The Neoconservative Persuasion: What it was, and what it is.

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.

>You are not going to stop Islamic terror masters by closing the borders or by nuking oil-rich countries run by insane dictators. If the only remaining option is regime change

There's an option you left out - like buying oil from them and not meddling in their affairs or stationing troops on their soil, neither of which is necessary. It's called peaceful relations with all. Also do not forget that the US has a history of regime change in the region and none of it has been successful to date. Chances are continued attempts will only bring more aggrivation than pleasant results.

We seem to think that because of modern technology that we are so far removed from and superior to the founding fathers. The founders were far more learned, insightful, honest and self sacrificing than anyone in modern times and they drew their conclusion from studying the past 5000 years of recorded human experience.

Human nature has never changed and events of the last 200 years should reinforce the views of the founders, not discredit them. I contend that today we suffer from hubris and greed. Greed for the power, prestige and wealth that comes with empire and global domination and hubris in that we think our empire will last when history tells us they all fail. Hubris in that we think our way is the proper way for everyone else and that we can change human nature through bribery or the bayonet.

Methinks it would be best to recognize the perils of the world and wisely avoid getting involved in actions that imperil our liberty and prosperity. It is the job, after all of the government to secure these things not diminish them through overseas adventurism, do-gooderism or flat out greed. Meddling, wars and occupations are costly and risky. Avoiding these and simply engaging in free enterprise is not isolationism as the detractors dishonestly contend. It is prudence.

There is a connection with the welfare state and the warfare state. In the name of national defense we accept higher taxes and regulations. We accept restrictions on our liberties in the name of safety. We accept larger and more intrusive bureaucracies, foreign aid (wealth redistribution), corporate welfare etc., and higher taxes to pay for it all. When the sum of these is added up, even this brief outline here the end product is less freedom and prosperity for us - proving the government has failed in its main purpose.

buying oil from them and not meddling in their affairs or stationing troops on their soil, neither of which is necessary. It's called peaceful relations with all. Also do not forget that the US has a history of regime change in the region and none of it has been successful to date. Chances are continued attempts will only bring more aggrivation than pleasant results.

I think buying oil from them and not meddling in their affairs turned out to be mutually exclusive.

We didn't create the Saudis or Saddam Hussein, except insofar as the propelling of oil to be the most important substance on the planet. The Saudis became the Islamofundie Beverly Hillbillies on the West's nickel. We would have gone on forever happily buying oil and making whoever rich. You make it sound like we went in and started meddling for no reason at all. But unhappily their culture had insufficient institutions to stabilize their countries.

Good thing I take my irony supplement several times a day.

Where is the irony. You aren't saying that we started the war in Iraq, are you?

If you have a problem with the idea that civil, liberated, "democratic" nations are less of a threat then those that aren't, then we live on different planets.

But, of course. The Martians started it.

P.S. I'm not familiar with any "civil, liberated, 'democratic' nations." Care to name a few?

"I think that they would be pleased however, as they learned what government was capable of doing."

Firstly, I had to assure myself that this was not an ironic post. Having reviewed some of your earlier posts, I can plainly see that the statement was not tongue-in-cheek.

"what government was capable of doing,"

Beyond the obvious scornful answer of mass-murder, genocide, destruction through war and confiscation all of the fruits of civilization, I would like to consider what are usually considered the sober answers to this challenge.

Public education: IMHO, the transmission belt of socialist values and practices to the next generation. Disgusting.

Social Welfare: IMHO, the chief means of reducing the citizenry to a class of dependents, with a diminished view of their own capacity to live without government help. Appalling.

Foreign Aid, Environmentalism, Other Worthy Causes: IMHO, robbing the poor people of rich countries, like America, to enrich the Cannibal Kings of poor countries, and to provide a respectable professional income and status to the oozier sort of offspring of the upper classes. Malignant.

Socialism is the enemy of mankind, even when polished up with good old American know-how.

In the real world, people who fit the Neo-Conservative mold are a very small minority in the GOP, its just those with the neo-conservative view point have the most influence on radio talk show and other "conservative media". But ask rank and file Republicans outside the gated communities, while they may not be isolationist on military policy, their views on immigration and globalisim in general are far closer to the paleo-conservative view point then the neo-conservative view point.

**guffaw**

Where would those "rank and file republicans" who believe as you state live? In your trailer park outside the militia compound?

Actually the Brits after W.W.I and with US help after W.W.II ,we two are very responsible for the regimes that exist in the mid-East. Our CIA was active in supporting one group or another all seeking advantage for our oil companies. I'll search a little - could take time as I do not remember the exact titles of the threads but posted here on FR there were some nice little articles reviewing our history in the region. When I find them I'll post a link.

>But unhappily their culture had insufficient institutions to stabilize their countries.

True they are nuts, that I do not deny. Still the oil is on their land. We should deal with whoever is in charge and not seek to other throw him to get a better deal or because we don't approve of his politics. In the mean time while suffering with their nuttiness we could look for other sources.(BTW that is why we are going into Liberia - to stabilize western Africa to develop its oil production, not just Nigeria. It is speculated there is oil in Liberia as well).

Imagine this scenario. Here in the US the Democrats (antibusiness nutcases) hurt foreign corporations through their policies. What if another country decided to sponsor a coup (regime change, new system of government and all) to get a better deal for their companies. I'll bet conservatives wouldn't like the idea very much even if the end result was getting rid of the Democrats. Point is we should not be surprised the Arabs don't like us even if their wealth comes from the west. What I am saying is that we have not handled ourselves wisely in the past and now we are paying for it.

posted here on FR there were some nice little articles reviewing our history in the region. When I find them I'll post a link

Thank you very much.

BTW I am not totally unaware of our past "meddling", but I may have Polyannized a bit.

No need for hypotheticals. Didn't PRC make massive contributions to DNC under Clinton? Foreign countries are much more likely to meddle in favor of the Crats. We don't like it, but we don't blow up their people over it.

I deal in realities of the present.

In other words, you just accept things as they are and have no desire to change them?

Your idealistic utopia is just as silly as the liberal interpretation of what life should be.

What you call an "idealistic utopia" is simply the vision passed down by our forefathers. Was their dream of a constitutional republic idealistically utopian? As a realist, I happen to believe that what once was could be again. When we resign ourselves to simply accept the realities of bloated government, out-of-control spending and socialist programs, we might as well call it quits. If liberty is thrown by the wayside, what's left to fight for?

I can't imagine someone like Patrick Henry being pleased with what our government is capable of doing today.

Looking at the variety of responses I received, I believe that my post was not entirely understood, judging by some of the reactions. Your posts have been very thoughtful however.

I don't have the time to respond point by point, but you made good arguments.

My primary reason for saying that the founders would be pleased was to state what I believe their intent was. I firmly believe that their belief in freedom and their attempt to write a constitution that guaranteed it for all was in response to the tyranny that they and their families had experienced in the past and under a horrible government and a social hierarchy that favored money and position only, to the exclusion of all else.

They had no freedoms and were at the mercy of government or the social system that recognized only names and positions. We certainly have lost some freedoms, but I did not advocate any position that leads to that. The States have done a excellent job of doing it without my help or even my vote. They have taken issue with every death and added some BS law to prevent it. Most all of the loss of freedoms have been done in the interest of public safety. I did not advocate it and I call it what it is, bull-crap!

Also, the oceans protected us then and no longer does. The reach of terrorists drives that home every day. We cannot protect our shores and remain a free and open country so we must go to where to problems are and eliminate them as best we can.

As to the success or failure of that effort, no person can say, but we know what will happen if we do not try. America has never taken territory when it has defended it's own, but I think we need to change that statistic. It is either that, or we will need to hire help.

You know, many of you guys really just do not see the real world, and think that the bulk of people who consider themselves conservative and vote GOP share the opinions found on the WSJ editorial pages and National Review, and as expressed by Limbaugh, and sorry to say, that is not reality.

If one ran a poll of GOP voters, my guess is between 80-90% of them would want immigration dramatically reduced, and a solid majority of them have grave reservations about globalism. You little snide remark about a trailer park or militia compund really show how many self professed neo-conservatives are not in the real world. FYI, these people are middle class, live in the suburbs, and in many cases their parents, or even themselves used to be Democrats untill they could no longer tolerate the Democratic partys stand on race, abortion and guns.

Insult all you want, but if you drum all the people who disagree with the happy face neo-conservative line out of the GOP, the GOP would probably have less than 120 house seats and less than 30 senate seats.

I believe that if the founders were alive today they would have revolted years ago. Depending how you figure 40%-50-% of your income goes to the government through taxes and fees. Then there are the taxes onbusiness that raise the cost of products once again hurting people's pocket books. Back in colonial times I think they paid 2% or 3% in taxes and revolted against that.

Could you imagine what the founder would think of property taxes? I have to pay the government 200 bucks each week just to have them allow me to live on my own property. In short it ain't my property. Neither is your income yours when the government claims first right to it and decides how much they will let you keep. The founders understood there was a link between liberty and property.

I shouldn't have to point out that today's legislators have contempt for the constitution and I won't bother to list all the busybuddy regulations that plague us but how about something like needing a permit to put siding on your own home and then having your taxes raised for improving your home. We live under a tryanny the founders couldn't imagine in their worst nightmares. Funny thing is we congratulate ourselves on being the freest country on earth. The sad thing is that conservatives used to rail against these things but the crowd in charge now sees it all as a good thing - see my above posts using their own words to prove my point.

Sure, we have been over taxed, but the trend my friend is down and not up.(federal system)

I have no idea what your age is, but prior to Reagan the taxes were killing me. rates were as high as 70% for the so called rich. You are aware, I suppose, what they are now.

So, let's get down to the real problem with taxes and the real people who usurp the majority of rights, raise taxes without a vote and blame the federal government throughout the process.

It is the gold digging State legislature. The one entity that we are supposed to have some hands on control over and the one entity that right arguments always regard as shortchanged by the federals.

Look close to home and you will see who is spending huge amounts of money and growing at a rate that far exceeds the fed.

This is where I see the tax boogie man. This is where I see most of the discretionary federal budget being tapped off to. ("Like the Big Dig")

And how about the education dollar the medicaid fraud and the mis-appropriated highway funds.

Now they are screwing the government for homeland security and even the recent blackout. It never stops.

I see Bill O' reilly pounding his desk on FOX about the lack of federal support as we speak.

We can never control spending in the federal system without getting control of the states spending habits, unions and lawyers.

My believes that federal government has some responsibilities to maintain a safety net for old age(Social Security). Attempt to help regarding health and education. as well as provide for defense has been the norm since the 1930s. It is not going away and will grow as a matter of fact, but this aid to the states has gone far beyond anything ever contemplated and has caused states, (even my own) to no longer be responsible for their own actions. It has become a joke.

He's describing Whigs.

Well put. A party that claims it knows what's best for you and the rest of the citizens of the respective states than the citizens themselves. 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. Tell that to the road crews working out on that same stretch of highway for the forty fifth time because it wasn't done right the previous forty four times on government contracts.

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

Of course not Irving. You will tell us when we've gone too far, right? You know better than the rest of us so you take care of us until we're so far down that road you speak of that when you tell us we've gone too far, it'll be too late for anyone to help

You're right William, a party of Whigs. 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. Guess he got his wish didn't he?

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.