Posted on 03/22/2014 11:42:15 AM PDT by Kaslin
In spite of the ease with which the word “conservatism” is thrown about these days, most people who associate with the “conservative” movement are not really conservative at all. In reality, the so-called “conservative” movement is a predominantly (though not exclusively) neoconservative movement.
Contrary to what some neoconservatives would have us think, “neoconservatism” is not an insult, much less an “anti-Semitic” slur. The word, rather, refers to a distinct intellectual tradition—a point for which some neoconservatives, like its famed “godfather,” Irving Kristol, have argued at length.
In The Neoconservative Persuasion, Kristol argues for another claim: neoconservatism and traditional or classical conservatism are very different from one another. “Neocons,” he states, “feel at home in today’s America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not.” Unlike conservatism, neoconservatism is “in the American grain.” And this is because it is “hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic.” Furthermore: “Its twentieth-century heroes tend to be TR [Teddy Roosevelt], FDR [Franklin Delano Roosevelt], and Ronald Reagan,” while “Republican and conservative worthies” like “Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked.”
Neocons view the United States as “a creedal nation” with a “‘civilizing mission’” to promote “American values” throughout the world, to see to it “that other governments respect our conception of individual rights as the foundation of a just regime and a good society.” Kristol is unambiguous in his profession of the American faith: the United States, given its status as a “great power” and its “ideological” nature, does indeed have a responsibility “in those places and at those times where conditions permit” it “to flourish,” to “‘make the world safe for democracy.”
Here, Kristol articulates the foreign policy vision—“Democratic Realism” is what Charles Krauthammer calls it—for which neoconservatism is known. Yet to Kristol’s great credit, he readily concedes what most neoconservatives readily deny: Big Government abroad is, ultimately, inseparable from Big Government right here at home.
Kristol is refreshingly, almost shockingly honest: Neoconservatism, he informs us, endorses “the welfare state.” Its adherents support “social security, unemployment insurance, some form of national health insurance, some kind of family assistance plan, etc.” and will not hesitate “to interfere with the market for overriding social purposes”—even if this requires “‘rigging’” it instead of imposing upon it “direct bureaucratic controls” (emphases added).
As Kristol says, neoconservatives are “always interested in proposing alternate reforms, alternate legislation, [to the Great Society] that would achieve the desired aims”—the eradication of poverty—“more securely, and without the downside effects.” Neoconservatives don’t want to “destroy the welfare state, but…rather reconstruct it along more economical and humane lines.”
In vain will we search the air waves of “conservative” talk radio, Fox News, National Review, Commentary, The Weekly Standard, or any other number of mainstream “conservative” publications for a negative syllable regarding Irving Kristol. Though Kristol, like his son, Bill, is commonly referred to as a “conservative,” he himself not only explicitly embraced neoconservatism as his “persuasion” of choice; Kristol happily embraced the distinction of being “the godfather” of this persuasion.
In other words, if anyone can be said to be the intellectual standard bearer of neoconservatism, it is Irving Kristol.
And yet here he is unabashedly conceding what some of us have long noted and for which we’ve been ridiculed: neoconservatism is every bit as wedded to Big Government as other species of leftism—even if its proponents want to use it in other ways and for other purposes.
Because Obamacare is woefully unpopular, neoconservative Republicans, both in politics and the “conservative” media, have nothing to lose and everything to gain from trashing it. But at this time leading up to the midterm elections, more traditional conservatives would be well served to bear in mind that, in principle, neoconservatives do not object to “some form of national health insurance,” as Kristol tells us.
For all of their talk of “limited government,” traditional conservative voters should remember that, as Kristol states, neoconservatives “endorse the welfare state” and only seek to “reconstruct it along more economical and humane lines.”
For all of their talk of “capitalism” and the free enterprise system, conservative voters should also recall that, as Kristol remarks, neoconservatives will not hesitate to “interfere with the market for overriding social purposes.”
More recently, Douglas Murray, in his, Neoconservatism: Why We Need It, seconds Kristol in admitting that, “socially, economically, and philosophically,” neoconservatism differs in kind from traditional conservatism. In fact, such is the vastness of their differences that he refers to neoconservatism as “revolutionary conservatism.”
If “the conservative movement” is to have a future, it must first be honest about its present identity.
