Recently it seems that vague and misleading definitions are the order of the day. I wrote already about the strange transformation of Ronald Reagan's memory, as well as the odd ways that many terms are being used in the current election cycle. However, none of those begin to compare to the ultimate flexible definition,. the single most malleable word in modern politics, a word with barely a single fixed characteristic. The word "neo-con".

As it was originally used, the term "neo-con" referred to conservatives who were refugees from the leftward shift of the Democrat party. They were, on the whole, strong on defense, but also more tolerant of big government solutions. Today they would probably be called "defense conservatives". The term did not originally have the negative connotation it does today, being simply a designation of a large group, being invented primarily to describe a new faction within the Republican party. (Nor were all former Democrats neo-cons. Recall Reagan was once a Democrat too.)

That original definition has long ago disappeared, to be replaced with a confusing welter of contradictory definitions, all of which share only one common trait, that neo-cons are evil.  Other than that, most cannot agree on precisely what a neo-con is.

For those of a less outspoken antisemitic bent, who have realized what a threadbare disguise "anti-Zionism" has become, "neo-con" has become a convenient synonym for "Republican Jew". For extreme isolationists the term has become a useful shorthand for anyone who supports foreign wars. For protectionists it has transformed into a more disparaging name for economic libertarians. For thsoe who fear a North American Union it is used to describe anyone who doesn't fear the same. And the list goes on and on. The one common thread being that a "neo-con" is someone unappealing.

In general, ignoring the antisemitic usages, neo-cons fall into two categories. Generally neo-con is used to criticize those in favor of military action or those in favor of economic freedom, including reduced trade barriers. Often one or more of these will be combined in the same definition, but we shall deal with them individually.

The military definition is the only one which truly belongs to the original definition of "neo-con". A strong position on defense was the main reason the original "neo-cons" abandoned the Democrats for the Republicans. Then again, the term "neo-con" has moved beyond that simple meaning of being for a strong defense to imply a number of more sinister positions. From the conspiracy theories surrounding the PNAC,  to the "blood for oil" accusations of some isolationists, it has become commonplace to suggest that neo-cons are somehow involve din a massive conspiracy aimed at world domination. A bit of this is perhaps a holdover from the more explicitly antisemitic usages of "neo-con", but the rest is just run of the mill conspiracy theorizing.

"Neo-con" is also used to criticize the economic libertarians, both domestically and internationally. This is a peculiar use, as protectionism and interventionism are largely the province of the left, mostly trade unions*. At one time these positions were embraced by certain failing industries as well, but one now encounters it almost exclusively among trade unions and the politicians who seek their support. Since "neo-con" originally described those who fled the Democrat party over questions of defense, they were far more likely to tolerate government intervention in economic affairs than more traditional conservatives. Which makes it ironic that the small cadre protectionists within the Republican party would choose to call economic libertarians "neo-cons".

Actually, there is a third usage of neo-con, or perhaps a trait which is often added to those listed above. One will often see the term "neo-con" used interchangeably with the phrase "Israel Lobby". In some ways this is accurate, as most of the original neo-cons supported strong ties with Israel. However, this usage does completely ignore the context of such support. Original "neo-cons" were not supporting Israel out of a love for the nation or even because they were Jewish, but because Israel was our one consistent ally in a volatile part of the world, making support of Israel essential to maintaining a US presence in the Middle East. Then again, those who complain of the "Israel Lobby" often overlook this fact when spinning tales of Israel's malevolent influence over our nation. For some reason the concept of supporting our steadfast ally seems a bit hard for them to grasp**.
 
Regardless, this confusing abundance of definitions has pretty much robbed the term of any meaning. Originally its meaning was quite clear,  but that lasted for only a moment, and almost immediately the term began to change. From a quick shorthand for "former Democrats who are strong on defense", it changed to mean any specific group to which the speaker was opposed. It had no more meaning than your average obscenity. Other than conveying the fact that the speaker was describing a group he disliked, "neo-con" ceased to mean anything.

I would love to return neo-con to its original meaning, as that meaning actually was somewhat useful. However, the term has now become so broad that I doubt we could force it back within the confines of a single definition. Even if we did, the opprobrium which has now attached would add a connotation completely inappropriate for the original meaning.

Sicne we can't return it to its original meaning, and as it does not have any real meaning now, perhaps it is just time to retire the term "neo-con". Maybe we would all be better off if people had to spell out exactly what positions they are opposing, rather than simply casting aspersions on the ill-defined "neo-cons".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* There are some protectionist Republicans, and somehow they have convinced many people to call them "paleocons", as if protectionism were an essential part of the Republican party. I suppose that is true if one wants to go back to the pre-Harding party, but in modern times, a strong protectionist policy has been more characteristic of the big labor wing of the Democrats than of the Republicans. Yes, protectionists have always been with us, and in the 19th century they were the majority, but in terms of the modern party protectionists are no more "paleocon" than Bush's "compassionate conservatism" is.

** For those new to my blog, please read this before mentioning the USS Liberty. If you still feel the need to mention it after reading that, please don't. I am open to almost all discussion, but I have very little patience for conspiracy theories. And the Liberty is one of the most senseless. Unless one assumes Jews simply can't resist killing gentiles, there is no reason Israel would possibly want to attack a ship belonging to her one consistent ally. And if you do believe Jews want to kill gentiles, this may be the wrong forum to voice that opinion. At the very least I am not your target audience.