Regarding the Neo-Con self-identification.

A correspondent asks:

I found your interesting blog quite by accident today while researching etymologies. As a self-described neo-con, do you consider the term "neo-con" to refer to a group that is homogenous to the extent that they are a community or sub-culture with common perspectives? The alternative is that "neo-con" is a big-tent term and refers to folks with similar leanings, but perhaps very different positions on specific subjects of relevance (economic policy, taxation, morality, etc.).

Part of what I'm after is a determination of whether a neo-con can speak authoritatively about the positions of neo-cons.

My response:

My sense is that Neo-Conservativism constitutes less of a community and more of an attitude. I first began to identify myself as a "neocon" in the '70's when I was in college and reading Commentary magazine, and particularly its brilliant editor, Norman Podhoretz, and Irving Kristol. Where paleocons would tend to defend their policy positions by starting with windy philosophical propositions, the neo's tended to use sociological studies. I think, in fact, that James Q. Wilson made that very point back in the early '80s.

The other thing that may identify Neo's was their strong support of national defense. Most of the Neo's, James Q. Wilson being a notable exception, tended to be Jewish, from New York, and former hard leftists. I think that the Neo's came to realize during the 60s that the capture of the Democrats by the New Left carried would engender a weakened commitment by the Democrats with respect to national security. Being supporters of Israel for obvious reasons, the Neo's realized that an American which was weak on national security was bad for Israel. I don't mean to suggest that Podhoretz and Kristol subordinated America's interests to that of Israel; I like to think that they "grew up" and realized that the dalliance with a weak postion on national security could have dramatic real world consequences.

Today, you see the continuation of the Neo-Con tropism in the strong, "forward" position on national security, which sometimes appears to conflate America's national interests with those of Israel's. I don't, however, see the same interest in using sociology as a basis for crafting policy positions.

For me, the Neo-Con tag is probably a hold-over from my student days, although it does represent my continuing view which favors a strong national defense and continuing interest in justifying conservative policies with scientific data.

That's my explanation, but today I wonder how much of my former identification with being a Neo-con was simply a desire on my part to avoid the flack I knew I would get from my fellow college and law students from being a "conservative." I don't, however, think it was in anyway odd for a redheaded Irish Catholic kid from California to adopt the politics of a group of middle-aged Jewish, former Trotskyites from Brooklyn.