Neoconservative Blind Spots

Accuracy in Academia | December 6, 2010 | Malcolm A. Kline

[x]

There are so many different definitions of "neoconservative" that it's hard to keep them straight.

1) Liberals or Social Democrats who became critical of Johnson's Great Society and other liberal social welfare programs in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

2) Liberals or Social Democrats alarmed by Jimmy Carter's foreign policy and perceived US weakness and bumbling with regard to the Soviet threat.

3) People in the first two groups who eventually made their way over to the Republicans in the 1980s and 1990s (and their children).

4) "National greatness" or big government conservatives of the Clinton-Bush years (possibly including "compassionate conservatives" and "Sam's Club conservatives").

5) Supporters of Middle Eastern regime change and the Iraq war during the Bush era and after.

If somebody talks about "neoconservative" constitutional theory and somebody else talks about the Iraq War they may not be talking about the same thing.

FWIW, I'm not aware of any neocons who celebrate Herbert Croly, though that may be a logical leap to make when one looks at "national greatness" conservatives who make a cult of Theodore Roosevelt.

__________

What comes to mind reading the article is: what is our common, undisputed national history and heritage and what are the subjects of bitter, ongoing ideological conflict?

Are the Roosevelts part of the history we share and can't get away from, or representatives of a pernicious ideology that we need to get away from? Can we somehow undo things that happened 70 or 100 years ago?

Are the two alternatives even mutually exclusive? Or are Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt -- like Hamilton and Jefferson and Jackson and Lincoln -- figures who had their bad sides, but who are an unavoidable part of our American heritage?

The vote for any political party is going to include maximalists, who have a broad, deep, thick ideological worldview, and minimalists, who just want to throw the other set of bums out of office. Try to throw out either faction, and you only weaken yourself in the elections to come.

[TheBigIf]

It is not a diversion in this debate at all. It Ron Paul and his moonbat followers (and other libertarians) who throw around the ‘neo-con’ label the most and it is also these same people who helped prolong the war in Iraq by giving moral support to the enemy as well. It is also this same group of people who side with the Marxists in defending Iran and other dictatorships aligned with terrorism. These same groups even defend and support the terrorists themselves.

The risk of WWWIII? Wake up it has already started and it will be the fault of the likes of neo-libertarians that we may be hit again. Don’t you wonder at all why those who cast around the term ‘neo-con’ are always joined by the Marxist left in their talking points?

[allmendream]

You still cannot name a single provision of the Constitution that was violated when we rebuilt Germany and Japan.

Epic Fail.

So then, you ARE a Ron Paul supporter. How nice for you.

[TheBigIf]

You sound exactly just like any Code Pink conservative or Paulite with your dribble about empires and nation building.

The fact is that the President had authorization for the war. The public was about 90% behind it until Code Pink conservatives like yourself started with a propaganda campaign to give dictators and terrorists moral support.

[Conservative Tsunami]

The Weekly Standard crowd were all “left overs” from Reagan era groups and branches as I recall, working for Bill Bennent in the Department of Education where he was aligned with Paul Wolfowitz then in the State Department.

Conceivably "setting the table" during the last couple of years of Reagan's last term on preparation for the onslaught of interventionism during the presumptive GHB Presidency.

You are right that this collection of individuals played more prominance in the Bush Quayle administration (where detractors call Kristol, Quayle’s Brain) but many were part of the Reagan era team.

(Hah - "Quayle's Brain"?) Sure - the "lineup" began the new agenda as part of Reagan's crew. The Ending of the Cold War presented them with a brand new dynamic and paradigm. A "new toy" if you will.

Whether in Reagan’s administration or in either Bush administration, the group we are calling Neo-Cons never had a free rein to establish the overall agenda. Their alignment with Liz Cheney gave them more leverage with the Vice President than with GWB.

It seemed that the first Iraq war gave the neocon/hardline CFR contingent all the latitude they would need to establish and implement their agenda. Here was the first time most of us first heard uttered, "New World Order."

[Conservative Tsunami]

You sound exactly just like any Code Pink conservative or Paulite..

ROFL. As though YOU and your insane characterization should be taken seriously. At this time I will refrain from inquiring what planet you're posting from.

[Conservative Tsunami]

So then, you ARE a Ron Paul supporter. How nice for you.

Nice try.

Btw, if you're a member/supporter of the CFR, Globalist First policies, and Mitt Romney, how very nice for you (or is it John McCain?)

It doesn't mean you're a bad person, just..embarrassingly clueless and badly-indoctrinated.

[TheBigIf]

You are the one spouting insane global ‘neocon’ conspiracy based accusations just like any good Code Pink member or Paulite.

