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.
I think iraq was a good idea from the perspective of National Security, however if the goal is instituting democracy throughout the region using military force that's going to be very expensive; very incompatible with small government low taxes. It'd be easier to use nukes and simply resettle.
Paleoconservative, I like that. That's definitely applicable. Less government, more guns... most excellence!
Home run post.
If its just about killing folks why not roll out neutron bombs, hit every city that flinches until the mosques are all converted to churches?
One problem: Pakistan might go radical and turn some of their nukes over to Al Qaeda if we nuke the holy cities of Islam. That's why talk by others on this thread of attacking Saudi Arabia, where the Muslim holy cities are, is so foolish. There are over a billion Muslims and I don't want to end up in a fight with all of them.
Amen!
(If only we could find some reason to pit them and hindus definitvly at odds...)
"Neoconservative started back in the late 60s in New York."
Don't forget Chicago and Strauss.
If we have proof that Pakistan provides AQ with WMD then we are in position to attack from Afghanistan. If Iran gets (more) nutty we can attack from Iraq and Afghanistan. Attacking Saudi Arabia is a non starter unless we are prepared to fight every moslem worldwide.
I wish the Brits would have left India unified. Moslems there are integrated into a secular, democratic society. Pakistan is another Islamic basket case.
Amen
George Washington was the first paleoconservative. "No entangling alliances".
Don't leave out the University of Chicago. Anyway, the first generation of the so called neo-cons did come from the left...I don't think that's true of the next generation.
That seems to be a fair assessment...he does defy traditional models. He didn't come to the White House with any kind of Wilsonian agenda though and while I have thought he compromised on certain policies to protect his priorities, I'm not sure that's true either. Hard to know, as you say.
I'm happy to celebrate his victories (tax cuts, judicial appointments, aggressive approach to terrorism, etc.) and look to continue rightward in 2008.
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.