Stop using the word "NeoCon"

The term NeoCon, like RINO and globalist, is being flung around with such reckless abandon as to destroy any consistent meaning.

“NeoCon” is perhaps the most common label used by populist “conservatives” for anyone they don't like within the Republican Party (although “globalist” is probably a close second and worth a piece all on its own).  The term has been used so much that it’s lost all meaning. 

Nikki Haley wants a strong military to combat China? She’s a NeoCon. Ben Shapiro supports Israel and Ukraine for strategic reasons? He’s a NeoCon.  Some Trump populists recently even labeled libertarian conservative Javier Milei a NeoCon for liking Israel and not wanting to ally with dictators like Putin and Xi Jinping.

First, we must figure out what the word NeoCon even means. To take the most literal definition, it means “new conservative”. However, this definition is not helpful as the term was popularized to refer to supporters of Barry Goldwater almost 60 years ago. To take Britannica's definition, neo-conservatism can be boiled down to a few main points: 1. Political individualism and liberty 2. Support of free markets 3. Broad social conservatism 4. Staunch anti-communism, and 5. An interventionist foreign policy.

Using this definition leads to people like Mitt Romney, both Bush Jr and Sr, as well as people like Dan Crenshaw and Nikki Haley. Most people who both support or don't support neo-conservatism as an ideology would agree that all of these people would be neo-conservatives.  However, if you interpret interventionist to mean supporting and funding US allies like Israel and Ukraine, people like Ben Shapiro and even, to an extent, Ron Desantis fall under the neo-conservative umbrella. It can even be interpreted as merely slashing spending and going to war with those who attack us on American soil. Using this interpretation, you can call Javier Milei, objectivists, most libertarians, and virtually everyone who fell under the Reagan coalition as NeoCons.

Given the various interpretations of what makes a NeoCon, it quickly becomes evident that the term quickly loses all meaning without even mentioning the slandering of the definition by populists. Having debates about foreign policy and the extent of United States interventionism is important. I disagree with people like Nikki Haley on several issues.  I am generally non-interventionist and would consider myself a small “l” libertarian. However, this should not be confused with isolationism. I fully support U.S. funding to Israel and Ukraine. However, Ukraine aid, as well as aid to countries that have corruption problems, should be in the form of direct military aid of weapons, food, and other supplies and not cash. My crucial is that when we don't need to get involved militarily, we should not. 

Due to the broadness of the term “NeoCon,” I propose some new terms to describe conservatives who have various opinions on foreign policy. First is the “militaristic conservative.” This is a conservative who favors lots of regime changes and wars to prevent the spread of global communism, radical Islam, etc.  Next is the interventionist conservative. This is someone who favors lots of foreign aid to U.S. allies and advocates regime changes in countries that are clear U.S. enemies, such as Iran. Then, it’s the noninterventionist conservatives who favor war only when a direct attack on U.S. soil, such as Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Finally, the isolationist conservatives oppose any foreign intervention at all. 

Lincoln Gaffney is a junior at Juan Diego High School in Draper, UT. He is a founding member of the Wild Caucus of the Libertarian Party and currently serves as its Vice-Chair and Southwest Overseer. @lincolngaffney