I have taken on your type a million times when counter-protesting the anti-American war slime. There side was never simply left-wing but a mixture of libertarians and Marxists. You would fit right in with them.

[allmendream]

Yes, you certainly are embarrassingly clueless.

Have you come up with a provision under the Constitution that makes what we did in Germany and Japan Unconstitutional yet? Are you likely to? No. You are not. How amusing for me and how tragicomic for you!

You don't know anything about the Constitution, but you are just SURE that anything you disagree with just HAS to be Unconstitutional, and you don't need no stinking reason why!

[wolfman23601]

Who said it was a neo-con conspiracy? Neoconservativism is a school of thought. It is what it is, not a conspiracy. You are free to follow it or not. You choose to, I don’t. Just because someone doesn’t agree with you on foreign policy doesn’t make them a Marxist. I haven’t read any anti-American war talk out of him. One day you will grow up and realize not everything is black and white.

[TheBigIf]

In every sense the so-called ‘neo-con’ school of thought is made into a conspiracy by those who spout off about it all of the time. I suppose that 90% of the public that was for war against Saddam Hussein were neo-cons? No instead the libertarian Paulite type or Code Pink type will start spouting off with conspiratorial accusations that the people were lied to (which is a lie itself) or that there was other secret motives, etc….

The term ‘neo-con’ is always used in a conspiratorial way today by those who want to appease our enemies and distort the conservative ideology to be one of isolationism. Many times the anti-Israel sentiment is so thick by these types that it is obvious as well.

And his whole argument is against war and is exactly the same as any Code Pink type or libertarian type that I faced in opposition when defending our troops. It is that black and white and easy to see through.

But of course you ignore that I didnt call him a Marxist. I simply stated a fact that there are many libertarian types who stand side by side with Marxists against America.

[CowboyJay]

"I keep hearing this “neocon” moniker being thrown around..what IS a neocon? A new conservative?"

"Neocon" gets thrown around alot. A misnomer really. They are the faction within the Republican party that is the mortal enemy of American conservatism.

The "neocons" term can be traced back to the Nixon administration and Henry Kissinger. It's a break from limited government Goldwater conservatism. Goldwater held nationalism, a hatred of communism, and constitutionally limited government principles as his main ideologies.

"Neocons" favor top-down authoritarian central government, Keynesian economic policy, transnationalism, imperialistic foreign policy, secrecy in government, and using government as a vehicle for cultural engineering. They have little use for classical economic theory. With neocons, ideological concerns often appear to conflict each other. They disregard the Constitution at whim when it suits their ends. At their core, they appear to be pragmatists who see keeping a grip power as an end unto itself.

They govern, strictly speaking, using control mechanisms identical to fascists. They differ from fascism on race relations and that they hold little to negative nationalistic sentiment.

Alternatively, some think they are the latest incarnation of the early 20th century Fabian Socialist movement.

Nixon and the Bushes were neocons, whereas Reagan leaned more towards Goldwater conservatism.

Regionally, Neocons are rooted in the Northeast corridor, whereas Conservatives tend to hail from the South and West. The most notable exception is McCain. One could argue that both he and Schwarzeneger are outsiders to the neocon set, and are really some species of FDR democrat.

While strict social conservatives overlap into both factions, in some ways they are a set unto themselves. The militarists, and religious hard right have vacillated between the Goldwater & Nixon factions for the past 50 years. The socons, using their status as swing voters in the primaries have nominated every Republican presidential candidate since 1968.

In terms of the social compact, Neocons align more closely with English Conservatism as espoused by monarchist Edmund Burke. It takes the view that the people are subjects and governed by divine right of a sovereign. Whereas American conservatism takes the constitutional view that the individual is sovereign, and the authority to rule over them is derived from their consent.

The Tea Party can be interpreted as an attempt to rebuild the Reagan Coalition of Socons, Blue Dog democrats, & Goldwater conservatives.

[KC Burke]

A nice real world summary at your #72. I have only two items to nit pick about:

#1 Wouldn't you agree that Nixon wasn't a conservative of any stripe but just a pragmatic Pol who used anti-communism for his original legislative promenance and hardly a Neo-Con?

Secondly, you say:

In terms of the social compact, Neocons align more closely with English Conservatism as espoused by monarchist Edmund Burke. It takes the view that the people are subjects and governed by divine right of a sovereign. Whereas American conservatism takes the constitutional view that the individual is sovereign, and the authority to rule over them is derived from their consent.

With that I have to disagree heartily. If anything from England defined the Whiggish conservatism at the time of the founding it was Edmund Burke. He wrote the published journal commentary about the British Colonies that we read over here and took our side in most issues.

The term "conservative" as applied to political thought was coined by the French in discussing Burke and those that sided with him in favor of our rebellion and against the French rationalistic revolutionary thought.

