What is a "neocon?"

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya.

The term "neocon" is thrown around as an insult, like "moron," at anyone who does not agree with a given speaker. This is a specially common epithet in libertarian circles. 

But definitions matter. What does the word really mean?

Whenever I ask what "neocon" means, especially to someone that has just used it, they stumble around like a drunk sorority girl on her first spring break. Thankfully, however, most of them keep on their shirt.

Way back in 2004, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review associate editor Bill Steigerwald had the same question. What did he do? He

rang up four of the biggest names in the punditry business and asked them the same questions. Rich Lowry is editor of National Review. Paul Weyrich is chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation. Paul Gigot is editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. And George Will is the famous syndicated columnist.

The answers are enlightening. Even they can't all agree, and it is the job of these guys to know.

They all pretty much agree on the origin of the term of term. Gigot explains:

the neoconservatives were people who in the 1970s were former liberals, in some cases socialists, who moved right in reaction to the left's shift on cultural mores, personal responsibility and foreign policy. So I think the term "neoconservative" has that narrow meaning of that historical period. I think of them as the Podhoretzes and the Kristols and others.

Of course, people that use it today are not using the term to describe former flower children that realized how wrong they were about social and economic policy. Surely it would be a compliment to recognize that one was wrong and has now seen the light. It worked for Paul (nee Saul).

It seems that most people today use it to describe pro-war hawks that pushed G.W. Bush into invading Iraq on bad intelligence. And they do not mean it as a compliment.

Steigerwald asked, "Is this a neoconservative war in Iraq?"

The responses:

Lowry: "No."

Weyrich: " I don't think that you could make that case."

Gigot: "No."

Will: "It had a neoconservative overlay, to the extent that it was a war -- however mistakenly -- based on the confident belief that there was a growing arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; that was not a distinctly neoconservative rationale."

Only Will gives the common usage any creedence. But he points out that many NON neocons urged the same course of action. Hillary Clinton certainly did.

I can only conclude that the word has no meaningful modern usage. I suggest that instead of using it as a generic insult, people should use more specific words, like "moron," "idiot," or "dumbass." Such usage far more accurately describes the users' intent and is far less pretentious.