Consider this an example of my new blogging style. Besides my trouble letting an argument go, I realize that another reason that I have fallen into the habit of engaging in comment section wars instead of posting thoughtful posts and replies is because the former better fits my schedule which only allows intermittent computer time during the work day. Comments can be replied to on the fly when I get a moment of computer time. Long replies take time that I usually don’t have until the late evening. All that is to say my resolution is going to require some serious discipline, but here goes.
Jeffrey Lord, who is fast becoming a favorite nemesis of mine, still doesn’t understand the terms he uses or the basic philosophical premises behind them. (I have already schooled him at length on this matter.) Again he simply asserts that interventionism is conservative and non-intervention is “non-con.” We have been over this before, but as long as Mr. Lord continues to simply assert falsehoods, I will correct them, because this is an essential issue.
Interventionism is without a doubt one of the “three-legs-of-the-stool” of the modern (important modifier) “conservative” movement, and this is what confuses poor Jeffrey, but that doesn’t make it the philosophically conservative position. Here is how I replied (in spite of myself) to poor confused Jeffrey:
Jeffrey Lord is astonishingly clueless about political philosophy and the meaning of terms. Despite being corrected on numerous occasions, Lord continues to simply assert that intervention is the conservative position and non-intervention is something other than conservative. When he is in completely clueless mode he calls it liberal, leftist or neo-liberal. (Lord has no clue even what neo-liberal means because a distinguishing feature of neo-liberalism is its internationalism and frequent support for intervention.) But Lord’s mindless assertions do not make it so. American style interventionism (as opposed to rank British imperialism for example) is an inherently leftist position. In its American form, interventionism is inherently revolutionary and Jacobin-like. It borders on if it doesn’t cross the border of messianic (America as savior nation). Non-intervention is the inherently conservative position. This is so obvious that it is hard to explain without seeming pedantic. Conservatives conserve things. (Go figure.) In particular, they conserve their own things (culture, religion, institutions, way of life, their piece of soil, etc.) American style interventionism is animated not by the desire to conserve our things, but to export revolution. This is so obviously a left-wing notion that Lord is either dense or disingenuous if he continues to insist otherwise.
What is particularly amusing is Lord’s use of the word neo-liberal. He seems to have coined it jokingly as a play on the word neocon, but I’m not sure he was even aware that there already really was something called neo-liberalism, and he ends up looking like a clueless jackass, especially since neo-liberalism is in large part distinguished by its internationalism and is often comfortable with military interventionism. Maybe that’s why he decided to use “non-con” here, because he saw the error of his ways. Or more likely it was just another of his silly play on words – non-cons vs. the alleged neo-cons – an attempt to substitute cuteness for actual thought.