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?
Its no coincidence that the two ideologies overlap. Both are grounded in Wilsonian idealism. Moreover, neoconservatism wasnt 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 didnt 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, Id say I agree with that doctrine almost in its entirety. But if thats 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 worlds ails.
Neoconservatism for kids thats 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 Bushs idealism. I, too, want to see a democratized world order. In this, I believe that even the neoconservatives of today share far more than theyre 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.
"I think you have an erroneous view of their agenda. They are empire-builders, pure and simple."
Ya hit it right on the head, bub.
History shows that kingdoms fade, empires fall, alliances change.
Only truly free and independent nations have stood the test of time. Ya can't impose Democracy, and ya' can't buy peace. You can only buy time.
"Kissingerian, Wilsonian idealism, Trotskyites"
Why is that liberals use labels such as this to try to sound educated? Labels limit people and are rather a weak argument. When you reduce yourself to fitting people in your idea of labels, you've lost the battle.....it's something that liberals have yet to grasp.
It amazes me what people write these days.
...would've been nicer, even.
This pro-Putin, pro-Russian element should not be allowed to spread their non-stop attacks on America in favour of the likes of the corrupt Russian totalitarian, KGB Putin, who continues arming America's & Israel's enemies such as Hamas, Iran, Venezuela & Syria.
Why are on here always promoting Putin instead of America? There has to be a reason.
The smart thing to do here in this situation is to admit that you farked up and save your credibility. People fark up from time to time in their arguments but when one does, it's best to acknowledge it.
I support the "neo-con" objective of spreading democracy, not out of some pseudo-divine sense of ideology or mission, but rather because it is the best way to ensure the security of our own nation. The side benefit of freeing others from tyranny - a massive one that shouldn't be discounted - is not the first purpose of spreading democracy.
"What a load of Friggin crap, Now we have people here agreeing with flaming Liberals like this goof ball who wrote this nonsense. Anybody who witnessed the hippie movement of the 1960's could never draw the conclusions that this liberal has."
Agreed. It is a careful mix of truth and lies. The purpose: to demoralize and split conservatives.
The Republican Party is a coalition. We need to maintain it.
LOL. Still fighting for the Soviets in Afghanistan.
"I think people are inventing labels to demonize Bush and his supporters. I doubt Bush had any deep seated desire to bring "Democracy" to the Middle East before the terrorist attacks on America. I think introducing Democracy to that part of the world is a by product of taking down the Taliban and the Butcher of Iraq and then trying to prevent Afghanistan and Iraq from falling into the hands of even worse tyrants."
Jim as usual, you are right on. It is amazing how the uber/walk on the water conservatives hate GW more than the Rats and end up sounding just like them.
OMG I agree with you on a matter of some importance! Wilson was a fool and his policies are still screwing the nation up. TR was a much better "liberal" president.
It is hard to find the application of a consistent philosophy in the Bush administration. His foriegn policy does seems very Wilsonian to me, trade policy appears globalist, domestic policy appears socialist but his appointment to the court, UN, etc appear conservative, so I am at a lost to understand just what the Bush admin is.
Something folks here often forget. Thanks for reminding them.
(Sadly its more and more a democracy, and less and less a representative republic)
Amen to that. I have been to Iraq twice, understand and agree with what the administration is trying to do, and believe that the paleos are almost as foolish on foreign policy as the idiot libs who are driven primarily by hatred of America's core values.
If the author and some of the posters in this thread want to play guilt by association some of the mud they sling is going to stick to them.
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.