“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” (Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride)
In the most recent Republican primary debate, Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy unveiled a “No to Neocons” pledge. The pledge requires officials to commit that “avoiding WW3 is a vital national objective,” “war is never a preference, only a necessity,” and “the sole duty of U.S. policymakers is to U.S. citizens.” Mr. Ramaswamy clearly believes that a neocon is a person who wants to do the opposite of all those things.
Except, that isn’t the definition of a neocon at all. A “neocon” actually means a “new conservative,” and, starting in the 70s, it has traditionally referred to former liberal Democrats who had become conservative Republicans, usually because they were “mugged by reality” on crime or foreign policy issues. Prominent neoconservatives included Norman Podhoretz, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Irving Kristol, and Jeanne Kirkpatrick. By definition, a neocon could not describe George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Nikki Haley, or even Bill Kristol. All of these people started as some form of conservative Republicans (although now Kristol is a Democrat).
Today, however, the term “neocon,” which is often used as an epithet, has developed a secondary meaning – “a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and U.S. national interest in international affairs, including through military means.” And sometimes, its use is clearly intended to refer to specifically Jewish conservatives. (William F. Buckley points out Pat Buchanan’s bias right here.) But it still doesn’t mean what Vivek Ramaswamy thinks it means in his above pledge.
In fact, on the current political stage, there is really only one Republican candidate who would qualify as a “neo con.” Donald Trump was once a liberal Democrat who became a conservative Republican. No offense to President Trump, but he is a “neocon,” according to the actual definition of the word.
And this kind of sloppy language is all around us. The use of the word “Nazi” is another problematic term. A Nazi is “a member of the National Socialist (German Workers’) Party, led by Adolf Hitler, which controlled Germany from 1933 to 1945.” But, according to Wikipedia, a Nazi is “a far-right totalitarian” ideology. And that is what the mainstream media and Democrats – but I repeat myself – like to define it as. For example, here is an article documenting the latest attempt to liken a GOP Presidential candidate, in this case, Donald Trump, as a Nazi. And this has been done before to former Presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
Now, this misuse of “Nazi” is clearly an example of mainstream historical and media propaganda. It is constantly applied to people on the political right, who are diametrically opposed to those on the left, i.e., socialists and communists. This, however, is simply not the correct definition. The Nazis were socialists – just look at their name! And just because they fought communists, that doesn’t make them right-wing. Trotskyite communists fought Stalinists, but they both were communist/leftwing factions. The Mensheviks fought the Bolsheviks, but both were leftwing.
Further, the Nazi ideology is entirely opposite to that of the conservative Americans to whom they are often lumped together (by the mainstream media). An American conservative is a person who believes in smaller government, less regulation, and more individualism. A Nazi believed in big government, which regulated everything and anything, and that the individual should prostrate himself before the state and the state’s leader, Adolf Hitler. And if you don’t believe me, check out any objective historical book (like this).
I should add that even the political right sometimes gets “Nazi” wrong. Hamas is a brutal, barbarian, terrorist, Islamist group, but they are not Nazis. They are not socialists, and their ideology is religiously based and not similar to the atheist Nazis at all, except both are/were virulent Jew haters.
Words and definitions mean what they mean. Not what we want them to mean. And changing their meaning is a misuse of language that often obscures the facts and hinders the debate.
Simply put, I don’t think we should be doing that.
Adam Turner is a foreign policy expert, national security professional, and campaign specialist who has objectively observed American politics since the late ‘80s.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member