The Neoconservative Persuasion

Weekly Standard ^ | 2003 | Irving Kristol

[churchillbuff]

WHAT EXACTLY IS NEOCONSERVATISM? Journalists, and now even presidential candidates, speak with an enviable confidence on who or what is "neoconservative," and seem to assume the meaning is fully revealed in the name. Those of us who are designated as "neocons" are amused, flattered, or dismissive, depending on the context. It is reasonable to wonder: Is there any "there" there?

Even I, frequently referred to as the "godfather" of all those neocons, have had my moments of wonderment. A few years ago I said (and, alas, wrote) that neoconservatism had had its own distinctive qualities in its early years, but by now had been absorbed into the mainstream of American conservatism. I was wrong, and the reason I was wrong is that, ever since its origin among disillusioned liberal intellectuals in the 1970s, what we call neoconservatism has been one of those intellectual undercurrents that surface only intermittently. It is not a "movement," as the conspiratorial critics would have it. Neoconservatism is what the late historian of Jacksonian America, Marvin Meyers, called a "persuasion," one that manifests itself over time, but erratically, and one whose meaning we clearly glimpse only in retrospect.

Viewed in this way, one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy. That this new conservative politics is distinctly American is beyond doubt. There is nothing like neoconservatism in Europe, and most European conservatives are highly skeptical of its legitimacy. The fact that conservatism in the United States is so much healthier than in Europe, so much more politically effective, surely has something to do with the existence of neoconservatism. But Europeans, who think it absurd to look to the United States for lessons in political innovation, resolutely refuse to consider this possibility.

Neoconservatism is the first variant of American conservatism in the past century that is in the "American grain." It is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic. Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked. Of course, those worthies are in no way overlooked by a large, probably the largest, segment of the Republican party, with the result that most Republican politicians know nothing and could not care less about neoconservatism. Nevertheless, they cannot be blind to the fact that neoconservative policies, reaching out beyond the traditional political and financial base, have helped make the very idea of political conservatism more acceptable to a majority of American voters. Nor has it passed official notice that it is the neoconservative public policies, not the traditional Republican ones, that result in popular Republican presidencies One of these policies, most visible and controversial, is cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth. Neocons are familiar with intellectual history and aware that it is only in the last two centuries that democracy has become a respectable option among political thinkers. In earlier times, democracy meant an inherently turbulent political regime, with the "have-nots" and the "haves" engaged in a perpetual and utterly destructive class struggle. It was only the prospect of economic growth in which everyone prospered, if not equally or simultaneously, that gave modern democracies their legitimacy and durability. The cost of this emphasis on economic growth has been an attitude toward public finance that is far less risk averse than is the case among more traditional conservatives. Neocons would prefer not to have large budget deficits, but it is in the nature of democracy--because it seems to be in the nature of human nature--that political demagogy will frequently result in economic recklessness, so that one sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth. It is a basic assumption of neoconservatism that, as a consequence of the spread of affluence among all classes, a property-owning and tax-paying population will, in time, become less vulnerable to egalitarian illusions and demagogic appeals and more sensible about the fundamentals of economic reckoning.

This leads to the issue of the role of the state. Neocons do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state and are happy to study alternative ways of delivering these services. But they are impatient with the Hayekian notion that we are on "the road to serfdom." Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his "The Man Versus the State," was a historical eccentricity. People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today's America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not. Though they find much to be critical about, they tend to seek intellectual guidance in the democratic wisdom of Tocqueville, rather than in the Tory nostalgia of, say, Russell Kirk.

But it is only to a degree that neocons are comfortable in modern America. The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives--though not with those libertarian conservatives who are conservative in economics but unmindful of the culture. The upshot is a quite unexpected alliance between neocons, who include a fair proportion of secular intellectuals, and religious traditionalists. They are united on issues concerning the quality of education, the relations of church and state, the regulation of pornography, and the like, all of which they regard as proper candidates for the government's attention. And since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power. Because religious conservatism is so feeble in Europe, the neoconservative potential there is correspondingly weak.

