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.
I didn't look past the page to see what else they printed.
First, we must return to a value currency and stop all deficit spending. Want more guns, cut something. More education, cut something. Then out with the welfare for the work able but lazy. Time to clean up our moral codes too. Set a real example.
2 Supreme Court Justices and a butt load of lower court Judge picks prove your statement utterly wrong.
the Push fo Social Security and Medicare Reform (1st time since they were started that any President has even dared to push for major reform to the largest spending programs in the Federal Budget, 1st Attempt at Serious Entitlement Reform (Something Not even Reagan tried to do) A Strong vigorous US National Defense, The two Largest Tax Cuts in US History...etc etc etc prove you utterly silly as well as utterly wrong. As usual the Knee Jerks make nonsensical statements without even a nodding acquaintance with reality.
C'mon. You really believe all this leftist tripe don't you? I mean, if you don't, why did you bother posting it to FR? And then spend hours defending it? In fact, looks like you've been posting a whole lot of leftist tripe during your stay on FR. Why?
This defuses at least this liberal talking point surrounding the Iraq war.
What leftist tripe do I post?
Yes, I really wish he would of found his veto pen for the Highway bill or any of the budgets but there was no guarantee the Congress simply would not pass a WORSE bill and there was stuff in the budget he needed for the war. Frustrating for for a life long small Govt guy who still rips his hair out paying his tax bill every Apr 15th. This President can be frustration for us but then so is the Congress. Unlike the Knee Jerks I actually understand how the Federal Budget is put together. The are reasons the power of the purse was given to the Legislature in our system. Pity so many "Conservatives" forget we are a Constitutional Republic, not a Presidential Dictatorship.
Zot
HAAAAAAA! I guess it is good to be the King.
What do I think? New World Order. Bush is a lot of things but he's no conservative and he's been for a lot of these big world ideas. - #4 posted by jb6Bush supported the Taliban over Russia to, even gave them $42 million in the Spring of 2001. - #225 posted by jb6
At one point our government supported the Taliban. Not only Clinton but Bush Jr too. In spring of 2001 he gave them $42 million in direct monetary aid, because they were bringing "stability" to Afghanistan. Boy did that go badly for us. - #226 posted by jb6
Are you saying Bush in 2001 had no control on what money was given to which government? I find that a little hard to believe. What I don't find hard to believe was he was still following Clinton's policies on Afghanistan, just like he is still following most of Clinton's Balkans policies. - #259 posted by jb6
So what? They are going to be fine, Miers was going to be fine. (If she was sitting on the Supreme Court right now, it would mean that she had had the juice to get through the confirmation process that we didn't have.)
What exactly is "his [President Bush's] approach" to: 1) economics, and 2) foreign policy?
You don't know? 1) Supply-side, free trade, lower taxes, privatization. Adam Smith on a global scale. 2) call evil by its name, drain the swamps, bully foreign powers and alliances, even the UN, into doing their jobs.
It's as idiotic now as when it was first published.
BTTT
Oh wow, I just missed them. Well done Joe.
well, if - as many here seem to believe - nazis are commies, why shouldn't neocons be trotzkytes? both comparisons become plausible at exactly the same point of simplification.
i mean this guy is comparing neocons and trotzkyites by an aspect of foreign politics. shouldn't you try to dismiss THAT point?
I don't believe that we should be sacrificing tomorrow's national security for money (re. the ports administrations sale to the UAE, defense-critical technologies to foreigners from antagonistic countries,...). Iran and its friends continue to build against us. Such nations have essentially declared war against us. They have done so on religious/ethnic grounds, so sooner or later, war is probably inevitable.
Should our leaders decide to put the enemy down now or wait until the enemy comes to us (in which scenario, nearly all of us would develop more of a will to fight)?
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.