I wrote a post the other day about the documentary The Power of Nightmares and an article by Frank Rich. A comment left on the post by Anonymous questioned my understanding of neoconservatism. So it got me wondering, what is neoconservatism exactly?
Exactly..well, I don't think I have an answer to that, but I think I have a better understanding of it.
Here's what I have gleaned so far:
Neoconservatism grew out of left-leaning, mostly Jewish intellectuals during World War 2 as a reaction to the Holocaust. In order to prevent any repetition of the Holocaust, they believed the United States needed to develop a strong foreign policy and rely more on military might than on appeasement or diplomacy. In their view the Munich agreement was a HUGE catastrophe. As Anonymous stated "Neoconservatives are notable mainly for their idealistic foreign policy."
In the 1960's , neoconservatives became disillusioned with the politics of the left and began embracing a more conservative political viewpoint. I believe the neoconservatives were reacting against the appeasement policies of the left with regards to the Vietnam war. The neoconservatives became more conservative in their social policy in reaction to the free-love liberalism they felt was undermining the war in Vietnam. The United States needed to be morally superior at home in order to be strong abroad in spreading democracy.
Interestingly, many left-leaning, communist-minded leftists in the 1960s became disillusioned with liberal ideology and began exploring neoconservatism as well. I believe, and I may be wrong, the term neoconservative was coined during the 1960s to describe these leftists who became newly minted conservatives.
I have read, and Anonymous has written as well, that neoconservatives are mostly secular and rather liberal in their social policies. I have found nothing concrete to support this statement thus far. As I mentioned above, I believe they became more conservative in their social approach in reaction to the free-love, free-thinking hippies of the liberal movement.
In fact, in the late 1980s, the neoconservatives formed a loose coalition with the religious right. Both movements are similar in their belief in a black and white view of the world with the neocons asserting the moral superiority of the United States and the religious right asserting the moral superiority of their religion. In addition, both movements unquestionably support Israel as a the only voice of democracy in the Middle East. This coalition between these groups shores up my belief that neoconservatives are not liberal in their social policies. I have yet to meet a neocon who has said, "Yes, we must invade Iraq! And while we're at it--equal marriage rights for gays!."
In fact, in a letter to the editor I read in the Commentary (a neoconservative magazine founded by Irving Kristol) the writer declared that he was not a neocon in the form of Mr. Kristol and that he had a more liberal social viewpoint. Then the writer declared his support for Ronald Regan (the letter was written in 1984). I'm still having trouble connecting Ronald Regan to social liberalism.
Irving Kristol, by the way, is often considered a founder of neoconservatism.
I can't end without addressing the "Noble Lie," first discussed by Plato and later by Leo Strauss. According to many, Leo Strauss believed that an elite few were capable of governing the masses because intellectually they understood what was best for everyone. These elite could "lie" to the populace in order to promote the greater good, thus the noble lie. I cannot say for sure if this is what Mr. Strauss believed. Everything I have read suggests that he was more at home reading and discussing the classics than he was at formulating political theories.
But whatever he believed, I think some neoconservatives did believe in the elite theory and the noble lie. And these are the people who powered the Bush Administration these past eight years. Believing above all else in the "democracy for the world" doctrine, they fed the American people lies regarding WMDs, etc. in order to garner support for the invasion.
I don't want to lump all neoconservatives together with those who ran the White House during Mr. Bush's reign. I'm sure, just like in any movement, there are those with differing viewpoints. Unfortunately, this "morally superior" set of neoconservatives are the ones who grabbed the power and the ones about which everyone has written.
It's been fascinating researching all this and I've barely scratched the surface. I'm listing some links below of the articles I've read. And, of course, if anyone has comments, criticisms, or suggestions, I'd love to hear them.
http://www.mediamonitors.net/zogby56.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html
http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=19618
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
"I have read, and Anonymous has written as well, that neoconservatives are mostly secular and rather liberal in their social policies. I have found nothing concrete to support this statement thus far."
