Skip to comments.The Neoconservative Persuasion
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.
I'm sorry, I thought the DemoRATS got us into Vietnam (along with the Great Society) and they were the ones that held back the troops?
By the time the Vietnam anti-war protestors showed up, the war had been already lost.
Your "ilk" are the ones responsible for the reception "our" troops got when they returned.
If he can't get a job,in construction,he should get a job doing something else;ANYTHING! And what about his unemployment benefits?
This just happened? "JUST HAPPENED"? Where are his savings? What about his wife working?
Good grief...if thed job market stinks where you/he live,then he needs to go where the job market is good!
What ever happened to common sense?
It's getting like a schoolyard screaming match.
Buff, I disagree with you, but i'd be mad too if I was in your shoes after this.
CWO, we've been friends for years it seems. We ALL need to act more like adults if we want to persuade people.
Like I said in #18, we pon the Right are going to lose the war AND the election if we keep at each other like jackals.
Buff, you've made your point...you oppose the war. Fine. That DOESN'T mean you have to post article after article, day after day slamming our efforts there. As a serviceman myself, I can tell you it gets discouraging. We're there now, in Iraq, and we're not going to be pulled out. So we have to win, so the troops can survive and come home. If a Democrat gets elected, and pulls us out, then no American will ever be safe at home or abroad again.
CWO, There's better ways to debate than you are here. Read your posts in sequence and I'm sure you'll see. We need to be a team now, against Kerry anyway. These battles and feuds amongst ourselves do NOTHING but make us all look ridiculous.
When my family came home from Nam, I was there at the to support them.
I never did see any protestors, only on TV.
You going to watch CH tonight?
At the main entrance to Ft. Lewis the fences are covered in banners wishing our troops well and praying for their safe return...put there by private citizens.
Periodically, the anti-war crowd arrives to demonstrate on the over-pass, to let the troops know how their "ilk" feels about them.
The troops and their families know that the majority of us, sorry Kerry Poet but you and Michael Moore aren't the majority, support them. Still, I can't help but think it would raise their spirits even higher if we could tie some of these anti-war defeatiest scum to the overpass as a show of support.
Sorry LC...this team doesn't include those who undermine the morale and resolve of our troops.
You and bozo can't read standard english?
Of course, it's repugnant! It's by the Father of Neo-conservatism (and also the father of the neo with the biggest mouth .... now do you wonder how Bill came by his pomposity?).
There's nothing much conservative about it, neo-liberalism would be a more apt title! FDR and TR, indeed!
You support the troops like few I've ever seen. You do a great job of it, and supporting us here. You and I have engaged more trolls, pitchforkers, and other jerks here than I can count. Let's not degenerate to the level of the Moores and Streisands, huh?
Look, there's two possibilities regarding CB...
1. He's a troll;
2. He's really a conservative with serious questions about the war, which he sincerely wants to discuss.
If the answer is 1, just ignoring his posts will do the trick. If he gets ZERO responses, and is a troll, he'll leave. Responding only keeps the thread bumped.
If he's legit, he'll simply get the message that the others have had enough and quit posting the negative crap.
After watching Monica Crowley last night, I am really glad Levin took her second hour.!
read later bump
I see nothing conservative at all in those who wrap themselves in the "true conservative" label yet actively work to undermine the war effort.
But feel free to harmonize with them.
Pretty amazing how Neo-Cons can't deal with the absolute truth of the Neo-Conservatives agenda.
What's even more surprising is how they cling to this insanity even after presumably ingesting the facts.
I'd say they have a major problem with reality, just like their Neo-Con demigods.
That's the last thing i'd do and you know it.
All I'm saying is, don't encourage them by engaging in pointless squabbles.
We have a President to re-elect, in the middle of a World War. His removal will herald a retreat, followed by our loss of it.
We're not helping ourselves by attacking and sniping at each other, or by using these stupid labels like "Neo-Con, or "Paleo-Con".
You're right, he's positively obsessed, and it's pushed him over the edge of reason and sanity.
Are you aware of Zinni's opposition to attack the people responsible for the USS Cole? Are you aware of the commercial deal he later brokered as a civilian with the government he had protected following the USS Cole attack?
If not I can provide you with the data.
It outrages me that these people, despite having been informed of the truth involving Zinni, even today have posted threads using him as an argument.
As for sniping and attacking "each other", most of the self proclaimed "true conservatives" are already avowed third party voters...but the lurkers may not be.
Reason and sanity...concepts you will never understand...do yourself a favor and keep your head in the third party sand box.
DENIAL is a terrible trap. We need to come up with a twelve-step program for these poor souls. ;o)