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.
Your butt can fend for itself. Actually, it isn't much more then a french beret...worn in the same fashion I see.
I guess you didn't fly, check into any hotels, have any encounters with LEOs, etc.
Right now we have a war to win and our own military in the field....Getting behind the mission and hoping for success is most important...
It is a tough thing to do when one did not support going to war from the beginning, but no sane person wants us to fail or to pull out right now..
To point out endlessly when we go wrong seems almost like gloating and it suggests being "right" is more important than is the success for our country and for the Iraqis.
God bless our armed forces and their loved ones who wait at home.
You see it on the interstate overpass, choked with yellow ribbons, put there by people who understand the unfortunately necessity for the war and who want to show the troops that they are supported.
And once in a while you see the otherside, the anti-war protestors on an overpass.
God help this country if we facture and pull apart instead of fighting the terrorists, the Islamofascist....We may disagree on process at times but our aim must be the same..victory over the terrorists and defeat of the Blame America Firsters....
I thank God for all who serve and have served to keep us free.
BUSH/CHENEY...04...
neo
- \Ne"o-\ [Gr. ? youthful, new. See New.] A prefix meaning new, recent, late; and in chemistry designating specifically that variety of metameric hydrocarbons which, when the name was applied, had been recently classified, and in which at least one carbon atom in connected directly with four other carbon atoms; -- contrasted with normal and iso-; as, neopentane; the neoparaffins. Also used adjectively.
con·ser·va·tive (kn-sûrv-tv)
adj.
Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.
Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.
n.
One favoring traditional views and values.
A supporter of political conservatism.
Conservative A member or supporter of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
Archaic. A preservative agent or principle.
ne·o·con·ser·va·tism also ne·o-con·ser·va·tism (n-kn-sûrv-tzm)
n.
An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s: “The neo-conservatism of the 1980s is a replay of the New Conservatism of the 1950s, which was itself a replay of the New Era philosophy of the 1920s” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).
"Thanks Meg...fortunately most American's are like you."
Not according to this:
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/24747.htm
May 25, 2004 -- WASHINGTON - "President Bush gave last night's Iraq speech at a time when his job-approval ratings, especially on Iraq, have plummeted to the lowest point yet, a new CBS News poll found.
Americans now disapprove of how Bush is handling Iraq by nearly a 2-1 margin - 61 percent turn thumbs down and just 34 percent approve, the poll found, indicating the war has become a major political liability."
Thing is, it's not going away. The fact of reality is, we're NOT going to just pick up and leave Iraq, and abandon the Terror War just to put all those troops along the Mexican border.
My only worry is in what the damned Left has done so far to the war effort. Since only a few DAYS after 9-11, they've been relentless in their opposition and condescension to it and the CinC. You can clearly see it in the polls. The newweasels, the academics, the Hollywood types, and a hundred OTHER Leftist groups have barely stopped to wolf down a granola bar whilst doing their level best to make us lose.
Now, some conservatives have joined them.
Iraq is not the end of this either. There will be more targets, but now I have serious doubt that we will be able to muster support to take them on amongst the folks at home. Frankly, I can't see it happening again for a long time. Afghanistan and Iraq are not the ONLY countries we'll need to fight before this is over. I just hope it won't take another attack on our soil to make that point to most Americans.
Whew, using CBS as your source and you call yourself a conservative, LOL!
Thanks for showing up to demonstrate exactly what I said.
He calls himself a "true" conservative.
Here's another:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/focus/sr030610.asp
"There has been little change in the overall level of support for the war in Iraq. According to a new Gallup Poll conducted this past weekend, 45% of Americans say it was worth going to war in Iraq, while a slight majority, 52%, say it was not worth it. At the beginning of the month, by a margin of 50% to 47%, Americans said the war was worth it, but support for the war dropped a week later, with 44% in a May 7-9 poll saying it was worth going to war in Iraq and 54% saying it was not."
Got any data to dispute these numbers?
That's exactly what 21st Century oddity and Chamberlainbuff want and are trying to do on FR.
Actually it's not.
I'd like to see the conservative movement return to it's roots.
Presently most conservatives seem hell-bent on growing govnerment at rates not seen since FDR's days.
Of course, FDR is a hero of the Neo-Cons, so go figure.
Don't be offended when Conservative American's don't run up the white flag.
I don't form my opinion by the polls but by informing myself and reading...I have lived through too many wars to expect things to always go my way or to happen as planned..The media has printed all negatives and very little of the good things..
The media can defeat us here.
The naysayers and summer soldiers who run at the thought of sacrifice and hardship can defeat us here.
The liberal peaceniks are socialists and want to defeat us.
The Islamofascists and ME dictators and mullahs would love to defeat us...
Nope, anyway even with these numbers you are showing(which was from adults, not likely, or even registered voters, so that means half of those polled with your sources, will not even vote based on past election turnout).
kerry and Bush are tied.
But what the hey you can whack off yourself silly on these polls as your try to create dissent and help the fifth column try to defeat the war effort.
oops...fracture
"Don't be offended when Conservative American's don't run up the white flag."
Offended, hell I'd be happier than a pig in mud.
It's about time we stop surrendering to socialist, BIG government ideologies.
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.