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 ... 381-400401-420421-440441-454 last
To: AlbionGirl
Compare that writing, those thoughts to any modern President's stuff, and the only thing you sense is absence.

Very true. The dumbing down of American Society in the 20th Century did certainly not miss the Oval Office.

What is impressive, throughout the Farewell Address, is how apt Washington's comments remain on all the subjects that he covers. It was truly an address for the ages, and should be required reading in every school--that is if we want to educate our youth in how to analyze problems, and avoid the very worst tendencies to which political man is prone.

William Flax

441 posted on 05/27/2004 10:47:47 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
Another bump to my response #316, which deals with Mr. Kristol, the fatuous fellow who wrote the essay at the head of this thread.

The reason for this bump is to make sure that the actual subject of the thread does not get lost in some of the many side issues, some of us--quite possibly myself, included--are capable of getting into. And, to be completely honest, I think my #316 said what needed to be said.

442 posted on 05/27/2004 12:47:04 PM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

What? Where's your usual "neocon is a codeword for jooz" post?

443 posted on 05/27/2004 11:34:46 PM PDT by Pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

I don't do that one. I do do stupid patsy posts though.

444 posted on 05/27/2004 11:35:58 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

I'm sorry...I was still on line. I didn't mean to scare you. I'll leave now so you can feel safe to post and run again.

445 posted on 05/27/2004 11:36:46 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Kristol just hasn't gotten the word yet from FR's coast guard hero about what 'neocon' really means.

446 posted on 05/27/2004 11:39:29 PM PDT by Pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
LOL! But he does have the word on what a patsy is. Sad pathetic little things these days.

Oh, by the way...your buddy Chamberlain Duff there seems to be missing in action. And all of his adoring fans have been waiting for his return.

447 posted on 05/27/2004 11:42:00 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 446 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
the southern frauds who owned slaves

Like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe? The Lincoln cult always has an excuse for the FF slave owners, let's hear yours-

448 posted on 05/27/2004 11:52:32 PM PDT by Pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

Run off and hide if you need to. Your pals at DU are waiting.

449 posted on 05/27/2004 11:53:40 PM PDT by Pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

Yep, your obsession with patsy is legendary. It's... abnormal, except in Massachusetts I suppose.

450 posted on 05/28/2004 12:00:00 AM PDT by Pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
LOL! How bitter you sound.

Don't dispair...I can understand your anquish. It seems just like yesterday that the proud brigaders where galloping across so many threads, riding to the sounds of the gums, posting their silly Vietnam photo with all their faces superimposed on it following a fat head pat buchanan (the closets he ever came to a uniform)...those were the glory days for you people.

The patsies would have seven or eight threads at a time going, promoting their guy, trashing President Bush, spouting all the fearsome buzzwords. Life was so grand for the pitchforkers.

Then pat's grand sell out happened and folks started deserting from the brigade. And when it was said and done, and pat had tried his best to be the spoiler for Al Gore...your world came apart.

From those glory days to posting a few sad comments on the tail end of some dead thread in the middle of the nigth. You've fallen a long I can understand your bitterness and why you're reduced to skulking around.

451 posted on 05/28/2004 12:00:10 AM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 449 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
*I never said I wasn't a Burr fan*

That is a vile piece of nihilistic filth, and a slur on one of this nation's Founding Fathers. About like saying "I never said I wasn't a Lee Harvey Oswald/John Hinckley fan." That kind of rhetorical garbage is on a level with the worst one finds posted in DUmmy land.
Alexander Hamilton was, for all intents and purposes, the philosophical founder of the Republican Party. Your post about him makes it obvious that you don't know history from a hole in the ground.
I don't know what your agenda is, but your arrogance is only truly exceeded by your ignorance. And I look forward to refuting it in future threads I might happen to come across.
452 posted on 05/28/2004 12:47:45 AM PDT by A Jovial Cad ("I had no shoes and I complained, until I saw a man who had no feet.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
--- Lincoln faced down the biggest group of real charlatans ever assembled in this country, the southern frauds who owned slaves, but spouted hypocrisies about being free.
-- And he won.

Like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe? The Lincoln cult always has an excuse for the FF slave owners, let's hear yours-

No excuses needed, -- To a man they were well aware of the hypocrisy of slaveholding in a republic dedicated to individual freedom.

And, - I belong to no 'cult'. Lincoln was above all a politician, with their typical faults. But he did his job well, and held together our union.

453 posted on 05/28/2004 6:13:27 AM PDT by tpaine ("The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being." -- Solzhenitsyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: A Jovial Cad

Cry me a river...

454 posted on 05/28/2004 12:44:34 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440441-454 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