Posted on 02/28/2006 8:46:11 PM PST by jb6
Edited on 02/28/2006 11:09:58 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Being someone of a liberal persuasion, it might come as a surprise that I not only sympathize with neoconservatives, I genuinely agree with much of what they have to say. Unlike traditional conservatism, neoconservative philosophy amounts to more than just “Leave us alone.” It inherently rejects both “Fortress America” isolationism and Kissingerian realism in favor of an activist foreign policy of promoting human rights and propagating democracy.
What liberal could disagree with that?
It’s no coincidence that the two ideologies overlap. Both are grounded in Wilsonian idealism. Moreover, neoconservatism wasn’t initially the product of the right-wing intellectuals, who have since become its standard bearers. Strangely enough, the original neoconservatives were radical leftists.
To be specific, they were Trotskyites.
For those of you unfamiliar with Leon Trotsky, he was one of the chief architects of the Russian Revolution. He was an idealist and a militant. Before the revolution, while he was in prison, Trotsky cultivated his famous theory of permanent revolution: a concept which would later provide the impetus for Soviet imperialism.
An independent thinker (he was originally a leader of the opposition Mensheviks), Trotsky was single handedly responsible for crafting the Red Army into a machine whose purpose was to forcibly spread his idealistic brand of Marxism across the world. Substitute “Marxism” with “democracy” and the leap from Trotskyism to neoconservatism appears remarkably diminutive.
Small as the gap may have been, neoconservatives certainly didn’t make the jump to democracy overnight. It took years of audacious brutality and cynical ideological manipulation by the Stalinist Regime before they were finally disenchanted with communism.
Left in a political vacuum, they eventually gravitated towards realpolitik. This resulted in what Francis Fukuyama calls a “realistic Wilsonianism.” The philosophy essentially boils down to this: the United States is a benign hegemon with the unique ability to create a democratic world order that respects human dignity. Hegemonic as it may be, however, the early neoconservatives believed it was imperative for the United States to act prudently, by avoiding war when possible and cautiously exercising force when not.
As a liberal, I’d say I agree with that doctrine almost in its entirety. But if that’s the case, why is it that I almost always find myself at odds with the policies of the first neoconservative administration ever: the Bush Administration?
Well, the sad fact of the matter is that neoconservatism has become a grotesque caricature of its once great former self. Gone are the days of academic nuance, realpolitik and judicious analysis of international relations. All that remains is its idealism and a throwback to its morphed Trotskyite heritage: the insufferable notion that democracy in and of itself (much like Marxism) has the power to single-handedly cure all the world’s ails.
Neoconservatism for kids – that’s what the Bush Administration is responsible for. They have cheapened their philosophy in order to produce an easily digestible version for the masses. This is more than a little reminiscent of the reductivist logic promulgated by the hippie movement in the ‘60s (when neoconservatism was at its nadir). Replace “All you need is love” with “All you need is democracy” and you essentially have what can only be described as “the new hippies.”
The biggest difference is that, unlike the hippies, the neoconservatives are actually in control of our formal institutions of power. Moreover, they have returned to the Trotskyite militarism of their deep past. What could possibly be scarier than blind idealism coupled with an aggressively militarized foreign policy?
I share President Bush’s idealism. I, too, want to see a democratized world order. In this, I believe that even the neoconservatives of today share far more than they’re willing to admit with their liberal counterparts. But the methods by which the Bush Administration is pursuing its goals are haphazard, ill-informed and overly simplistic.
What a shame it is to have another great political philosophy destroyed by yet another generation of hippies – only this time in jacket and tie.
Why would you use obvious communist, er left-wing propaganda for any reason whatsoever?
Jimmy Carter.
Are you not calling for war against Saudi Arabia?
The main article is from the BBC and its the best unblog site I found in a quick search. As I said, the comments are stupid leftist crap. I attached that comment right off to make sure no one thought I supported the commentary. The facts stand, we helped the Baathists, or rather the CIA.
"Hey Mr Tallyman, tally all me peanuts".
Simply put, we could not leave an Unconfined Saddam on our flank. Containment of Iraq was breaking down as the Oil for Food Scandal shows. We needed a Terrorist Kill Zone, Iraq provided it. We had the political and legal justifications to take out Saddam. He was in violation of the 1991 Cease Fire. For the US in 2002, the strategic logic of Iraq is inescapable. We could NOT tie up major military forces else where in the world and leave Saddam unfought on our flank. Saddam's Iraq was a lingering, festering boil on the world's body. One way or another it had to be lanced.
Saudi Arabia is already at war with us. Just because they can't send tanks into NY, they train, indocternate and then release islamic fundies on us instead. They spread 5th columnists in our nations, take over more moderate mosques and drive the anti-american fanaticism in most of the islamic world. We didn't start his ruckous, the Saudies did.
Yes. A lot of folk posting here like that.
This is almost a liberal site now.
The overall quality of FR has become victim of FR's popularity.
Thot Thar be Jimmuh Cawtuh...
You're either knowingly or unknowingly pushing pure leftist propaganda. That means you're either a willing dupe, or an unwitting dupe. Which is it?
What propaganda? That the CIA helped the Baathists rise to power in the 60s to replace the communsits? Or that Saudi Arabia funds islamic fanaticism?
Deep and scary reading. Quite the norm for anything islamic.
Hey, it was your source not mine.
Read it and weep:
http://www.representativepress.org/index.html
The CIA created bin Laden too. Also Zarqawi is really a Mossad agent and neo-cons blew up the Trade Center to justify their "Perpetual War." I know because I read it at antiwar.com and lew rockwell.
Well again, your are completely and wholly wrong. The above statement is nonsense. Your are confusing two separate events and collaborating them into one false memory. You are confusing events in Iran and Iraq. CIA had NOTHING to do with Saddam's rise to power. NOTHING. The event you are claiming happened IN IRAN. You seem mentally incapable of grasping the fact Iran and Iraq are TWO DIFFERNT COUNTRIES.
Those terms are not mutually exclusive.
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.