He attacked the inadequacies of heriditary aristocracy in many forms, especially it's tendancy to promote Factionalism.

Burke championed the English/Scottish Enlightenment and everwhere pointed out the deficiencies of the French rationalistic form. He is lauded by Hayek in showing the distiction between the empiricist careful reforming Enlightenment of the Anglo-American form against the French rationalistic centralizing enlightenment politics. He was a champion of the Commons and his only monarchal adherance was to King-in-Parliment and tried and true forms that they had evolved and enjoyed in English Liberty.

Burke is the very foundation of Kirk's conservatism and it is hard to find much more of a Paeleo-Con or traditionalist than Kirk.

[gimme1ibertee]

If you are going to bring something to discuss

I didn't author the article. I simply asked a question about the meaning of the word "neocon". I kinda sorta got my question answered,and that was that.

[CowboyJay]

#1 - I'd say Nixon Administration was definitely the point of ascendancy for the neocon school. Whether Nixon would have considered himself as an insider in that set or not - he found plenty common ground with them and governed as a neocon.

In modern day terms, I think Mike Huckabee or John McCain might be an apt comparison to Nixon. A pragmatist to some extent, socially conservative, and definitely having a statist bent.

Either the neocons helped put him in power, and used his statist inclinations to convert him to an actual neocon, or he simply farmed-out policy decisions to them. Either way, he set the example followed by '41, '43 and even Clinton to some extent.

Neocons have pretty much disregarded their ideological core at this point. I guess a better word to describe present-day 'neocon' might be 'Machiavellian'? A word that pretty well describes Nixon as well.

#2 - Sorry if you took the comment as a sleight against Burke. Certainly was not intended as such. No question Burke was the first conservative, and an advocate of natural rights. Was drawing a distinction between US and English versions of conservative thought. Burke definitely had a different view of the relationship state and the individual than the framers. Modern day Brit conservatives tend to be more authoritarian than Americans, and I think they find as much common ground or more with neos than with Goldwater conservatives. I think maybe that leads back to Burke.

Burke argued for a more organically ordered society, but saw no problem with aristocracy being used as the framework. Whereas I'd like to think American conservatives see that as a british conceit, and would favor competition and exceptionalism for sorting out the pecking order.

Not a sleight against Burke, just trying to understand/frame the distinctions between British & American conservatives and the original neocons. All 3 incorporate classical liberalism. If you feel I'm misinterpreting, could you please post links or suggest some reading? Thank you.

[Rockingham]

Originally, the term "neoconservative" was used Leftists to deride liberal and often Jewish intellectuals who, by the 1970s, saw the welfare state as a failure and rejected the anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism of the New Left. By 1980, many of them were declared supporters of Ronald Reagan and even embraced the term "neoconservative."

In the ensuing conservative intramural battles of the Reagan era, neoconservatives sometimes clashed sharply with long-established traditional conservatives. US support for Israel was an especially prominent point of friction, as were calls for dramatic retrenchment in federal welfare spending to the detriment of the federal "safety net."

The term neoconservative is still applied derisively by the Left to those who defect and become conservatives. Similarly, for old line conservatives, neoconservative can suggest a taint of ideological unreliability based on being a recent arrival from the other side.

At some point though, even former liberal neoconservatives ought to be seen and accepted as conservatives in full. Just as National Review once had five ex-communists writing for them, after a time, they were all simply conservative writers.

[KC Burke]

Perhaps working back from the modern era is easier to understand English versus US conservatism (in my view).

Many think that at the time that the “fusionism” attempt by Meyer was being made from the libertarian side and the second round of neo-conservative thought was being promulgated here in the US, the thoughts and writings of Hayek and Michael Oakeshott were becoming the guiding lights of conservatism in Britain.

Where we looked at the central government as the threat, the British conservative looked at the rise of the EU as the threat and did not avoid looking to central national government as a response to that outside centralizing power.

In Britain, they also see the leftist threat coming from local governments and the defense from restrengthening the traditional central (but national) government, the opposite of what we have to deal with.

Oakeshott is worth looking into.

A great story on the British Conservative history is in the mid-seventies Margaret Thatcher was visiting the Conservative Party’s research committee offices for some discussions. Growing impatiant with some things being said that were not to the point, she opened her briefcase and took out a book and raised it in the air. She slammed it down on a table and said, “This is what we believe!” That book was Hayek’s “The Constitution of Liberty” which shows that the economic political fulcrum was primary to all of British conservative thought.

Another great resource that I liked was Gertrude Himmelfarb’s study of the three strains of the enlightenment era, English/Scotish, French and American. It is titled “The Road to Modernity.”