It is undeniable that many people use the term neoconservatism in an overbroad or faulty manner.
But where I work we have been studying the neoconservative movement as a consistent and self-identified movement for close to 20 years. We shelve their books together in our library. We discuss them in our publications. We know who they are. They know who they are.
Just because some people can't be bothered to spend the two hours it would take to figure out who they are and what they think should not mean that we should abandon the term as an analytical tool.
It is somewhat dadaist to dismiss as a fiction a group of thinkers that identify themselves as a group with a specific ideological core.
And, just for the record, a lot of analysts (left and right) list William Bennett as a neoconservative.
See:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14450
http://www.lewrockwell.com/elkins/elkins13.html
-Chip Berlet
= = = -----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-admin at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-admin at lbo-talk.org]On Behalf Of Luke Weiger Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 10:45 PM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Straussian moralist as high rolling gamber
Jim, Michael, Chip, and Justin,
I simply don't think the neoconservative label is of much use in political discourse. It means too many different things to different people. (Although Justin's correct that those who are most often identified as being neoconservatives share a fairly consistent ideology.)
<<SNIP>>
-- Luke