How about we hire Americans, at American companies, which make things for sale in America?
Just saying.
I pass water from a great height on the flat rock of “neo-conservatism”, which is neither of those things. It is as old as the Tower of Babel, and is as conservative as Brave New World.
As usual— another great post by Kaslin.
For myself, I must confess considerable fealty to neoconservatism.
I think the article paints the compromises in too dark of tones and I certainly do not think neoconservatism endorses big government.
I do think the unspecified conservative absolutists have no empirical record or standard. Even the Reagan pretenders concede a vast array of empirical shortfalls on contemporary demands for “true conservatism.”
I do think ethically minded capitalism can reduce poverty. It still shocks me how conservative absolutists refuse to acknowledge that the height of Republican congressional power in the late 1990s successfully bent the trajectory of government and Great Society programs toward the most successful empirical reductions in poverty and the deficit SIMULTANEOUSLY.
The dearth of defense for empirical Republican successes and the fawning over untried conservative absolutism is disheartening.
I have railed to no great end on FR about the golden conservative unicorns that supposedly ride in vast herds throughout the American electorate.
On a more practical note, I think Ted Cruz is America’s best option for 2016.
But frankly, I expect that even he will be torn down by Paulites and absolutists within locales such as FR.
I hope I am wrong about that .
But clearly Cruz’s dad and the heritage of escaping Cuba cannot allow the neo-isolationist demands of current faux conservatism. It will be an interesting dilemma going forward between Paul and Cruz.
Next old Bill will be trying to say the Tea Party are really neo=cons. :-)
What's that doing in there, Kerwick?
Actually the article is not about Bill Kristol, but his father.
It has been reported, on fairly credible authority, that George W. Bush's Second Inaugural Address was actually scripted by a Neocon writer. In order to highlight the real foreign policy issues involved, I put the last former President's remarks, paragraph by paragraph in juxtaposition with the appropriate passages from George Washington's Farewell Address [George Washington vs. George W. Bush.]
Again the Neocon movement is neither new nor Conservative. It goes against some of the most basic principles of American Conservatism.
William Flax
In that definition what I am being told is that folks like W. Krystol and G. Will and a bunch of other DC Bozos want me to foot the bill for their guilt alleviation...... No thanks very much
Maybe it still is.
What do you think Bill Kristol is?
Who remembers back in the early 2000’s, the Weekly Standard was openly cheering big government and deficit spending?
They called it “national greatness conservatism.” They were cooing that the era of conservatives trying to shrink gov’t was over, so we could focus on more important things like starting unnecessary wars to democratize Muslims and throwing open the borders to anyone and everyone.
Neocons lately have been making more of a serious effort to pretend to be conservative on domestic issues, or at least shutting up about them. Don’t be fooled. If Jeb were to become President, the mask would slip and they would be up to the same old tricks.
I disagree with your conclusion but I do like your web page on this question and the analysis that accompanies it.
The comparison between Washington and Bush is fascinating.
Ease up on the scary stories. I'm having lunch here.
Simple definition of what a neocon is...
A former moderate liberal who likes to use american power, especially the military to push american style democracy across the globe...
They joined the republican party because the democrats hate the military...
Kristol Sr. was a New Deal Democrat before he, like many other, defaulted to the Republican side after the Socialists took over the party in the 60’s. They were never samll “C” conservatives. Jean Kirkpatrick was another.
I can do without the socialist programs. Thanks.
Just curious, which tribe do you belong to?
Like “liberal” which has been robbed of its meaning, “conservatism” can have more than one meaning as its commonly used.
I think of myself as part of a classic liberal tradition, rooted in a Biblical worldview. In my opinion, that also describes the Founders and probably most of what we call constitutional conservatives.
Whether that is “conservative” or “paleo” or “neo-conservative” or “radical” as the terms are bandied about depends on the case at hand and the eye of the beholder.
“Classic liberal” constitutionalists don’t always agree with one another on foreign policy; when do you act and when do you take a step back is not always clear to everyone at the same time. But there is a kind of consistency that comes from clarity of principle.
“I think the article paints the compromises in too dark of tones and I certainly do not think neoconservatism endorses big government.”
Well said.
I will take Reagan, Cruz, Palin neoconservatism over Paul, Buchanan libertarianism or paleo in the majority of instances.
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.