theblackw0lf
03-11-2004, 09:01 PM
This was originally posted on another message board. Seeing as there have been some questions about what neoconservatism actually is I thought this might be helpful. As you'll notice neoconservatism is hard to pin down because there is disagreement among many neocons, especially in regard to foreign policy.
A quick word about myself. I just graduated from college with a bachelors in political science. Before graduating however I taught a course on neoconservatism. I spent one semester planning the course out, identifying key neoconservative intellectuals as well as landmark articles. This semester culminated in the publication of a 300+ page course reader of some of the best neoconservative articles that I came across. I also probably ended up reading/skimming 2-3x the number of pages in other articles which ultimately did not make the final cut. In the second semester I held a weekly seminar that around 15-20 students took for course credit, going over the readings and trying to hold a reasoned discourse over the subject matter. So, while I am by no means an expect on neoconservatism and ready to write a dissertation and appear on "Charlie Rose", i still know more then the average bear.
But, before you all ask away, let me just a brief (hopefully) overview of who the neoconservatives are, and what they believe.
As the name entails, neoconservatives are often thought of as. . .new conservatives. whoa.
The original neoconservatives were students over at the City College of New York. At the time tuition was free, so for depression era new york city students at the time the City College was where it was at, and consequently had admissions rates comparable to Harvard. At the college there were your usual assortment of campus loonies. Trotsykites, stalinists, leninists, etc. etc. The original neocons hung out at Alcove 1 with the rest of the trotskyites, and spent their times preaching communism while hating on stalin. Because most of them were smarties and jews (NOT RACIST!) they ended up in academia or other intellectual fields. Some of these original neocons were Irving Kirstol, Norman Podhoretz, and Daniel Bell.
However, although they were all originally dirty commie reds, they all began moving rightwards in their adulthood. When the true horrors of stalin's regime came to open they all began questionning the dangers of communism, and became disgruntled with the democratic party's relatively weak response to communism. They furthermore began believing strongly in classical liberal politics, believing strongly in individual rights and liberty. So, the Cold War helped move many liberals into the neoconservative camp when they began seeing the fight against the Soviet Union was one literally between good and evil. A second major cause for people to shift into the neoconservative camp was the 60's and the counterculture. Many of them saw the student movements and counterculture to be incredibly destructive to the fabric of society. They saw a large segment of society explicitly rejecting the very foundations of that society, and were disturbed as to where that might lead.
As the social strain of the 60's continued, many writers who thought of themselves as liberal found themselves shunned by their peers for their writing. Take the former Patrick Moynihan for example. In his famous article now known as the Moynihan Report, originally entitled "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action", moynihan made the claim that the failure of the negro family was the real root of black underachievement, not latent racism. If the deterioration of the black family could be averted (via high divorce rates, single mothers, etc.), then blacks in america could succeed. Since the article appeared to "blame the victim", moynihan was completely shunned by his liberal peers and instead found himself being praised in liberal circles.
However, during most of this time the neocons were still a small, albeit influential group of people. They truly came to prominence during the Reagan Revolution. In Reagan the neocons found many of their ideals expressed into policy. The soviet union was succintly summed up in reagan's parlance as the "Evil Empire". Capitalism and free markets were to be encouraged not just because they were better, but because they were implicitly more moral. In short, neocons loved reagan because like them he realized that morality does have a role to play in politics and that it is ultimately beneficial for all around. This then contrasts reagan sharply with his VP, bush 41, who in terms of foreign policy at least took a more structuralist, balance of power approach to things.
So that's a brief overview of their history. As for what they believe:
As I said in another thread, there is no coherent neoconservative ideology. There is no checklist to follow as there exists in say some strands of marxism, leninism, or fascism. Rather, its a way of thought, certain key understandings that then influence how you analyze a problem. One writer, Mark Gerson, distilled these understandings into 4 key points which I'll basically rehash.
1) Life is infinitely complex.
Seems simpleenough but it has profound implications. Because life and humanity is so difficult to understand, neocons are very suspicious of sweeping policy programs and efforts to remake society via social engineering. They believe firmly in the law of unintended consequences, that although you have engineer a policy to accomplish a goal, the unintended consequences of this policy may act to actually undermine it. This is now a common understanding in economics and political science today. The classic example is the welfare trap. You have welfare because you want people to be able to have a leg to stand on when they are unemployed and hopefully transition themselves into a nice job. However, this also creates the incentive NOT to work, especially if the welfare benefits outweigh your potential earning potential. So, although you may have welfare and unemployment benefits in order to encourage work, the actual effects could be just the reverse.
They also believe that social institutions embody inherited wisdom, a la Edmund Burke's analysis in "Reflections on the Revolution in France". Culture has evolved over hundreds of years, thus one should be hesitant to change it too drastically in too short a period of time. This then relates to the necons need to protect such social institutions as the family for example, or the small community.
2) Man can be good, but man can also be evil.
Again, sounds simple, and perhaps silly, but again profound. Take some strains in society today that believe that everything is relative, that there is no evil, or that ill deeds are merely the result of poor upbringing. Neocons handedly reject this, and believe that evil does in fact exist in the world, and must be rooted out. Much of this analysis comes from Reinhold Niebuhr's book "The Children of light and the Children of Darkness". In this analysis the children of the light are always searching for the good in others, and hte children of the dark try to take advantage of this naivete to their own advantage. The children of light must overcome this natural tendency to only see the good in others and recognize that evil does in fact exist, and must be confronted.
3) Man is a social animal.
This is where Leo Strauss really comes in. A community is held together and consecrated by shared values and principles. Man is a political animal, and these shared values (in america embodied within the declaration and constitution) must be protected. So, social institutions should try to inculcate citizens in these virtues (through civic and liberal education for example). Also, politics and economics are functions of culture, and any ideology which seeks to take its place (totalitarianism or communism) will ultimately lead to widespread feelings of unfulfillment among the populace and mass suffering
4) Ideas rule the world.
Unlike marxists who are materialist, neocons believe that it is in the realm of ideas that the world is shaped. If a society isn't willing to defend its ideals, then it is ultimately doomed to failure. This also explains the neocons obsession with the university, since it is at hte university where ideas are often spread and their fear at the spread of post-modernism in academia, a belief that many neocons view as nihilistic.
