the definition of a Neocon

[G Huxley]

OK Charles if you are against all labels. Let's be fair and consistent then. Ban the use of the word conservative, or liberal, or green or any other label.

It's easy to read a person's politics by reading their posts. The previous poster in that thread said that Joe Clark isn't a conservative (despite Clark's having been a Conservative Prime Minister.) Why wasn't that person's posts banned for saying Clark wasn't a conservative despite actually having been a conservative PM of Canada???

Let's use logic here. Why would he say Joe Clark isn't a conservative? The answer is because Joe Clark in addition to his identification as a conservative identifies himself as a progressive, which is antithetical to the Neoconservative movement which has hijacked the conservative brand in North America and is opposed to political progressives or those who identify with political progressivism. Even Dieffenbaker associated with progressivism. Therefore it is obvious that the poster is a Neocon and his subsequent posts in favour of the current government which is based on the American Neoconservative movement also reveal his Neocon position.

It's obvious logic that most people here I'm sure easily grasp. If the poster disagreed with my appraisal of his political orientation he could then have denied it and better elucidated his political position, but instead he didn't have a chance to defend himself as I didn't have a chance to call him on what I consider to have accurately been a gauge of his political position, just as he considered himself to have accurately gauged a former conservative Prime Minister of Canada's not being a conservative according to his opinion.

And even despite that I didn't actually even call the poster a Neocon as claimed. It's easy to falsely claim that I did that after deleting my post so that the evidence is gone to the contrary. All I said is that the poster thinks that only neocons count as conservatives now, a logical deduction from his having called a former conservative Prime Minister not a conservative.

That you are offended by my instance of mentioning a political label, and not by the other instances of same reveals your own bias. This is further revealed in that you yourself stated that you used to consider yourself a neocon, so the bias is obvious and certainly can't be said to be non-partisan or consistent.

As for a definition of Neocon sure: A person belonging to the political movement known as neoconservatism, or those whose political stances are most often in emulation of or in agreement with that movement.

[Charles Anthony]

OK Charles if you are against all labels. Let's be fair and consistent then.

I am not against labels. I wish to encourage you to express clarity over the labels you chose such that your reader does not misunderstand.

As for a definition of Neocon sure: A person belonging to the political movement known as neoconservatism, or those whose political stances are most often in emulation of or in agreement with that movement.

Agree? or Disagree? Edited August 25, 2015 by Charles Anthony
added punchline

[cybercoma]

I'm not sure why a neoliberal (or neoconservative in American politics) would object to the label any more than I would object to someone calling me a social democrat. If that's your political philosophy, then someone recognizing that shouldn't be offensive.

Edited August 25, 2015 by cybercoma

[Topaz]

Instead of using neocon or other neos, why not say far-right, far-left ,would there be a difference?

[The_Squid]

So the Mod erases the term "neocon", but lefty, leftist, far left, righty, right-winger are all OK....

Makes perfect sense....

[G Huxley]

"I am not against labels. I wish to encourage you to express clarity over the labels you chose such that your reader does not misunderstand."

My post was perfectly clear. If the poster didn't understand they could have said so. Instead you just deleted my post because you personally didn't like to see the term Neocon as opposed to the numerous other political labels that are used daily here.

Even despite that the majority so far agree with my definition in your poll, the poll itself is an absurdity. There is no full consensus in politics especially in regards to the definition/meaning of labels, spectrums etc. so the idea that everyone must agree to the definition of a label is a strawman.

If someone wants to use a political label they don't have to have my agreement in their meaning/definition to use it and vice versa. Language doesn't work that way.

Edited August 26, 2015 by G Huxley

[G Huxley]

"Instead of using neocon or other neos, why not say far-right, far-left ,would there be a difference?"

There would be a difference. Although Neocons are far right, not all far right people are neocons (e.g. libertarians etc.)

[Argus]

Instead of using neocon or other neos, why not say far-right, far-left ,would there be a difference?

Not so much given they are all being used as all-purpose epithets to describe anyone with even mildly conservative views.

[Bonam]

I'm not sure why a neoliberal (or neoconservative in American politics) would object to the label any more than I would object to someone calling me a social democrat. If that's your political philosophy, then someone recognizing that shouldn't be offensive.

Doesn't matter if you don't understand why something might be offensive to someone. All that matters is that they feel it is offensive. If you continue to make the offensive statement then you are an [fill in the blank here].

Sound like a familiar argument at all?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24659-microaggressions/

[bush_cheney2004]

There is no such thing as a Canadian "neocon". It's an American term specific to time and context that do not apply to Canada.

Importing the term from American politics for domestic mileage kilometerage just doesn't work.

Edited August 26, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[cybercoma]

Doesn't matter if you don't understand why something might be offensive to someone. All that matters is that they feel it is offensive. If you continue to make the offensive statement then you are an [fill in the blank here].

Sound like a familiar argument at all?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24659-microaggressions/

Again, why would you not take pride in being called a neoconservative, if you hold neoconservative views?

[G Huxley]

Ask Charles he used to call himself a neocon. I guess his posts should have been deleted back then for using a political label. Now that he doesn't use the term/identify with it no one is allowed to use it.

Edited August 26, 2015 by G Huxley

[Bonam]

Again, why would you not take pride in being called a neoconservative, if you hold neoconservative views?

Stop with the milli-aggressions! I'm gonna call the anti-bias forum-climate squad!

