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 that were the only issue on which their objectives "converged," you might have a point. The problem is that the objectives of the neo-cons also converged with the Bush administration on just about every other hot-button issue that p!sses off real conservatives, too (open borders, massive increases in government spending, etc.).
Ehh??? When was this. S.Korea was in "anarchy" because it was invaded by N.Korea.
I think Paddy Buchanan is calling you. Maybe he will let
you come out and play some other time.
Wow, thanks for that well thought out addition to this thread. Very appreciated.
You're thinking Vietnam. They didn't throw out the government, they assassinated the corrupt president, whom we'd sworn to protect. Though he was corrupt, we gave our word and didn't protect him. Because of that, no other local leader trusted us. Big mistake.
Can't help but agree with that. FDR was a total chickenhawk, and look at all the damage that he did...
That is a tenditious comment, overgeneralized, and thus errant. If anything, neocons tend to be concerned about feckless spending, and saddling the next generation with feckless debt. They are not in love with the greedy geezers. Yes that is a generalization too, but more accurate than yours. What is a fair comment, is that Neocons are not isolationist, or protectionist, and wish the lone superpower while it can, to try to fashion the planet into a better place, to the extent practicable and prudent.
The sentiment I agree with jb6 on is that there is a price in the blood of your nation's finest that we cannot allow to be undervalued.
That's dead on. With one caveat, liberalism is inherently evil and destroys lives (use Detroit as current proof if you need it) and there is not a lot of proof that variants of conservatism will categorically and methodically with a proven predictability destroy a society like clockwork as does leftist action.
Reagan granted Amnesty to millions of illegals and darn near tripled spending. Reagan changed the world for the better, yet by your "REAL CONSERVATIVE" standards, Reagan was a NeoCon... What you are is a pessimist and a isolationist, much like the ultimate right wing pessimist and isolationist, Patrick J. Buchanan
You have no chance to survive. Make your time.
After World War II the country spent 40+ years under totalitarian communist rule -- a historical development that had the full approval of the United States.
Spreading of democracy has brought the Muslim Brotherhood almost into power in Egypt, Hamas in Palistine, islamics in Afghanistan & Pakistan & Iraq. Representative Republics are not fit for all, its not one shoe fits all. We've set ourselves up for a whole new generation of wars. Not like that's anything new.
So in Iraq the neo-cons have succeded in having Islamist nut bags elect Islamist nut bags who want to kill non
islamists Big Victory. Pakistan; lots of Islamist nut bags waiting for a chance to off Mushariff and then use their nukes on Israel and India. Hamas is elected to officaldom
Spreading democracy is working real good.
So I take it you can't argue the issue? Fine, name calling and false patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.
I put 12 years into defending this nation. What was your contribution?
Problem is, neoconservatism is a child of leftist liberalism.
As I mentioned on an earlier post, this is a Paddy Buchanan
disciple. Also NeoCon being the code word for Jew
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.