Neocons Ru(i)n the World, Sayeth Yon Hippies and Paulites.
Are you now or have you ever been a member of the neoconservative movement? It often feels like folks who support the Iraq War in particular and the War on Terror in general are unreservedly labeled neoconservative, neocon, neopig, baby-killer, etc. In truth, support for the war has never been the exclusive domain of neoconservatism, which philosophy is a convenient political ally for conservatives like myself.
There are some differences between neoconservatism and what I would consider an archetypal American Conservative. Neocons are not, in my experience, all that committed to social conservatism. This isn't bad, per se, at best it means they are simply focused on other issues. Their actual beginnings are quite interesting for someone who has only learned of the neocons through the media. Burned by liberalism many ages ago, these intellectuals brought their considerable smarts to bear in the fight to spread American notions of liberty and representative government while preserving American interests. At least I thought so. The real truth is slightly different.
I read a piece by Jonah Goldberg on the topic. Here's a snippet:
Oooh, burn. But the point he makes later is that what many people call neoconservatism, that is the "doctrine of democracy promotion abroad, moralism in foreign policy and unilateralism toward these ends when necessary..." is not the original meaning of the idea. It was a domestic philosophy.Obviously, supporting the spread of democracy hardly requires you to support the Iraq war. But it works the other way around as well. Support for the Iraq war doesn’t automatically make you a neoconservative. Douglas J. Feith, a former undersecretary of defense after 9/11, argues in his new memoir, War and Decision, that democratization didn’t rank very high among the Bush administration’s early priorities. Moreover, the administration’s mistakes in Iraq — perhaps including the war itself — have less relationship to ideology than many think. “It is possible,” as Kagan notes, “to be prudent or imprudent, capable or clumsy, wise or foolish, hurried or cautious in pursuit of any doctrine.” (Just ask newly hired Hamas spokesman Jimmy Carter.)
In the original sense, neoconservatism was the rejection of the idea that we can create a utopia on this earth through government. It was the realization by former liberals that the progressive ideals that were championed throughout the 20th century lead to fascism and oppression. At the very least they lead to stagnation and dependence, as evidenced by Europe.
I see a lot of people who want to reject the idea that individuals should be the captains of their destiny. I see a lot of people whose rejection of neconservatism has less to do with any war and much more to do with the role of government in our lives. Many people have a vested interest in growing government.
The question I ask myself is whether the current political climate allows the liberals to step back and really examine their views. For the liberal leaders, this is obviously not in their interest. But for the people who mindlessly condemn neoconservatism without being able to explain its basic origins and principles...there's hope they will see sense before they are duped into electing a person who will put us on the path taken by Europe.
Comments
I don't know if much as really changed...
Sy,
Sorry, but I don't know what a neoconservative is. I think it's some term liberals made up to either mock or deride people who are smarter than they.
Now this:
"The question I ask myself is whether the current political climate allows the liberals to step back and really examine their views"
LOL - "current political climate" - good one! There is no environment whatsoever that is conducive to liberals examining their views. their brains lack an examination oblongata.
Oh, and death to Gingrich.
What has redemption got to do with it when they lack the ability to reason? Or did you mean we'll all be agreeing in the afterlife?
Islamic Bigotry: The Slaughter of 4,000 Gays
but what do I know? I'm a Clinton supporter.
I really do feel that Europe is due for a rude surprise when it comes to their massive entitlement programs.
My opinions about Europe are probably best described as a combination of Mark Steyn's (America Alone) and Pope Benedict XVI's ("dictatorship of relativism"). The first addresses the socio-political stagnation that has led to Europe's current state, the next addresses the root cause of Europe's lack of resolve to preserve itself.
Nothing moves liberals to condemn this virus of radicalism...not even the massacre of their pet causes.
I know my liberal friends are just as sickened by this reality, but they don't feel the need to email each other about it all day.
My only conclusion is that liberals don't see the point in "condemning the virus of radicalism," since historically American concern about it has proved to be counterproductive, expensive, and fatal to thousands of human beings. Radical Islam is not Nazism.
Counterproductive? Many more terrorists than innocents now lay dead, never to spread their theology through violence ever again. This includes many of the top leadership in the region.
Expensive? There is a lot of misinformation about the war when it comes to expense. I made a post about it some weeks ago that you might enjoy reading even if you don't agree with it.
Fatal to thousands is better than genocidal to millions, and still better than oppressive to any. Let us not forget that radical Islam is an oppressive political and religious system. Americans should fight ideologies like this whenever they show themselves. The only argument against this is to question America's interests in promoting freedom, which is illiberal.
For some reason, American liberals have lost the will to fight to protect the freedoms of homosexuals and women if it means targeting a religious group other than Christians.
At least, that's the common consensus.
I have to agree with Truth Teller, even if I'm more to the left. Just because the left (who still have more than enough will) aren't getting the attention it deserves, doesn't make it a common consensus, as you call it. I do think it's pretty clear by now that if either side want to really get their points across, none of us can rely on the media to get it right without some kind of spin.
Now, Scio, you and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum here, but I do respect your views and opinions. How does a post that started out as separating the difference between conservatives and neocons turn into basically a liberal bash-fest? Just wondering.
Though, of course the point that neoconservatives were liberals who came to their senses was made in the post.