Used to be axiomatic among progressives
Oliver Kamm coments on that interview David Thompson did with your humble windbag the other day. I know, that was a week ago, but I get behind in these things – deadlines, you know. He wonders about that thing I wondered about and probably Johann wondered about and possibly Jerry wondered about and maybe some other people – people who liked Why Truth Matters for instance – wondered about. What’s a liberal neocon? Who is one?
He says something very good, too, in reply to an inanity from good old ‘Islamophobiawatch:
The only editorial amendment I would make to your headline would be to enclose the word “Islamophobia” in inverted commas, as I have just done. The notion that this fabricated, question-begging and illegitimate term bears any comparison to the great progressive causes of civil rights and opposition to racism is a linguistic feint that should not be allowed to pass by default. Criticism of religious doctrine and practice is an essential part of a free society and a vigorous intellectual culture. That is true for religion in general, and for religions in particular…The principles of the separation of religious and civil authority, and that government should protect the free exercise of religion but not the sensibilities of the faithful, used to be axiomatic among progressives. For some of us (I use the term “progressive” without irony in my case, but with plenty concerning the authors of Islamophobia Watch), they remain so.
Yeah!
Actually, I don’t find the notion of a liberal neocon that counterintuitive. In fact there’s a possibility that I might be one!
Well, depends on what he (Skidelsky) means by it. Liberal interventionist maybe – but then again maybe Islamophobe, or rather ‘Islamophobe.’ If it’s the latter I would want to pin down (by force and violence) exactly what is con about that.
It’s all wanton innuendo, I tell you.
Didn’t ‘neoconservative’ used to have connotations of ‘Liberalism’ with a capital ‘L’?
But there is/are very good reasons to be afraid of islam.
Particularly if you are female, or an atheist.
Defining ‘neocon’ first might be an idea. To me it appears to mean, “view the common herd with contempt, attempt to influence the political process from an elite ‘inside track’, advocate the spread of your values by military force, demonise all disagreement, and collect a fat paycheque all the while”.
I accept others might see it as meaning no more than “not an unequivocal supporter of the Iraqi Resistance”, but that’s not a very analytical definition.
Of course, to some people, it just means “Jew”.
I hear that Commentary and Dissent have merged and formed Dysentery.
– Woody Allen
Where I come from (Australia), The term Liberal neocon makes perfect sense because we have a political party called the “Liberals”, which are more conservative than the US republican party.
Funny you should mention that, Paul, because Oliver Kamm is a “progressive” in precisely the same way that John Howard is a “liberal”.