ReplyDeleteI didn't mention secularism, and I would also say that "rather liberal" is overstating it. See this from Wikipedia, which characterizes them as "adher[ing] less to social conservatism":
"Believing that America should "export democracy", that is, spread its ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad, they grew to reject U.S. reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish these objectives. Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives take a more idealist stance on foreign policy; adhere less to social conservatism; have a weaker dedication to the policy of minimal government; and in the past, have been more supportive of the welfare state.
Aggressive support for democracies and nation building is additionally justified by a belief that, over the long term, it will reduce the extremism that is a breeding ground for Islamic terrorism. Neoconservatives, along with many other political theorists, have argued that democratic regimes are less likely to instigate a war than a country with an authoritarian form of government. Further, they argue that the lack of freedoms, lack of economic opportunities, and the lack of secular general education in authoritarian regimes promotes radicalism and extremism. Consequently, neoconservatives advocate the spread of democracy to regions of the world where it currently does not prevail, notably the Arab nations of the Middle East, communist China and North Korea, and Iran."
I could be mistaken, but I think there is a difference between the liberal ideals I listed in a previous comment (the many freedoms that I think we liberals support) and the narrower definition of liberal/conservative as they apply to the political parties (and which also seem to evolve, even to the point of changing places, over time).
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice are none of them neoconservatives. Also, the meme "Bush lied" is a popular one, but the only major "lie" he told regarding the reason for going to war with Iraq that I could see was one of omission. His main purpose in going in was to create a democracy for the exact reasons cited above from the Wiki article (while Bush isn't a neoconservative, this idea was based on neoconservative philosophy). The American people would never buy that. So he made a case based on three factors, which included the humanitarian case and the fact that Saddam was breaking Chapter VII UNSC resolutions, but rested most heavily on the WMD case. But underlying all of it was neoconservative idealism.
The most common thing people point to when they say "Bush lied" was the lack of WMD's, but the majority of evidence points to the fact that this was a mistake, not a lie. Almost all foreign intelligence services believed the same. After the fact we found out that Saddam was working to give this impression this because he was afraid of his neighbors (basically the Iranians, with whom he had an eight year war in the 1980's) and wanted to keep them guessing. I'm not sure what the Iranians would have done to him if he came totally clean to the UN and showed he didn't have the weapons, but he would probably still be in power today.
A further comment:
ReplyDelete"In fact, in the late 1980s, the neoconservatives formed a loose coalition with the religious right. Both movements are similar in their belief in a black and white view of the world with the neocons asserting the moral superiority of the United States and the religious right asserting the moral superiority of their religion. In addition, both movements unquestionably support Israel as a the only voice of democracy in the Middle East. This coalition between these groups shores up my belief that neoconservatives are not liberal in their social policies. I have yet to meet a neocon who has said, "Yes, we must invade Iraq! And while we're at it--equal marriage rights for gays!.""
You are taking a few unconnected facts and trying to match them to a preconceived notion here.
Many groups have a black and white view of the world, and having that simple fact in common doesn't mean they share any other views. Ie, the religious right is sure about their religion and neoconservatives are sure about their country...therefore they think we shouldn't teach sex education in schools?
Likewise for their support of Israel. The religious right supports Israel for religious/biblical reasons. Neoconservatives support Israel for geopolitical and moral reasons. It doesn't mean they feel the same way about abortion. (Actually, I don't know neoconservatives feel about abortion because it isn't really at the forefront of things they focus on. My guess is we'd find they are split, with probably more supporting a women's right to choose simply because that is how the general population feels.)
Hm. I'm in research mode!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous: it is accepted belief in everything I have read that indeed Cheney and Rumsfeld are definitely neoconservatives. It is also accepted belief in what I have read that the neocons did indeed form a coalition with the religious right in order to promote a more conservative candidate for president and which makes me believe that these neocons are not too liberal in their social views. As for Bush lying, I believe he or his intelligence team manipulated the evidence in order to push his case. Remember those famous 16 words in the State of the Union address? Mr. Wilson (whose first name I cannot remember) had gone to Africa and had found no evidence that Saddam had tried to buy uranium and yet those words made it into the speech anyway. Thank you though for your comments, I've learned a lot.
ReplyDelete