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.

shares common views with the religious conservatives (and NOT with the Libertarians) concerning moral values.

Makes one wonder what a neo-liberal is. They believe in pushing their morals upon others through legislation, labeling anyone who does not bow to their 'priests' as haters, and use concerted efforts to spread their 'gospel'.

Most conservative christians I know take a view that the way to make changes is not through government, but through changing a man's heart. Laws are mainly to punish (or chastise if you wish). Abortion can be legal, but if people see it as wrong they won't do it (same with other things as well).

The left has made out the conservative christians to be control freaks who want to force people to do something, all the while they are passing (or trying to) more and more legislation telling others how to live. If being a religious conservative means living strictly within a religious philosophy (whichever one you choose) and working to pass laws to make others do the same than the real conservatives are the liberals themselves - they just do it without using a bible, making things up as they go along.

The term 'religious conservative' has come to mean something bad to many people, as the leftists try to scare people into thinking there is a group of christians trying to control their lives and tell them what to do - and while there may be some who fit this mold (and I am not one of them, Christ told his disciples to go and tell the good news, not make laws to make people obey it) most the people who fall into this category are liberals who use fractured groups and philosophies to force their beliefs onto others.

< /end rant>

Mr. Kristol sums up it a best when he defines a neoconservative appropriately with his own words:
"...ever since its origin among disillusioned liberal intellectuals in the 1970s,..."
Let remind members of this forum who might be lured into Mr. Kritol's socialist based philosophy, that the term "liberal intellectuals" is an oxymoron and incongruent.

............................................................

Worth repeating.

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.

Looks a little childish, and more than a little superficial. What do you do with George Washington in such a simplistic "happy face" vs. "Mr. Grumpy" scenario? Sounds like Irving is responding to the surfaces of politics and not what lies beneath. A true statesman would be sanguine and cautious by turns as the situation demands. One can't be fundamentally pessimistic about one's country, but cheerleading isn't enough.

Some of what Kristol argues for is just conservative commonsense. But priorities are what's important. Most of those who've been identified as "neocons" in recent years have put foreign policy and foreign intervention first. An interventionist foreign policy looks to be the defining feature of today's neo-conservatives. The alliance with religious conservatives on moral issues, by contrast, is in the background, and may just be for show. How far the neocons would actually go to maintain the alliance is unclear. Finally, to outsiders it looks like neocons want to stay in the driver's seat more than to compromise and share real power with other conservatives from outside their faction.

'Not only shares but actively promotes Judaeo Christian values in Government and the public sphere of life in America and the world.' -eleni121

...'Promoting' is one thing...But using 'force' and 'coercion' is another matter...Individuals are free to 'promote' any ideas the wish...However the state is the only entity that can legally initiate force against an individual...This is why I would be very skeptical about the state 'promoting' anything...Unlike me or you [individual citizens] the state can 'promote' it wishes [gun control, taxes, etc.] with the use of a prison cell or gun barrel...Do you really think that the most fair and efficient way of 'promoting' religious values is by using agencies like the IRS, DMV and US Postal Service to do your bidding?

We will either dissolve, be overrun and fade away or be the next great empire, encompassing and controlling the entire world. There's no middle path.

This is an extremely simplistic and dangerous generalization. Teddy Roosevelt articulated the most sensible approach to foreign policy when he said we should "walk softly and carry a big stick." We cannot possibly control the entire world. It's typical American jingoism to think we can. At best, we can make nations who antagonize the ointment of world order pay a heavy price. Even that has its limits. World domination and control is completely out of the question.

In the war on terror, we have embarked on nation-building escapades in two countries: Afghanistan and Iraq. We are already spread too thin and we haven't yet taken on the greater long-term threats to our security. We are hoping against hope that North Korea and Iran will acquiesce based on what they saw us do to Saddam. We'll probably end up paying the North Koreans for a nuclear-free Korean penninsula. We likely have no choice but to accept a limited nuclear capability for Iran. That's hardly what I'd call "control."

We are the world's largest economy. But, relative to the economies of the rest of the world, we have been shrinking for decades. So economically, our power is actually diminishing over time. This may be a good thing as markets open up for our goods and services, but it gives us diminished clout in terms of our ability to dictate economic matters to the rest of the world.

Militarily, we are way out ahead, but military advantage has its limitations. At most, the military can be used to facilitate a stable environment for global trade. It can't realistically control the world.

Generally, neocons tend to accept and promote the role of America as keeper of world order. To claim Reagan as a standard-bearer for their philosophy is somewhat of a stretch, since Reagan tended to shy away from conflicts in which we had no compelling national interest. Reagan cut and ran in Lebanon, which may have been the first in a string of actions that led the terrorists to conclude we were weak and indecisive.

As far as government spending is concerned, Reagan supported tax cuts for the two-fold purposes of limiting politicians' ability to spend and stimulating the economy. Today's neocons simply cut taxes and increase spending, which makes them bigger panderers than the liberals, and fiscally more irresponsible than any political ideology on the scene today.

'The "state" is nothing more and nothing less than a collection of individuals elected by their constituents...' -eleni121

...True...But 'promoting' your ideas by the use force and coercion isn't any more justified just because those ideas are supported by a democratically elected body...Hitler was elected by a democratic process...We have natural individual rights enshrined in the founding document of this country [the 'Declaration of Independence'] and limitations of the power and scope of the federal government enumerated in the 'Constitution' and its ammendments...Would a complete disarming [i.e. a ban on all firearms] of the American public be okay if it were democratically supported? Don't you think that some of our rights are 'inalienable' and should not be taken away simply by the whims of bureaucrats, politicians, or even the majority of the voting public? Using the powers of the state for your own ends may be justified...But you should always be wary that powers that you give [away] to the state now may be used by others against you later...

...Don't get me wrong...I do respect your wish to promote such things as morals and religious values...I just believe the the state is a poor tool to use for this purpose...It would be best to channel you resources into voluntary/private organizations [churches, private schools, non-governmental charities, etc.] for that purpose...These institutions would be much more efficient at these tasks anyway...

The NeoConservatives, as far as I can tell, want to intervene anywhere there is a dictatorship - again that is NOT conservative.

First, a dictatorship is not bad in and of itself, unless it is brutal and repressive.

Second, neocons, like anyone else, have no desire to intervene anywhere unless necessary.

A world order is seen in which freedom-loving nations preserve their own against such Hitlers and Stalins and bin Ladens and Saddams who arise from time to time. Holding power by depriving freedom is regarded as illegitimate.

Free nations, for pragmatic reasons, won't oust dictators who do not threaten their interests.

Yes I do count myself in this school of thought. We must have an American, optimistic, politically appealing, patriotic, and national security minded conservatism. One that accepts the need for economic growth and the existence of the welfare state, though not in its liberal incarnation. This is the essence of conservatism in the Republican Party today. It used to be called "neo" and due to the way things have become, the prefix no longer matters, justifiably so since conservatives stand opposed to liberals in the view of America, its prospects, love of country, and on national security. Our enemies and opponents inside the conservative movement express alarm at the triumph of "neoconservatism." All conservatives should in fact rejoice since its made this country stronger and healthier. Europe has nothing like it. And its in no small part thanks to conservatives that as Martin Seymour Lipset has noted, America is "the exceptional nation."

"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." - Irving Kristol

Pardon my asking but does anybody else see something seriously wrong with who Mr. Kristol defines as a conservative hero?

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.