[G Huxley]

Bush/Cheney2004 The current Canadian conservative movement came to power on the wings of the American neoconservative movement during the Bush years and have continually emulated the American Neoconservatives in pretty much all their policies.

Countries have parallel political movements all the time. I don't know why this would surprise you. For instance Spain's political party in the 1940s had the same basic ideology as neighbouring Portugal's during the same period.

[bush_cheney2004]

Bush/Cheney2004 The current Canadian conservative movement came to power on the wings of the American neoconservative movement during the Bush years and have continually emulated the American Neoconservatives in pretty much all their policies.

Countries have parallel political movements all the time. I don't know why this would surprise you. For instance Spain's political party in the 1940s had the same basic ideology as neighbouring Portugal's during the same period.

I don't think you understand what the term means in practice...it is not just a political label.

Please explain to us how the "Canadian conservative movement" would be able to project military and economic power around the globe given Canada's very limited capacity and will to do so. How would this Canadian power projection compete with the original American "neocons", who not only have the means, but the demonstrated will. This cannot be "emulated".

Ergo, there is no such thing as a Canadian "neocon". May as well be "unicorn" instead.

[G Huxley]

Canada doesn't have to rule the globe militarily. It just has to play Mussolini to the US' Hitler as the Canadian branch of the neoconservative movement has done.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada doesn't have to rule the globe militarily. It just has to play Mussolini to the US' Hitler as the Canadian branch of the neoconservative movement has done.

But Canada had already done that with Liberals as the ruling party (Kosovo, Afghanistan, Haiti, etc.) as part of "Canadian Values", Responsibility to Protect, UN peacekeeping/peacekilling, yada, yada, yada...not "neocons". Canada cannot and will not unilaterally project military force to execute foreign policy. There was/is no Canadian equivalent to the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

Wannabe pretending does not a "neocon" make.

Edited August 26, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[G Huxley]

We already established earlier that there isn't much difference between Neoconservative and Neoliberal, but Canada didn't go along under Chretien with the US' wars of aggression on Iraq, and Libya and that separates them from the Neocons in Canada.

Edited August 26, 2015 by G Huxley

[bush_cheney2004]

If there is no difference in Canada, then there are no "neocons" for policies and actions. I can point to the defining elements and actions of the American neoconservative movement but would be hard pressed to find the equivalent in Canada. PM Martin conspired and participated in kidnapping the democratically elected president of Haiti in 2004, but he is/was not labeled a "neocon".

I believe the term is used in Canada without complete understanding...it is easy (lazy) partisan labeling imported from American media.

Edited August 26, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Bryan]

It's easy to read a person's politics by reading their posts. The previous poster in that thread said that Joe Clark isn't a conservative (despite Clark's having been a Conservative Prime Minister.) Why wasn't that person's posts banned for saying Clark wasn't a conservative despite actually having been a conservative PM of Canada???

Not only was Joe Clark NOT a "Conservative Prime Minister", he has never even been a member of the Conservative party. He was vehemently opposed to the formation of the party, despite over 90% of his fellow PCs jumping ship to the new party. Clark still sat in the house as a PC even after the Conservative party was formed.

there is no such thing as a Canadian "neocon".

Agreed. Neocon refers very specifically to a subset of the Republican party. The term bares no relation to Canadian Conservatives, who in most cases would be considered pretty far left of the Democrats in the US.

[Bryan]

Canada doesn't have to rule the globe militarily. It just has to play Mussolini to the US' Hitler as the Canadian branch of the neoconservative movement has done.

There is no "Canadian branch of the neoconservative movement".

[Topaz]

If there is no difference in Canada, then there are no "neocons" for policies and actions. I can point to the defining elements and actions of the American neoconservative movement but would be hard pressed to find the equivalent in Canada. PM Martin conspired and participated in kidnapping the democratically elected president of Haiti in 2004, but he is/was not labeled a "neocon".

I believe the term is used in Canada without complete understanding...it is easy (lazy) partisan labeling imported from American media.

bc, what are u talking about? U have the wrong leader involved. http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/haiti/ousted.htm

[cybercoma]

Stop with the milli-aggressions! I'm gonna call the anti-bias forum-climate squad!

For someone who criticizes people for not adding to the discussion, you're doing a fabulous job of being a massive hypocrite.

[Moonlight Graham]

We already established earlier that there isn't much difference between Neoconservative and Neoliberal.

That's not true at all. Neoconservatism is largely a foreign policy outlook, while neoliberalism is concerned with economics (open markets, economic liberalization). Neocons are interventionist militarily, support spreading democracy and liberal values through military action, support unilateral military action and have little use for UN multilateralism (unless it suits them), and since the movement came out of the US, US necons support projecting strong US military power throughout the world to maintain their unipolar dominance.

Ie: I would say it would be fairly accurate to describe Harper as a "neocon", and a supporter of global US military power projection. He supported the 2003 Iraq War, and has supported every major US foreign military adventure since coming to power and has involved Canada's military in it. He also has unprecedented disdain for the UN.

[G Huxley]

Bryan: I never said that Clark was a Conservative Party Member, I said that he was a conservative.

His party were called The Progressive Conservatives. Thus he identified as a conservative.

Graham: Thanks for also saying that you accurately consider Harper to be a Neocon.

Re: Neoliberalism and Neoconservativism. I said there is a difference, but ultimately Neoliberals and Neoconservatives push the same global economic agenda and Neoliberals also use military force to advance that agenda e.g. Tony Blair, and the other instances mentioned and that's why the movements aren't all that different.