YOU’RE JUST A NEOCONNAZI!

Jamie wrote a must read post for The Daily Dish (Andrew Sullivan is once again on vacation) about neoconservatism and then especially the frequent use of this word by progressives. Jamie writes:

There’s been a lot of discussion on the blog about the use–and abuse–of the label “neo-con.” Which has got me thinking–what is it that causes people to label others this way? And why is it that people who would never consider themselves neo-conservatives are labeled as such?

Today, it seems that a “neo-con” (at least in the fevered imaginations of the net-left) is someone who frequently calls attention to the unprovoked aggression of despotic regimes (e.g. Iran and Syria), the violation of human rights in other countries, and advocates the moral superiority of democratic countries in international affairs. A “neo-con” is now anyone who dares make an issue out of the aggressions and inhumanity of despotisms without explaining them away, and for advocating America do something about these aggressions and inhumanities. It is for this reason that so many on the left attacked Bayard Rustin in the 1970′s and 1980′s when, in addition to speaking out about racial injustices in the United States and condemning Reaganomics, he also spoke out, vociferously, against the PLO, Robert Mugabe, and the Sandinistas. But Rustin was hardly a proper neo-conservative, even if he happened to write the occasional article for Commentary and helped found the Coalition for a Democratic Majority. And so, simply for stating uncomfortable realities about the world, someone is called a “neocon” (which in today’s political discourse–not just left-wing discourse–is akin to labeling someone a “pinko” in the 1950′s) and readily dismissed.

It seems that, in both the right and left blogospheres those who do not toe the party line are attacked and called names: Liberals are traitors and conservatives are warmongers. “Neo-con” has become the de facto curse word in the left-wing blogosphere, applied to anyone who dares oppose the dictates of Chairman Kos (do his followers realize the cruel irony of calling themselves “Kossacks?”)

This last post by Jamie was a response to posts by Steve Clemons and Hilzoy – also both active at Andrew’s blog. As those who regularly read Clemons’ and Hilzoy’s stuff know, they might throw around the label ‘neocon’ a bit too easily. This annoyed Jamie and he published a post calling them out. The response is what seems to be a bit of a heated debate (although all involved seem to try not to take each other on too aggressively since Andrew would probably like to find his blog intact when he returns).

In this debate, I agree completely with Jamie. Neocon has become an insult for everyone who dares talk about the awful things happening in other countries. Especially if one has the guts to point out what is happening in, say, Iran, one is the danger of either being called a ‘neocon,’ or a ‘neocon apologist.’ Both labels are of course ludicrous. One does not need to be a neoconservative to be able to see that there are some serious messed up regimes in the world, and to believe that the West should do something about these regimes if possible.

What we have seen in the last two years or so is that progressives have started using the neocon label to dismiss all opposition to their own generally empty foreign policy plans. Whenever one has the guts to point out that Iran might be working on a nuclear weapon and that it is probably not a good idea to let Ahmadinejad have an atom bomb, one gets instantly attacked by bloggers (and readers) on the (far) left. Not only is one a ‘neocon,’ but one is also a ‘warmonger.’ The result is that they do not truly debate, or talk about the issue at hand, but casually dismiss everything you said by implying that the only thing you are after is war. For some strange reason these people seem to think that everybody a little bit more to the right than they loves war.

In the end, though, these progressives hurt their own cause. They have to come up with their own ideas to deal with real problems and, in the end, just dismissing any opposition by calling opponents ‘neocons’ isn’t going to work anymore.

NOTE: No, not every single liberal does this. I am not accusing all liberals of doing this. But some most certainly do.