what's in a name?

Although I am interested in issues, even politics as the workings of cultural groups to resolve their differences, I have not been fond of labels. I haven't cared much if someone is called liberal, conservative, moderate, democrat, republican, libertarian or whatever. It's what people do that matters, or was. Now it's beginning to seem to me that labels do matter.

When someone calls themselves something, we tend to believe them. They say, I am a conservative. Why should we doubt them? Do we need to understand what those words mean? Really mean that is, not what the person says they mean...

In the world of politics, words are changed to suit what will sell. Recently George Bush began using a phrase 'precipitous withdrawal' in his talk of our troops leaving Iraq. It seemed kind of meaningless to me when I first heard it. It was simply another way for the Bush administration to find fault with anyone who would suggest a mistake in going into Iraq should be fixed. It turns out the phrase wasn't invented by him... surprise surprise surprise.

Well actually it was a bit of a surprise when it was revealed who had actually given himself credit for the phrase-- Bill Kristol, who followed it up with an opinion piece for the Washington Post that shocked me when I read it-- Why Bush will be a winner (there's that word, winner, again).

The origin of the phrase was written about by Ariana Huffington on Huffington Post July 16th-- "I had a preview of this deluded triumphalist drivel a couple of days earlier -- on Thursday afternoon specifically. Even more specifically, I was on the 4:00 pm Amtrak Acela from New York to Washington. Kristol was sitting a row behind me, talking on his cell phone with someone who apparently shared his optimism. "'Precipitous withdrawal' really worked," I overheard him say, clearly referring to the president's use of the term in that morning's press conference. 'How many times did he use it? Three? Four?' he asked his interlocutor, and the conversation continued with a round of metaphorical back-slapping for the clever phrase they had "come up with."

Are you like me with not really having understood who 'they' are? We hear Bill Kristol on talk shows, giving his opinion about this or that. He represents not just himself but a movement, a group, neocons (a word that is highlighted as spelled wrong anytime I use it because it's so new).

By now I think we understand they are behind the Iraqi debacle. Even today although they might blame Bush for how he carried out their idea, they defend it as Krisotol did in his op-ed piece.

Neocons are the ones who want to send our sons and daughters (not theirs) to fight wars bringing their version of democracy to the world-- while they turn their own country into a dictatorship. These people bear no resemblance to conservatives of the past like Barry Goldwater or even of the present like Pat Buchanan, who are now apparently referred to as paleoconservatives.

So from where did neocons come and how did they amass their power? A little research online says many of them were socialists and democrats who became disillusioned with the democratic party and decided to form their own power base-- a new one. They named it conservative because it would get more votes than naming it fascism from whose principles they have borrowed (look up its definition if you don't believe me).

Neocons don't believe in borders. They do believe in a strong military overseas to interfere into countries they find weak enough to attack and where they believe the government is not helpful in bringing about world peace. They are of the one-world order mentality but likely would never use that phrase.

From Paleo historian Thomas Woods: 'The conservative’s traditional sympathy for the American South and its people and heritage, evident in the works of such great American conservatives as Richard M. Weaver and Russell Kirk, began to disappear... The neocons are heavily influenced by Woodrow Wilson, with perhaps a hint of Theodore Roosevelt...They believe in an aggressive U.S. presence practically everywhere, and in the spread of democracy around the world, by force if necessary....Neoconservatives tend to want more efficient government agencies; paleoconservatives want fewer government agencies. [Neoconservatives] generally admire President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his heavily interventionist New Deal policies. Neoconservatives have not exactly been known for their budget consciousness, and you won’t hear them talking about making any serious inroads into the federal apparatus."

For anybody who is interested in doing more research on this political group and how they got where they are, it's easy to Google it, but this in Wikepedia gives you the gist-- Neoconservatives.

I think it's worth your while to do the research because labels can end up causing us grief when we believe they mean what we used to think. The word conservative has connotations that this new group doesn't follow at all which is how we have our budgets thrashed, our borders meaningless, our environment trashed, our military off on quests that the rest of us are scratching our heads over.

What people say they believe, the words they say they came up with, isn't always how it is. When we vote or support someone by our money or labor, it's important to understand who the group is behind them. It's not enjoyable to look into such things; except, if we don't know who these people really are (the ones out front as well as the secret ones who coin phrases that they can laugh over how well they worked), they will get our vote, our wallets, our sons and daughters, and all of our liberties.

If you believe in their cause, I guess that's okay; but just be sure you really understand what their cause is. With the choice of their name, I think neocons have duped conservatives as much as anybody else.