AND THEN, of course, there is foreign policy, the area of American politics where neoconservatism has recently been the focus of media attention. This is surprising since there is no set of neoconservative beliefs concerning foreign policy, only a set of attitudes derived from historical experience. (The favorite neoconservative text on foreign affairs, thanks to professors Leo Strauss of Chicago and Donald Kagan of Yale, is Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War.) These attitudes can be summarized in the following "theses" (as a Marxist would say): First, patriotism is a natural and healthy sentiment and should be encouraged by both private and public institutions. Precisely because we are a nation of immigrants, this is a powerful American sentiment. Second, world government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny. International institutions that point to an ultimate world government should be regarded with the deepest suspicion. Third, statesmen should, above all, have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies. This is not as easy as it sounds, as the history of the Cold War revealed. The number of intelligent men who could not count the Soviet Union as an enemy, even though this was its own self-definition, was absolutely astonishing.

Finally, for a great power, the "national interest" is not a geographical term, except for fairly prosaic matters like trade and environmental regulation. A smaller nation might appropriately feel that its national interest begins and ends at its borders, so that its foreign policy is almost always in a defensive mode. A larger nation has more extensive interests. And large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns. Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal. That is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II. That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.

Behind all this is a fact: the incredible military superiority of the United States vis-à-vis the nations of the rest of the world, in any imaginable combination. This superiority was planned by no one, and even today there are many Americans who are in denial. To a large extent, it all happened as a result of our bad luck. During the 50 years after World War II, while Europe was at peace and the Soviet Union largely relied on surrogates to do its fighting, the United States was involved in a whole series of wars: the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Kosovo conflict, the Afghan War, and the Iraq War. The result was that our military spending expanded more or less in line with our economic growth, while Europe's democracies cut back their military spending in favor of social welfare programs. The Soviet Union spent profusely but wastefully, so that its military collapsed along with its economy.

Suddenly, after two decades during which "imperial decline" and "imperial overstretch" were the academic and journalistic watchwords, the United States emerged as uniquely powerful. The "magic" of compound interest over half a century had its effect on our military budget, as did the cumulative scientific and technological research of our armed forces. With power come responsibilities, whether sought or not, whether welcome or not. And it is a fact that if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you.

The older, traditional elements in the Republican party have difficulty coming to terms with this new reality in foreign affairs, just as they cannot reconcile economic conservatism with social and cultural conservatism. But by one of those accidents historians ponder, our current president and his administration turn out to be quite at home in this new political environment, although it is clear they did not anticipate this role any more than their party as a whole did. As a result, neoconservatism began enjoying a second life, at a time when its obituaries were still being published.

[nopardons]

JFK got us into the Nam War.The war protesters never stopped protesting from the beginnings of the rabid,Communist paid for/run ban-the-bomb movement;which began in earnest just after WW II.

The anti-war protesters didn't just "show up",at the end/when Nixon was president.

An accurate knowledge of history helps.:-)

[asmith92008]

First of all, Soviet citizens had to show identification papers. The fact that Nazi citizens faced the same situation does not mean the Soviets did not. Soviet communism and National Socialism shared the same ideological basis, so it is not shocking that the systems shared similar features. By thew way, where does one find "the Internet rules?" Are they published by Hoyle? Adapted from Roberts Rules of Order?

Secondly, I never said Hamilton was President. He was, however, the first Secretary of the Treasury and is acknowledged as having been the architect of America's early economic development. I didn't even mention Jefferson, though I agree with you about the fact that he was far too enamored with the French revolutionaries and the nation is far better off for his having been overruled (in no short measure thanks to Hamilton, who accomplished much even without being President!). Yet I'm still scratching my head as to the relevance of the Jefferson discussion or the Monroe "DOCTORINE." And how Hearst and TR have anything to do with this, I'm at a loss.

Thirdly, at the time of the Revolution, America was an agrarian nation with little industry. It was only after Hamilton developed his report on manufacturing and worked hard to plunder European industrial secrets that we started to become an economic power. Now maybe its just me, but a nation that was mostly farming in nature and teetered on defaulting its debts for several years sounds suspicviously Third World to me. Of course, that could be an idiosyncratic definition and far be it from me to get into yet another semantic (and pedantic) debate with you.

As to whether America was considered a "force," there is the small matter of the fact that we put down the Barbary pirates when the Europeans were still paying them blackmail. Though we were not the power that we are today, or after World war I, we were certainly not pussycats.

[CWOJackson]

Tell us how yours is doing. Perhaps we can get the rest of the anti-war "majority kamp" on a similar program.

[nopardons]

That's good to hear. :-)

[nopardons]

Thanks for the heads up...I listen to Mark everyday and have him on now.:-)

I could NEVER listen to Crowley and I'm delighted that ABC gave Mark a second hour.

[churchillbuff]

all in perspective.

