As a blogger and a journalist I’ve been accused of being all kinds of things, and the most recent label being applied is neoconservative, although I’m not even sure what a neocon is. I think it’s currently narrowly defined as someone who supported the War in Iraq, but do such labels apply based on a single policy stance? To be clear, I don’t consider myself a neocon, paleocon, theocon, crunchy con, or any other subdivision of con. Politically, I am just a plain old conservative. I hold a variety of conservative views—conservatism not being monolithic but admitting of a variety of conservative viewpoints on various matters—and so I might share a point of view with people who identify themselves in those categories, but I would have disagreements as well.
The reason I bring it up is because The New Oxford Review calls me a neoconservative and says I support a war against Iran because for a couple of weeks many months ago, there was an ad placed by Blogads.com on my site for a company that sells “conservative T-shirts” and one of the shirts had the slogan “Nuke Iran.” (He even questions my Catholicism!) Let me tell you how those ads work. When someone wants to buy the ad, I can go and review the ad copy and photo and approve or reject the ad. But once the ad is accepted, it must run its allotted time. Unfortunately, the advertiser is allowed to change the photo accompanying his ad anytime during the campaign. I have emailed the folks at Blogads to let them know that I think this policy is flawed.
But let me state clearly: I don’t support the preemptive use of nuclear weapons against Iran or any other country, especially against civilian populations. I certainly don’t support a war against Iran, at least under the current geopolitical situation. I don’t believe the just war criteria apply in the case of Iran at this time.
The real story here is that Dale Vree of NOR has a beef with Ignatius Press, and this is probably why Vree mentions me and describes me as the “former editor of Catholic World Report.” I am the “former” of a lot of things, but connecting me and a false accusation of neoconservatism with CWR and Ignatius allows Vree to trot out his anger at Ignatius for dropping his ads from their publications. Here’s a clue for Vree: The fact that I am no longer editor of CWR should clue him in that I’m not part of any secret “neocon” cabal with the folks at Ignatius.
With every new overheated and inaccurate accusation against anyone and everyone, NOR loses more and more credibility. After all, they believe that Islamic fundamentalism is not a real threat to the US, but is a ruse to distract us from the real threat that Israel poses, that “Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda had grievances against Israel” and thus the US should have an “evenhanded” policy in the Middle East. How long will anyone pay attention to these ravings?
Technorati Tags:conservativism, Iran, just war, neocon, New Oxford Review
I dunno . . . maybe you should be flattered?
I have never liked NOR. My first experience of them was something that I, as a non-dissenting Catholic, found to be bigoted against “homosexuals” as people. I have since disagreed with their theology numerous times (that’s not to say I’m right, I’m just a college student) but I could never subscribe to such a magazine.
So folks who, in 1942, were in favor of going to war against the Axis were neocons? What conservative exactly is against the promotion of democracy and US national interests?
I guess that would make Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Russell Kirk, and on and on all neoconservatives.
I reject the definition.
I reject the definition. Just because it’s in Websters doesn’t make it right.