Posted on 02/28/2006 8:46:11 PM PST by jb6
Edited on 02/28/2006 11:09:58 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Being someone of a liberal persuasion, it might come as a surprise that I not only sympathize with neoconservatives, I genuinely agree with much of what they have to say. Unlike traditional conservatism, neoconservative philosophy amounts to more than just “Leave us alone.” It inherently rejects both “Fortress America” isolationism and Kissingerian realism in favor of an activist foreign policy of promoting human rights and propagating democracy.
What liberal could disagree with that?
It’s no coincidence that the two ideologies overlap. Both are grounded in Wilsonian idealism. Moreover, neoconservatism wasn’t initially the product of the right-wing intellectuals, who have since become its standard bearers. Strangely enough, the original neoconservatives were radical leftists.
To be specific, they were Trotskyites.
For those of you unfamiliar with Leon Trotsky, he was one of the chief architects of the Russian Revolution. He was an idealist and a militant. Before the revolution, while he was in prison, Trotsky cultivated his famous theory of permanent revolution: a concept which would later provide the impetus for Soviet imperialism.
An independent thinker (he was originally a leader of the opposition Mensheviks), Trotsky was single handedly responsible for crafting the Red Army into a machine whose purpose was to forcibly spread his idealistic brand of Marxism across the world. Substitute “Marxism” with “democracy” and the leap from Trotskyism to neoconservatism appears remarkably diminutive.
Small as the gap may have been, neoconservatives certainly didn’t make the jump to democracy overnight. It took years of audacious brutality and cynical ideological manipulation by the Stalinist Regime before they were finally disenchanted with communism.
Left in a political vacuum, they eventually gravitated towards realpolitik. This resulted in what Francis Fukuyama calls a “realistic Wilsonianism.” The philosophy essentially boils down to this: the United States is a benign hegemon with the unique ability to create a democratic world order that respects human dignity. Hegemonic as it may be, however, the early neoconservatives believed it was imperative for the United States to act prudently, by avoiding war when possible and cautiously exercising force when not.
As a liberal, I’d say I agree with that doctrine almost in its entirety. But if that’s the case, why is it that I almost always find myself at odds with the policies of the first neoconservative administration ever: the Bush Administration?
Well, the sad fact of the matter is that neoconservatism has become a grotesque caricature of its once great former self. Gone are the days of academic nuance, realpolitik and judicious analysis of international relations. All that remains is its idealism and a throwback to its morphed Trotskyite heritage: the insufferable notion that democracy in and of itself (much like Marxism) has the power to single-handedly cure all the world’s ails.
Neoconservatism for kids – that’s what the Bush Administration is responsible for. They have cheapened their philosophy in order to produce an easily digestible version for the masses. This is more than a little reminiscent of the reductivist logic promulgated by the hippie movement in the ‘60s (when neoconservatism was at its nadir). Replace “All you need is love” with “All you need is democracy” and you essentially have what can only be described as “the new hippies.”
The biggest difference is that, unlike the hippies, the neoconservatives are actually in control of our formal institutions of power. Moreover, they have returned to the Trotskyite militarism of their deep past. What could possibly be scarier than blind idealism coupled with an aggressively militarized foreign policy?
I share President Bush’s idealism. I, too, want to see a democratized world order. In this, I believe that even the neoconservatives of today share far more than they’re willing to admit with their liberal counterparts. But the methods by which the Bush Administration is pursuing its goals are haphazard, ill-informed and overly simplistic.
What a shame it is to have another great political philosophy destroyed by yet another generation of hippies – only this time in jacket and tie.
As I've always said, Neoconservatism is not Conservatism.
What you say???
I am proud to call myself a paleoconservative :)
Not to mention that if this administration was so NeoCon, why isn't Bill Crystal (THE KING OF NEOCONS) serving as the National Security adviser?
It inherently rejects both “Fortress America” isolationism and Kissingerian realism in favor of an activist foreign policy of promoting human rights ...
Exactly what I don't like about it. The problem with that, is that such a policy cannot possibly succeed.
". . . the dumbest f#cking guy on the planet."
--- General Tommy Franks, on Douglas Feith (former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy)
That's simple. He never stood a chance of getting a position in this administration, since he supported John McCain in 2000.
Not just how many of those big wig Neocon brainiacs ever served in the military or how many of their kids ever did. Easy to talk about empire and sending others' sons off when you've never had to do it yourself.
I guess Washington and the Founding Fathers were fools in your eyes?
Quit drinking the bong water for a start.
It was George Washington who warned to serve by example and not to bring our form of government by the bayonet. Besides which, as anyone who served day one in the Army knows, page one Soldiers Common Task Manual: America is not a democracy, it is a Representitive Republic.
How tall do you want that wall?
We can't have that. This neocon can't pass as a hippie because I don't have enough hair left. But I can pass as one with a sense of morality that does not stop at the nation's shore. The lone superpower to ignore evil abroad is a superpower without moral meaning. Plus the globe is an interconnected place, with foreign viruses easily capable of migrating.
Call me a neocon, call me a liberal, call me what you want. I don't care. All I care about is my conscience.
Amen. same here. Ronald Reagan would very much approve.
Perle: "Chairman Dean, let me congratulate you on your election as chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The Democrats in their wisdom looked at the condition of the Democratic party and chose a physician to lead them. I say that as a Democrat, as a "Scoop Jackson" Democrat, and I look forward to the day when the Democratic Party will nominate a candidate whose views on national security are such that I can return to voting for Democratic candidates."
Oh, yeah . . . this guy's a real conservative.
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.