If you think gun-grabbing and high taxes aren't priority-one issues, I wonder what freedoms you think our military exists to defend. anyway, you won't issue a single sentence to say you agree with the Republican Platform, when it comes to life, family, tax and regulatory issues. the fact you say these aren't "priorities" makes it clear that you're a liberal, and that (although you won't admit it to your fellow freepers) you take Kerry's side on most issues. you see, only liberals don't think these issues are important.

Liberals see no priority in saving babies from abortionists, or in saving taxpayers from ruinous taxation, or in saving the family structure from homosexual militants, or in saving equal rights from racial quotas. You and Michael Moore agree that these aren't top priority issues.

Thanks for revealing yourself as an undercover liberal !

[21st Century Man]

The anti-Vietnam War movement didn't get a head of steam until 68' for all intensive purposes and by then the VietCong had plans in place that made it impossible for us to defeat them without invading North Vietnam in force.

The DemoRATs balked and the rest was history.

Iraq may suffer a similar fate unless we have the wherewithal to invade Syria and Iran.

That is if we don't run out of money first.

[CWOJackson]

Nothing undercover about you at all there Chamberlainbuff...you're working your anti-war BS out in the open.

But nice try at trying to change the subject and run away from your agenda. It isn't working of course, but neither is your agenda.

[nopardons]

It is always,in movies about the Nazis,that the "papers please" line appears.

The "NAZI RULE" on the net,is well know,was posted,for at least the 1,000th time,just last week,on FR.I didn't make it up.

I know all about Hamilton;no need to attempt to "fill me in" about him.LOL

My other references,were to show that our leaders have NOT really been isolationists.

Most nations were mostly agrarian based,at the time America became America.We were also looked down upon,by the "first world powers",until after WW II,due to their perceptions of our lack of sophistication,intellectual lack,and no,even our "goods" were seen as inferior,for the most part.

Ummmmmmmmm...after Jefferson sent what was to become our Marines,after the Barbary Pirates and claiming that we wouldn't pay "bribes"...guess what? WE DID PAY BRIBES! That's a fact.

Would you care for a wee book list?

[churchillbuff]

You're talking to CWOJackson as one of "us," as if you assume he's a conservative. All he's revealed is that he's for the war in Iraq. That doesn't necessarily mean he's a conservative, because Dick Gephart and, indeed, John Kerry also supported the invasion, and neither favor withdrawal. So Iraq is not a liberal/conservative litmus test; there are supporters of the invasion from both camps.

So how can we assume Jackson's conservative? He refuses to say where he stands on any domestic issue - taxes, abortion, "gay marriage," quotas, environmental regulation. Just because he's pro-Iraq-war is no reason to assume he's not a moderate Democrat or an unaffiliated voter who leans to the left on most issues.

[21st Century Man]

I'd say you've changed the subject to fit your agenda, CWO.

In fact, I'd also say it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're about as conservative as Kerry - Who also wanted us in war with Iraq.

Self-delusion is a sign of of an inability to cope with reality.

Face it Jack, you're a closet liberal.

[CWOJackson]

Mistaken again there Chamberlainbuff. Not just supportive of our troops and the war they are fighting, but also I'm opposed to those who attempt to undermine their morale or our national resolves. That would be defeatists like you.

[CWOJackson]

Sure thing there "true" conservative...don't worry yourself. There are a lot of good Americans in uniform fighting for your sorry butt.

[21st Century Man]

Your papers please.

[Stalinist phrase intended]

Funny thing is, you can't go anywhere in America without your "papers", that is unless you're an illegal alien.

[MEG33]

Iraq is not a quagmire.

[CWOJackson]

So you never did say anything Zinni's financial dealings. Pretty good deal. Possible $8.8 million profit off the body of each USS Cole sailor.

[nopardons]

Erronious historical "facts",dubious analogy vis-a-vis our being in Iraq and/or what'll happen there,and constant defeatism only plays into the hands of our enemies.

[21st Century Man]

"There are a lot of good Americans in uniform fighting for your sorry butt."

My butt can fend for itself, and it isn't sorry about it in the least, thank you very much!

Oh man, if I lowered myself to your level of yellow-forum ethics Jack, I could really go places with your comment considering the recent news in Iraq.

[21st Century Man]

I disagree, and according to recent polls so do a majority of Americans.

[nopardons]

HUNH?

We can't go anywhere in America,without being asked for our papers? Gee...we went on vacation a month ago and no one,NO ONE at all,asked to "see my papers";not in ANY state we drove through!