Neo’s not so neo
At Instapundit, Ed Driscoll discusses a National Review article by Rachel Lu entitled, “Get Ready for the Neo-Neoconservatives.”
Lu thinks the time may be ripe:
As young liberals sour on what is to them the old world of the political and cultural Left, conservative ideas might have a real allure. For younger generations, tradition often has the benefit of feeling simultaneously time-tested and novel. We might generate considerable momentum by daring young radicals to embrace conservatism, a truly countercultural move that promises to drive their teachers (and parents?) crazy.
If she wants any advice, I can certainly offer some.
Ed Driscoll adds:
But why do I need to “get ready for the Neo-Neocons,” when I’ve known the original Neo-Neocon for over a decade?
Thanks, Ed! In all seriousness, it’s not the first time that other people have used the “neo-neocon” phrase. But yes, I was the first to use it (at least, I think I was).
And I’m not so “neo” anymore, am I? But, like a person nicknamed “junior” in his youth and still called “junior” when he’s an old graybeard, I guess I’m stuck with it.
I’ve thought of changing it, but to what? Any suggestions?
Not that I’ll necessarily take them.
You easily could be “proto-neoneocon” or shorten it to “protocon”, “protoneo”, etc.
Susanamantha:
I could call myself “Paleo Neo.”
“Protero Neo?”
Even before the “Paleo Neo” and avoids the “Paleo Cons?”
Proterozoic – of, relating to, or denoting the eon that constitutes the later part of the Precambrian, between the Archean eon and the Cambrian period, in which the earliest forms of life evolved.
How about: “The Blogger Formerly Known as Neoneocon” or “Princess”, for short?
You must keep neo neocon! That’s how I found your insightful writing on the political journey.
Or, presbutero-neoneo, though clearly not archaio-neoneo.
The trouble with “Paleo Neo” is that there are conservatives who call themselves “paleo-conservatives”–think Pat Buchanan. I don’t think you’re one of them.
Why change? Beyond your essays, the wide ranging topics you discuss, and the many comments I find interesting; I appreciate that you resist making frequent changes to your blog design. Consistency in thought and deed is a rare thing. Please stay neoneocon. And, don’t even think about tossing away the apple.
The young look for the new, what has come before has limited appeal. Even though there is nothing new under the sun, to qualify as new, all an idea must do is appear to be new.
neo-libcon
I.e. new libertarian conservative
Copyright the term and grant user rigt to people wo fill the bill.
That was my first thought when I saw that article.
No, not “paleo-” or any other throwbacks. You are a trailblazer, and you’ve now moved on to the next stage of the avant-garde:
Post-Neo-Neocon.
keep it the way it is.
You’ll always be Neo to us!
I knew you would be offering us your take on this article; who can resist seeing their name in print? 😉
My take is that the author seems to believe that attracting people into the Republican Party whose ideology tends liberal-progressive on all but one or two factors was (and will be) somehow GOOD for the cause of conservatism, when what it actually accomplished was moving the GOP to the Left because of the other predilections of its new proponents.
Inviting more liberal-progressives to join because of single-issue issues with the Democrats will only decrease the conservative-content of the Republican party even further, at a time when many multi-issue conservatives believe that there is really only one functioning ideology in Washington, with two home addresses.
(Whether they are completely right, partially right, or minimally right is hotly debated; that the perception exists and drives voting decisions is indisputable.)
Neo:
You could always refer to yourself as “Beautiful” but I realize you’re much too modest to do that.
I’ll just take a moment here to note that the above is not why I picked this particular nick.
😛