Sweet neo-con, light of humanity

Well I just love this, posted by Jamie Kirchick on Andrew Sullivan's blog:

Today, it seems that a "neo-con" (at least in the fevered imaginations of the net-left) is someone who frequently calls attention to the unprovoked aggression of despotic regimes (e.g. Iran and Syria), the violation of human rights in other countries, and advocates the moral superiority of democratic countries in international affairs. A "neo-con" is now anyone who dares make an issue out of the aggressions and inhumanity of despotisms without explaining them away, and for advocating America do something about these aggressions and inhumanities.

That's it! The 'fevered' people who label the neo-conservatives (as juxtaposed with the sensible, pragmatic, and serene neo-cons themselves) are using the term as a way to denigrate those who see injustice in the world and have the nobility and good-heartedness to want to "do something" about it. The neo-conservatives are the champions of international human rights; With pure hearts, they advocate for the moral superiority of the correct political system, American-style democracy, and stand up for non-aggression and humanity. And yet all they ask is that we "do something" instead of explaining away.

Clearly, people who disparage these latter-day saints as neo-conservatives, in their fevered and addled liberal way, oppose human rights, democracy, peace and humanity. The neo-cons are like Clark Kent in a phone booth. The collective "net-left" are like the Axis of Dr. Evil.

Poor Jamie.

The disingenuousness of this should be self-evident, but I feel like responding so here goes: The neo-conservatives, people who founded organizations like the Project for the New American Century, are self labelled. That's what they call themselves. So, you'll have to excuse everyone else who uses the term. They advocate for the use and projection of American military power to remake the world in America's image. The purpose being to benefit America and American commerce, and to perpetrate a "new American century". All this guff about human rights and peace is packaged on the premise that it will come to pass if necessary through force, intimidation, and (if necessary) torture -- a form of "soft empire".

They are mainly ex-liberals. They support liberal-style interventionism. They called themselves neo-conservatives. They were the 'intellectual' force behind the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and are still pushing for a ludicrous military confrontation with Iran. And they are largely discredited. Think Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. Think Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. For the fact that some people use that label as an insult, they have only themselves to blame.