Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Neoconservative Persuasion
Weekly Standard ^ | 2003 | Irving Kristol

Posted on 05/24/2004 4:42:38 PM PDT by churchillbuff

WHAT EXACTLY IS NEOCONSERVATISM? Journalists, and now even presidential candidates, speak with an enviable confidence on who or what is "neoconservative," and seem to assume the meaning is fully revealed in the name. Those of us who are designated as "neocons" are amused, flattered, or dismissive, depending on the context. It is reasonable to wonder: Is there any "there" there?

Even I, frequently referred to as the "godfather" of all those neocons, have had my moments of wonderment. A few years ago I said (and, alas, wrote) that neoconservatism had had its own distinctive qualities in its early years, but by now had been absorbed into the mainstream of American conservatism. I was wrong, and the reason I was wrong is that, ever since its origin among disillusioned liberal intellectuals in the 1970s, what we call neoconservatism has been one of those intellectual undercurrents that surface only intermittently. It is not a "movement," as the conspiratorial critics would have it. Neoconservatism is what the late historian of Jacksonian America, Marvin Meyers, called a "persuasion," one that manifests itself over time, but erratically, and one whose meaning we clearly glimpse only in retrospect.

Viewed in this way, one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy. That this new conservative politics is distinctly American is beyond doubt. There is nothing like neoconservatism in Europe, and most European conservatives are highly skeptical of its legitimacy. The fact that conservatism in the United States is so much healthier than in Europe, so much more politically effective, surely has something to do with the existence of neoconservatism. But Europeans, who think it absurd to look to the United States for lessons in political innovation, resolutely refuse to consider this possibility.

Neoconservatism is the first variant of American conservatism in the past century that is in the "American grain." It is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic. Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked. Of course, those worthies are in no way overlooked by a large, probably the largest, segment of the Republican party, with the result that most Republican politicians know nothing and could not care less about neoconservatism. Nevertheless, they cannot be blind to the fact that neoconservative policies, reaching out beyond the traditional political and financial base, have helped make the very idea of political conservatism more acceptable to a majority of American voters. Nor has it passed official notice that it is the neoconservative public policies, not the traditional Republican ones, that result in popular Republican presidencies One of these policies, most visible and controversial, is cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth. Neocons are familiar with intellectual history and aware that it is only in the last two centuries that democracy has become a respectable option among political thinkers. In earlier times, democracy meant an inherently turbulent political regime, with the "have-nots" and the "haves" engaged in a perpetual and utterly destructive class struggle. It was only the prospect of economic growth in which everyone prospered, if not equally or simultaneously, that gave modern democracies their legitimacy and durability. The cost of this emphasis on economic growth has been an attitude toward public finance that is far less risk averse than is the case among more traditional conservatives. Neocons would prefer not to have large budget deficits, but it is in the nature of democracy--because it seems to be in the nature of human nature--that political demagogy will frequently result in economic recklessness, so that one sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth. It is a basic assumption of neoconservatism that, as a consequence of the spread of affluence among all classes, a property-owning and tax-paying population will, in time, become less vulnerable to egalitarian illusions and demagogic appeals and more sensible about the fundamentals of economic reckoning.

This leads to the issue of the role of the state. Neocons do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state and are happy to study alternative ways of delivering these services. But they are impatient with the Hayekian notion that we are on "the road to serfdom." Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his "The Man Versus the State," was a historical eccentricity. People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today's America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not. Though they find much to be critical about, they tend to seek intellectual guidance in the democratic wisdom of Tocqueville, rather than in the Tory nostalgia of, say, Russell Kirk.

But it is only to a degree that neocons are comfortable in modern America. The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives--though not with those libertarian conservatives who are conservative in economics but unmindful of the culture. The upshot is a quite unexpected alliance between neocons, who include a fair proportion of secular intellectuals, and religious traditionalists. They are united on issues concerning the quality of education, the relations of church and state, the regulation of pornography, and the like, all of which they regard as proper candidates for the government's attention. And since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power. Because religious conservatism is so feeble in Europe, the neoconservative potential there is correspondingly weak.

AND THEN, of course, there is foreign policy, the area of American politics where neoconservatism has recently been the focus of media attention. This is surprising since there is no set of neoconservative beliefs concerning foreign policy, only a set of attitudes derived from historical experience. (The favorite neoconservative text on foreign affairs, thanks to professors Leo Strauss of Chicago and Donald Kagan of Yale, is Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War.) These attitudes can be summarized in the following "theses" (as a Marxist would say): First, patriotism is a natural and healthy sentiment and should be encouraged by both private and public institutions. Precisely because we are a nation of immigrants, this is a powerful American sentiment. Second, world government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny. International institutions that point to an ultimate world government should be regarded with the deepest suspicion. Third, statesmen should, above all, have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies. This is not as easy as it sounds, as the history of the Cold War revealed. The number of intelligent men who could not count the Soviet Union as an enemy, even though this was its own self-definition, was absolutely astonishing.

Finally, for a great power, the "national interest" is not a geographical term, except for fairly prosaic matters like trade and environmental regulation. A smaller nation might appropriately feel that its national interest begins and ends at its borders, so that its foreign policy is almost always in a defensive mode. A larger nation has more extensive interests. And large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns. Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal. That is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II. That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.

Behind all this is a fact: the incredible military superiority of the United States vis-à-vis the nations of the rest of the world, in any imaginable combination. This superiority was planned by no one, and even today there are many Americans who are in denial. To a large extent, it all happened as a result of our bad luck. During the 50 years after World War II, while Europe was at peace and the Soviet Union largely relied on surrogates to do its fighting, the United States was involved in a whole series of wars: the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Kosovo conflict, the Afghan War, and the Iraq War. The result was that our military spending expanded more or less in line with our economic growth, while Europe's democracies cut back their military spending in favor of social welfare programs. The Soviet Union spent profusely but wastefully, so that its military collapsed along with its economy.

Suddenly, after two decades during which "imperial decline" and "imperial overstretch" were the academic and journalistic watchwords, the United States emerged as uniquely powerful. The "magic" of compound interest over half a century had its effect on our military budget, as did the cumulative scientific and technological research of our armed forces. With power come responsibilities, whether sought or not, whether welcome or not. And it is a fact that if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you.

The older, traditional elements in the Republican party have difficulty coming to terms with this new reality in foreign affairs, just as they cannot reconcile economic conservatism with social and cultural conservatism. But by one of those accidents historians ponder, our current president and his administration turn out to be quite at home in this new political environment, although it is clear they did not anticipate this role any more than their party as a whole did. As a result, neoconservatism began enjoying a second life, at a time when its obituaries were still being published.

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: antiwarsquawking; generalmcclellanbuff; irvingkristol; joooooooos; kristol; neocatfighting; neocons; neoconservatism; neonamecalling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 441-454 next last
To: CWOJackson

To paraphrase Senator Kerry: "I'm not opposed to this war, but here's why I'm opposed to it."

241 posted on 05/25/2004 12:45:03 PM PDT by Petronski (They could choose between shame and war: Some chose shame, but got war anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
"You are anti-war (and apparently ashamed of it)."

Consider the comparison:

American soldier defending his nation - Michael Moorse, sweet dripping off his fat face.

242 posted on 05/25/2004 12:47:42 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
...Michael Moore, sweet dripping off his fat face.

Sweet? Sweet what? Sweet icing? Sweet rolls? Sweet corn?

LOL Now there's a Freudian slip.

243 posted on 05/25/2004 12:49:40 PM PDT by Petronski (They could choose between shame and war: Some chose shame, but got war anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Yeeeecchhhh...I pulled a Chamberlainbuff!

So let me clear this up by pulling a Kerry Poet: I was referring to the various sauces dribbling off his snout and chin, not indicating that I consider his face sweet, because I actually opposed his face in New York, but this is france and you know, french food is often sweet, so that's what I wasn't saying I said.

Kerry Poet out.

244 posted on 05/25/2004 12:53:30 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
...the various sauces dribbling off his snout and chin...


245 posted on 05/25/2004 12:55:42 PM PDT by Petronski (They could choose between shame and war: Some chose shame, but got war anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I'm a conservative and don't need the "neo" label to identify my persuasion. At the same time, I think conservatism is the stronger for the contribution of disaffected liberals, since we used to be them and know how they think. In no small part, the Left is infuriated by people who successfully steal the thunder out of their arguments. As a result, the Left has been left with nothing to say. In no small part, the neocons have helped to make America, in Micklewaithe and Wooldridge's apt phrase, "The Right Nation.

Bump this analysis!
246 posted on 05/25/2004 1:02:19 PM PDT by uncitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
Oops, I meant to post to you, the phony "conservative" who doesn't have any concern about conservative issues! Thanks for pointing out my mistake, so here we go again, "sparky" - or should I say, "lefty"!

you don't have any interest (at least that you make public) in pro-life, tax cuts, racial quotas, conservative judges, sanctity of marriage or the immigration mess - - and yet you have the gall to question my conservative commitment, when I've been posting on these issues for six years. If it doesn't involve bloodshed in the middle east, you're not interested. But that doesn't make you a conservative, it just makes you some guy who is obsessed with the middle east.

247 posted on 05/25/2004 1:08:13 PM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Getting confused there already said the same thing about yourself...and I thought it was spot on. Don't try to wiggle out of the first accurate thing you've said in so long. Enjoy the fact that you got it right FOR ONCE.

248 posted on 05/25/2004 1:11:21 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson; jmc813
Has anyone seen this Jackson character post on anything that didn't have to do with the Middle East? I post on all kinds of traditional conservative concerns - but I've never encountered him when I'm talking about abortion, or high taxes or burdensome regulations, or gun control, or family values, or reverse racism. He cares as much about those issues, it seems, as John Kerry does! That's why I take it with a lot of salt when he disses my opinions - - that's like being disses by Kerry or anybody else who could care less about conservative concerns, it's an honor to be "bashed" by somebody like that!

Have a great day!

249 posted on 05/25/2004 1:13:47 PM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: jmc813

Oh, and by the way, I'm not a paleo, not a libertarian, not a Ron Paul supporter - - - just a traditional, pro-life, low-tax Reaganite conservative. Proudly posting on those issues, on freerepublic, since 1998. (I was Clinton bashing when Clinton-bashing wasn't cool!)

250 posted on 05/25/2004 1:17:11 PM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Don't worry there Lord Haw Haw...I'm having a great day. You have a fine little defeatist day yourself there Quisling.

251 posted on 05/25/2004 1:18:57 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

Still keeping your views on abortion, taxes, etc. under wraps. .... I understand. You wouldn't want to expose where you really stand, would you?

252 posted on 05/25/2004 1:42:31 PM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

Dumber than a box of rocks

That's an understatement!

I'd say just based on his rhetoric, he's dumber than a box of used kitty litter.

253 posted on 05/25/2004 1:49:29 PM PDT by 21st Century Man (POLITICS: THE NEW OPIATE OF THE MASSES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Not at all...this is an anti-war defeatist thread. I like to keep things in perspective there Lord Haw Haw.

254 posted on 05/25/2004 1:51:54 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

I think he's a DNC agent provocateur whose mission here is to cause deep divisions among true conservatives.

How else can you explain his DemoRAT-esque posting style?

255 posted on 05/25/2004 1:52:06 PM PDT by 21st Century Man (POLITICS: THE NEW OPIATE OF THE MASSES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: 21st Century Man
Cool...that would still place me about four steps up the evolutionary and intelligence scale from you guys.

I can live with that.

256 posted on 05/25/2004 1:52:45 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: 21st Century Man
"...true conservatives."

Gasp...not the true conservative title. Who can dispute the anti-war defeatist "true" conservatives?

Thanks sparky...I always get a chuckle out of it when you folks wrap yourself in that title.

257 posted on 05/25/2004 1:54:36 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

"Not at all...this is an anti-war defeatist thread."

That's funny, I thought this was a thread to expose fake-conservatives for what they are, socialists at heart?

The thread's title is: "The Neoconservative Persuasion".

258 posted on 05/25/2004 1:55:20 PM PDT by 21st Century Man (POLITICS: THE NEW OPIATE OF THE MASSES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop


259 posted on 05/25/2004 1:55:42 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 21st Century Man

Seems like the thread has been very good at highlighting more of the anti-war crowd...the "true" conservatives for Michael Moore.

260 posted on 05/25/2004 1:56:43 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 441-454 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson