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.
See you later.
I know from Kerry's whole demeanor that he would love for Pres. Bush's team to allude to his lack of patriotism based on his post-war activities. Not because he plans on defending them, but because he thinks he can deflect the issue and cause it to have a boomerang effect on Bush. Max Cleland seems absolutely possessed with the same thoughts and plans.
These guys think that criticizing their support of certain policies that may or may not pertain to military matters is verboten, and they equate that to a grave insult to their Military service. They're almost school-boy like in defense of that belief.
It's astounding that people who have seen battle could be so easily knocked off their game.
The majority of swift boat commanders who were in the same unit, they all went together on the river , say he is unfit to be CIC.
John Kerry abandoned our husbands, sons, fathers, and brothers in favor of trade and normalization of relations with Vietnam. His actions paved the way for the further abandonment of POWs and MIAs from World War II, the Korean War, and the Cold War.
John Kerry, as chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, ordered the destruction of committee documents, blocked avenues of investigation, and misrepresented progress on the POW/MIA issue to justify lifting of the trade embargo against Vietnam.
There is quite a controversy over some of the records and information he ordered destroyed, and with no public explanation. It's not just the living who dispise him.
Quote from Irving Kristol: "Ever since I can remember, I've been a neo-something: a neo-Marxist, a neo-Trotskyist, a neo-liberal, a neo-conservative; in religion a neo-orthodox even while I was a neo-Trotskyist and a neo-Marxist. I'm going to end up a neo- that's all, neo dash nothing."
We bombed and napalmed their Country but good, and left millions dead in the wake, that isn't something to easily dismiss, or not try to make amends for. It is not in our American nature to do that. My parents can testify to that, following the end of WW II in Italy. My Mom still waxes enthusiastically about American flour, butter and cheese flowing freely. Should we have tried to cripple Vietnam even more by refusing to lift the embargo?
There's a stinky part to the MIA thing though that maybe you're referencing. An ex-Marine (I think) by the name of Smally, Smiley, something like that who headed up an MIA rescue mission seemed to get the backhand of McCain and maybe even Kerry. I was never able to make head nor tails of that whole thing though because Mr. Smalley or whatever his name is seemed really off to me.
The problem POW/MIA families have are some of the documents, particularly from ongoing investigations, that were destroyed at Kerry's command.
There is pretty good evidence that we were close on getting at some of our people who were still being held prisoner even then...all destroyed without public oversight.
Several of the guys there who were around my age (born in '56) swam the Mekong in the dead of the night to escape conscription. According to them, conscription consisted of someone coming to your house, putting a rifle in your hand and telling you to fight or die. These boys were only 14, 15 years old at the time.
They escaped to Taiwan and eventually relocated here in the US. One of the guys hadn't seen his Mom in close to 30 years, and returned to Laos in '99 for the first time since his Mekong swim. His life story was the stuff of legend; a hearty people, that's for sure.
A lot of their money goes back to Vietnam, where other members of their extended family can build homes and get ahead a bit.
I admire then a great deal.
Jefferson said he wouldn't pay tribute,sent in what is now our Marines,but in the end,yes,he did "pay tribute",as did his successor.Do please look into this.
When Washington was president,the Atlantic Ocean was seen as a pretty good barrier,though not a perfect one.We fought the English,to get our independence,were helped by the French,though they were also viewed as our enemies,and the Hessians(Germans) fought on the side of the Brits,as did Irish.As a new nation,composed of colonists from all of those nations,it really was in our best interests to stay out of centuries old fights between European nations.
This is a far cry from that time period.Far too much has happened,for Americans to even slightly consider isolationism as an option.If the isolationists of the '40s had had their way,neither of us would be alive to post to FR,most probably...or we would be doing so in German or Japanese.
My quotations marks upset you,but your dearth of historical and cultural knowledge doesn't bother you? Interesting,that. LOL
Yep,Ronald Reagan never lost his unbridled admiration for FDR. :-)
Thanks for the ping!
Either go back to the thread's topic,or talk to yourself.
I hope you find someone else to talk to.
I think you're too hard on CWOJack. He isn't being self-deluding. He knows he's liberal. But he's trying to delude everybody else, by keeping his policy views (on everything except the Middle East) well hidden. He rants about Iraq, but not a peep about any issue of traditional concern for conservatives - abortion, taxes, immigration, environmental quackery, guns. Obviously, like a liberal, he doesn't care about these issues - - or he holds very liberal positions on them, and doesn't want the rest of us to know. I'm not deluded, and I suspect many others aren't, either.
Nothing to with JOOZ, it's their VIEWS.
The day you check in on a thread announcing we have captured a terror leader or broken up a terror cell and rejoice , the day you praise one good thing about progress in Iraq, I will believe you care about America's well being.
In the meantime you try to create discord between those of us who support the war and hold conservative values...very troll like IMHO. You are gleeful about bad news and that is a very disturbing pattern.
May God bless America and help us deter and defeat our enemies..
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.