Thursday, August 10, 2006

A Congeries of Cons

The other day I heard on the TV, while I was trying to take a nap, some talking head discussing how the Republicans had framed the word "liberal" so that it now has almost exclusively negative connotations and how the Democrats had not succeeded in coming up with s similar frame to use against the Republicans.

And that got me to thinking.

It seems to me that there is one term -- "Neocon" -- that describes a group of people on the right who -- what with the war in Iraq and all -- are almost universally despised. The trouble is, of course, that the Democrats can hardly get away with applying the label "Neocon" to all their opponents, for most of them, however distasteful they may be, are not exactly Neocons.

But, thinking that, I suddenly realized that even if they are not Neocons, all of those opponents can be framed as some sort of "cons" and justly smeared with the opprobrium that is attached to their "Neo" congeners.

So here is a list of "cons" of various sorts. (I have not bothered with definitions, since normally they will not be needed when the labels are applied.)

Neocon, Retrocon, Quasicon, Me-Me-Con, Mexicon, Texicon, Psuedocon, Econ, Geocon, Globulcon, Paleocon, Scardycon, Killercon, Wimpycon, Whoopsicon, Contracon, Lexicon, Hemi-Semi-Demi-Con, Republicon, Anticon, Greedycon, Anti-Americon, Bullycon, Bellycon, Jellycon, Parasiticcon, Crypticon, and Idioticon.

I could go on, but I'm sure that you get the idea.


Blogger Agrippa said...

"Cons" are not so easy to categorize as some might think. I am a "paleo-con" and I have nothing short of contempt for "neo-cons." Neo-cons have much more in common with liberals than either would be willing to admit. Strictly speaking, neo-cons are liberals but with different goals. Both advocate activist government and aggresive foreign policy. They only disagree on the ends to be sought; not on the methods used to attain those ends.

3:51 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home