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.
"The business of America is business." - Calvin Coolidge.
"It's not personal. It's just business." - Don Vito Corleone
Are you under the impression that I actually care what you think?
My only interest in you is pointing out what a complete troll you are; I have no idea what party you belong to, but I do know that you're two things: 1) Not a conservative or a Republican and 2) doing the work of the people who hope to destroy this country.
When did I do that?
I've seen stats that 137 American Soldiers were KIA in April. Where is your source stating 174?
800 people have died in Iraq in 15 months.
It's not hundreds like you said.
How much is the freedom of your country -- presuming "your country" is the United States -- worth?
You don't seem to be too damn concerned with the 3,000 that died on 9-11; I wonder what nationality you really are.
No, I definitely am not under the impression that you care what I think. I'm under the impression that when someone -- even a Reaganite conservative like me -- disagrees with you, steam comes out of your ears and you have trouble caring about anything but your own anger.
When have you even known an American hater to be honest?
Bloomberg News Service (see post above). Maybe that Bloomberg report is wrong. Either way, the number is tragically high.
You're not disagreeing with me; to disagree with me, you have to have a point; so far, all I've seen you post is vitrolic disinformation.
It's too bad you don'yt list to Levin...his show is marvelous.
People that are afraid to discuss problems within the conservative movement have something to hide, IMHO.
If they're not willing to talk about ideologues that support things like "open borders", "rapid growth of gov't.", "outsourcing" and America as the "World's Policeman", then how do they expect those of us who feel weve been Neo-Conned to believe "Conservative Values" haven't been abandoned altogether and we have no one left to represent us?
A ship can only get so many holes in it before the bilge pumps fail...
April is Iraq's deadliest month
By Gregg Zoroya, USA TODAY
The deadliest month for U.S. troops in Iraq ended Friday with 137 servicemembers having lost their lives. The overwhelming majority of them were victims of hostile action such as gunfire, rocket attacks and explosions.
If you can spare the time,this thread and the person who posted it,could REALLY use your reply to this.
Stick together? Tell that to the family from my church that just lost their only breadwinner when the husband lost his job in construction due to the hiring of illegals.
This policy, that both the GOP and dems subscribe to, of helping others to the detrimete of our citizens has to stop.
The current situation in regards to illegals is wrong and, according to most polls, the vast majority of American's agree that it's wrong. If they where listining the would fix the problem (or in the past 45 minutes did we capture everyone on the planet that wishs to do the USA harm? Because those same people could sneak across our borders the same way all those illegals do).
Good night and God bless.
Actually I did find it compelling. It describes this neocon well. The piece was nuanced and well written, and to the point - and true.
I'll give you $5 if you never, ever use the word "nuanced" again. :-)
If Bloomberg is willing to inflate the total by 28%, I'd worry about the veracity of the rest of their information and analysis too.
Oh, well, it was a nice dream, anyways.
Pity you are taking fire for posting an excellent article. Of course, it is your posting history, rather than the article, that attacks the fire. Handle it as best you can. By the way, I don't myself agree with most of what you post. But there is no justification for trashing you personally. I dissent from that.
Can't argue with you about the Pew stinkers. I posted the article because it gave a casualty figure for april (which might be higher than the actual number, from what other posters are claiming), not to highlight the rest of the stuff in the article, including the smelly leftist group call "Pew."
Well, now that you asked, I guess the answer is none. Poor thing, he does so want to be "special" but as it turns out he is just garden variety.
Hey, your catching on!
OK, but it will cost you $20 to make me stop using "ersatz." :)
Just WHAT,by-the-by,is a "wall street salon"?
They hold BBQs on the main street,whnere YOU live?
Class warfare has NO place on FR;none!
Is that the only job in the county? Nobody else in the family can work?
Canadian, I think.
Churchillbuff is a CANADIAN? Oh, cripes.
Are you a Canadian citizen?
I didn't say that and your concern is touching. Where it not for illegal below market labor he would still have a job. I don't understand why so many religious people are so quick to throw their own people to the wolfs, simply for a little extra profit. Perhaps he will find more work, perhaps he and his wife will now have to work to make ends meat and if that happens she will no longer be there as much as she should to raise her kids. The last 30 years has shown that that is a BAD IDEA and is one of the leading factors in creating all these troubled kids we have these days.
But it did result in profit, so I guess it all balances out in the end.
OMG, is that true?
Why don't all you church-going people pool your resources, and fund your neighbor so he can start his own Construction company, hire American born locals at union wage, and compete for the building business against the obviously unskilled, unqualified immigrant competition? It should be a breeze. Shouldn't it?
Don't deny it; everybody here knows it's true.
You can't be serious. But in case you are, you should check yourself into a rubber room, if you really think anything this person posts would have any bearing on the outcome of an election.
Yes, I believe that to be correct. It came up in another thread not long ago. It was late and I didn't hang around long enough to see if he would fess up.
In short, focus on the "special handling" of some other wing of the Bush coalition, and cater to their sensibilities. We don't need it, or want it.
Lots of people have lost jobs,throughout the history of this nation,for various reasons.As a matter of fact,job safety is a relatively "new" idea to hit this nation and dates from around the late 1940s.OTOH,job loss was a constant worry,throughout most of this nation's history! Throughout the mid 1800s through four decades of the 20th century,people were thrown out of jobs for NO reason at all and new immigrants hired for much lower salaries.
Just what Chamberlinbuff needs, an endorsement from you.
Are YOU a Canadian citizen?
Embarrassed to say I've never even visited Canada - - I'm one of those Americans who hasn't traveled much outside of America.
"It's not personal. It's just business." - Don Vito Corleone
"Property is theft." - Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
The creative destruction of robust free trade capitalism has its short term winners and losers, and a lot of the short term losers have time to post on FR. Long term of course, without such creative destruction, this nation would end up like Argentina, or worse. But then of course you already knew all this. I am just trying to suck up to you, for once. :)
Thank you for correcting my spelling, but I would like to point out that leading off with a spelling correction isn't a way to make yourself look more intellegent. It makes you look like a person who would rather point out minor mistakes of the otherside rather than debate the points they are making.
He lost his jobs because of ILLEGAL labor. He didn't lose his job because it was no longer needed. The only reason we have illegal labor in this country is because people will not enfore the laws against it.
Perhaps you should get some sleep and rethink your support of those that break our nations laws.
"intelligent." Spell check really is your friend. It certainly is mine.
I just wish that people,who post socialist prose,but claim to be "Conservatibes",would go learn some American history.
And yes,the whingers DO have far too much free time to waste.
Is your problem with the status of the immigrants, or that they are competing against overpriced local labor?