Few words raise hackles these days faster than “neoconservative.” Some see it as an anti-Semitic euphemism for “jewish conservative.” Others defend the term and call the efforts to squelch it self-serving.
For better or worse, the very controversy over “neoconservative” may soon drive it out of polite society. Readers of the great linguist Steven Pinker will remember the “euphemism treadmill,” whereby an inoffensive word becomes tainted by an unpleasant association and so gets replaced by another. For example, “negro,” a politically correct term during the Civil Rights era, was replaced by “black,” which was later replaced by “African American.” Today, just like the term “black”, the term “neoconservative” makes many people uncomfortable. Those who wish to remain persuasive wisely eschew it.
That does not mean that one may no longer identify that in the world which is, in fact, neoconservative. To defuse the charge that “neoconservative” is an anti-Semitic euphemism, one can simply use a euphemism for “neoconservative.” If that euphemism itself becomes disreputable, then a new one can be invented. Public discussion of neoconservatism may thereby continue even as the words in which the discussion is carried out happen to change.
To replace “neoconservative,” I propose “Projectarian.” The term’s advantages are several. First, it implies a neutral test of whether any person or idea is legitimately called “Projectarian”: to wit, the degree to which that person or idea is affiliated or associated with the (unambiguously neoconservative) Project for a New American Century. (A reliable list can already be found on the Project’s wikipedia page.)
Second, the term “Projectarian” helps to distinguish between the core Projectarians and their Republican Party and movement conservative epigones. One must always remember that Projectarianism did not become gospel until after 9/11. As recently as 2000, the Republican Party nominated the anti-Projectarian candidate (i.e. not John McCain).
Third, in contrast to pejorative epithets such as “Neo-Jacobin,” it is hard to imagine anyone taking umbrage at being called a “Projectarian”—at least for the time being. It was the Projectarians themselves, after all, who founded the eponymous “Project” in the first place.
Fourth, the successful coinage of “Projectarian” would help to prove that Projectarian ideas—such as the invasion of Iraq—predate their current “war on terror” rationale. That in itself would greatly enhance public understanding of our current predicament.
Finally, “Projectarianism” sidesteps the fascinating yet misleading history of neoconservatism. Though genetically related, the neoconservatism of the 1970s and the neoconservatism of the 2000s are philosophically opposite. In the 1970s neoconservative Jeane Kirkpatrick refuted the wisdom of “decapitating” Saddam Hussein’s regime 24 years before it was attempted:
“Authority in traditional autocracies is transmitted through personal relations: from the ruler to his close associates (relatives, household members, personal friends) and from them to people to whom the associates are related by personal ties resembling their own relation to the ruler. The fabric off authority unravels quickly when the power and status of the man at the top are undermined or eliminated. The longer the autocrat has held power, and the more pervasive his personal influence, the more dependent a nation’s institutions will be on him. Without him, the organized life of the society will collapse, like an arch from which the keystone has been removed.”
How welcome the truth after seven years in exile!
That “neoconservative” can refer to two mutually exclusive sets of ideas is a coincidence resulting family history of the individuals who happened to promulgate them. “True” neoconservatives, one could argue, necessarily reject Projectarianism. Maybe it’s time that they actually did.
Email Subscription
Fill out the form below to be notified when takimag.com is updated.
The Usual Suspects