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.
If we end up in a fight with the Muslim world in defense of our values, then we will have no choice but to prosecute the war with as much vigor as possible. The cartoonists are exercising one of the core values of western democracy and ought to be defended.
However, I'd rather not have a fight with the lot of them, if we can avoid it.
BTW where in NC are you from? I am in Morganton.
And unfortunately, getting older all the time.
Sigh.
lol....no. They were (and are) staunch anti-communists, advocates of free markets and low taxes ("trickle down" economics). Do you know of one Trotskyite/Leftist (radical or otherwise) who believes similarly? Didn't think so.
Always find it so intresting the Machos are so quick to forget it is Muslims who are doing most of the fighting and dying on OUR side in the War On Terror.
I have a singer-songwriter friend in Austin who has written a new song called: "Jesus was a Neo-con". I cringed when I first heard him perform it. The author of this piece seems to be talking about Christopher Hitchens.
That's definitely true. The Iraqi Army guys we worked with were pretty good guys (except for a few who were probably trying to infiltrate for to provide information to the Islamists). I've spent time in Qatar and Kuwait as well, both countries are firmly on our side.
Makes no difference, we could stamp out terror quite easily by making it monumentally detrimental to Muslim countries whenever their citizens engage in terror. Of anyone we have the tools.
Pooring millions into tough and deadly street by street warfare in hopes of isntalling democracy is a solution but it's neither the easiest, quickest, nor the cheapest solution (it may be the most moral solution).
What a way to define an organ of oppression and mass killing!! The writer lives in his own little world.
As for the Neo-cons? He is, of course, right about their Trotskyite connections. They are neither new nor Conservative, only very, very confused. See The Neocon Phenomenon.
William Flax
I feel like an idiot, because I honestly don't know what neoconservatism means. How is new conservatism different than the old conservatism?
I used to drill in little Washington with the 1/119th IN before it went away. Nice area.
I do believe Pres. Bush thinks that "freedom", defined as a representative democratic political system, was given to America by the Almighty, and that as president it's his duty to bring divinely inspired government to as much of the world as possible. He's on a mission from God.
That zeal to remake the world is a characteristic of the children of the sixties, of which the president is one. Idealism or hubris, it is surely dangerous, as we saw with communism.
Problem is the Muslims are 100% that dark side. :/
Democracy is the road to socialism. Karl Marx
Democracy is indispensable to socialism. The goal of socialism is communism. V.I. Lenin
The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.- Karl Marx
________________________________
Note; Little wonder because democracy is Mob Rule.. Socialism is merely a symptom of democracy, but democracy is the Social disease.... Socialism is all about Mob Rule.. as is Sharia Law.. Thats why Socialists and Islamists get along so famously.. Monarchy is also Mob Rule except with an abbrevated Mob..
The author jumped the shark right about here.
That response sounds particularly spot on given that the author's picture pegs him as a clone of a million other liberal know-it-alls from the "pot-is-cool" bygone days.
His "enlightened" views are about as substantive, too.
Maybe next time he'll enlighten us on how the label he gives himself, "liberal", as defined in his use, is unrelated to what that term means in an academic sense.
He joins a long list of those who seek to straighten out the less intelligent and educated masses, and in the end accomplishes little more than being annoying.
In foreign policy nonconservatives seem to think that the usa has a moral duty to use it's power (military) to spread Democratic ideals. paleocons feel that the military power should only be used to protect vital American interests. In domestic policy neocons feel big government is good if used wisely. Paleocons see government as a necessary evil that should only be used when all else fails.
I've always defined neoconservatives as domestic liberals who are not pu$$ies about foreign policy.
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.