Posted on 08/26/2006 12:50:53 PM PDT by Murtyo
Neoconservatism: Why We Need It is a vigorous defence of the most controversial political philosophy of our age. In this timely book Douglas Murray explains what neoconservatism is, in theory and practise. He defends it against its critics and explains why – despite the noisy claims of its opponents - neoconservatism is good.
Murray is the first person to make a sustained case for why neoconservatism is relevant to Britain. And neoconservatism, it is argued, is the future not just of the British Conservative party, but of any political party committed to the ideals of freedom at home and abroad.
This book calls for the introduction of neoconservative ideas into British politics, explaining why this is necessary and how it could be achieved.
The early chapters explain neoconservatism’s roots and forebears. A chapter on the Iraq war demonstrates the moral and political vacuum now gripping both left and right in Britain. Finally Murray details what British neoconservatism should look like and why the need for it is so urgent.
Born in 1979, Murray is a graduate of Magdalen College, Oxford. His first book, Bosie: A Biography of Lord Alfred Douglas, was published in 2000. Acclaimed on both sides of the Atlantic, the book became a bestseller.
I don't know...Wasn't regular old conservatism good enough? Also, those decribed as "neoconservatives" are often into government centralization, globalism, big spending, etc. Not good things.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
If I was to pick the one thing that separates conservatives from neoconservatives it would be the doctrine of preemption. Conservatives, and Paleos for that matter, are both "realists" in foreign policy. i.e. you can do just about anything in your own backyard...just don't do it in my yard.
The doctrine of preemption on the other hand, is very forward thinking and aggressive. And in the era of muslim fanaticism coupled with the proliferation WMDs... give us no other choice, the UN not withstanding... They're a joke.
Why do we need to call it any kind of conservatism? It's good old fashioned patriotism.
British conservatism is different from the conservatism familiar to Americans. It is more like a mix of paleoconservatism and defeatist-we-need-to-accommodate-the-times-Kissenger-realpolitik. When a Briton says neoconservatism, in the British sense it means the Reagan-type American conservatism.
Well, the old Russell Kirk style of conservatism saw man as motivated by passion, imagination, habit, and instinct more than he was motivated by reason. As a result, the old conservatives opposed drastic changes in a society, home or abroad, on the fear that it would unleash the dark side of man.
Neoconservatives, in contrast, believe that rational reasons exist to promote classical economics beyond an aristocracy holding property. They also believe that totalitarianism should be resisted, and like the old conservatives, oppose social engineering.
So neoconservatism is a mix of classical liberalism and conservatism and thus differs from the pure, Burkean conservatism; hence the prefix 'neo'.
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.