So, that's about it. Long story short: with respect to domestic policy neocons unlike traditiona conservatives believe that gov't does have a role in shaping society for hte better, but are more hesitant then democratics in using social policy due to unintended consequences. they believe strongly in capitalism since it is a moral way to run the economy, and believe that the tenants of bourgeouise society are something to be proud of.
as for foreign policy, they are closely akin to reagan. in fact, a key neoconservative essay on foreign policy that appeared in "Foreign Affairs" is entitled "Towards a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy". They believe that true evil does exist in teh international system (in the past the USSR, presently the so called axis-of-evil), and the US and its allied should overcome their natural tendencies to see only good in these countries and recognize that they are enemies who need to be confronted. They also believe strongly in virtue and ideals in the conduct of foreign policy, unlike structuralists like kissinger. So, where kissinger may overthrow a country and put in a dictatorship if that's whats needed, a neocon would be far more hesitant to do so and believe that doing so undermines our own country and is also poor foreign policy. this is one of hte reasons the neocons were among the first to be calling for a change of relations with turkey and saudi arabia, whereas the structuralists are far more hesitant.
Umm, that's all for now as I gotta run. As you can see, the more open nature of neoconservative ideology makes it hard to pin anything exactly on them. Some neocons may agree with a certain policy, others may disagree, mainly because of which of they four key values they are emphasizing. That's mainly why there is no neoconservative bible on par with "The Communist Manifesto", because doing so would be nearly impossible
some key readings you might want to check out
1) Daniel Moyhnihan: The Negro Family: The Case for National Action
2) Norman Podhoretz: "My Negro Problems, and Ours". from Commentary Magainze, feb 1963
3) Irving Kristol: The Adversity Culture of Intellectuals
4) forgot who: "Defining Deviancy Up"
As for foreign policy. the most famous of all neocon essays is
5) Jeanne Kirkpatrick: "Of Dictatorships and Double Standards"
and as mentionned earlier "Towards a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy"
Later he took on some questions
sorry for the delay in responding.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do neoconservatives rationally defend their morality? How do they reconcile their belief in a free society with their social policy agenda?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a lot of their domestic agenda is specific to western civilization, and more specifically the US. i would have to say that they would appeal to burke's analysis of culture and heritage, saying that it is the collected wisdom of the ages handed down by our predecessors. They defend their morality based upon the fact that much of this stems from our society and culture. To be honest, discussing morality really delves into the realm of philosphy, a subject matter i've never been too comfortable with. i will just say that they all believe strongly in the ideals of bourgeouise society and western civilization. by bourgeouise society i mean the ideals of thrift, hard work, education, and social and personal betterment through said means. western civilization is, well, you know, the whole enlightenment period, the declaration of independance, etc.
their social policy agenda is built on progressive grounds, basically trying to actively better the world around them through social policy. They reconcile such beliefs in a free society with this social policy agenda the same way that most democrats do. You try to maintain as much personal freedom as possible but recognize that changes need to be had. Perhaps one difference is how much faith they however put into capitalism, given their belief that capitalism (or economic freedom), also translates into political freedom, hence a free society. Some of their activist social policy then relates to this, such as their general support for school vouchers for example. A social policy, yet a market based one that in their mind ultimately advances freedom.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To minimise spham I'll base on their titles only, see above for full details. Several of them even contradict each other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yep. which is why it's so difficult to pin down issues on neocons.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This sounds great until you realise the neocons are all about the 'big sweeping policies' also, and willfully ignorant of the unintended consequences of their action. They pushed for the invasion of and entire nation, and yet at no point accepted the posbility of unintended consequences for such an enormous and compex situation. In fact their entire mindset is based around the idea of changing the world, and ignoring the reality of the unintended consequences that would result. Clearly this maxim only applies to domestic issues
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yep. neoconservatism as it developed was originally mainly domestic, the main foreign policy issue was that of defeating the soviet union. although that was a grand enterprise, the belief was that any of the unintended consequences entailed with defeating the reds would ultimately be less costly then allowing the USSR to continue living. this is related to this question:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do they go from those core ideals to the sort of Wilsonian fix the world globe hopping military adventures they seem to favor? I understand it's probably in accordance with rule 4, but it seems to violate rule 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that indeed is a contradiction of core ideals. here's the best i can do to explain it. first off, there's the basic lame response that any ideology may have internal contradictions, especially as it relates to big policy issues. some ideals may outweight others, as perhaps is the case with iraq. a more interesting explanation may be more of an issue relating to individuals. a lot of the current neoconservative hawks in washington today came of age during the reagan administration. during this time there was the missionary zeal among some thinkers to spread democracy around the world as part of the effort to take on the soviets directly and remove that source of evil. as i stated earlier, the unintended consequences of removing the states was deemed less worrisome then allowing them to continue to exist. this pro-active foreign policy belief may very well have continued on in the minds of their key foreign policy wonks. this argument is especially compelling now given the US's predominant stature in the world today. with such unprecedented power, some neoconservative thinkers may believe it possible to go about radically reshaping the world while remaining relatively safe from any unintended consequences, given the rather large strategic buffer that we have due to our incredible strength. in this case, the fear of unintended consequences is completely outweighed by the benefits of ridding the world of evil.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's also very convenient in that it ignores the consequences of for instance, the damage israel has done to palestine, the traums associated with years of war in vasrious nations, the impact of poverty, and so on- all of it is ignored, swept under the rug and instead, it's a metter of good and evil. This is a very convenient mindset for somebody who, despite their claims, willfully seeks to ignore the complexities that the world confronts us with.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
where has this ever been stated? a key neoconservative insight was the one made by moynihan when he stated that blacks weren't inherently evil or violent, rather the degeneration of their family caused a breakdown of their social fabric. mitigating consequences is something that they are completely aware of. a better understanding of where this principle comes from is the Cold War. during the 50's, 60's, 70's, and heck, even the 90's, many liberals sincerely believed that the soviet union was not a major threat, that it could be successfully negotiated with over the long term and kept in check. for the neocons, this attitude was disgusting as the political ideology of hte soviet union was in fact evil, and needed to be confronted. yes, there are sometimes mitigating and casual factors at play, but rather then sitting around and clenching their hands at how unfair we were to the soviets during the 1920's, they instead decided to go out and confront them.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They talk about defending ideals, but since when were the ideals of the US tolerant of the notion of propaganda, indoctrination, and oppositition to free expression? Because that's what these people want. They want everyone to think like they do, and yet somehow, they claim to be supporting the ideals of the US and in a broader sense, western democracy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
simply because you were opposed to the counterculture for example does not mean that you are opposed to free expression. their fear is that in a surge of social upheavel, w/ little thought as to the consequences, people may overturn long standing social norms. hence their belief in trying to preserve basic core societal values and beliefs, and allowing these to change as needed over time in nonrevolutionary means.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you could give a thumbnail on say, Chechnya vs. Liberia vs. Iraq vs. North Korea vs. Iran, that would rule, although I understand if that's asking a bit much
