The True Origins of “Neoconservatism”

Lone Star Times ^

[mnehring]

A central contention of those who insist that neoconservatism explains the Iraq War is that the doctrine is not only new but outside the foreign policy traditions that have guided the United States throughout its history. Where, for instance, did the idea of promoting democracy come from? To find an answer, Packer, along with many others, feels he must follow a winding intellectual path back to Leo Strauss, or to Leon Trotsky, or to the Jewish experience after the Holocaust. The point is that the “neoconservative” foreign policy of the Bush years needs to be understood as an alien presence in the American body. The further implication is that once this alien worldview is exorcised, the United States can return to its traditional ways and avoid future Iraqs.

Robert Kagan, of the Kagan intellectual triumvirate, has published an essay in the esteemed journal, World Affairs, questioning the definition and conventional wisdom regarding the origins of what is labeled neoconservatism in America.  He poses the following question for the historical record:

Is this right? Is it true that moralism, idealism, exceptionalism, militarism, and global ambition—as well as imprudent excesses in the exercise of all of these—are alien to American foreign policy traditions? The question must seem absurd to anyone with even a passing knowledge of American history. But then, perhaps, it is also very American to forget the past so willfully.

In recalling the epic battles of competing ideals and principles among Americans, Kagan quotes one prominent citizen declaiming publicly in the best neoconservative tradition, “Let Americans disdain to be the instruments of European greatness!”.  His passionate and eloquent opponent’s response was, in the American voice of neo-isolationism, to accuse the former of attempting to “convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire”.  He further contended, “When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: liberty, sir, was then the primary object.”  This debate could have occurred yesterday in any number of venues in the U.S.A., but it did not.  Those heated words were exchanged more than 200 years ago by Alexander Hamilton and Patrick Henry.

The moral and ethical underpinnings, the weaknesses and strengths of what today is called neoconservatism were born with this nation, have survived under different banners, across political parties and have been variously shared and rejected by all the factions populating American history.  Read the Kagan piece in full.

[Captain Kirk]

Hamilton never couched in terms of spreading representative government. He wanted to annex territory. Are you suggesting we do the same for Iraq? If not, you are a modern Wilsonian.

I agree that Wilson was a scumbag but even the neo-cons admit that he was the founder of the effort to spread to democracy (rather than annex territory) through force of arms. As LBJ would say, Wilson might be scumbag but he's scumbag. Deal with it.

[Captain Kirk]

Fixed

Hamilton never couched the issue in terms of spreading representative government. He wanted to annex territory. Are you suggesting we do the same for Iraq? If not, you are a modern Wilsonian.

I agree that Wilson was a scumbag but even the neo-cons admit that he was the founder of the effort to spread to democracy (rather than annex territory) through force of arms. As LBJ would say, Wilson might be scumbag but he's your scumbag. Deal with it.

[wideawake]

Hamilton never couched in terms of spreading representative government. He wanted to annex territory.

Certainly annexing territory was a hoped-for result.

But what of the heavily inhabited portions of central Mexico?

Would he have wanted to install an absolute monarchy there? Or a representative government that would serve as an ideologically aligned ally? Or would he have wanted to incorporate those Mexicans into the United States?

My guess is that he would have wanted land from Mexico as well as a US-style allied government.

Are you suggesting we do the same for Iraq? If not, you are a modern Wilsonian.

That's an enormous leap.

Iraq does not border the United States and it does not have vast swaths of uninhabited land - Iraq in 2008 and Mexico in 1798 are two very different propositions.

The contemplated liberation of Mexico in 1798 was meant as a strategic maneuver against the French dictatorship. The actual liberation of Iraq is a strategic maneuver against the Iranian dictatorship.

The fate of Iraq from a US perspective comes down to a pragmatic question - the kind of question Hamilton would have asked himself: what is the best way to make Iraq useful to US interests in the future?

The answer in 2008 is to give it a friendly representative government where we can maintain military bases.

Wilson's 14 Points were not based on pragmatism of any kind. The US does not believe that asking Iran, Turkey and Syria to engage in voluntary arms and force reductions is the key to peace in the Middle East.

even the neo-cons admit that he was the founder of the effort to spread to democracy (rather than annex territory) through force of arms

Wilson was not the founder of the idea that it is stupid to annex overseas territory with large, settled populations to the US.

Should the US have annexed Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary? Really?

[wideawake]

he's your scumbag

Not in the slightest. Your argument has degenerated into: "You must agree with Wilson because I say you have to agree with Wilson."

Balderdash.

Wilson actually believed his 14 points would bring perpetual peace to Europe.

Hamilton never indulged such folly.

Wilson was a liberal Democrat and a Jeffersonian. He has nothing to do with me, a conservative Republican and a Hamiltonian.

[Bokababe]

"Ping per previous ping (on Paulville City). Read that one first"

Thanks, interesting article by Kagan, and one which intend to reread when I have a bit more time than I do today to answer more fully. I do, however, commend you for having raised the debate to a higher plane with an article like this!

[mnehring]

I do, however, commend you for having raised the debate to a higher plane with an article like this!

I would never take credit, I am only passing it along.

[Captain Kirk]

Not at all. I argue that Hamilton was an old fashioned imperialist who wanted to make the U.S. stronger by annexing territory not by "spreading democracy." You fail to address this argument or provide counterevidence.

Second, I argue Wilson was the first major politician to call for the spread of democracy through force of arms(without annexation) throughout the world. This is exactly the stated goal of both the president and the neo-cons. You also fail to address this argument or provide counterevidence.

[mnehring]

Wilson had a much different approach than modern 'NeoCons'.
: "Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down…Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused".
'NeoCons' stereotypically say that spreading Democracy is for the benefit of the citizens, to give them the God given rights of freedom, which in turn, benefits all mankind. Wilson stated explicitly he wanted to colonize and 'use' other nations, not really spread freedom.

[wideawake]

You fail to address this argument

I did address it.

What did Hamilton propose to do? Annex all of Mexico?

If so, how would it be governed?

I argue Wilson was the first major politician to call for the spread of democracy through force of arms(without annexation) throughout the world.

Yet Wilson did not say this, nor do it. And the US did not occupy or democratize any European power in WWI.

This is exactly the stated goal of both the president and the neo-cons.

Wrong again.

[rollo tomasi]

While living in Japan my neighbor, who was a pilot, once patrolled the “no fly” zone in Iraq and spoke of his many dealings with Iraqi AA. That right there would be considered a truce breaker, justifying Saddam's butt in jail or death.

In fact Saddam had a bounty for any aircraft shot down. This was back in 2000/2001.

Hippies/anti-defense moon bats are just plain ignorant outside their own little world and big perpetual “high” they are on.

[mnehring]

I argue Wilson was the first major politician to call for the spread of democracy through force of arms...Yet Wilson did not say this

Exactly, he didn't mention 'spreading democracy' he called for colonizing and using other nations (see previous post quote). Big difference between that and freeing oppressed peoples to self govern.

[mnehring]

What's interesting about the 'no fly zone' and cease fire treaty, is that we can look at Federalist 3 to see something that applies.

The JUST causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violation of treaties or from direct violence. America has already formed treaties with no less than six foreign nations, and all of them, except Prussia, are maritime, and therefore able to annoy and injure us. She has also extensive commerce with Portugal, Spain, and Britain, and, with respect to the two latter, has, in addition, the circumstance of neighborhood to attend to....It is of high importance to the peace of America that she observe the laws of nations towards all these powers, and to me it appears evident that this will be more perfectly and punctually done by one national government....
....as either designed or accidental violations of treaties and the laws of nations afford JUST causes of war, they are less to be apprehended under one general government than under several lesser ones, and in that respect the former most favors the SAFETY of the people....
...As to those just causes of war which proceed from direct and unlawful violence, it appears equally clear to me that one good national government affords vastly more security against dangers of that sort than can be derived from any other quarter...

In other words, one of the reasons for the founding (Federalist 3 was establishing international affairs reasons for founding) was that what happened through out the world would effect us because the world was becoming maritime - and that it was often necessary for a government to enforce, for her own good, the laws of nations and treaties (see the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Subsection 10.)

[x]

Not at all. I argue that Hamilton was an old fashioned imperialist who wanted to make the U.S. stronger by annexing territory not by "spreading democracy."

Hamilton certainly believed in a strong America and wouldn't have been opposed to expansion. The strongest supporters of expansionism, though, were Jeffersonians and Jacksonians. For Hamilton the country could always grow by developing its economy. It was his agrarian opponents who had the strongest land hunger.

You can see some of this in the expansionist ideas of "Manifest Destiny" held by many in the mid-19th century. But that was also a strange mix: people who wanted democracies elsewhere in the Americas and the world also wanted the US to take land from Mexico (and from Spain's remaining colonies as well).

They wanted to see the British and Spanish empires overturned, but weren't opposed to slavery or an imperial US. There were limits to how much force they would use. The US Army certainly wasn't going to go meddling in Nicaragua or Honduras in those days, but if an adventurer could form a colony there, the supporters of manifest destiny wouldn't be opposed to annexing it.

All in all, it's not an ancestry today's neocons would cherish.

[bpjam]

was Newt an ‘old lib’?? He was supposed to be King of the NeoCons when we took over Congress.

Hell, I used to be a democrat (we’re all sinners) and so was my wife. Some of my best GOP friends are former democrats. But none of us are ‘neocons’ - at least not to our knowledge.