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.
Indeed, we need real conservatives to shrink government and cut taxes.
Just some more of we have a plan. We would do it all, better.
Your rebuttal in posting #172 was fair and I believe accurate. I am an observer on this post. I cannot really offer anything that will not already have been said, other then I continue to have concerns (deep seating, based on years back readings on lets say CFR, Bretton Woods, round table, etc..), how all these recent administrations seem to privately and publically align with the "new world order/one world government" scheme. But I realize we live in a brave new world.
We can't take out the Saudis; we need the Saudi madrasses to establish an elective class in "How to be a stevedore" to work here in their leased terminals.
Sorry, faulty analysis is worthless, as we see here. Trotskyites, like all leftists, ultimately wish to impose totalitarianistic idealism, because "they know better and can do it better". It is not possible to "impose" the self rule of democracy and human rights. Liberation is a more apt word. More wasted ink and electrons.
(You forgot to add nationalising industries)
In tsarist Russia, the great Fyodor Dostoevsky twice did time in prison - serious time - for speech crimes. The first time he was in with one of the many progressive groups. The second time was after he had evolved into a "conservative."
" Less government, more guns... most excellence!"
YAY!!!
...and more ammo too :)
At least SOMEONE gets it! Stockpile that ammo now and start "oiling your garden." Once Hitlery gets into the office, it's gonna be like peeing uphill.
"The VOICE OF MOSCOW Strikes Again! "
ROTFLMdupaO
You have an awful lot of confidence in that -- probably without any basis for it.
1) Supply-side, free trade, lower taxes, privatization. Adam Smith on a global scale. 2) call evil by its name, drain the swamps, bully foreign powers and alliances, even the UN, into doing their jobs.
Can you name a single policy of this administration that fits a "supply-side" view of economics? How do the softwood lumber and steel tariffs imposed by this administration qualify as "free trade?"
"Call evil by its name?" LOL. It's hard to take anyone seriously when their approach to "calling evil by its name" is so wrapped up in political correctness.
bump
Here are my problems with neoconservatism:
* Assumes global and universal appeal of commercially oriented, laissez faire systems. T'would be great if it were true, but it's not.
* Makes an overt, ongoing effort to discredit Clausewitzian strategy and truths.
* Lacks the stones to draw down dependency fomenting social "welfare" programs - witness the lack of spine on Social Security
* Fails to call out bad behavior perpetrated by anti Western great powers with bold and precise language, meanwhile obsesses about lack of democracy in 2nd and 3rd tier nation states
* Completely ignores the lessons of WW2 - the precursors, the things that worked well, the things that did not, and the utterly poor way the US and UK dealt with Europe in 1945 leaving loose ends and an Iron Curtin
* Is utterly naive about the rising, procrustean, genocidal forces who want to exterminate Jews, British and Americans.
Another C&F classic.... LOL!
The CIA got duped into not opposing Ba'ath. By 1970, they fully realized their error.
"Sending other's sonds off"? You sound like a hippy. But at least you're not a neocon.
Very late coming to this, but the carcasses are still smoking from a double ZOT!
Both "jb6" and "Pragmatist" both felt the personal wrath.
Somehow I just can't grieve over the loss.;)
http://www.representativepress.org/ChomskyInterview.html
Noam is featured..Good Grief!!
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.