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.
Of course, I expect the paleocons to have their usual conniptions over this article.
Hmmmmm.... Kristol makes it sound like some kind of transgendered "alternative lifestyle".
How is anything in the neocon playbook conservative? More government, interfering in world situations that have nothing to do with the safety of this nation, spending on the level that would make FDR and LBJ balk?
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.
Forgot one. Wilson. Without him we may have never had a neoconservative movement. At least not one involving foreign policy. Or else it would have been quickly relegated to the trashpile where it belongs
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.
That has to be the most ridiculous thing I've read today. No set of beliefs? From 'liberating the masses' to 'spreading democracy' I'm beginning to wonder when they'll have time to defend this nation of states.
(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.)
Well at least he admits it
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.
Well unless it's under the 'right' leadership, eh Irving?
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.PNAC Statement of Principles
Get lost Irv, your time has passed. You did more damage than good.
This is what I find most interesting about the paleocon/neocon divide. And I'm not entirely satisfied with Kristol's explanation. It seems to me that neocons do not see the state as necessarily in conflict with the people while paleocons see government as inherently in conflict with the citizenry.
I don't agree with his points though. He tries to take credit for the neocons embedding in Republicanism a love for economic growth. That is nonsense- that has been a major aspect of the Republican party from the day it was created (and it was a major defining characteristic of the Whig party which preceded it). I would go so far as to say that what Kristol describes as 'neoconservative' is just Whiggery with a smattering of 'social safety net' policies.
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.The same alliances, with the same ties for the same reasons with the same dissenters, existed back in the days of Democrats Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren and their Whig opponents Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and William Henry Harrison.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.
Kristol from his book Reflections of a Neo-Conservative:
"a conservative welfare state... is perfectly consistent with the neo-conservative perspective." He also wrote elsewhere: "[We] are conservative, but different in certain respects from the conservatism of the Republican Party. We accepted the New Deal in principle, and had little affection for the kind of isolationism that then permeated American conservatism."
Mark Gerson in his 1996 book entitled The Essential Neoconservative Reader:
"The neoconservatives have so changed conservatism that what we now identify as conservatism is largely what was once neoconservatism. And in so doing, they have defined the way that vast numbers of Americans view their economy, their polity, and their society."
For those on FR who are anti-anti-neocons they should examine what philosophy they truly believe in - conservatism or neoconservatism i.e. limited government and maximum liberty or activist government and the high taxes required to fuel it. Despite the rosy rhetoric it can be seen through their own words neoconservatism is actually liberalism in disguise.
Kristol above: "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. "
Please note Kristol rejects traditional conservatives/libertarian heroes like Hayek and also from the article Russell Kirk, Coolidge, Goldwater. He says neocon heroes are TR and FDR i.e. activist presidents who believe in a meddling government and central planning.
Then there is Kristol's take on foreign policy:
- "for a great power, the "national interest" is not a geographical term"
-"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."
- "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."
What Kristol is clearly saying here is that he rejects the advise and wisdom of the founding fathers about free trade and peaceful relations with all and not to go out into the world seeking monsters to destroy. He compares us to the Soviet Union - conquering the world through ideology. This is why critics of neoconservatism emphasize their Trotskyite origins. It is clearly seen here that these people still believe in world revolution. They do not wish their country to merely be free and to prosper in the world they want to recreate the world into their vision of utopia. This transformation requires coersion, bribery and even force. These people may have abondoned communism but not their revolutionary zeal. To sum it up these people are not conservatives at all, they have manufactured a NEW conservatism which is the antithesis of the traditional American variety.
| Neo Conservatism: Liberalism with prayer (and occasional moral outrage over abortion). |