks like Rex inserted a lot of stuff written by others, including me, I'm not quite sure what happened, I'm trying to understand the sequence.-- Silverback 06:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I quoted Irving Kristol at length. I think my point was consistent with some of the points you were making, but I didn't amalgamate your comments into mine at all. The history page is working. -- Rexrexilius 07:09, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I read the article, there is no research, it is just generalizations, insinuations and speculation. What about it is evolutionary psych? Where is the evidence of "recruitment"? Where is the evidence that the arguments with "mass appeal" are not valid positions on their own merits? The MacDonald article makes unsubstantiated statements about neocons such as "they are attempting to rearrange the entire Middle East in the interests of Israel." I have left the MacDonald paragraph largely untouched, because it is about his opinions, but I have tried to cut out this POV material where it has krept into the rest of the article.-- Silverback 12:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Since Leo Strauss, a philosophy professor, taught several of the putative founders of the neoconservatism, MacDonald concludes he is a central figure in the neo-conservative movement and sees him as 'the quintessential rabbinical guru with devoted disciples'." Hmmm. Is it just me or has MacDonald managed to make Strauss into a Jesus figure? -- Christofurio 03:51, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
I notice the recent addition of Joe Lieberman to the list of neoconservatives. I've never particularly thought of him as one. Does someone have a decent citation for this? Otherwise, I am inclined to remove this. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:22, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm. I think we are just repackaging old theories here. Don't the actions of the neo-conservatives across many sectors just reflect the continuing powers of church, business and the old aristocracies. Why don't we just call them right wing, corporatist, judasim/christian facists.
Is there any link from this topic to Neoliberalism?-- Nerd 17:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I removed a link to The New Republic in the text of the article and gave a plausible explanation. My edit was promptly reverted by JamesMLane, with reference to a discussion on this talk page. I've gone through both this portion and the archives, and I simply cannot find a discussion of TNR anywhere. Can someone point me to where this discussion took place if I'm merely glossing over it? If it is not here anywhere, I recommend removing the reference to TNR. Jersyko 02:24, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
User:Zantastik writes (in an edit summary) that "the occidental quarterly proclaims itself to be white nationalist and is clearly paleoconservative". Certainly the latter is true, and even a quick read of its web site will confirm that "white nationalist" is on the mark, but I was wondering if there is actually a citation for them calling themselves "white nationalist"? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:46, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
IMHO this section should be deleted. It's too opinion-based and incoherent, and always will be. (unsigned User:Mirror Vax, 9 Apr 2005)
From our lead: "Whereas the term was originally used for former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but aggressively opposed the Soviet Union, now the term is primarily used to describe those who support an aggressive worldwide foreign policy against radical Islam and terrorists. The term is also used to descibe those who are accused of adopting a 'unilateral' foreign policy rather than relying on United Nations concensus and actions." Well, yes, but the evolution is mainly in the politics of the individuals involved, or their progeny. Obviously, no politics today could be defined largely by aggressive opposition to the Soviet Union: it might as well be defined by opposition to the Ottoman Empire! -- Jmabel | Talk 18:37, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
There is now no unifying theory or application. Whereas before the term formerly referred to former Democrats turned Republican, now it does not. Whereas the term formerly dealt with domestic issues, now it sometimes does. When paleoconservatives use the term, it refers to domestic issues along with foreign policy issues, but when Democrats use the term, it solely refers to foreign policy. Now, the term is solely about politics and not any underlying theory. The only commonalities from the old definition to the new definition are that the term primarily refers to Republicans. A term that had a use in the days of the Soviet Union and the Cold War may have little usage today. That does not mean that it is proper to resurrect the term if now it means something entirely different. And if the term is resurrected in any event, then we must acknowledge if the meaning has changed or is otherwise meaningless. -- Noitall 21:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Warning Jmabel - I see that you reversed an edit that was accurate on the basis that you found one person who wrote a book that did not find that the term neoconservative was pejorative. A useful term applied to U.S. politics will describe millions of people, and likely hundreds in the public eye. The fact that you found one who did not mind using a pejorative term to describe their own political views does not mean that it is not pejorative. If those who are called or are thought of as "neoconservatives" do not generally describe themselves as such, and those who use the term to describe them, whether from the left or right, do so to demean or criticize, then the term is pejorative -- by definition (see Dictionary). I would request that you return my edit to its original or improve it, but do not erase it, especially when you are incorrect. -- Noitall 21:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
My source is quite valid, see edit in bold above. -- Noitall 03:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I responded once. I will not respond again to stupidity when the answer is before your nose. -- Noitall 04:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
-- Noitall 04:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
On the pejorative argument, you win the spelling bee, but I believe my argument is sound. To comment above, the term "liberal" is commonly understood by the ordinary person, and it is very frequently used by politicians to refer to themselves, especially Democrats in a primary campaign. The term "neoconservative" is not a term generally used to support or defend a person or describe someone in a good way, and certainly not by any politician that I know of to refer to themselves. I addressed the ordinary person understanding of the term above, which is appropriate for the definition of the term.
On the resurrection and history argument, you make some points and I will have to think the issue through more. I'll get back later.
-- Noitall 05:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
The general use of the term -- and it has been used quite frequently in the last couple years -- refers to political appointees, who are politicians even if not directly elected. A week can't go by without Senator Biden perjoritively calling Wolfowitz (he refers to him by last name without salutation), Rice and Rumsfeld neoconservatives before criticizing everything they have done in foreign policy (and Iraq). If a term is commonly used before millions of people, and millions know that it is is used in a derogatory manner, it should be noted as such. Any other lesser known definitions or branches by "intellectuals" can be noted in the body. -- Noitall 06:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Ok. I give up. I tried to make reasonable arguments and you want to chase me off "your" page. I made my arguments on the talk page and not on the article, but you want to be in control. Just look at this talk page, you Jmabel are in control of almost every edit and argument. I think your attitude here and inability to listen to reason is contrary to Wiki policy.
I am also offended that you make arguments without either reading my response or thinking it through. One more time: The term "liberal" is not inherently pejorative because it is commonly understood among the general public. Newspapers routinely refer to someone as a liberal or conservative, even a liberal Republican, and they would not do so if the term were commonly thought of as pejorative. Also, people routinely refer to themselves as liberals as a badge of honor. None of this is the case with the term "neoconservative." -- Noitall 07:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)