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by thumnail you mean quick explanation? to be honest i haven't come across any neoconservative writings on the issue of chechnya or liberia, so anything that i would say would be purely conjecture. a perusal of the archives of Commentary Magazine, The Weekly Standard, or to a lesser extent The National Interest for those countries may be helpful. as for Iraq, N. Korea, and Iran, you bet the neocons want to change those states. Iraq, well, we all know that. as for n. korea the neocons have been advocating basically the same policies they advocated for the soviet union. put intense diplomatic pressure on them, try to isolate them, and maintain sanctions. the neocons were incensed as clinton's appeasement of them in 1994 and are worried that bush is doing a similar thing now. as for iran, michael ledeen, a prominent neoconservative scholar in foreign policy, has long advocated a regime change in iran. however, he believes that it should come about internally through the student movement currently taking place within the country. the role of the US should be for President Bush to stand out and voice his support for hte movement, and also supply monetary aid to be used with the help of information distribution. a search for Michael Ledeen in the online archives of www.nationalreview.com will have all of his writings on this subject.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How would a neocon better deal with the infinitely complex as compared to current legislators? You mentioned that broad, sweeping laws don't take into account unintended side-effects. How would you deal with those side-effects?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
most likely through a greater reliance on market based policies.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the rush job on the Patriot Act a typical process to be expected from neocons, i.e. do they feel it is safe to openly discuss legislation before passing it into law? Or is that something that varies wildly by the person?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
one funny quote about neoconservatives was written by Jonah Goldberg (ha!) of the national review. in it, he basically says that 100 years ago conservatives knew that a father was conducive to a well-functioning household. in the present day, neoconservatives believe the exact same thing, only that they require years of statistical analysis and data sampling in order to come to said conclusion. to say that they believe in rushed legislation is a bit off. as for the patriot act, i really don't know who pushed it, and frankly would doubt that ashcroft qualifies as a neoconservative. a
nother hard thing about neoconservatism is that no one really calls themselves a neocon. the phrase was originally coined by a socialist in an article insulting them. it's just that overtime, a group of writers have been identified as having hte same mindset on their approaches to politics, and were subequently grouped together. what makes this even more complicated is that they had a massive effect on conservative politics during the reagan era, to such an extent that the neo prefix is really kinda useless now, they are just conservatives. the distinction between conservatives and neocons was most clear during the 50's-70's. the neocons were early supporters of hte civil rights movement for example, whereas the old school conservatives (strom thurmond and his ilk) still hated them thar' colored folks. the more acceptable conservatism prevalent in the world today was originally vanguarded by the small clique of neocons several decades earlier
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A question would be: Do neocons blindly pledge loyalty to Israel? Or is it that case that neocons believe in vigorously defending our allies? Or neither, or both?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
they do believe in vigorously defending their allies, as evidenced by their support of the vietnam war for fear of what would happen (and what did happen) when we abandoned our south vietnamese allies.
israel has always been a key issue for the neocons. one important reason is that many of the early neocons were. . .jewish. Commentary Magazine, perhaps the most important neoconservative journal, came to prominence in the 50's and is published by the americna jewish affairs council (or some such thing)
but, the real issue with israel is that neocons see the state as the sole democracy in a region engulfed by totalitarian states. that's the key reason that it should be supported. they are also disgusted with how the left treated israel. up until 1967, everyone supported israel when it was the underdog. then after '67 they creamed the arabs in yet another war, and soon became instantly hated. the neocons believe that much of this was because liberals only root for the underdog. so when israel was weak it was oh so popular, but when israel showed that it was the arabs who weren't up to par the liberal establishment's sympathy shifted towards them. this isn't the only explanation for sure, but many neocons believe that this was an important one
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: Are most neoconservatives religious? Because you said that they do tie in morality with politics, and it seems that religion - in general - would be a starting point for an agreeable morality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
religion is extremely important and plays a foundational purpose for many of the individual writers. interestingly enough however i have never seen religion explicitly referenced when they are discussing social policy. however, as for the issue of morality and what it's roots are, if it could be grounded in secualism or religion, well, that's an issue of philosophy and that particular question is something i have a hard time wrapping my mind around.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I still think you are a raving loon but it's nice to see the conscious ideology articulated out
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i'll be honest, i still don't fully understand neoconservative ideology. it is much less clear then say fascism as laid out by gentile, which as we found out was pretty damn straightforward. an ideology based upon a way of thinking is just much weirder, heck, its kinda like the difference between buddhism and christianity in a way.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can there be non-white neoconservatives? Because, though I'll admit while I lost my "Topps 2003 Neocon Collector's Set" of cards, I don't recall seeing any brown or asian faces in there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the original movement that grew up in the 50's, 60's, and 70's was basically all white, at least from those that i've come across. after that the movement basically folded within the larger conservative camp (or according to some disgruntled conservatives, co-opted it). so there are many writers now (shelby steele, john mcwhorter), who basically write like they are neocons
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
they advocate information control as a means to manipulate the less-educated hoi polloi? Reportedly, Irving Kristol has said words to this effect, especially in regards to evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
no fucking clue. umm, maybe this is related, but they really have a beef with intellectuals and are big fans of the working class. there are reams of articles (scholarly ones ironically, ha!) about how intellectuals are big dorks. so to say that they are elitist may not be correct.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a broader sense, a darker undercurrent of cultural imperialism and a we-know-best mentality certainly seems to be apparent even in Happydayz' original rah-rah post at top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yep yep. but that is in some ways the beauty of the ideology, umm, if you can see it that way. they are damn proud of western civilization and all that its accomplished. one neocon/con writer victor davis hanson, has basically come out and said that western civilization is the best civilization to have developed in world history. yet, a key ingredient of western civilization is the supremacy of the individual. this gets into pretty muddy waters no doubt, as you can be caught in the trap of trying to persuade others to embrace individual liberty when though they might not want to. So, the real issue then is what means they advocate. You can strongly believe in certain ideals, yet not be willing to delegate these to others in an authoritarian way. It is in much the same way that a libertarian like milton friedman can strongly believe that economic freedom translates into political freedom, and vice versa, but not go out and take over the gov't if the people democratically decide to institute a single payer health care system.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to be honest, i'd like to see that article in its entirety. i have come across similar things that he has said roughly to that effect, and to be honest i didn't find it all to sinister. for example, he is a strong supporter of education, but is opposed to the system we have now where students can basically pick 80% of the classes they take, even in their first year in while pursuing a liberal arts degree. kristol was more in favor of the more strict curriculum of the University of Chicago, where much of the curriculum is prescribed for hte first few years before a student can begin branching out. the rationale for this was that college students should be allowed to learn, but at that stage in their development don't yet know what they should be learning. the effect of this is that they end up taking coursework that although interesting, may not in fact increase their wisdom. being a fan of Univ of Chic curriculum i basically agree with this, especially coming from the University of California where I could have graduated by only taking total shit classes had I wanted to (and as many already do)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No community can survive if it is persuaded--or even suspects--that its members are leading meaningless lives in a meaningless universe."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
