Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Neoconservative Persuasion: What it was, and what it is.
The Weekly Standard ^ | August 25, 2003 | Irving Kristol

Posted on 08/14/2003 9:38:27 PM PDT by quidnunc

"[President Bush is] an engaging person, but I think for some reason he's been captured by the neoconservatives around him." – Howard Dean, U.S. News & World Report, August 11, 2003

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.

-snip-

(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News
KEYWORDS: irvingkristol; liberalagenda; neocon; neocons; neoconservative
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-166 next last
To: mrustow
Look at Dubya's record. Despite their "small numbers" the neo-con paradigm rules both at home and overseas.
121 posted on 08/18/2003 6:48:23 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: billbears
"A party that in itself was born out of the dreams of a man who wanted an elected king and the federal government to control all."
I am about halfway through a very in-depth book about the history of the Whig party in America. While there is a lot about the Whigs that doesn't mesh with my own political philosophies, I can't say that anything I have read so far squares with your characterization of the Whigs-- especially this last part. Wanted an elected King? My God, the whole basis for the founding of the party was an opposition to the accumulation of power Andrew Jackson was organizing (they derisively called him "King Andrew").

Similarly, this phrase in your reply was just plain wrong as well:

"A party that claims it 'needs' to take care of things private industry could take care of better and cheaper because it won't get screwed up the first time."
The Whigs never stood for this.

What they did stand for, however, was spending government money on projects which private industry simply could not do at the time. There were projects (road development, canals, et al) for which private industry, back in these early days of the country, would not have been capable of raising. Business was simply not concentrated enough back then.

122 posted on 08/18/2003 6:58:52 AM PDT by William McKinley (http://williammckinley.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
I think we should bump this thread every day for the next year.

That was nice and all that Kristol produced 600 words for the Weekly Standard, but this piece is a terrible embarrassment and its clear that most have not caught on to the implications.

Kristol makes the case that neoconservatives are separate and are currently aligned with the administration and religious conservatives, but I noted he made no claim that this would continue.

One can argue that he is basically suggesting that traditional conservatives (or older conservatives as he says) and libertarian conservatives should seek a Third Party or, I assume since the system is rigged, attempt a take over of the Ds. Or is there a second agenda item at play. Is Kristol suggesting that since neoconservatives are separate as a movement, they are the ones free to move (see '92) from party to party?

He also reveals what a Northeast liberal elitist with his explanation of what makes America work:

"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"

He is basically suggesting that economic growth is the only way to make a democracy work to avert endless class warfare. This is both Jacobinism and Marxist analysis.

And here it is naked and exposed by the godfather.


I am not sure how this piece, no matter how manipulated can square with the mission statement on the FR homepage.
123 posted on 08/18/2003 7:05:27 AM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Actually, private enterprise was perfectly capable of building roads. There was an extensive network of well-maintained toll roads throughout the U.S. Daniel Klein an economic historian has researched this.
124 posted on 08/18/2003 7:19:33 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
So the Whigs stood for corporate welfare and crony capitalism, paid for with Southern tariff revenue?
125 posted on 08/18/2003 7:23:25 AM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
They were very skeptical of imperial Presidents.

They were not isolationist, at all. They founded Liberia. They supported western expansion. They extended the Monroe Doctrine to Hawaii.

What they were, however, was very wary of the slavery issue destroying the union. The majority of Whigs (although it was not unanimous) opposed the Annexation of Texas, for example, due to the fact that they feared it would lead to war with Mexico while simultaneously causing the uneasy balance between the north and south in the US to cause the nation to fracture.

It is difficult to look back upon the politics of those days from the perspective of today, because foreign policy played very little role in elections. The crede that all politics are local may be true today, but it was absolutely true back then. Parties won, and lost, elections primarily on issues close to home. And parties often would push very different messages in different parts of the country, taking advantage of the fact that unlike today, what a party was saying in South Carolina might not be heard in New Hampshire. The Whigs in particular would take both sides on an issue- one side to appeal to the Southern states, and one side to appeal to the Northern states.

126 posted on 08/18/2003 7:24:58 AM PDT by William McKinley (http://williammckinley.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Wanted an elected King? My God, the whole basis for the founding of the party was an opposition to the accumulation of power Andrew Jackson was organizing (they derisively called him "King Andrew").

I refer to the beginnings of the party of internal improvers. Hamilton himself argued for an elected king. The Whigs picked up many of his positions along the way. And considering one of their own all but became an elected king....

What they did stand for, however, was spending government money on projects which private industry simply could not do at the time. There were projects (road development, canals, et al) for which private industry, back in these early days of the country, would not have been capable of raising

Exactly, and lining their pockets while they were bankrupting a government

127 posted on 08/18/2003 7:32:12 AM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
You would have made a wonderful Democrat, JohnGalt. That is precisely how Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren and the Democrats parried with the Whigs. Although back then the phrase "corporate welfare" did not exist; the structure of business had not yet evolved to the point where corporations were able to be portrayed as the boogeyman.

Further, the Whigs insulated themselves from charges of crony capitalism by advocating indirect involvement in the development of canals and roads and the deepening of rivers. The tariff monies raised would go to the states. Funded mandates, if you will, rather than unfunded mandates. And despite the ominous sounding rhetoric coming from the Democrats about "Southern tariff revenue", some of the largest support for Whig programs came from the South. North Carolina, for example, badly needed infrastructure in order to have much of the state participate in the market economy. In 1840, the only southern state which did not go Whig was Alabama, for example.

128 posted on 08/18/2003 7:39:03 AM PDT by William McKinley (http://williammckinley.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
I have no doubt the Democrats of the time were equally corrupt, only what you failed to mention is the uncanny ability the Whigs had in securing of all things subsidies for their agricultural (which includes fishing) operations in the North, again with Southern money.

The Whigs always had a way of being one step ahead in bastardizing the spirit of the Constitution, however.

Jackson was the true Anti-Federalists last stand so it is only logical conclude that permanent government would loath him to the extent that they did.
129 posted on 08/18/2003 7:43:08 AM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Uh huh. Right.

Hamilton was not a Whig, and he was dead before the Whigs came to be. Hamilton was a Federalist, the same party as George Washington and John Adams.

As for the Whigs bankrupting the government while lining their pockets, there really is not much evidence to support that contention. For that to be a correct assertion, one should have seen Whigs 'benefitting' from corruption more than Democrats, and the historical record simply does not support that contention.

130 posted on 08/18/2003 7:43:12 AM PDT by William McKinley (http://williammckinley.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Hamilton wasn't a Whig but he almost certainly would have become one had he lived long enough. It was his ideological home....though he probably wouldn't have liked Lincoln's or Harrison's log cabin routines.
131 posted on 08/18/2003 7:45:30 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
Well, I am not here to defend the Whigs. There were some parts to what they did I appreciate, and many I do not.

We disagree wholeheartedly on Andrew Jackson. You see him as being a force against the concentration of power in the hands of the government, and I see the exact opposite.

132 posted on 08/18/2003 7:46:31 AM PDT by William McKinley (http://williammckinley.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
Quite possible. It is also very likely that had John Adams lived that long, he would have become a Whig. And the same goes for George Washington. But that is neither here nor there. They didn't, and if they had they would likely have influenced the party as much as the party would have influenced them.
133 posted on 08/18/2003 7:48:11 AM PDT by William McKinley (http://williammckinley.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
I see Jackson as a cultural challenge to the ruling elite of the day, not as a noble warrior for sound principals of self-government.



134 posted on 08/18/2003 7:53:32 AM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Hamilton was not a Whig, and he was dead before the Whigs came to be.

I realize that!!! My statement was more about his belief systems in line with the Whigs and vie versa. Considering also the 16th President's complete disregard for the Constitution, he was the epitome of what Hamilton would have wanted in an elected king

135 posted on 08/18/2003 7:56:31 AM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
Jackson was the ruling elite of the day. He came into power, and decided to take away power from anything he considered a threat to his power.

There was a national bank? No problem. He'd dissolve it-- and direct the funds to be deposited in banks of his choosing. The legislature is the will of the people? Not any more! Jackson felt he knew better the will of the people than any silly legislature. And so forth.

Jackson was the first politician to successfully exploit class envy to accumulate power.

136 posted on 08/18/2003 8:05:07 AM PDT by William McKinley (http://williammckinley.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: billbears
You anti-Lincoln zealots really need to get a life.
137 posted on 08/18/2003 8:06:22 AM PDT by William McKinley (http://williammckinley.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
That's what I found sound refreshing about him; he did not seem to care about anything, including re-election.

I mean after the Federalist betrayal for everything the Constitution was supposed to stand for in the John Adams administration, the only standard for a President was don't cause Armageddon, and yet the President's who did, (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR) are recalled fondly in government history books. Go figure.
138 posted on 08/18/2003 8:10:11 AM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
What zealot? Look at what he did and compare it to the powers that Hamilton wanted the President to have. Hamilton wanted a king, Clay gave him one through his protege
139 posted on 08/18/2003 8:10:43 AM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Look at what he did?

I do every day, when I see the country still existing.

What zealot? A person who looks back over the Civil War and wishes that the outcome was different.

140 posted on 08/18/2003 8:13:26 AM PDT by William McKinley (http://williammckinley.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-166 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson