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 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 441-454 next last
To: 21st Century Man
Of course, FDR is a hero of the Neo-Cons, so go figure

FDR was a hero of Ronald Reagan's also. Time for you to tar and feather the gipper.

381 posted on 05/25/2004 5:41:45 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
God Bless you Meg.

Our troops are on the other side of the world fighting and dying to defend out nation. They cannot be beaten on the battlefield, but as you point out, they can be beat at home.

But people like you deserve much credit yourself. You understand that danger and you are standing up and fighting for those troops. We owe then no less.

I'm proud to be serving with you in that regard.

382 posted on 05/25/2004 5:42:35 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: 21st Century Man
It's about time we stop surrendering to socialist, BIG government ideologies

I agree, especially your french socialistic appeasment to terrorism.

383 posted on 05/25/2004 5:43:12 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: 21st Century Man
"Offended, hell I'd be happier than a pig in mud."

Of course you would, you and Michael Moore wallow in it all the time.

384 posted on 05/25/2004 5:43:21 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: Dane

I'm not a huge fan of Reagon, he was for open borders just like Bush.

And just like Bush, he gave ALL the illegals Mexico could send us amnesty.

Was that a good thing in your book?

In fact, the only President I truly admire is George Washington.

But I aim high, REAL high.

Too bad so few presidents have aspired to follow in the Father of the Republic's footsteps.

385 posted on 05/25/2004 5:46:50 PM PDT by 21st Century Man (POLITICS: THE NEW OPIATE OF THE MASSES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: 21st Century Man
I'm not a huge fan of Reagon

I am not surprised. The modern President that you seem to admire the most is jacques chirac.

386 posted on 05/25/2004 5:50:33 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: Dane

But he aims high...which would explain so many self inflicted arse wounds.

387 posted on 05/25/2004 5:53:08 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

Thank you....I wish we could put aside our conservative differences and all join to support our nation in its quest for solutions to the terror threats today. Our troops deserve no less....

Iraq is a long range plan to help the ME have one country with a more just government and a place where terror doesn't have a chaotic place to train and base...The President said we are not trying to make them like Americans.

388 posted on 05/25/2004 5:53:30 PM PDT by MEG33 (John Kerry's been AWOL for two decades on issues of National Security!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: 21st Century Man
In fact, the only President I truly admire is George Washington.

I admire more Presidents than just him, but I'll say one thing, he was the only President they had to talk into taking the job, and that speaks volumes. In any position of authority it is best to begin with a little skepticism.

That being said though, I don't think President Bush is power hungry. And while I'm sure he wants to be re-elected, if he's not he'll return to 'civilian' life happy, not besotted with the thought that he no longer wields power. Clinton is just the opposite.

His desire for the Presidency should have raised everyone's suspicion merely by dint of the fact that he'd been longing for it since he was 16. That's abnormal, and he's abnormal!

389 posted on 05/25/2004 5:53:46 PM PDT by AlbionGirl ("E meglio lavorare con qui non ti paga, e no ha parlare con qui non ti capisce!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
The President was very good last night.

And today we have reports coming out of the serious threat of a major attack in America this year...just like in Spain.

The Spanish crumbled. I know most of America is far better then that.

390 posted on 05/25/2004 5:55:44 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: AlbionGirl

Kerry has had his eye on the prize almost as long as Clinton did...scary.

391 posted on 05/25/2004 5:56:29 PM PDT by MEG33 (John Kerry's been AWOL for two decades on issues of National Security!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

I still believe in the ability of Americans to face the danger and not surrender to it.

392 posted on 05/25/2004 5:57:57 PM PDT by MEG33 (John Kerry's been AWOL for two decades on issues of National Security!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: MEG33

You know, for the longest time, I couldn't quite work up a healthy dislike for Kerry, probably in part because he did serve his Country, and that means a lot to me, even if I'm at odds with nearly all his views. But, his conduct since just before winning the primaries and to date is shocking in its baseness. I think I'm starting to dislike him as much as I did clinton, and that's saying something!

393 posted on 05/25/2004 6:00:33 PM PDT by AlbionGirl ("E meglio lavorare con qui non ti paga, e no ha parlare con qui non ti capisce!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
The wife and I were in Malaga, Spain not long after the bombings. Most people don't realize that the new government won by a slim margin. And despite the european polls some like to post here, the people in Spain are basically 60-40 split.

The 60 pretty much represent the cities, the intellectuals...the liberals. The 40 represent the common people, including those in Malaga who came up to us to also represents the Spanish military troops who cried when they found out they were being withdrawn.

Fortunately for us, I think the split is more like 70-30. The anti-war crowd are loud but they really don't speak for America. When push comes to shove Conservative Americans and the run of the mill every day Democrats do what's necessary to win.

394 posted on 05/25/2004 6:02:48 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: AlbionGirl

Have you seen his testimony before the Congressional committee in 71 and what his fellow swift boat commanders have said? The Winter site is a treasure trove of info!

395 posted on 05/25/2004 6:16:35 PM PDT by MEG33 (John Kerry's been AWOL for two decades on issues of National Security!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson; churchillbuff
Gotta log off for the night.

Do you want to start a pool of when chamberlainbuff posts his next fifth column screed on FR?

I'll take 1:00 AM Eastern.

396 posted on 05/25/2004 6:29:23 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
One month does not make every month. I believe we are headed for about 60 or so this month. All of us in the military knew these would be tougher months as we head toward June 30. Those against the US are desperate and pulling out all stops, but they are still losing.

What is amazing, and not reported in the US press, is that Pres Bush is supported by more Iraqis than Americans. Very strange.

We have become a country that demands perfection and very short wars. Totally afraid to take any risks. I shudder to think of what Roosevelt would have been faced with in WWII. A year after Pearl Harbor, we had our lunch handed to us in North Africa. I am so glad Americans did not panic then and force the President to withdraw and give into the Nazis.

Since 1898, the average time required to affect post-conflict operations following a war that we won has been 4+years. We are now at 1 year, yet too many "conservations" are panicking because of leftist news reporting and Michael Moore types.

I choose to stay with Bush rather than Michael Moore. After the election, we can argue about better ways to take out terrorists if you like, but until then all the carping is only helping Kerry, and more importantly to me, destroying the moral of our troops.
397 posted on 05/25/2004 6:30:32 PM PDT by Proud Legions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Dane

It's hard to tell, as globally, leftist papers with anti-war screeds go to press at all hours of the day and night.

398 posted on 05/25/2004 6:31:08 PM PDT by Petronski (They could choose between shame and war: Some chose shame, but got war anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
I am sick of people like you who are doing every single thing you can 24/7 to make sure John Kerry wins in November.

Ditto Howlin.

399 posted on 05/25/2004 6:32:14 PM PDT by Petronski (They could choose between shame and war: Some chose shame, but got war anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Proud Legions


400 posted on 05/25/2004 6:32:55 PM PDT by Proud Legions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 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