doesn't sound too sinister to me. this really relates to the counterculture and how the fabric of society was ripped apart by people believing that their existence within 1960's-70's america meant nothing, and thus got doped up on drugs and left for hippie communes.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drav came out of the closet to say:
The problem comes in when we have to give up democracy and freedom at home to promote it abroad. That is such a logical disconnect to me. Why does government have to get bigger to accomplish that goal? Why are we losing democracy here to give it to other countries? How do you restrict personal freedoms and promote economic freedoms at the same time?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it is hard to see if these are really neoconservative policies per se. one of the most confusing things about neoconservatism is that it has basically run its course. irving kristol, the so-called godfather of neoconservatism, has basically said as much. they are deeply welded into mainstream conservative politics today, to such an extent that it is now hard to distinguish b/w fellow conservatives as to who is who. as for giving up democracy and freedom at home, to be honest that is a different matter. that is a security issue that any democracy has to deal with, trying to reconcile the ideals of freedom and security. the compromises made are in no way unique to neoconservatives
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How is their domestic and foreign policies supposed to mesh?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
long story short: the belief that america is a great, moral place that is the best for fulfilling human happiness, and thus is worth defending. that explains some of their domestic policies, with their hesitation to use sweeping social policies (although they are more likely to then traditional conservatives), and also explains why they were so strong willed in the fight against the soviet union.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much political influence do you think the neocons actually have? Who in the administration today would you call a neoconservative? Name names please.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
really hard to answer. they have powerful ideas which many in washington find attractive, but its still politics at the end of the day, and compromises become inevitable. take iraq for instance, the so-called neoconservative paul wolfowitz was greatly in favor of the war. but then again, so were many other security studies thinkers out there who believed that it was a strategic necessity. names: popular ones are douglas feith, paul wolfowitz, john bolton (lol!), and uhh, stit, i've forgotten. it's just that a lot of the neocons who were prominent foreign policy scholars, dr. kirkpatrick for example, have already had their time in the spotlight and now third generation conservative scholars have taken their place.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are they really influenced by neoconservative ideas, or is it just a matter of borrowing whatever arguments seem to fit the day's policy goals? True believers or opportunists? Or are there merely similarities and the neocons - being career academics/writers - are taking the credit/blame for the publicity?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
irving kristol wrote an essay once about what he thought was the main, and perhaps ideal way, in which neocons spread their agenda. some neoconservative scholar, writing in a journal, publishes an article about social policy X. a bunch of folks read this article and begin writing letters to the editor in response to it. an intellectual debate kicks off among intellectuals, which is then picked up by policy wonks. this then gets transferred to an executive or legislator, and in some form gets turned into actual policy. the early original neocons were never really in positions of power, but rather influenced policy by changing the discourse of society (see, principle 3: ideas ruling the world).
as for the post 1990's neoconservatives, i have no fucking clue. as i said before, most neoconservatives basically say that the movement really no longer exists.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How can you rationalize moral absolutism outside of religion? Or failing that, how can you reconcile a government that bases it's policies on moral abolutism with the separation of church and state?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i once tried to debate this, and began talking about the secular roots of morality, and frankly i got lost so i stopped listening. so sorry, i can't really comment on this
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think Osama bin Laden thinks himself as a Bad man? Possibly, but unlikely. He probably thinks of himself as one of the good guys, fighting the injustices of the evil amerikkkans. See what happens when you pigeonhole people like that? Now prove that your method of determining evilness is more valid than Osamas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and neocons have long rejected this sort of meandering. they firmly believed that at its roots, the soviet union was evil. regardless of what they said about themselves, or what the liberal intelligentsia thought of them, the USSR was just plain evil, and needed to be stopped. same with bin-ladin. the old adage that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter just does not hold any weight. it is hard to explain why to a nonbeliever though. its just that neocons have come to the conclusion that the products of the western enlightenment: secularism, rationalism, and most importantly, individual liberty, are the best cultural value sets for life in the modern world.
as for foreign policy neoconservatives today, to be honest i have a hard time describing them. i'm not sure who first labelled them as neocons. frankly, i wouldn't be surprised if it was coined as a term of degeneration by their opponents, similar to the first labelling of neoconservative some 50 odd years ago. the key element of neoconservative foreign policy wonks today, aside from their profound love for the US and its value system, is their difference from other conservatives. more traditional conservatives, or structural realists on par with henry kissinger, brent scrowcroft, bush sr, saw foreign policy in the traditional structural realist way. by that i mean they believed strongly in the balance of power and the rationality of their enemies. they also believed that foreign policy was largely a, hmm, mathematical(?), scientific(?) exercise, in the sense that the conduct of foreign policy was amoral; morality had little to no role to play in its calculations.
so-called neoconservative thinkers always rejected these premises. sometimes people can be irrational (i.e. evil), and balancing state powers isn't the best way to go about changing the world. so, while some conservatives saw co-existence with the USSR and China as being the way to go, in the hopes that the rationality of our foes and the balance of power could keep things peaceful, neocons wanted engagement. in the 90's they still believe the same thing, however as i said earlier, the radical reshaping of the world have the end of the cold war and the predominance of american power may lead them to believe that the US can take a far more activist approach to international affairs (again with the morality element) without significant fear of blowback.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMJack came out of the closet to say:
Here's the dilemma: Two groups, in direct violent opposition, each believe in their heart of hearts that they are "good guys" and that the other group is "bad guys". Each can cite their own historical, traditional, philosophical, and moral evidence for their own rightness and the other guy's wrongness. Which one group is right, and what evidence can you produce to support that beyond the comedy "'cuz I say so" and "'cuz God says so" options?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of course its a dilemma, but again, the neocons would attribute such an attitude towards the inherent naivete of good people. we try to treat everyone equally, even those who are wretched and degenerate. in your example, you are holding up the US and the USSR up as moral equals, which is something that neocons would strenously object to. neocons aren't big fans of post-modernism of this sort
Ok that was massively long, but I thought much of it was illuminating. It is by no means exhaustive and there were some points he didn't touch on which i wish he would have. Personally I'm still trying to come to grasp with the philosophy. The more I read on my own the more I realize there really isn't a consensus about what neoconservatism is. I think it's important to know what it is thougb because whether Bush gets re-elected or not they will be a driving political force for years.
Also the "godfather" of Neoconservatism, Irving Kristol, wrote an editorial in the Weekly Standard explaining the position http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp
A quick word about myself. I just graduated from college with a bachelors in political science. Before graduating however I taught a course on neoconservatism. I spent one semester planning the course out, identifying key neoconservative intellectuals as well as landmark articles. This semester culminated in the publication of a 300+ page course reader of some of the best neoconservative articles that I came across. I also probably ended up reading/skimming 2-3x the number of pages in other articles which ultimately did not make the final cut. In the second semester I held a weekly seminar that around 15-20 students took for course credit, going over the readings and trying to hold a reasoned discourse over the subject matter. So, while I am by no means an expect on neoconservatism and ready to write a dissertation and appear on "Charlie Rose", i still know more then the average bear.
But, before you all ask away, let me just a brief (hopefully) overview of who the neoconservatives are, and what they believe.
As the name entails, neoconservatives are often thought of as. . .new conservatives. whoa.
The original neoconservatives were students over at the City College of New York. At the time tuition was free, so for depression era new york city students at the time the City College was where it was at, and consequently had admissions rates comparable to Harvard. At the college there were your usual assortment of campus loonies. Trotsykites, stalinists, leninists, etc. etc. The original neocons hung out at Alcove 1 with the rest of the trotskyites, and spent their times preaching communism while hating on stalin. Because most of them were smarties and jews (NOT RACIST!) they ended up in academia or other intellectual fields. Some of these original neocons were Irving Kirstol, Norman Podhoretz, and Daniel Bell.
However, although they were all originally dirty commie reds, they all began moving rightwards in their adulthood. When the true horrors of stalin's regime came to open they all began questionning the dangers of communism, and became disgruntled with the democratic party's relatively weak response to communism. They furthermore began believing strongly in classical liberal politics, believing strongly in individual rights and liberty. So, the Cold War helped move many liberals into the neoconservative camp when they began seeing the fight against the Soviet Union was one literally between good and evil. A second major cause for people to shift into the neoconservative camp was the 60's and the counterculture. Many of them saw the student movements and counterculture to be incredibly destructive to the fabric of society. They saw a large segment of society explicitly rejecting the very foundations of that society, and were disturbed as to where that might lead.
As the social strain of the 60's continued, many writers who thought of themselves as liberal found themselves shunned by their peers for their writing. Take the former Patrick Moynihan for example. In his famous article now known as the Moynihan Report, originally entitled "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action", moynihan made the claim that the failure of the negro family was the real root of black underachievement, not latent racism. If the deterioration of the black family could be averted (via high divorce rates, single mothers, etc.), then blacks in america could succeed. Since the article appeared to "blame the victim", moynihan was completely shunned by his liberal peers and instead found himself being praised in liberal circles.
However, during most of this time the neocons were still a small, albeit influential group of people. They truly came to prominence during the Reagan Revolution. In Reagan the neocons found many of their ideals expressed into policy. The soviet union was succintly summed up in reagan's parlance as the "Evil Empire". Capitalism and free markets were to be encouraged not just because they were better, but because they were implicitly more moral. In short, neocons loved reagan because like them he realized that morality does have a role to play in politics and that it is ultimately beneficial for all around. This then contrasts reagan sharply with his VP, bush 41, who in terms of foreign policy at least took a more structuralist, balance of power approach to things.
So that's a brief overview of their history. As for what they believe:
As I said in another thread, there is no coherent neoconservative ideology. There is no checklist to follow as there exists in say some strands of marxism, leninism, or fascism. Rather, its a way of thought, certain key understandings that then influence how you analyze a problem. One writer, Mark Gerson, distilled these understandings into 4 key points which I'll basically rehash.
1) Life is infinitely complex.
Seems simpleenough but it has profound implications. Because life and humanity is so difficult to understand, neocons are very suspicious of sweeping policy programs and efforts to remake society via social engineering. They believe firmly in the law of unintended consequences, that although you have engineer a policy to accomplish a goal, the unintended consequences of this policy may act to actually undermine it. This is now a common understanding in economics and political science today. The classic example is the welfare trap. You have welfare because you want people to be able to have a leg to stand on when they are unemployed and hopefully transition themselves into a nice job. However, this also creates the incentive NOT to work, especially if the welfare benefits outweigh your potential earning potential. So, although you may have welfare and unemployment benefits in order to encourage work, the actual effects could be just the reverse.
They also believe that social institutions embody inherited wisdom, a la Edmund Burke's analysis in "Reflections on the Revolution in France". Culture has evolved over hundreds of years, thus one should be hesitant to change it too drastically in too short a period of time. This then relates to the necons need to protect such social institutions as the family for example, or the small community.
2) Man can be good, but man can also be evil.
Again, sounds simple, and perhaps silly, but again profound. Take some strains in society today that believe that everything is relative, that there is no evil, or that ill deeds are merely the result of poor upbringing. Neocons handedly reject this, and believe that evil does in fact exist in the world, and must be rooted out. Much of this analysis comes from Reinhold Niebuhr's book "The Children of light and the Children of Darkness". In this analysis the children of the light are always searching for the good in others, and hte children of the dark try to take advantage of this naivete to their own advantage. The children of light must overcome this natural tendency to only see the good in others and recognize that evil does in fact exist, and must be confronted.
3) Man is a social animal.
This is where Leo Strauss really comes in. A community is held together and consecrated by shared values and principles. Man is a political animal, and these shared values (in america embodied within the declaration and constitution) must be protected. So, social institutions should try to inculcate citizens in these virtues (through civic and liberal education for example). Also, politics and economics are functions of culture, and any ideology which seeks to take its place (totalitarianism or communism) will ultimately lead to widespread feelings of unfulfillment among the populace and mass suffering
4) Ideas rule the world.
Unlike marxists who are materialist, neocons believe that it is in the realm of ideas that the world is shaped. If a society isn't willing to defend its ideals, then it is ultimately doomed to failure. This also explains the neocons obsession with the university, since it is at hte university where ideas are often spread and their fear at the spread of post-modernism in academia, a belief that many neocons view as nihilistic.
So, that's about it. Long story short: with respect to domestic policy neocons unlike traditiona conservatives believe that gov't does have a role in shaping society for hte better, but are more hesitant then democratics in using social policy due to unintended consequences. they believe strongly in capitalism since it is a moral way to run the economy, and believe that the tenants of bourgeouise society are something to be proud of.
as for foreign policy, they are closely akin to reagan. in fact, a key neoconservative essay on foreign policy that appeared in "Foreign Affairs" is entitled "Towards a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy". They believe that true evil does exist in teh international system (in the past the USSR, presently the so called axis-of-evil), and the US and its allied should overcome their natural tendencies to see only good in these countries and recognize that they are enemies who need to be confronted. They also believe strongly in virtue and ideals in the conduct of foreign policy, unlike structuralists like kissinger. So, where kissinger may overthrow a country and put in a dictatorship if that's whats needed, a neocon would be far more hesitant to do so and believe that doing so undermines our own country and is also poor foreign policy. this is one of hte reasons the neocons were among the first to be calling for a change of relations with turkey and saudi arabia, whereas the structuralists are far more hesitant.
Umm, that's all for now as I gotta run. As you can see, the more open nature of neoconservative ideology makes it hard to pin anything exactly on them. Some neocons may agree with a certain policy, others may disagree, mainly because of which of they four key values they are emphasizing. That's mainly why there is no neoconservative bible on par with "The Communist Manifesto", because doing so would be nearly impossible
some key readings you might want to check out
1) Daniel Moyhnihan: The Negro Family: The Case for National Action
2) Norman Podhoretz: "My Negro Problems, and Ours". from Commentary Magainze, feb 1963
3) Irving Kristol: The Adversity Culture of Intellectuals
4) forgot who: "Defining Deviancy Up"
As for foreign policy. the most famous of all neocon essays is
5) Jeanne Kirkpatrick: "Of Dictatorships and Double Standards"
and as mentionned earlier "Towards a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy"
Later he took on some questions
sorry for the delay in responding.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do neoconservatives rationally defend their morality? How do they reconcile their belief in a free society with their social policy agenda?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a lot of their domestic agenda is specific to western civilization, and more specifically the US. i would have to say that they would appeal to burke's analysis of culture and heritage, saying that it is the collected wisdom of the ages handed down by our predecessors. They defend their morality based upon the fact that much of this stems from our society and culture. To be honest, discussing morality really delves into the realm of philosphy, a subject matter i've never been too comfortable with. i will just say that they all believe strongly in the ideals of bourgeouise society and western civilization. by bourgeouise society i mean the ideals of thrift, hard work, education, and social and personal betterment through said means. western civilization is, well, you know, the whole enlightenment period, the declaration of independance, etc.
their social policy agenda is built on progressive grounds, basically trying to actively better the world around them through social policy. They reconcile such beliefs in a free society with this social policy agenda the same way that most democrats do. You try to maintain as much personal freedom as possible but recognize that changes need to be had. Perhaps one difference is how much faith they however put into capitalism, given their belief that capitalism (or economic freedom), also translates into political freedom, hence a free society. Some of their activist social policy then relates to this, such as their general support for school vouchers for example. A social policy, yet a market based one that in their mind ultimately advances freedom.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To minimise spham I'll base on their titles only, see above for full details. Several of them even contradict each other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yep. which is why it's so difficult to pin down issues on neocons.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This sounds great until you realise the neocons are all about the 'big sweeping policies' also, and willfully ignorant of the unintended consequences of their action. They pushed for the invasion of and entire nation, and yet at no point accepted the posbility of unintended consequences for such an enormous and compex situation. In fact their entire mindset is based around the idea of changing the world, and ignoring the reality of the unintended consequences that would result. Clearly this maxim only applies to domestic issues
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yep. neoconservatism as it developed was originally mainly domestic, the main foreign policy issue was that of defeating the soviet union. although that was a grand enterprise, the belief was that any of the unintended consequences entailed with defeating the reds would ultimately be less costly then allowing the USSR to continue living. this is related to this question:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do they go from those core ideals to the sort of Wilsonian fix the world globe hopping military adventures they seem to favor? I understand it's probably in accordance with rule 4, but it seems to violate rule 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that indeed is a contradiction of core ideals. here's the best i can do to explain it. first off, there's the basic lame response that any ideology may have internal contradictions, especially as it relates to big policy issues. some ideals may outweight others, as perhaps is the case with iraq. a more interesting explanation may be more of an issue relating to individuals. a lot of the current neoconservative hawks in washington today came of age during the reagan administration. during this time there was the missionary zeal among some thinkers to spread democracy around the world as part of the effort to take on the soviets directly and remove that source of evil. as i stated earlier, the unintended consequences of removing the states was deemed less worrisome then allowing them to continue to exist. this pro-active foreign policy belief may very well have continued on in the minds of their key foreign policy wonks. this argument is especially compelling now given the US's predominant stature in the world today. with such unprecedented power, some neoconservative thinkers may believe it possible to go about radically reshaping the world while remaining relatively safe from any unintended consequences, given the rather large strategic buffer that we have due to our incredible strength. in this case, the fear of unintended consequences is completely outweighed by the benefits of ridding the world of evil.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's also very convenient in that it ignores the consequences of for instance, the damage israel has done to palestine, the traums associated with years of war in vasrious nations, the impact of poverty, and so on- all of it is ignored, swept under the rug and instead, it's a metter of good and evil. This is a very convenient mindset for somebody who, despite their claims, willfully seeks to ignore the complexities that the world confronts us with.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
where has this ever been stated? a key neoconservative insight was the one made by moynihan when he stated that blacks weren't inherently evil or violent, rather the degeneration of their family caused a breakdown of their social fabric. mitigating consequences is something that they are completely aware of. a better understanding of where this principle comes from is the Cold War. during the 50's, 60's, 70's, and heck, even the 90's, many liberals sincerely believed that the soviet union was not a major threat, that it could be successfully negotiated with over the long term and kept in check. for the neocons, this attitude was disgusting as the political ideology of hte soviet union was in fact evil, and needed to be confronted. yes, there are sometimes mitigating and casual factors at play, but rather then sitting around and clenching their hands at how unfair we were to the soviets during the 1920's, they instead decided to go out and confront them.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They talk about defending ideals, but since when were the ideals of the US tolerant of the notion of propaganda, indoctrination, and oppositition to free expression? Because that's what these people want. They want everyone to think like they do, and yet somehow, they claim to be supporting the ideals of the US and in a broader sense, western democracy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
simply because you were opposed to the counterculture for example does not mean that you are opposed to free expression. their fear is that in a surge of social upheavel, w/ little thought as to the consequences, people may overturn long standing social norms. hence their belief in trying to preserve basic core societal values and beliefs, and allowing these to change as needed over time in nonrevolutionary means.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you could give a thumbnail on say, Chechnya vs. Liberia vs. Iraq vs. North Korea vs. Iran, that would rule, although I understand if that's asking a bit much
