Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WHAT EXACTLY IS NEOCONSERVATISM ?
The Neoconservative Persuasion - The Weekly Standard - From the August 25, 2003 issue. ^ | Explained by Irvin Kristol

Posted on 08/17/2003 3:43:43 PM PDT by BplusK

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.

Irving Kristol is author of "Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; Israel; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: conservatism; irvingkristol; irvinkristol; neocons; neoconservatism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 next last
To: BplusK
What is a neo-con? That's pretty simple, a neo-con is a traditional liberal who has become disenchanted with the Democrat Party since the take-over by the socialists and had moved to the Republican party because they realize that they have more in common with the social conservatives than they do the socialists.
41 posted on 08/17/2003 9:08:59 PM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eva
Good one. And that includes over 500 elected Dems switching parties in recent years.
42 posted on 08/17/2003 9:15:32 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Somebody posted this the other day but only a partial article over here. Same article, same response

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.

How is anything in the neocon playbook conservative? More government, interfering in world situations that have nothing to do with the safety of this nation, spending on the level that would make FDR and LBJ balk?

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.

Forgot one. Wilson. Without him we may have never had a neoconservative movement. At least not one involving foreign policy. Or else it would have been quickly relegated to the trashpile where it belongs

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.

That has to be the most ridiculous thing I've read today. No set of beliefs? From 'liberating the masses' to 'spreading democracy' I'm beginning to wonder when they'll have time to defend this nation of states.

(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.)

Well at least he admits it

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.

Well unless it's under the 'right' leadership, eh Irving?

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.
PNAC Statement of Principles
43 posted on 08/17/2003 9:31:36 PM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: billbears
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.

In the words of the great satirist Ambrose Bierce:

"PATRIOTISM, n. Combustible rubbish read to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name. In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first."

He had Irving pinged dead on.

44 posted on 08/17/2003 9:45:29 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: billbears
There is a difference between being a hegemon in an alliance and leading a world government.
45 posted on 08/17/2003 10:25:39 PM PDT by rmlew ("Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
'[Conservatism] that accepts the need for economic growth and the existence of the welfare state, though not in its liberal incarnation.' -goldstategop

...Huh...By 'liberal' I assume you mean 'socialist' [and not the more classical/European definition: 'libertarian' or 'free-marketer']...Please enlighten me as to another 'incarnation' of the 'welfare state' that would be possible, not socialist, produce 'economic growth' and is supposedly compatible with your definition of 'conservatism'...

...Have you read Hayek's 'The Road to Serfdom'? Have you been following the recent govenmental/labor union events unfolding in the welfare state utopia of France? Have you been following the economic decline in the socialist paradise of Sweden?

...Empirical data and work by economists like Hayek and Mises are in agreement on this point...Welfare statism is not compatible with economic growth...And the fact that I have to say this to a 'conserative' at the FreeRepublic is very weird...
46 posted on 08/17/2003 10:37:22 PM PDT by MayDay72 (Welfare Statism = Socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
'The state is a contract between generations, past, present, and future. The elected representatives at any given time are mere custodians.' -NutCrackerBoy

...Hmmm...Interesting definition for the 'state'...Haven't seen this one before...Is this your defition or a quote from another source? I'm not sure if I agree with this or not...I will have to think about this for a while...You are either a genius or quite daft...I will have to get back to you...Thanks... ;-)
47 posted on 08/17/2003 10:46:42 PM PDT by MayDay72 (Welfare Statism = Socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MayDay72
Any one who thinks the welfare state is going to disappear is dreaming. The aim of conservatives should be to use it to promote conservative ends. There are proposals from various think tanks to suggest the best means of making sure social policy promotes less dependence on government, favors marriage, strengthens the family, and provides a path for the poor and the elderly to have choices in how they get basic needs fulfilled. In other words, conservatives don't think a liberal welfare state which is top down with a one size fits all model works. We need a different approach in which there are other ways of developing the right social policy than through a centralized government bureaucracy. So yes, conservatives accept the welfare though not in the sense liberals look at it.
48 posted on 08/17/2003 10:47:42 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: billbears
What ruined "Conservatism" and made the way possible for "Neoconservatism" was the irresponsible anti war and anti military rhetoric of the "New Left" that came of age in 60's and was motivated primarily by the Viet Nam war.

The "New Left" so over it did it with their love of Communism in Viet Nam and then in Cambodia and their disgusting hate filled screeds about American Servicemen that they made "militersim" a "conservative" position. Thus- somehow- it is "conservative" to blindly support the military and the President. It is "conservative" to never question our foreign policy and only "left wingers" do that anyway.

Neoconservatism is not conservative in any sense. It is perpetual war or "creative destruction" as Michael Leeden likes to say in his fevered screeds.

That younger college type Republicans think being "conservative" is wearing a Bush T-shirt depresses me.

49 posted on 08/17/2003 11:20:48 PM PDT by Burkeman1 ((If you see ten troubles comin down the road, Nine will run into the ditch before they reach you.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
goldstategop: Any one who thinks the welfare state is going to disappear is dreaming.

MayDay72: ...Then I am a 'dreamer'...And I don't think that is a bad thing...

gs: The aim of conservatives should be to use it to promote conservative ends.

MD: ...As I've said to 'eleni121' above, I don't see how negative forceful/coercive actions of the state can achieve positive results...Or why you would prefer welfare statism when when private/voluntary [i.e. free-market] institutions [churches, private schools, charities] can do these things more efficiently and fairly...

gs: There are proposals from various think tanks to suggest the best means of making sure social policy promotes less dependence on government, favors marriage, strengthens the family, and provides a path for the poor and the elderly to have choices in how they get basic needs fulfilled.

MD: ...See my last statement...These are all worthy goals but the state is a poor tool for this task...We are talking about the same government that runs Amtrak, the postal service, the DMV and the IRS...Do you trust these guy to teach your children about 'family values' or care for your elderly mother?

gs: In other words, conservatives don't think a liberal welfare state which is top down with a one size fits all model works. We need a different approach in which there are other ways of developing the right social policy than through a centralized government bureaucracy.

MD: ...It seems to me that we a have an 'different approach' that is 'bottom up' rather than 'top down'...And has multiple solutions to every problem rather than 'one size fits all'...Adam Smith wrote about it 200 years ago, though it is much older than that...The free-market...
50 posted on 08/17/2003 11:25:09 PM PDT by MayDay72 (Welfare Statism = Socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: MayDay72
We don't really disagree about the objectives. Though people can differ on how best to achieve them.
51 posted on 08/17/2003 11:29:29 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: MayDay72
These are all worthy goals but the state is a poor tool for this task

You got that one nailed down. The state is a veritable Ring of Gyges - it's extremely powerful and makes its users capable of many things, but it also corrupts and ruins even the noblest of participants in the process and will never reach efficiency as a result.

52 posted on 08/18/2003 12:54:34 AM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
We are at a crossroad. We will either dissolve, be overrun and fade away or be the next great empire, encompassing and controlling the entire world.

Yes we are. But as most Romans had no say in what happened in their Empire most Americans don't either as both parties will support our current policies to one degree or another and our modern vote is near wothless as compared to the Roman vote. By the way - there were many members of the Roman forum who were against Roman Imperialism and for the Republic?

53 posted on 08/18/2003 1:15:33 AM PDT by Burkeman1 ((If you see ten troubles comin down the road, Nine will run into the ditch before they reach you.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
The "contract" you say is the State. You must be referring ot the US Constitution as well as other assorted key documents - all created by human beings inspired guided and motivated by a belief in a Christian God.
54 posted on 08/18/2003 6:25:33 AM PDT by eleni121
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: The Mayor
Back at ya Mayor - Any developments on reorganizing a Freeper chapter in WNY?
55 posted on 08/18/2003 6:33:31 AM PDT by eleni121
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
I haven't had a chance to do anything. I have been sooooo busy with work.

I'm still home only cause I just got off a conference call with Albany. A waste of time.

Maybe we should start a thread and ping the freepers in the area.
56 posted on 08/18/2003 6:36:58 AM PDT by The Mayor (God uses ordinary people to carry out his extraordinary plan. I am willing Lord, use me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: BplusK
- supports strong (central) government.

Sounds unConstitutional to me.

57 posted on 08/18/2003 6:41:54 AM PDT by StriperSniper (Make South Korea an island)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BplusK
I think he needs to add, liner-thinking, logic, and rational thought.

Things the left can't grasp.
58 posted on 08/18/2003 6:50:46 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MayDay72
You are [...] quite daft.

Guilty as charged. Not to mention obscure.

Here are some excerpts from the essay Why I became a conservative by Roger Scruton, published in the February 2003 issue of The New Criterion.

Law is constrained at every point by reality, and utopian visions have no place in it. Moreover the common law of England is proof that there is a real distinction between legitimate and illegitimate power, that power can exist without oppression, and that authority is a living force in human conduct. English law, I discovered, is the answer to Foucault.

Burke was not writing about socialism, but about revolution. Nevertheless he persuaded me that the utopian promises of socialism go hand in hand with a wholly abstract vision of the human mind - a geometrical version of our mental processes which has only the vaguest relation to the thoughts and feelings by which real human beings live. He persuaded me that societies are not and cannot be organized according to a plan or a goal, that there is no direction to history, and no such thing as moral or spiritual progress.

Society, [Burke] argued, is not held together by the abstract rights of the citizen, as the French Revolutionaries supposed. It is held together by authority - by which is meant the right to obedience, rather than the mere power to compel it.

Burke was holding up old view of man in society, as subject of a sovereign, against the new view of him, as citizen of a state [... ,] a far more effective guarantee of the liberties of the individual than the new idea, which was founded in the promise of those very liberties, only abstractly, universally, and therefore unreally defined.

Although society can be seen as a contract, [Burke] argued, we must recognize that most parties to the contract are either dead or not yet born. The effect of the contemporary Rousseaist ideas of social contract was to place the present members of society in a position of dictatorial dominance over those who went before and those who came after them. Hence these ideas led directly to the massive squandering of inherited resources at the [French] Revolution, and to the cultural and ecological vandalism that Burke was perhaps the first to recognize as the principal danger of modern politics. In Burke's eyes the self-righteous contempt for ancestors which characterized the Revolutionaries was also a disinheriting of the unborn. Rightly understood, he argued, society is a partnership among the dead, the living, and the unborn, and without what he called the "hereditary principle", according to which rights could be inherited as well as acquired, both the dead and the unborn would be disenfranchized. Indeed, respect for the dead was, in Burke's view, the only real safeguard that the unborn could obtain, in a world that gave all its privileges to the living. His preferred vision of society was not as a contract, in fact, but as a trust, with theliving members as trustees of an inheritance that they must strive to enhance and pass on.

Henceforth I understood conservatism not as a political credo only, but as a lasting vision of human society, one whose truth would always be hard to perceive, harder still to communicate, and hardest of all to act upon. And especially hard is it now, when religious sentiments follow the whim of fashion, when the global economy throws our local loyalties into disarray, and when materialism and luxury deflect the spirit from the proper business of living. But I do not despair, since experience has taught me that men and women can flee from the truth only for so long, that they will always, in the end, be reminded of the permanent values, and that the dreams of liberty, equality, and fraternity, will excite them only in the short term.

59 posted on 08/18/2003 7:44:26 AM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
The "contract" you say is the State. You must be referring ot the US Constitution as well as other assorted key documents - all created by human beings inspired guided and motivated by a belief in a Christian God.

Yes, well, I was sloppy. I reacted against what I perceived to be a short-sighted definition as the people currently holding office.

Also, I apologize for tangential posting.

60 posted on 08/18/2003 7:49:26 AM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 next 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson