Posted on 04/20/2007 1:08:45 PM PDT by Sleeping Beauty
THE American legal system has rediscovered the virtue of one of the most ancient forms of punishment—public humiliation. Prostitutes' “Johns” can now have their names aired on television. Mail thieves can find themselves wearing a sandwichboard giving full details of their crime. And people who deface Nativity scenes can end up parading through town accompanied by a donkey.
And neoconservatives? These too, it seems, are now being subjected to a grand exercise in public humiliation. Paul Wolfowitz is hanging on to his job at the World Bank by his fingernails. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, a Wolfowitz protégé, is facing prison; Douglas Feith, who worked with Mr Wolfowitz at the Pentagon, is an “untouchable” who is floating around the margins of academia.
As for their patrons, Donald Rumsfeld, Mr Wolfowitz's patron, was sacked from the Pentagon amid accusations that he had lost the Republicans their majority. Dick Cheney is so unpopular that he has provoked protests even at Brigham Young University, a Mormon redoubt which is as conservative as they come. Conrad Black, one of the movement's most generous sugar daddies, is on trial for fraud. It seems that those whom the gods wish to punish they first make neocons.
Neoconservativism is not entirely finished as a political force. George Bush rejected the Baker-Hamilton report on Iraq, which favoured early withdrawal and diplomacy, in favour of the neocon-designed “surge”. Elliott Abrams is a deputy at the National Security Council. Mr Cheney is proving no more destructible than Lord Voldemort. John McCain is blowing loudly on the neocon trumpet; Rudy Giuliani, having flirted with “realists”, has decided to stick with neocon foreign-policy advisers.
The neocons are being relentlessly marginalised in Washington. Condoleezza Rice is returning to her “realist” roots at the State Department, now that Mr Rumsfeld is out of her hair and Mr Cheney is weakened. She has embraced “shuttle diplomacy” in Israel-Palestine, signalled her willingness to talk to Syria and Iran, and has even been polite about the United Nations. The rising generation of policy intellectuals regards a reputation for neoconservatism as professional death.
They are also being marginalised—or at least slapped down a bit—within the conservative movement.
The “paleocons” have always disliked the neocons, sometimes (disgracefully) just because they are Jewish. But now they are being joined by conservatives of almost every other stripe. Realists dislike them for their destabilising foreign policy. Small-government types dislike them for their indifference to government spending. Libertarians dislike them for their preoccupation with using the state to impose virtue.
Why does the movement seem so discredited? Partly for practical reasons. They misread intelligence about WMD and links between al-Qaeda and Saddam (though some still believe in both notions). They bungled the war in Iraq. They had little real experience of either the Arab world or soldiering. Many of them were even poor managers. Gary Schmitt, a fellow neocon, complained of Mr Feith that he “can't manage anything, and he doesn't trust anyone else's judgment”. General Tommy Franks describes him as the “dumbest f**king guy on the planet”.
Betraying the founders
But, more important, neocons have been discredited for ideological reasons. Most of the recent mistakes can be traced back not just to flawed execution but to flawed thinking. The neocons argued that democracy might be an antidote to the Middle East's problems: but democracy proved too delicate a plant. They claimed that the assertion of American power might wipe out “Vietnam syndrome”: but it has ended up making America more reluctant to intervene abroad. They talked about linking American power with American ideals: but it turned out, at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, that power can corrupt those ideals.
The tragedy of neoconservatism is that the movement began as a critique of the arrogance of power. Early neocons warned that government schemes to improve the world might well end up making it worse. They also argued that social engineers are always plagued by the law of unintended consequences. The neocons have not only messed up American foreign policy by forgetting their founders' insights. They may also have put a stake through the heart of their own movement.
As a strict conservative (and libertrian), I feel betrayed by the neocons. Their wild spending, massive debt, huge government, nation-building.
What's worse, I fear that the neocons are going to cost true conservatives the 2008 elections. That really bothers me because I believe most Americans are truly conservative -- and they no longer see the Republicans as they kind of conservatives they believe in.
What's your take on conservatives vs. neocons?
Or, do you draw a distinction between the two?
I stay away from the word - the liberals use it as an anti-Semitic slur.
However, I completely disagree with the author's take on foreign policy.
Barf, with two gagging sounds.
I did not know that. Although this article does mention such an issue -- the authors of the original neocon foreign policy document at PNAC were mostly Jewish.
> What’s your take on conservatives vs. neocons?
“a house divided against itself cannot stand.”
Remember that the liberals are unprincipled and that is the only thing that they have in common. But it is enough: they will prefer to hang together than to hang separately.
Conservatives, on the other hand, will get distracted by how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin. And they will draw battle lines against each other and against all opposition on that basis.
IMO the conservatives need to sink their differences and unite, otherwise face electoral oblivion in 2008.
I totally agree. There seems to be a pulling apart in Washington -- with a number of defections by Republicans. There is also a lot of Republican distancing going on. They are quiet about the persecution of Libby, Gonzales, et al.
Even today, Bush announced he was selecting a replacement for Wolfowitz. Who asked him to do that???
I hope there is a winning strategy behind all this.
Certainly both conservatives and neocons are in agreement on that! Cutting social spending is an absolute priority. As far as domestic policy goes, the neocons have it right. It's their foreign policy spending that bothers strict conservatives.
Cite on that Bush announcement? I don’t think that’s true..I saw title and gossip that he was making up a list of potenital replacements but nothing but support from the President.
I saw a headline here about that, mentioning an Afgan replacement. So, I've been following it. There are several new articles. Here's one:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21590994-2703,00.html
I HOPE it's not true, as I said above. Why would Bush do that, when just yesterday he was supporting Wolfowitz? If it does turn out to be so -- then it speaks to the article at the top of this page -- and there is definite distancing going on.
In the long run, this could be good thing for 2008.
Tea leaf reading, not an announcement by Bush. Paulson twice reiterated his support for Wolfowitz. Must he say the same thing every day for fear of some newsie opining that he’s “distancing “himself?
An interesting subject, but a slick, dumb article in my opinion. Here are a few things that didn’t make much sense to me. Maybe this can help get things started.
1. “Early neocons warned that government schemes to improve the world might well end up making it worse.”
This doesn’t compute with me. I thought that that the major distinction separating the neocons from older conservative movements was that the neocons wanted greater involvement with the rest of the world (both economic and military) while the traditional conservatives tended to be isolationists (although the latter also favor a strong national self-defense posture). Or, as Pat Buchanan puts it, American Empire (neoconservatism) vs American Republic.
2. “They (the neocons) also argued that social engineers are always plagued by the law of unintended consequences.”
This is true of any conservative. A strong aversion to possible unintended consequences virtually defines the conservative philosophy in general.
3. “The tragedy of neo-conservatism is that the movement began as a critique of the arrogance of power”.
What? Is the writer getting neo-conservatism confused with libertarians?
3. “The tragedy of neo-conservatism is that the movement began as a critique of the arrogance of power”. What? Is the writer getting neo-conservatism confused with libertarians?
Thanks harold. You're a critical thinker. Glad to meet you.
I'm not sure about point 2, but you hit the nail on the head with 1 and 3.
the neocons wanted greater involvement with the rest of the world -- Exactly. Either the author has this wrong or I don't know as much as I thought about the issue.
As for point 3, the movement began as a critique of the arrogance of power -- I missed that. In the back of my mind I was thinking about "drowning big government in the bathtub" -- but that's not what the author is saying.
Good catch. I thought The Economist was sharper than that, editorially.
As for this point -- I believe the author is saying that the neocons betrayed their own philosophy (in Iraq) and betrayed genuine conservatives to a severe degree. In essence -- the neocons served the Republicans a mortal blow as far as political strength in America goes.
Actually, if my memory serves me, the surge was announced just weeks after the Baker-Hamilton report came back (reccommending a withdrawl). The surge was a brain-child of Bush's inner circle (probably led by Cheney, who authored the neocon foreign policy). Patraeus was confirmed afterward.
“Many people see Messrs Kristol and Krauthammer as exhibits in a Ripley’s Believe It or Not exhibition”
I’m more inclined to put the Economist in that exhibition. When I read Krauthammer’s column, I am almost always in agreement with him. If that makes me a neocon, so be it.
Article translation:
When the going gets tough...blame it on the Jews.
I'm a big Krauthammer fan, as well. I think the author was suggesting that this neocon spokesman has shifted back to realistic conservatism -- without suffering any ill effects from the problems that the neocons dumped into Bush's lap.
I believe that is the point that the author was making:
The “paleocons” (Goldwater-type conservatives) have always disliked the neocons, sometimes (disgracefully) just because they are Jewish.
In this case, you and the author are in agreement -- because he believes this is still going on.
I don't think the Dems make a distinction between neocons and conservatives. They are all "Republicans" to them. The distinction is being made within the Republican party, itself.
Thanks for the reply. Regarding #2, ‘“They (the neocons) also argued that social engineers are always plagued by the law of unintended consequences.”
This is true of any conservative. A strong aversion to possible unintended consequences virtually defines the conservative philosophy in general.’
For a basic discussion of conservative thought, google Edmund Burke (Great Anglo-Irish conservative philosopher).He’s a good starting point for a definition of conservatism.
Here’s quote from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism";:
“Burke argued that tradition is a much sounder foundation than ‘metaphysical abstractions.’ Tradition draws on the wisdom of many generations and the tests of time, while “reason” may be a mask for the preferences of one man, and at best represents only the untested wisdom of one generation. Any existing value or institution has undergone the correcting influence of past experience and ought to be respected.”
In Burkes words: “We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason, because we suspect that this stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and ages. Many of our men of speculation, instead of exploding general prejudices, employ their sagacity to discover the latent wisdom which prevails in them. If they find what they seek, and they seldom fail, they think it more wise to continue the prejudice, with the reason involved, than to cast away the coat of prejudice, and to leave nothing but naked reason; because prejudice, with its reason, has a motive to give action to that reason, and an affection which will give it permanence.”
As for change: As Burke wrote, “A state without the means of change is without the means of its conservation.” The Wikipedia article on Burke continues: “An attempt to modify the complex web of human interactions that form human society, for the sake of some doctrine or theory, runs the risk of running afoul of the iron law of unintended consequences. Burke advocates vigilance against the possibility of moral hazards. For conservatives, human society is something rooted and organic; to try to prune and shape it according to the plans of an ideologue is to invite unforeseen disaster.”
So, conservatives tend to change things in an interactive manner, half a step at a time, watching for unintended consequences. Liberals see social institutions as a machine. Throw away a “defective” part and replace it with a “better” one, with perhaps too little regard to side effects.
I see this.
I believe that the neocon foreign policy (which may have done some harm to conservative principles) remains undefined in this context. It seems to be an extreme of both liberal and conservative forms of social engineering. We may be living through what history will call a "wild social experiment."
Now, back to Burke...
I think it’s a matter of trying not to repeat the mistakes of WWI, WWII, and Vietnam.
gee thanks.
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.