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by thumnail you mean quick explanation? to be honest i haven't come across any neoconservative writings on the issue of chechnya or liberia, so anything that i would say would be purely conjecture. a perusal of the archives of Commentary Magazine, The Weekly Standard, or to a lesser extent The National Interest for those countries may be helpful. as for Iraq, N. Korea, and Iran, you bet the neocons want to change those states. Iraq, well, we all know that. as for n. korea the neocons have been advocating basically the same policies they advocated for the soviet union. put intense diplomatic pressure on them, try to isolate them, and maintain sanctions. the neocons were incensed as clinton's appeasement of them in 1994 and are worried that bush is doing a similar thing now. as for iran, michael ledeen, a prominent neoconservative scholar in foreign policy, has long advocated a regime change in iran. however, he believes that it should come about internally through the student movement currently taking place within the country. the role of the US should be for President Bush to stand out and voice his support for hte movement, and also supply monetary aid to be used with the help of information distribution. a search for Michael Ledeen in the online archives of www.nationalreview.com will have all of his writings on this subject.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How would a neocon better deal with the infinitely complex as compared to current legislators? You mentioned that broad, sweeping laws don't take into account unintended side-effects. How would you deal with those side-effects?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
most likely through a greater reliance on market based policies.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the rush job on the Patriot Act a typical process to be expected from neocons, i.e. do they feel it is safe to openly discuss legislation before passing it into law? Or is that something that varies wildly by the person?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
one funny quote about neoconservatives was written by Jonah Goldberg (ha!) of the national review. in it, he basically says that 100 years ago conservatives knew that a father was conducive to a well-functioning household. in the present day, neoconservatives believe the exact same thing, only that they require years of statistical analysis and data sampling in order to come to said conclusion. to say that they believe in rushed legislation is a bit off. as for the patriot act, i really don't know who pushed it, and frankly would doubt that ashcroft qualifies as a neoconservative. a
nother hard thing about neoconservatism is that no one really calls themselves a neocon. the phrase was originally coined by a socialist in an article insulting them. it's just that overtime, a group of writers have been identified as having hte same mindset on their approaches to politics, and were subequently grouped together. what makes this even more complicated is that they had a massive effect on conservative politics during the reagan era, to such an extent that the neo prefix is really kinda useless now, they are just conservatives. the distinction between conservatives and neocons was most clear during the 50's-70's. the neocons were early supporters of hte civil rights movement for example, whereas the old school conservatives (strom thurmond and his ilk) still hated them thar' colored folks. the more acceptable conservatism prevalent in the world today was originally vanguarded by the small clique of neocons several decades earlier
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A question would be: Do neocons blindly pledge loyalty to Israel? Or is it that case that neocons believe in vigorously defending our allies? Or neither, or both?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
they do believe in vigorously defending their allies, as evidenced by their support of the vietnam war for fear of what would happen (and what did happen) when we abandoned our south vietnamese allies.
israel has always been a key issue for the neocons. one important reason is that many of the early neocons were. . .jewish. Commentary Magazine, perhaps the most important neoconservative journal, came to prominence in the 50's and is published by the americna jewish affairs council (or some such thing)
but, the real issue with israel is that neocons see the state as the sole democracy in a region engulfed by totalitarian states. that's the key reason that it should be supported. they are also disgusted with how the left treated israel. up until 1967, everyone supported israel when it was the underdog. then after '67 they creamed the arabs in yet another war, and soon became instantly hated. the neocons believe that much of this was because liberals only root for the underdog. so when israel was weak it was oh so popular, but when israel showed that it was the arabs who weren't up to par the liberal establishment's sympathy shifted towards them. this isn't the only explanation for sure, but many neocons believe that this was an important one
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: Are most neoconservatives religious? Because you said that they do tie in morality with politics, and it seems that religion - in general - would be a starting point for an agreeable morality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
religion is extremely important and plays a foundational purpose for many of the individual writers. interestingly enough however i have never seen religion explicitly referenced when they are discussing social policy. however, as for the issue of morality and what it's roots are, if it could be grounded in secualism or religion, well, that's an issue of philosophy and that particular question is something i have a hard time wrapping my mind around.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I still think you are a raving loon but it's nice to see the conscious ideology articulated out
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i'll be honest, i still don't fully understand neoconservative ideology. it is much less clear then say fascism as laid out by gentile, which as we found out was pretty damn straightforward. an ideology based upon a way of thinking is just much weirder, heck, its kinda like the difference between buddhism and christianity in a way.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can there be non-white neoconservatives? Because, though I'll admit while I lost my "Topps 2003 Neocon Collector's Set" of cards, I don't recall seeing any brown or asian faces in there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the original movement that grew up in the 50's, 60's, and 70's was basically all white, at least from those that i've come across. after that the movement basically folded within the larger conservative camp (or according to some disgruntled conservatives, co-opted it). so there are many writers now (shelby steele, john mcwhorter), who basically write like they are neocons
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
they advocate information control as a means to manipulate the less-educated hoi polloi? Reportedly, Irving Kristol has said words to this effect, especially in regards to evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
no fucking clue. umm, maybe this is related, but they really have a beef with intellectuals and are big fans of the working class. there are reams of articles (scholarly ones ironically, ha!) about how intellectuals are big dorks. so to say that they are elitist may not be correct.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a broader sense, a darker undercurrent of cultural imperialism and a we-know-best mentality certainly seems to be apparent even in Happydayz' original rah-rah post at top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yep yep. but that is in some ways the beauty of the ideology, umm, if you can see it that way. they are damn proud of western civilization and all that its accomplished. one neocon/con writer victor davis hanson, has basically come out and said that western civilization is the best civilization to have developed in world history. yet, a key ingredient of western civilization is the supremacy of the individual. this gets into pretty muddy waters no doubt, as you can be caught in the trap of trying to persuade others to embrace individual liberty when though they might not want to. So, the real issue then is what means they advocate. You can strongly believe in certain ideals, yet not be willing to delegate these to others in an authoritarian way. It is in much the same way that a libertarian like milton friedman can strongly believe that economic freedom translates into political freedom, and vice versa, but not go out and take over the gov't if the people democratically decide to institute a single payer health care system.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to be honest, i'd like to see that article in its entirety. i have come across similar things that he has said roughly to that effect, and to be honest i didn't find it all to sinister. for example, he is a strong supporter of education, but is opposed to the system we have now where students can basically pick 80% of the classes they take, even in their first year in while pursuing a liberal arts degree. kristol was more in favor of the more strict curriculum of the University of Chicago, where much of the curriculum is prescribed for hte first few years before a student can begin branching out. the rationale for this was that college students should be allowed to learn, but at that stage in their development don't yet know what they should be learning. the effect of this is that they end up taking coursework that although interesting, may not in fact increase their wisdom. being a fan of Univ of Chic curriculum i basically agree with this, especially coming from the University of California where I could have graduated by only taking total shit classes had I wanted to (and as many already do)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No community can survive if it is persuaded--or even suspects--that its members are leading meaningless lives in a meaningless universe."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
