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.
Hundreds of Americans dying every month in Iraq - - that's what's helping Kerry. My pointing out that the Iraq policy should be changed isn't what's helping Kerry, it's the huge flaws in that policy that are helping him.
correction: scores of Americans. (though the sad numbers go up and down)
You are a liar.
The President hasn't brought the issue up again, after he LISTENED to us on it. It's also dead in the Congress, once again because we were LISTENED to.
The Dims would put in earplugs.
Is that your only, or primary concern? If so, it can ONLY be fixed to your liking by a Republican. No Dim would even consider it.
As long as we STICK TOGETHER, we can defeat the Leftist Dims who so love this stuff. Then, we can fix it at our leisure, instead of always battling them about it.
How many Americans died in Iraq in April?
Strawman. You lied.
And to think, they are dying so you can post your drivel on this site.
You should be ashamed.
I believe the tragic number is 174.
Bloomberg News Service; Bush Says `Tough Times Ahead' in Iraq (May 13)
May 13 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush said the U.S. will remain ``on the offensive'' through ``tough times'' to ensure freedom for Iraq and prevent terrorists from striking again on American soil.
...Last month, 174 Americans died in combat in Iraq, and the release two weeks ago of photos showing U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison sparked outrage worldwide. For the first time, a majority of Americans -- 51 percent -- said the war was going poorly, the Pew Center for the Public Press poll said after a poll May 3-9. The president, 57, is trying to bolster Republican support in what promises to be a very close election against Kerry, 60, a four-term Massachusetts senator, said Mark Rozell, chairman of the political department at Catholic University. Bush's job approval rating in the Pew poll fell to 44 percent, from 48 percent in April, after the prisoner abuse revelations. Bush called the conduct of those soldiers ``disgraceful'' and said it didn't represent the character of U.S. military personnel. `Disgruntlement' Republicans are divided over spending and Iraq, said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Schwab Soundview Capital markets. ``This growing rift over Iraq has to be unsettling to the White House because it's contributing to the overall drop in his job rating and in support for the war,'' he said. The U.S. military is now spending $4.5 billion to $5 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan and needs an ``emergency reserve fund'' of $25 billion to meet that expense, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told the Senate Armed Services Committee today. The Pentagon spent $66.2 billion in Iraq from January 2003 through February of this year and last month decided to keep more troops than planned following insurgencies that produced the fiercest battles in a year. The president ``is trying to avoid the political mistake of his father, which was to assume the automatic support of the base,'' Rozell said. ``He needs to address any conservative disgruntlement right now, before it gets politically serious.'' `Shaky Weeks' ``One of the most damaging criticisms of Bush is that he hasn't made his case forcefully or frequently enough, so speeches like tonight's are crucial as the president seeks to regain his balance after several shaky weeks,'' Valliere said earlier today. There are ``tough times ahead'' in Iraq, Bush said. ``We will win this essential victory in the war of terror.'' ``This is the work that history has set before us,'' Bush said. ``We welcome it.'' Bush has never used his presidential veto power on a spending bill while budgets have gone from a surplus of $236.9 billion to a deficit of $374.2 billion over the last three years. Stephen Moore, president for the Club for Growth, a pro- Republican tax-cut advocacy group, has said Bush hasn't shown a commitment to getting deficits under control. Bush said Kerry would raise taxes to pay for increased government spending. Kerry has proposed repealing Bush's tax cuts for families making more than $200,000 a year. Mobilizing Voters Ultimately, ``the right will be solidly pro-Bush in the election,'' Valliere said. ``The prospect of a Kerry presidency will be more than sufficient to mobilize conservative voters.'' ``It's very ominous'' that Bush is speaking to a group that spent $12 million on an anti-abortion advertisement campaign and supports eliminating the tax code, Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe said on a conference call. ``For George Bush to have to go tonight to the American Conservative Union at a time when he should be talking to swing voters'' does not bode well for his campaign, McAuliffe said. ``On the fundamental issues of our time, conservatives have been right,'' Bush said. ``I am proud to advance these convictions and these principles as I stand for re-election.''
Ditto what? Howlin's snarlingly ignorant claim that I'm a "liar"? Sorry, but 174 Americans dies in Iraq last month. If the news stories that reported that number were wrong, please provide evidence.
"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.
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.