Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Neo-Cons
Since William F. Buckley died a few months ago, I’ve been finding myself making more and more connections with the history of the conservative movement in America. Some of what I’m finding has surprised me a bit.
I’ve been a reader of National Review for quite a few years, and much of the writing in that publication seemed to be colored by the vision of its founder. The history of the magazine influences the presentation of their topics in a fairly significant but subtle way, but it is really quite rare for them to explicitly dig into their history and discuss where they collectively came from.
Much of my exposure to conservative writers has been those in the period I’ve seen called the “Old Right”, men writing in the 20s, 30s, and 40s during the popularization of progressivism. These men, like Albert Jay Nock and H L Mencken, saw progressivism for what it was, a big step on the way to losing the basic freedoms we take for granted in America, and they weren’t shy about saying so. However, history saw them steamrolled by popular opinion as the Great Depression and subsequent New Deal brought huge new powers to government.
When Eisenhower came to power, he famously declared that traditional conservatism was all but dead, and that anyone who tried to roll back the progressive entrenchment of the New Deal was a fool. While he may have been correct from a political point of view, conservative ideals in both the populace and in a small fringe segment of the intelligentsia were far from dead. National Review was largely a reaction to this “conservatism is dead” idea – giving a voice and some coherence to the far-flung elements of conservatism that remained.
Then came the sixties, and the neo-cons.
Neo-con is one of those words that has become virtually meaningless with time, as it is mostly used as a slur. If you support the war in Iraq, you are a neo-con and therefore bad. Similar to “fascist”, it is a catch-all term for ideas and people that the speaker doesn’t like.
However, neo-con has a real meaning that is derived from a fairly recent political movement. In the sixties and seventies, the left split, largely over Vietnam. The New Left were the protesters and draft dodgers, the ones that believed that America was fundamentally evil since we bombed villages and killed babies. The Neo-Cons were the elements of the left that felt that the war in Vietnam was a vital part of fighting Communism. In fact, the neo-cons had one crucial element in common with the rest of conservatism – they believed in the fundamental goodness of America and our version of democracy, and they felt it was our duty to oppose the evil oppressive nature of communism and the desire of the Soviet Union to spread that communism around the world. Many of these people ended up changing political sides, allying themselves going forward with the conservative movement and the Republican party, without necessarily giving up their progressive ideals.
Thus are very strange alliances forged.
In the latest issue of City Journal, there is a collection of short essays by various writers, all reminiscing about their experiences in 1968. Several mock the events of the day, clearly having recognized at the time that the rebellious protest culture that flourished was absurd and foolish. Others revel in the memory of the rebellion and pat themselves on the back. This jarred me a little bit – people on my side don’t do things like that. Do they?
It’s like going to a party, looking around and seeing all of the people you know and expect, and then those people walk in. And you think to yourself – who invited them?
Now that I know a bit more about it, that’s how I feel about the neo-con movement. To me, conservatism is more about culture, values, and an honorable state of interacting with one’s fellow man than it is about an interventionist world view. The willingness to fight communism, for example, grows out of the appreciation for western civilization and the belief in the rights of peoples to self-determination and freedom. I have a hard time accepting under the same conservative tent those who feel interventionism is justified, for whatever reason, without having the same cultural and social values that I do. Conservatism is so much more than just being willing to invade Iraq or Vietnam.
Political necessity makes for alliances of convenience. I can accept that as a fact of life. What I don’t like is being identified with a group of people which whom I have exactly one thing in common and a huge list of fundamental differences. We can be political allies of convenience, sure. But we are not under the same tent, no matter how much the popular vocabulary has changed to imply that this is the case.
A hippie that believes in interventionism is still a hippie, even if said hippie is 40 years older and wearing a suit. People can change, I know. But I don’t think these people necessarily have.
Comments
-
I’m not so sure I agree with you. For one, neo-con has come to be synonymous with Israel supporters, ie, Jews. (And you mentioned that it was used as a slur, and that’s how.) When folks like Pat Buchanan [spit!] use the word Neo-con, that’s what they mean.
They’re talking about Bill Kristol and people like Charles Krauthammer. Those are the “hippies in suits” they’re referring to.
What confuses the issue is that many of the folks who throw around that label are not conservatives either. Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul are not conservatives, by any stretch of the imagination. Pat Buchanan is a right-wing extremist (ie, fascist) and Ron Paul is an isolationist “never understood a single line in the Constitution nor the difference between States Rights and Federal Mandates” moron.
What also happened during that 1968 period (and after, with their crowning achievement in 1972 of nominating, Can’t-Even-Take-Two-States McGovern) was that the Democrats went Left. They left their right-wing out in the cold. Those people had no where to go, so they became RINOs. They weren’t sent invitations by me!
These were Truman-style democrats, who still believed in a chicken in every pot (ie, government subsidies and handouts as long as they were in the receiving line), unions, and trade tariffs, (as well as a host of other government-is-your-friend and rich uncle) entitlement programs.
What they also brought to the Republican side of the aisle was fascism--the idea that government should criminalize abortion and mandate school prayer, for example (as just two of many hot button issues).
It is from that series of years that we ended up with the stereotypical “Christian Right” taking up a lot of space under the Republican Party tent, and making a lot of noise, and have come to be representative of everything that causes people to declare themselves as “independents.”
This had the result of distancing a lot of the Old Party Faithful (like myself) who did not want to share a tent with fascists.
When Bill Clinton came along, I was one of the people who were easily duped by his conservative-leaning rhetoric (disguising his socialism) and voted for him, with the intended goal of eliminating the radical right extreme that had come into the Party (ie, sending them a “get out of my Party” memo).
Well, that didn’t work out so well.
In fact, what people describe as “neo-con” fits me to a T, and I’ve been a Republican since I first voted (barring that slight disturbance in the 1990s), and came from a family who had been voting Republican since Lincoln.
I’m a strong supporter of Israel. I do not believe that government is my friend and bank account. I don’t want unions to exist (they’ve served their purpose, get on with it, and extortion is still a crime in my book), nor do I support trade tariffs, price fixing, or any sort of subsidy to any non-vegetative-state group of people.
What I do see is that a strong defense, and something along the lines of Manifest Destiny, is going to be our only salvation, but I’m perfectly content to kill the really evil bad guys, until we can get back on track with the long term goal.
In other words, when folks talk about “neo-con’s” what they’re really talking about are conservatives who don’t buy into the libertarian usurping of any of the conservative principles (Kumbaya with marijuana and low taxes). To them, that makes us “hippies” and “progressives” when in reality, it makes them fascists and the rest of us principled, but tolerant of others views and lifestyles (as long as they do not require that we condone their choices). Right and wrong still exist, regardless of other people’s choices not to comply, but comply in your home IN PRIVATE.
Liberty costs. With rights come responsibilities. There is no free lunch. Wealth is good. Capitalism is the best we’ve got and we should proudly carry its banner around the world, because it is the only thing that will prevent people from wanting to kill us first. Poor people should not be cowed-to, described as noble, or not have to pay taxes. Society owns social institutions and social institutions are important and the government has no right/business using the courts to force their tongues down our collective throats. Bomb the hell out of any country that doesn’t get with the program, and install MacArthur-like overlords until we killed all the vermin in our way. I don’t think that it is a good idea to have laws against things like alcohol sales or sodomy, but I recognize that The People have a right to make those laws (at the state or local level, and not at the Federal level without Constitutional Amendment). That’s a far cry from the extreme of legislating acceptance of behavior, as means of social reinginerring, to get people to like gay people, if they don’t. I do not believe that government has any right (no where is it written) that they can force private individuals or businesses to hire/fire based on non-discrimination policies (that apply ONLY to the government), nor do I believe that discrimination is anything but evil--but it is an evil between the person and their maker, not between them and their government. Freedom of conscience means just that. You can be an evil bigot if you want, and I won’t try to stop you from owning a business or mandate who you can hire/fire, I’ll just not give you any of my business.
That “hippy” that folks refer to are people who don’t want gays rounded up on box cars, sodomy laws reintroduced, or the government requiring a license before a woman can have a D & C after a spontaneous miscarriage. We also understand “the wall” between church and state and think the only solution for the tug-o-war between those who want to require prayer time at school and those who want to completely eradicate God from the public square, is to close the damn schools and let everyone pick what works best for them. I don’t care what option is chosen to make it happen, vouchers or “you’re on your own buddy.”
Public service is a moral imperative and a duty of all citizens, and that includes showing up for a draft (if we have one), fighting tyranny wherever it appears (in Israel or Detroit) and I have not a care in the world if our death penalty and hanging rate gets up to 25%, or if a minority is over represented in our jails. Stop commiting crimes and you won’t be executed nor will minorities be over represented in striped suits. I’m mercilessly cut throat about violent offenders (of all stripes) and personally generous about people who were dealt a bad hand, but they have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and quit whining about it, or get out of the street. I don’t care where they go, but the public street is not their temporary shelter. They can go hide under railroad tracks for all I care. If they want help, they can ask for private assistance, and I’ll be there to lend a HELPING hand, but never a crutch.
That makes me a neo-con and it is a label I wear with pride and distinction… and one my Republican ancestors could wear with pride and dignity, too.
Mrs. du Toit | 6/3/2008 02:27 PM CDT -
Thank you for the education.
How did it come to be that the more classically liberal wing of the party came to be known as the “neo” side? Your definition of neo-con is one I’ve never heard before.
I think that without having lived through that era and seeing the evolution of conservatism first hand, it is easy for me to dismiss the changes and the competition of thought between various groups that led to us getting to where we are today. I’m still working out the details of the 1950-1980 period - I realized that I came out of school with virtually no knowledge of that era at all.
American Farmer | 6/3/2008 02:49 PM CDT -
Dang…
Mrs. dT, you were born in the US, right? Will you be my President?
Your 4th to last (ante-antepenultimate?) and penultimate paragraphs made me weep silent, conservative tears of joy. There’s a platform I could get behind. (N.B. I don’t disagree with the other things you said. Those two paragraphs just jumped out and grabbed me.)
nor do I believe that discrimination is anything but evil
I assume by “discrimination” you mean denying something based solely on race, religion, gender, right? I discriminate all the time based on things that matter - responsibility, morality, flavor, etc.
Weetabix | 6/3/2008 03:05 PM CDT -
The Wiki article on Neo-Con is pretty close to accurate in describing where the term came from. That “Irving Kristol” they’re talking about is Bill Kristol’s father.
Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States from the rejection of the social liberalism, moral relativism, and New Left counterculture of the 1960s. It influenced the presidential administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, representing a realignment in American politics, and the defection of some liberals to the right side of the political spectrum; hence the term, which refers to being ‘new’ conservatives.[1] Neoconservatism emphasizes foreign policy as the paramount responsibility of government, maintaining that America’s role as the world’s sole superpower is indispensable to establishing and maintaining global order.[2]
The term neoconservative was originally used as a criticism against liberals who had “moved to the right”.[3][4] Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist, coined the usage of neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy.[5] According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent neoconservatives were driven by “the notion that liberalism” had failed and “no longer knew what it was talking about."[1]
The first major neoconservative to embrace the term was Irving Kristol, in his 1979 article “Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed ‘Neoconservative.’"[3] Kristol’s ideas had been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine.[6]. Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled “The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan’s Foreign Policy”.[7][8]
Prominent neoconservative periodicals are Commentary and The Weekly Standard. Neoconservatives are associated with foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), The Heritage Foundation, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).
I would say that Eisenhower was part of that, too, although some argue that Neoconservatism was a reaction to him and the left.
Think of it this way: Anyone who was once an ignorant hippy, who wanted to feed the world and share and share alike, who grew up, got a mortgage and a lawn mower, was labeled a neo-con, because they were once liberals who wised up.
The classic representative of neo-conservatism is David Horowitz (a recovered socialist, card-carrying communist party member, who now champions American values around the world). THAT is who they’re talking about when they say “neo-con.” The Joooooooooooos who set aside their progressive and socialist agenda and figured out that their real ideology was in concert with the Grand Old Party, and we welcomed them in with open arms.
There is a desire to label conservatives as super-power-hungry-baby-killers, as if a strong defense is some NEW thing. Ron Paul tried to frame the argument that way, as if a strong defense was some bad thing, and learning from the past was some horrid concept. You don’t wait until Hitler invades Poland. You stop him when he begins to re-arm Germany (against treaties and WWI settlement agreements). THAT is why those of us who support the Iraq War (and the WoT, generically) are trying to be discredited. Well, maybe Saddam Hussein had learned his lesson, and maybe he’d become a benevolent dictator, so until his picture is taken piloting an aircraft carrying a nuclear weapon, we can’t and shouldn’t do anything about it, lest we be baby killers, just like those bad Vietnam days.
Remember that the libertarian party came about as unholy alliance of those against the Vietnam war, but in support of freeeeeeeeeee trade (and fiscal responsibility). Same crowd. Different Day. Same pejoratives.
It’s propaganda. Total BS.
Why are you getting the wrong idea about neo-cons?
Goebbels. Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes fact.
Mrs. du Toit | 6/3/2008 04:59 PM CDT -
Oh, yeah. Trade tariffs - I think I’d support mirrored tariffs where our policy on imports mirrored the trading partner’s policy on our exports to them. Sort of a keeping the playing field level type of thing. It seems economically foolish to buy goods from other countries without restriction while they basically exclude our goods. What do you think of that?
Weetabix | 6/3/2008 05:12 PM CDT -
Mrs. du Toit | 6/3/2008 05:14 PM CDT
-
What do you think of that?
That’s the point of distinction between a conservative and a radical.
There is compromise on an issue without going overboard and labeling them a socialist or statist, if they understand that trade is a game, best played by armed adults.
If they show their hand and put in tariffs, the only way to get them to stop is to counter with tariffs on our own. In other words, we react to manipulations and anti-free trade with corresponding, punitive measures.
Where it gets more complex is in trading with nations that don’t have OSHA, family leave, or any of the other socialist/protective crap that we have. We have to compete by eliminating those things that make our goods and services too costly, but find a balance between the (truly) evil Industrialists like the railroad barons and the nonsense that all businessmen are benevolent, moral capitalists. They aren’t, so SOME restrictions are necessary (and vigilance is the best restriction), but you don’t punish the many for the bad deeds of the very few. Greed exists. So does benevolence and moral-based Capitalism. Strike a reasonable balance.
Mrs. du Toit | 6/3/2008 05:46 PM CDT -
-American Farmer
The Neo-Con term was relatively new to me. I have always heard it used to reference the socially liberal that refuse to jump on the pacifist band-wagon.-Mrs. du Toit
You are saying that Neo-Con is the “liberal who has been mugged” and grew up? (edited punctuation)Cobar | 6/3/2008 10:35 PM CDT -
We want young people to be idealistic and think they can change the world. That’s a wonderful thing. We don’t have to hit them so hard with the reality bat that they are defeated before they begin.
But they do have to grow up. They have to find small victories and make a difference by being different.
So, yeah, they were liberals who grew up, but everyone must grow up. A lot of folks who were branded with the neo-con label were just silly young people who had no experience in the world. To their credit, many who were quite prominent on the socialist stage saw the error of their ways and were righteous enough to admit it.
Their passions remained, but the enemy changed. I have seen the enemy and the enemy is us.
Mrs. du Toit | 6/3/2008 11:53 PM CDT -
Why are you getting the wrong idea about neo-cons?
I’m trying to retrace my mental steps on this issue, and I’m not sure of everywhere I’ve gone. Pieces from wikipedia, pieces from other places.
I think my first few exposures to the idea were via venues and authors that were interventionist leftists that glommed on to the neo-con banner. Given that 90% of my admittedly small sample fit that mold, I assumed that was representative of the whole. Clearly I need to go back and read some more.
American Farmer | 6/4/2008 07:50 AM CDT -
There are pro-Israel, pro WoT socialists, but that isn’t the mold of the true neo-conservative. The term, literally means, “new conservatives.” It doesn’t mean, still a socialist, but pro-WoT/Israel.
The “still socialist” is the dynamic that Hillary is trying to appeal...moderate socialists who aren’t interested in destroying us from within (at least intentionally). Those people still haven’t gotten the “Socialism doesn’t work and is destructive” memo, but those are NOT neo-cons. Unlike Obama supporters, who truly believe we are the Evil Empire and need to reform us, lest we kill more innocents, even if that means we surrender everything that makes us Americans.
Mrs. du Toit | 6/4/2008 11:24 AM CDT -
In all the reading I’ve done, the impression I’ve gotten of whom a neo-con would be is a liberal/socialist/leftie who “got religion” ... or, as Mrs. dT put it “grew up”
I can’t say I agree with the definition of Fascist as a extreme right-winger. All the classical and current definitions (or examples) of fascismpoint to things no conservative is interested in - government control, change without rationality, elites organizing everything.
To me, those are all left wing concepts. No rational conservative, “neo” or classical, wants change for change sake. None want MORE government. None are interested in self-appointed experts telling them how to live.One thiong for sure ... we are not a “two ideology” country ... while neos and classicals and libertarians might cluster together under the Republican banner .... we sure ain’t alike, much. And that gives us things like “compassionate conservatism” whatever the heck that is ...
pete in Midland | 6/4/2008 01:45 PM CDT -
Pete,
I think the spectrum is really either a ring or a multidimensional space. Single word descriptions are pretty tough.
Weetabix | 6/4/2008 03:38 PM CDT -
Weetabix .... not only that, but fluid dynamics seem to play a huge part ... since things change overnight, without warning.
It seems like you really need a set of Coles notes every Monday to see who the players are this week and what the “reality” is going to be.pete in Midland | 6/5/2008 06:29 AM CDT -
Pete,
Would you say that the Spanish Inquisition was socialist? That’s fascism, when the control of everything is by the state (or the church).
That’s the extreme of an extreme right wing.
I don’t think I said that the extreme right wing were conservatives. If I did, that wasn’t clarified properly. They’re RELIGIOUS conservatives, but are not POLITICAL conservatives. There’s a huge difference (but they might not understand that distinction themselves). They were the religious-right, making up the “conservative wing” of the Democratic Party. They’ve never been political conservatives, but everything labeled “conservative-” seems to find its way to the Republican tent, even if it doesn’t belong there.
Tyrants can be communists/socialists, Kings, or religious leaders.
Mrs. du Toit | 6/6/2008 08:18 AM CDT -
Sure ... I consided the Spanish Inquisition (the real one, not the Monty Python sketch) to be fascist and socialist.
OK, I know the popular delusion about socialism is that it’s for the people, but that’s never been the practice - it’s always been about the control of the people. And organized religion certainly qualifies as socialist/fascist.
My jaundiced view is that communists deliver left shoes, socialists force everyone into sandals, and organized religion is just about the soles/souls.pete in Midland | 6/6/2008 10:41 AM CDT -
“Would you say that the Spanish Inquisition was socialist? That’s fascism, when the control of everything is by the state (or the church).
That’s the extreme of an extreme right wing.”
I’m sorry, but that comment requires a reply. The Spanish Inquisition was a POLITICAL event, not a religious one. It was used to root out political enemies of the Spanish throne, i.e., marranos (secret Jews) and morriscos (secret Muslims) in the aftermath of the Reconquista of Spain. The Spanish Crown believed (with some evidence) that the marranos and morriscos were plotting treason and the resumption of Islamic rule.
As such, it was neither fascistic nor socialist, but monarchist. To try to ascribe modern political concepts to Middle Age monarchies like the Spanish throne is silly. For example, there was no attempt to assert control of large industries, there was no attempt to create a popular movement or solidarity among the working class, no attempt to dismantle the power of the Roman Catholic church, etc. In fact, if you read the Fascist Manifesto or the Socialist Manisfestos you with find nothing in common with the Spanish Crown of the Middle Ages.
Papapete | 6/12/2008 11:34 AM CDT