doesn't sound too sinister to me. this really relates to the counterculture and how the fabric of society was ripped apart by people believing that their existence within 1960's-70's america meant nothing, and thus got doped up on drugs and left for hippie communes.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drav came out of the closet to say:
The problem comes in when we have to give up democracy and freedom at home to promote it abroad. That is such a logical disconnect to me. Why does government have to get bigger to accomplish that goal? Why are we losing democracy here to give it to other countries? How do you restrict personal freedoms and promote economic freedoms at the same time?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it is hard to see if these are really neoconservative policies per se. one of the most confusing things about neoconservatism is that it has basically run its course. irving kristol, the so-called godfather of neoconservatism, has basically said as much. they are deeply welded into mainstream conservative politics today, to such an extent that it is now hard to distinguish b/w fellow conservatives as to who is who. as for giving up democracy and freedom at home, to be honest that is a different matter. that is a security issue that any democracy has to deal with, trying to reconcile the ideals of freedom and security. the compromises made are in no way unique to neoconservatives
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How is their domestic and foreign policies supposed to mesh?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
long story short: the belief that america is a great, moral place that is the best for fulfilling human happiness, and thus is worth defending. that explains some of their domestic policies, with their hesitation to use sweeping social policies (although they are more likely to then traditional conservatives), and also explains why they were so strong willed in the fight against the soviet union.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much political influence do you think the neocons actually have? Who in the administration today would you call a neoconservative? Name names please.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
really hard to answer. they have powerful ideas which many in washington find attractive, but its still politics at the end of the day, and compromises become inevitable. take iraq for instance, the so-called neoconservative paul wolfowitz was greatly in favor of the war. but then again, so were many other security studies thinkers out there who believed that it was a strategic necessity. names: popular ones are douglas feith, paul wolfowitz, john bolton (lol!), and uhh, stit, i've forgotten. it's just that a lot of the neocons who were prominent foreign policy scholars, dr. kirkpatrick for example, have already had their time in the spotlight and now third generation conservative scholars have taken their place.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are they really influenced by neoconservative ideas, or is it just a matter of borrowing whatever arguments seem to fit the day's policy goals? True believers or opportunists? Or are there merely similarities and the neocons - being career academics/writers - are taking the credit/blame for the publicity?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
irving kristol wrote an essay once about what he thought was the main, and perhaps ideal way, in which neocons spread their agenda. some neoconservative scholar, writing in a journal, publishes an article about social policy X. a bunch of folks read this article and begin writing letters to the editor in response to it. an intellectual debate kicks off among intellectuals, which is then picked up by policy wonks. this then gets transferred to an executive or legislator, and in some form gets turned into actual policy. the early original neocons were never really in positions of power, but rather influenced policy by changing the discourse of society (see, principle 3: ideas ruling the world).
as for the post 1990's neoconservatives, i have no fucking clue. as i said before, most neoconservatives basically say that the movement really no longer exists.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How can you rationalize moral absolutism outside of religion? Or failing that, how can you reconcile a government that bases it's policies on moral abolutism with the separation of church and state?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i once tried to debate this, and began talking about the secular roots of morality, and frankly i got lost so i stopped listening. so sorry, i can't really comment on this
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think Osama bin Laden thinks himself as a Bad man? Possibly, but unlikely. He probably thinks of himself as one of the good guys, fighting the injustices of the evil amerikkkans. See what happens when you pigeonhole people like that? Now prove that your method of determining evilness is more valid than Osamas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and neocons have long rejected this sort of meandering. they firmly believed that at its roots, the soviet union was evil. regardless of what they said about themselves, or what the liberal intelligentsia thought of them, the USSR was just plain evil, and needed to be stopped. same with bin-ladin. the old adage that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter just does not hold any weight. it is hard to explain why to a nonbeliever though. its just that neocons have come to the conclusion that the products of the western enlightenment: secularism, rationalism, and most importantly, individual liberty, are the best cultural value sets for life in the modern world.
as for foreign policy neoconservatives today, to be honest i have a hard time describing them. i'm not sure who first labelled them as neocons. frankly, i wouldn't be surprised if it was coined as a term of degeneration by their opponents, similar to the first labelling of neoconservative some 50 odd years ago. the key element of neoconservative foreign policy wonks today, aside from their profound love for the US and its value system, is their difference from other conservatives. more traditional conservatives, or structural realists on par with henry kissinger, brent scrowcroft, bush sr, saw foreign policy in the traditional structural realist way. by that i mean they believed strongly in the balance of power and the rationality of their enemies. they also believed that foreign policy was largely a, hmm, mathematical(?), scientific(?) exercise, in the sense that the conduct of foreign policy was amoral; morality had little to no role to play in its calculations.
so-called neoconservative thinkers always rejected these premises. sometimes people can be irrational (i.e. evil), and balancing state powers isn't the best way to go about changing the world. so, while some conservatives saw co-existence with the USSR and China as being the way to go, in the hopes that the rationality of our foes and the balance of power could keep things peaceful, neocons wanted engagement. in the 90's they still believe the same thing, however as i said earlier, the radical reshaping of the world have the end of the cold war and the predominance of american power may lead them to believe that the US can take a far more activist approach to international affairs (again with the morality element) without significant fear of blowback.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMJack came out of the closet to say:
Here's the dilemma: Two groups, in direct violent opposition, each believe in their heart of hearts that they are "good guys" and that the other group is "bad guys". Each can cite their own historical, traditional, philosophical, and moral evidence for their own rightness and the other guy's wrongness. Which one group is right, and what evidence can you produce to support that beyond the comedy "'cuz I say so" and "'cuz God says so" options?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of course its a dilemma, but again, the neocons would attribute such an attitude towards the inherent naivete of good people. we try to treat everyone equally, even those who are wretched and degenerate. in your example, you are holding up the US and the USSR up as moral equals, which is something that neocons would strenously object to. neocons aren't big fans of post-modernism of this sort
Ok that was massively long, but I thought much of it was illuminating. It is by no means exhaustive and there were some points he didn't touch on which i wish he would have. Personally I'm still trying to come to grasp with the philosophy. The more I read on my own the more I realize there really isn't a consensus about what neoconservatism is. I think it's important to know what it is thougb because whether Bush gets re-elected or not they will be a driving political force for years.
Also the "godfather" of Neoconservatism, Irving Kristol, wrote an editorial in the Weekly Standard explaining the position http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp