Defying labels

Defying labels
: Dean Esmay gets this off his chest about labeling people neocon. He starts with a history of the term and then says:

What’s bizarre is that, since 9/11, angry left-wing critics have started dubbing just about everyone who disagrees with them on defense matters a “neocon.” Democrat, Republican, socialist, capitalist, it doesn’t matter. If you supported the effort to liberate Iraq, you are a “neocon.”

People who’ve considered themselves conservative Republicans their whole lives, like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, are now routinely called “neocons.” Democrats who support the war effort get called “neocons.” People who voted for Gore who think Iraq was the right thing to do are called “neocons.” Pretty much anybody who thinks that America needed to take out Saddam Hussein and start the process of reforming the thug-regimes of the Middle East, or who thinks the liberal democratic state of Israel has a right to exist and is not the moral equivalent of Yassir Arafat’s terrorist-regime, is now dubbed a “neocon.”

There is also a subtle undercurrent among some (not all, but some) who use the term that a “neocon” is really someone who’s either Jewish, or secretly influenced by Zionist thinkers.

He’s right but I find just as frequently that just supporting the war gets you labeled “right-wing.” It all sinks to the level of a playground argument.

5 responses to “Defying labels”

  1. g wiz Avatar

    I agree with being labeled “right-wing” if you supported the war, or even if you support the war on terror itself. I have been called it numerous times by people who don’t know the first thing about me, and I would consider myself mostly liberal. I’m for gay marriage, pro-choice, etc.

  2. John Avatar

    More and more since about the beginning of 2002 it amazes me that in some people’s minds if you are against Bush’s policies of Medicare, the envirnment, steel tariffs, or whatever, it means to them he automatically has to be wrong about the war on terror and removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. I mean, jeez, even Rush Limbaugh supported Bill Clinton on NAFTA — these people have a seemingly Pavlovian response to oppose everything Bush supports, even if it means siding with the loopiest of Isalmofacists and America-haters in general on the most important issues now facing the country.
    Gephardt and Lieberman seem to get the war on terror, and I suppose Kerry and Edwards do to a great extent, too, but are too worried about pandering to the Howard Dean crowd to say so for attribution anymore before the primary season is over. But the refelxive “neocon” labeling by people on the left of anyone who does support the terror war just seems like a way to avoid having to think about the issue and therefore justify their own beliefs and who they are siding with in holidng those beliefs (and of course if they bothered to remember their recent history, alleged neocon grand poobah William Krystol was a major Bush opponent and McCain support during the 2000 Republican primary and has remained an on-and-off skeptic about Bush over the past three years. I’d say there’s at best a grudging truce between the Bushies and the neocon camp right now, as opposed to the entwined evil plotting those who oppose the war allege).

  3. Andy Freeman Avatar
    Andy Freeman

    They’re using “neocon” the way they used to use “fascist”.

  4. Mithras Avatar

    I look in vain for the post railing against those who calling anti-Iraq-war people “objectively pro-Saddam” or “pro-fascist.” Oh well.

  5. Andrea Harris Avatar

    That’s because you haven’t looked hard enough. What do you want, a certified letter?