Editor’s note: Would you like to get Joseph Farah’s updated, paperback edition of “Taking America Back” — personally autographed — for just $4.95? That’s the deal for a very limited time. Grab your signed copy today!
I have come up with a new term for the changing political lexicon in America.
I’ve never been high on the standard political labels as they are generally used today.
I just don’t see much difference between many of those who call themselves “conservative” and those who call themselves “liberal.” As I’ve pointed out many times, those words mean different things to different people in different places at different times.
They mean almost nothing today in America. If George Bush is a “conservative,” the word has lost any meaning whatsoever.
And because my views don’t fit neatly into little boxes for my critics, I’m often caricatured and stereotyped in the most despicable ways.
Because I categorically reject the “conservative” label for a variety of reasons, it’s amusing to me when some take it a step further – calling me a “neo-con.”
“Neo-con” is the favorite epithet of people like Pat Buchanan and the anti-war crowd. These are the people who, for whatever reason, fail to recognize that America is at war. It’s not a question of whether we want to be at war. It’s simply the case that others have chosen to war with us. The new anti-warriors seem to think we can pretend we’re not.
For many of them, this was not the way they saw the world during the Cold War. This was not the way they perceived the threat from the Soviet Union. They were anti-communists back then. Now they have changed the rules of engagement – but they accuse people like me of changing. Thus, the epithet “neo-con.”
But since this group is the one who has changed the way they view real-world threats, real-world enemies, real-world totalitarians who want to kill Americans, kill Christians, kill Jews, kill infidels, I’ve decided it’s the anti-war crowd that needs a new moniker.
So I have come up with a new term. Tell me what you think of my new name for those folks who suddenly define themselves and their worldview by their anti-war stance. I call them “neo-coms.”
Here’s my thinking. The left has not changed. They opposed U.S. military action throughout the Cold War because, to one extent or another, they disliked and distrusted the U.S. more than they disliked or distrusted the Communists.
True to form, the left today dislikes and distrusts the U.S. more than they dislike or distrust the Islamic jihadists. But now the left has been joined by this new element – people who understood the Communist threat back then but see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil when it comes time to the jihadists.
They have joined forces with the old-line commies – whose stripes have not changed. Therefore, the new anti-war zealots I hereby dub “neo-coms.”
I’m sure they won’t.
But is it accurate?
I mean, when Kofi Annan and Pat Buchanan look at the world and agree on what needs to be done, we’re talking about a new political alignment taking place.
It isn’t Kofi Annan who has changed. He’s still dancing the same old jig. But Pat Buchanan has. He was a hard-line anti-Communist cold warrior. Now he thinks the U.S. is meddling when we fight those who hate us and want to destroy our way of life – an enemy, by the way, that is probably a more serious threat than the Soviet Union ever was.
You see, this struggle between the Judeo-Christian West and radical, expansionist, fundamentalist Islam has been going on for 1,400 years. The Soviet Union and Communism are, by comparison, a mere blip on the historical timeline. This “new” struggle is actually not new at all. It is the one that, more than any other, has defined modern history.
This new totalitarian movement and ideology is every bit as evil and threatening as the one that shaped the 20th century.
Yet, the “neo-coms” see it not.
Tell me where I’m going wrong.
Related special offer: