The first thing that should be noted is that neoconservatism is not a monolitithic philosophy, even within neoconservatism there are different factions, points of view and divergences from its origins. Today in American politics we see the evolution of what I estimate as the end of the second generation and the birth of the third generation of neoconservativism.
First question people might ask is what is neoconservatism and how is it different from traditional conservatism or what has come to be known as Paleoconservatism. The most generic and water cooler definition of a contemporary neoconservative is a Socialist who was mugged. Yet its roots lay much deeper.
The early roots of neoconservatism go as far back as 420 BC, with a Greek philosopher named Plato. After years of pondering what an ideal political state would look like, Plato determined that a Republic form of government was government in its best form. However Plato also understood that the masses which make up the populations of large states weren’t educated and civic minded enough to be trusted to vote for their rulers.
When you are deathly ill, would you call for a handsome physician or one who was highly skilled in his craft? If your car broke down on the side of the road, would you call Miss America to come and see what was wrong or would you seek a well trained mechanic? The concern over the general population is that they easily are swayed and influenced by a clever turn of word, a nice hair cut and will almost always choose the more handsome and eloquent speaker over someone skilled in the art of statecraft. As Plato would later say, “The ability to gather votes does not mean one can govern a state”
So to counter this inherent weakness in democracy, Plato surmised that it would be acceptable for a ruler or governing body to create lies and or myths that would serve to unite the masses under common causes. This could be a moon landing, or the building of dams in rural America, or proposing a national interstate highway system, or it could be fear of danger and attack from external or internal enemies. This provides those who govern a method of creating solidarity among groups or even nations, making guidance of a nation an easier task.
A man named Leo Strauss who worked at the University of Chicago really bought into this aspect of Plato’s views. He saw that modern Liberalism had failed in America and that many of the great social programs of the 1960’s ended up in things like riots, national tension among the population, and seemed to be on the verge of chaos. He saw the reason for this as being America’s focus on individualism and that when a population is working for purely its own individual desires and needs, that the national whole was not served. What he felt was needed was a means to bring about collectivism for a common good.
Iriving Kristol, the father of the well known William Kristol was among the first generation of self described neoconservatives, along with Norman Podhoretz and Jeane Kirkpatrick. Many of the early neoconservatives were socialist, Trotskyist, and liberal social Democrats that began to move away from what in today’s context would be essentially something resembling Chinese Communism that was halfway to socialism.
The second generation of neoconservatives were the likes of William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, and Douglas Feith. It should be noted that nearly all of these people eventually ended up residing in the Bush White House and started their ascension during the second term of Ronald Reagan. William Kristol even stated publicly on live TV coverage of the 2004 Democrat convention that “Neoconservatives should embrace their liberal roots”. As early as 2004, it was clear that neoconservatives were hedging their bets in the event of a Republican loss, and during the Clinton administration began to court the left. This would eventually result in a pervasive political view which now constitutes much of the main stream middle in American politics.
One thing people tend to overlook is that many neoconservatives have held positions in policy making, both domestically and in our foreign policy for several Presidents. Many of the positions held by neoconservatives persist because they are positions that are not entirely determinate upon whether a Democrat or Republican administration is in power. This is most evident when we see the stark contrast between the Carter administration and the Reagan administration, when US foreign policy formed a view that persists to this day.
Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that supports using economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries. In economics, unlike paleoconservatives and libertarians, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a limited welfare state; and, while rhetorically supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes. Critics on the right attack Neoconservatism for involving the United States with wars in the Middle East. Critics on the left attack Neoconservatism for its promoting of American exceptionalism and its policies in the Middle East.[1]
As is clear, one defining feature of neoconservatism today is the penchant towards using military force to promulgate US foreign policy, under the pretence of such noble cliché’s as “spreading democracy”. The concept of spreading democracy and the American system of values at the point of a gun barrel is one of the greatest ironies that that escape vast swaths of the American public.
The Bush doctrine of “preventative war through preemptive warfare” is yet another one of these rather insane propositions. While usually touted under the guise of defending the nation by preemptively striking at potential enemies before they have a chance to attack us. Adolf Hilter used this method to rally the German population into invading Poland, as then, like now, it was seen by those promoting this view as perfectly valid. The fact that the rest of the world, including the United States at the time, saw this as aggressive war mongering. Today it is accepted as how we pursue our normal daily foreign policy.
America has come to view strength as what can be achieved through military force and the imposing of our will upon lesser nations. In fact, this is not strength but the flaw of weakness most commonly seen in a bully. A nation that is strong as we are, need not flaunt our ability to use force, but to walk softly and carry a big stick. It is not the practice of a strong man, a confident man to seek out any who could harm him in order to engage them. He fears them not, thus seeks them not, and as Winston Churchill once said,
“We will have no truce or parley with you, or the grisly gang who work your wicked will. You do your worst - and we will do our best."
What has since gone missing is the concept of our nation doing great things on behalf of its national interest and for the interest of its people. We no longer ask as a nation, can we go to the moon, can we go to the stars, can we create fusion energy, can we find ways to be greater than the rest of the world. Today we use fear as the single greatest common uniter of people. We do things because were afraid to be attacked, or we do things because we fear of what might happen if we don’t. This shift towards reactionary response to fears whether real or contrived is what we now see as normal.
This is the greatest danger of neoconservatism today, is that it promotes fear, cowardice and reaction to response instead of true leadership. The unintended consequence of this has come to show its face in our growing internal fears as well. Fear of Democrats, fear of Republicans, fear of Muslims, fear of Christians, fear of each other. We are regressing into a modern era of McCarthyism and bitter partisanship beyond pale to anything in our lifetimes, and we do not even step back to take notice of why.
If a 9-11 event took place once a year, would America continue to exist? If a 9-11 event took place every month, would the United States continue to exist? If 9-11 took place every day, and America lost 3000 and a handful of buildings, would we as a people and a nation endure? We survived our founding, invasion, civial war, pandemics, two world wars and yet we continue to believe the neoconservative myth that America is in grave danger and that its very existence is threatened. This is simply hogwash and paranoia on a massive scale by a nation of people that are drunk on fear.
This is why neoconservativism as progressed by many today is by far a greater threat than any external danger to our nation. It is the rot from within that erodes the foundations of our people and our nation. It will lead to a demise that will create more suffering and hardship within our borders more than any other enemy we face. It is ourselves we should most worry about.
If you wish to read an excellent summary of the birth, rise and state of Neoconservatism, then check out the Wiki. If you care to delve deeper, then check out the referenced links.
Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[1]
Quite possibly one of the single greatest documentaries on the rise of Neoconservatism and its parallels with radical Islamic views and hatreds of western liberal societies. How the politics of fear paved the way towards global unrest and conflict.
Politics - The Power of Nightmares, (Part 1/3), “Baby it's Cold Outside“
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A rot from within
