Jump to content

Neoconservatism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jacrosse (talk | contribs) at 16:50, 25 March 2006 (→Neoconservative as an Epithet: Deleted entire section, unsourced and inflamatory). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For other uses, see Neoconservatism (disambiguation).

Neoconservatism refers to the political movement, ideology, and public policy goals of "new conservatives" in the United States, who are mainly characterized by critics as having relatively interventionist and hawkish views on foreign policy, and a lack of support for the "small government" principles and restrictions on social spending, when compared with other American conservatives such as traditional or paleoconservatives.

In the context of U.S. foreign policy, neoconservative has another, narrower definition: one who advocates the use of military force, unilaterally if necessary, to replace autocratic regimes with democratic ones. This view competes with liberal internationalism, realism, and non-interventionism.

The prefix "neo" can denote that many of the movement's founders, originally liberals, Democrats or from socialist backgrounds, were new to conservatism, but can also refer to the comparatively recent emergence of this "new wave" of conservative thought, which coalesced in the early 1970s from a variety of intellectual roots in the decades following World War II. It also serves to distinguish the ideology from the viewpoints of "old" or traditional American conservatism.

Modern neoconservatism is associated with periodicals such as Commentary and The Weekly Standard and some of the foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Neoconservative journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and politicians, often dubbed "neocons" by supporters and critics alike, have been credited with (or blamed for) their influence on U.S. foreign policy, especially under the administrations of Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) and George W. Bush (2001-present), and are particularly noted for their association with and support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The term "neocon," while increasingly popular in recent years, is somewhat controversial and is rejected by many to whom the label is applied, who claim it lacks a coherent definition.

Neoconservative: Definition and views

Usage and general views

The meaning of the term has changed over time. It was possibly first used circa 1970 by socialist author and activist Michael Harrington to characterize former leftists who had moved significantly to the right – people he derided as "socialists for Nixon." The "neoconservatives" thus described in this original sense tended to remain supporters of the welfare state, but had distinguished themselves from others on the left by allying with the Nixon administration over foreign policy, especially in their anti-communism, their support for the Vietnam War, and strident opposition to the Soviet Union.

This support for the welfare state is not implied by the contemporary use of the term, which critics suggest implies support for an aggressive worldwide foreign policy, especially one supportive of unilateralism and less concerned with international consensus through organizations such as the United Nations. However, neoconservatives describe their shared view as a belief that national security is best attained by promoting freedom and democracy abroad through the support of pro-democracy movements, foreign aid and in certain cases military intervention. This is a departure from the classic conservative tendency to support friendly regimes in matters of trade and anti-communism even at the expense of undermining existing democratic systems. Author Paul Berman in his book Terror and Liberalism describes it as, "Freedom for others means safety for ourselves. Let us be for freedom for others."

In academia, the term "neoconservative" refers more to journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and institutions affiliated with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and with Commentary and The Weekly Standard than to more traditional conservative policy think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation or periodicals such as Policy Review or National Review.

According to Irving Kristol, former managing editor of Commentary and now a Senior Fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington and the Publisher of the hawkish magazine The National Interest, a neoconservative is a "liberal mugged by reality," meaning someone who has become more conservative after seeing the practical impact of liberal foreign and domestic policies.

Overview of Neoconservative views

Historically, neoconservatives supported a militant anticommunism, tolerated more social welfare spending than was sometimes acceptable to libertarians and mainstream conservatives, supported civil equality for blacks and other minorities, and sympathized with a non-traditional foreign policy agenda that was less deferential to traditional conceptions of diplomacy and international law and less inclined to compromise principles even if that meant unilateral action. Indeed, domestic policy does not define neoconservatism — it is a movement founded on, and perpetuated by an aggressive approach to foreign policy, free trade, opposition to communism during the Cold War, support for Israel and Taiwan and opposition to Middle Eastern and other states that are perceived to support terrorism.

Broadly sympathetic to Woodrow Wilson's idealistic goals to spread American ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad, they grew to reject his reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish these objectives.

Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives may be characterized by an aggressive moralist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and a much weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, and, in the past, a greater acceptance of the welfare state, though none of these qualities are necessarily requisite.

Distinctions from other Conservative movements

Most people currently described as "neoconservatives" are members of the Republican Party, but while neoconservatives have generally been in electoral alignment with other conservatives, have served in the same Presidential Administrations, and have often ignored intra-conservative ideological differences in alliance against those to their left, there are notable differences between neoconservative and traditional or "paleoconservative" views. In particular, neoconservatives disagree with the nativist, protectionist, and isolationist strain of American conservatism once exemplified by the ex-Republican "paleoconservative" Pat Buchanan, and the traditional "pragmatic" approach to foreign policy often associated with Richard Nixon, which emphasized pragmatic accommodation with dictators; peace through negotiations, diplomacy, and arms control; détente and containment — rather than rollback — of the Soviet Union; and the initiation of the process that led to ties between the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the United States.

Neoconservative writers have frequently expressed admiration for the "big stick" interventionist foreign policy of Theodore Roosevelt. Neoconservative foreign policy came to be defined by advocacy of a "rollback" of Communism, (an idea touted under the Eisenhower administration by John Foster Dulles), as against mere containment, the dominant U.S. policy from the beginning of the Cold War through the Carter administration. Influential periodicals such as Commentary, The New Republic, The Public Interest, and The American Spectator, and later The Weekly Standard have been established by prominent neoconservatives or regularly host the writings of neoconservative writers.

In foreign policy, critics argue that neoconservatives tend to view the world in 1939 terms, comparing the threat from adversaries as diverse as the Soviet Union, Osama bin Laden (and, more broadly, Islamofascism), and China to the threat then-posed by Nazi Germany and Japan, while American leaders such as Reagan and Bush stand in for Winston Churchill. In this analogy, leftists and others who oppose them, are cast either as Neville Chamberlain-style appeasers or as an Anti-American fifth column. For example, Donald and Frederick Kagan's book While America Sleeps argues, at book length, an analogy between the post-cold war United States and Britain's post-World War I reduction in its military and avoidance of confrontation with other major powers.

As compared with traditional conservatism and libertarianism, which sometimes exhibit an isolationist strain, neoconservatism is characterized by an increased emphasis on defense capability, a willingness to challenge regimes deemed hostile to the values and interests of the United States, pressing for free-market policies abroad, and promoting democracy and freedom. Neoconservatives are strong believers in democratic peace theory. Critics have charged that, while paying lip service to such American values, neoconservatives have supported undemocratic regimes for realpolitik reasons.

The newly aggressive support for democracies and nation building is founded on a belief that, over the long term, it will reduce the extremism that is a breeding ground for Islamic terrorism. Neoconservatives have often postulated that democratic regimes are, on aggregate, less likely to instigate a war than a country with an authoritarian form of government. In support, they argue that there has been no war between genuine democracies anywhere in the world since the War of 1812. 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, the Administration has advocated spreading democracy to regions of the world where it currently does not prevail, most notably the Arab nations of the Middle East.

In addition, the neoconservative-influenced Project for the New American Century has called for an Israel no longer dependent on American aid through the removal of major threats in the region.

Neoconservatives also have a very strong belief in the ability to install democracy after a conflict - comparisons with denazification in Germany and Japan starting in 1945 are often made, and they have a principled belief in defending democracies against aggression. Despite the distance and practical difficulties and dangers involved, neoconservatives would generally support Taiwan against an attack from mainland China.

Shortcomings and criticism of the term "Neoconservative"

Relatively few of those identified as neoconservatives embrace the term.

Critics of the term argue that it lacks coherent definition, or that it is coherent only in a Cold War context.

The fact that the use of the term "neoconservative" has rapidly risen since the 2003 Iraq War is cited by conservatives as proof that the term is largely irrelevant in the long term. David Horowitz, a purported leading neo-con thinker offered this critique in a recent interview with an Italian newspaper:

Neo-conservatism is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no "neo-conservative" movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today neo-conservatism identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists.

Similarly, many other supposed neoconservatives believe that the term has been adopted by the political left to stereotype supporters of U.S. foreign policy under the George W. Bush administration. Others have similarly likened descriptions of neoconservatism to a conspiracy theory and attribute the term to anti-Semitism. Paul Wolfowitz has denounced the term as meaningless label, saying:

[If] you read the Middle Eastern press, it seems to be a euphemism for some kind of nefarious Zionist conspiracy. But I think that, in my view it's very important to approach [foreign policy] not from a doctrinal point of view. I think almost every case I know is different. Indonesia is different from the Philippines. Iraq is different from Indonesia. I think there are certain principles that I believe are American principles – both realism and idealism. I guess I'd like to call myself a democratic realist. I don't know if that makes me a neo-conservative or not.

Jonah Goldberg and others have rejected the label as trite and over-used, arguing "There's nothing 'neo' about me: I was never anything other than conservative." Other critics have similarly argued the term has been rendered meaningless through excessive and inconsistent use. For example, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are often identified as leading "neocons" despite the fact that both men have ostensibly been life-long conservative Republicans (though Cheney has been vocally supportive of the ideas of Irving Kristol). Such critics thus largely reject the claim that there is a neoconservative movement separate from traditional American conservatism.

Other traditional conservatives are likewise skeptical of the contemporary usage term, and may dislike being associated with the stereotypes, or even the supposed agendas of the "neocons." Conservative columnist David Harsanyi wrote, "These days, it seems that even temperate support for military action against dictators and terrorists qualifies you a neocon."

During the 1970s, for example in a book on the movement by Peter Steinfels, the use of the term neoconservative was never identified with the writings of Leo Strauss. The near synonymity, in some quarters, of neoconservatism and Straussianism is a much more recent phenomenon, which suggests that perhaps two quite distinct movements have become merged into one, either in fact or in the eyes of certain beholders.

Pejorative use

The term is frequently used pejoratively, both by self-described paleoconservatives, who oppose neoconservatism from the right, and by Democratic politicians opposing neoconservatives from the left. Recently, Democratic politicians have used the term to criticize the Republican policies and leaders of the current Bush administration.

History and origins of neoconservatism

Great Depression and World War II

"New" conservatives initially approached this view from the political left, especially in reponse to key developments in modern American history.

The forerunners of neoconservativism were generally liberals or socialists who strongly supported the Second World War, and who were influenced by the Depression-era ideas of former New Dealers, trade unionists, and Trotskyists, particularly those who followed the political ideas of Max Shachtman (A number of future neoconservatives such as Jeane Kirkpatrick and Ken Adelman were Shachtmanites in their youth, while others were later involved with Social Democrats USA. Most neoconservatives, however, including those who have been close to SDUSA, will strenuously deny, even contrary to evidence, that they were ever Shachtmanites.

Opposition to Détente with the Soviet Union and the views of the anti-Soviet and anti-capitalist New Left, which emerged in response to the Soviet Union's break with Stalinism in the 1950s, would cause the Neoconservatives to split with the "liberal consensus" of the early postwar years. The original "neoconservative" theorists, such as Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, were often associated with the magazine Commentary, and their intellectual evolution is quite evident in that magazine over the course of these years. Throughout the 1950s and early 1960s the early neoconservatives were anti-Communist socialists strongly supportive of the American Civil Rights Movement, integration, and Martin Luther King.

File:IrvingKristol.gif
Irving Kristol

Drift away from New Left and Great Society

While initially, the views of the New Left became very popular among the children of hardline Communists, often Jewish immigrant families on the edge of poverty and including those of some of today's most famous neoconservative thinkers, some neoconservatives also came to despise the counterculture of the 1960s and what they felt was a growing "anti-Americanism" among many baby boomers, exemplified in the emerging New Left by the movement against the Vietnam War.

As the radicalization of the New Left pushed these intellectuals farther to the right, they moved toward a more aggressive militarism, while also becoming disillusioned with the Johnson Administration's Great Society.

Academics in these circles, many of whom were still Democrats, rebelled against the Democratic Party's leftward drift on defense issues in the 1970s, especially after the nomination of George McGovern in 1972. Many clustered around Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Democrat derisively known as the "Senator from Boeing," but then they aligned themselves with Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, who promised to confront charges of Soviet "expansionism."

Michael Lind, a self-described former neoconservative, wrote that neoconservatism "originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ("Scoop") Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals.' When the Cold War ended, "many 'paleoliberals' drifted back to the Democratic center... Today's neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists."[1]

Senator Henry M. Jackson, influential neoconservative forerunner.

In his semi-autobiographical book, Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, Irving Kristol cites a number of influences on his own thought, including not only Max Shachtman and Leo Strauss but also the skeptical liberal literary critic Lionel Trilling. The influence of Leo Strauss and his disciples on some neoconservatives has generated some controversy. Some argue that Strauss's influence has left some neoconservatives adopting a Machiavellian view of politics. See Leo Strauss for a discussion of this controversy.

Left-wing roots of Neoconservative organizations

The neoconservative desire to spread democracy abroad has been likened to the Trotskyist theory of permanent revolution. Author Michael Lind argues that the neoconservatives are influenced by the thought of Trotskyists such as James Burnham and Max Shachtman, who argued that "the United States and similar societies are dominated by a decadent, postbourgeois 'new class'". He sees the neoconservative concept of "global democratic revolution" as deriving from the Trotskyist Fourth International's "vision of permanent revolution". He also points to what he sees as the Marxist origin of "the economic determinist idea that liberal democracy is an epiphenomenon of capitalism", which he describes as "Marxism with entrepreneurs substituted for proletarians as the heroic subjects of history." However, few leading neoconservatives cite James Burnham as a major influence, as he differed with them on many issues.[2]

Critics of Lind contend that there is no theoretical connection between Trotsky's "permanent revolution", which is concerned with the pace of radical social change in the third world, and neoconservative support for a "global democratic revolution", with its Wilsonian roots.[3] But Wilsonianism does share with the theory of permanent revolution very similar concerns about the democratization of ostensibly backward parts of the world.

Lind argues furthermore that "The organization as well as the ideology of the neoconservative movement has left-liberal origins". He draws a line from the center-left anti-Communist Congress for Cultural Freedom to the Committee on the Present Danger to the Project for the New American Century and adds that "European social democratic models inspired the quintessential neocon institution, the National Endowment for Democracy."

Another author who has focused extensively on this phenomenon is Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com. He explains the left-wing roots of neoconservatism thus:

Shachtman split off from the main body of Trotskyism in 1940, forming the Workers Party, of which Burnham was briefly a member. He stubbornly maintained his devotion to the cause of socialism, but alongside it began to develop a strategic orientation that involved less revolutionary means to achieve it. As the Workers Party began to move into the 1950s and beyond, they changed their name to the Independent Socialist League and buried themselves in the old Socialist Party. They became a major force in the AFL-CIO on account of their hold on union offices, and the militant anti-Stalinism of the Trotskyist left, in the end, translated into a militant anti-Communism that owed more to Senator "Scoop" Jackson, of Washington, the hardline cold warrior Democrat, than to an orthodox interpretation of the Communist classics. Shachtman and his followers soon latched on to the senator as the exemplar of their foreign policy views, and it was through this connection – Shachtman supported Jackson's abortive presidential bid and planted his followers on staff – that the neocons made their first appearance in Washington. The Jackson connection was the first beachhead established by Shachtman and his followers in Washington, when they were still in the Democratic Party. Their party loyalties, however, as we have seen, were less than rock solid, and they readily moved into the Republican Party when both necessity and opportunity required it.

As Raimondo and others see it, the Shachtmanites, from Social Democrats USA and into the Reagan Administration onward, were acting on a totally orthodox Leninist trajectory of entryism, and a massively successful one at that. The vintage Leninist staple of the front group was particularly evident, from the Coalition for a Democratic Majority and the Committee on the Present Danger in the 1970s to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies today. Any intellectual inconsistency in a merger with the Straussians - after all, both Trotsky and Strauss were firm believers in the power of an elite with esoteric knowledge to lead the masses - would therefore seem superfluous. Raimondo has therefore seconded the view of Seymour Hersh that neoconservatism is best understood as a cult.[4]

Some observers believe furthermore that there is a fundamental continuity of ideas from Trotsky to the present neoconservative movement. They point in particular to the French Turn, by which Trotsky advocated the belief in social democracy as a Leninist vanguard. This was indeed essentially the position for which Shachtman broke with Trotsky, and that position has remained throughout the essence of neoconservatism. Indeed, this view has only been embraced by neocon thinkers such as Paul Berman, Christopher Hitchens, and Stephen Schwartz.

Reagan and the Neoconservatives

Jeane Kirkpatrick

During the 1970s political scientist Jeane Kirkpatrick increasingly criticized the Democratic Party, of which she was still a member, since the nomination of the antiwar George McGovern. Kirkpatrick became a convert to the ideas of the new conservatism of once-liberal Democratic academics.

During Ronald Reagan's successful 1980 campaign, he hired her as his foreign policy advisor and later nominated her as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, a position she held for four years. Known for her anti-communist stance and for her tolerance of right-wing dictatorships (her criticism of which was often tempered, calling them simply "moderately repressive regimes"), she argued that U.S. policy should not aid the overthrow of right-wing regimes if these were only to be replaced by even less democratic left-wing regimes. The overthrow of leftist governments was acceptable and at times essential because they served as a bulwark against the expansion of Soviet interests.

Under this doctrine, known as the Kirkpatrick Doctrine, the Reagan administration initially tolerated leaders such as Augusto Pinochet in Chile and Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. As the 1980's wore on, however, younger, second-generation neoconservatives, such as Elliot Abrams, pushed for a clear policy of supporting democracy against both left and right wing dictators. Thus, while U.S. support for Marcos continued until and even after the fraudulent Philippine election of February 7, 1986, there was debate within the administration regarding how and when to oppose Marcos.

In the days that followed, with the widespread popular refusal to accept Marcos as the purported winner, turmoil in the Philippines grew. The Reagan administration then urged Marcos to accept defeat and leave the country, which he did. The Reagan team, and particularly the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, Elliot Abrams, also supported the 1988 Chilean plebiscite that resulted in the restoration of democratic rule and Pinochet's eventual removal from office. Through the National Endowment for Democracy, led by another neoconservative, Carl Gershman, funds were directed to the anti-Pinochet opposition in order to ensure a fair election.

In this sense, the neoconservative foreign policy makers of the Reagan era were different from some of their more traditionalist conservative predecessors, and from the older generation of neoconservatives as well. While many of the latter believed that America's allies should be unquestionably defended at all costs, no matter what the nature of their regime, many younger neocons were more supportive of the idea of changing regimes to make them more compatible and reflective of U.S. values.

The belief in the universality of democracy would be a key neoconservative value which would go on to play a larger role in the post-Cold War period. Some critics would say however, that their emphasis on the need for externally-imposed "regime change" for "rogue" nations such as Iraq conflicted with the democratic value of national self-determination. Most neocons view this argument as invalid until a country has a democratic government to express the actual determination of its people.

For his own part, President Reagan largely did not move towards the sort of protracted, long-term interventions to stem social revolution in the Third World that many of his advisors would have favored. Instead, he mostly favored quick campaigns to attack or overthrow terrorist groups or leftist governments, favoring small, quick interventions that heightened a sense of post-Vietnam triumphalism among Americans, such as the attacks on Grenada and Libya, and arming right-wing militias in Central America, including backing the Contras seeking to overthrow the leftist Sandinista government of Nicaragua.

Most importantly, Reagan took the opposite course from the neocons in relation to the Soviet Union under Mikhail Gorbachev, pursuing a conciliatory strategy toward disarmament and eventual liberalization as opposed to one of confrontation and rearmament. Reagan had made his most decisive break with the neocons in 1983 when he refused to remain engaged in the civil war in Lebanon and was at the same time generally indifferent to Israel. Many neocons became furious with Reagan for all of these reasons, most infamously, Norman Podhoretz came to liken him to Neville Chamberlain.

In general, many neocons see the collapse of the Soviet Union as having occurred directly due to Reagan's hard-line stance, and the bankruptcy that resulted from the Soviet Union trying to keep up the arms race. They therefore see this as a strong confirmation of their worldview, in spite of the accusation that they have largely rewritten this history.

Neoconservativism under George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton

During the 1990s, neoconservatives were once again in the opposition side of the foreign policy establishment, both under the Republican Administration of President George H. W. Bush and that of his Democratic successor, President Bill Clinton. Many critics charged that the neoconservatives lost their raison d'être and influence following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Others argue that they lost their status due to their association with the Iran-Contra scandal during the Reagan Administration.

Neoconservative writers were critical of the post-Cold War foreign policy of both George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, which they criticized for reducing military expenditures and lacking a sense of idealism in the promotion of American interests. They accused these Administrations of lacking both "moral clarity" and the conviction to pursue unilaterally America's international strategic interests.

Particularly galvanizing to the movement was the decision of George H. W. Bush and then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War in 1991. Some neoconservatives viewed this policy, and the decision not to support indigenous dissident groups such as the Kurds and Shiites in their 1991-1992 resistance to Hussein, as a betrayal of democratic principles.

Within a few years of the Gulf War in Iraq, many associated with neoconservatism were pushing for the ouster of Saddam Hussein. On February 19, 1998, an open letter to President Clinton was signed by dozens of pundits, many identified with both neoconservatism and, later, related groups such as the PNAC, urging decisive action to remove Saddam from power. [5]

Neoconservatives were also members of the blue team, which argued for a confrontational policy toward the People's Republic of China and strong military and diplomatic support for Taiwan.

Administration of George W. Bush

Thus, neoconservative thinkers were eager to implement a new foreign policy with the change in Administrations from Clinton to George W. Bush. Despite this, the Bush campaign and then the early Bush Administration did not appear to exhibit strong support for neoconservative principles, as candidate Bush stated his opposition to the idea of "nation-building" and an early foreign policy confrontation with China was handled without the vociferous confrontation suggested by some neoconservative thinkers. Also early in the Administration, some neoconservatives criticized Bush's Administration as insufficiently supportive of the State of Israel, and suggested Bush's foreign policies were not substantially different from those of President Clinton.

China spy plane incident

The Bush Administration was criticized by some neoconservatives for their non-confrontational reaction during the U.S.-China spy plane incident. On April 1, 2001, a U.S. Navy EP-3E spy plane collided with a Chinese J-8 fighter over the South China Sea, killing the Chinese pilot and forcing the EP-3E to make an emergency landing on the Chinese island of Hainan, where the twenty-four members of the American crew were held and interrogated for eleven days while their plane was searched and photographed by the Chinese. The Bush Administration conducted diplomacy and then issued a statement of regret to the Chinese Foreign Ministry[6]. President Reagan's former Assistant Secretary of Defense, Frank Gaffney, wrote in an article in National Review Online that President Bush "should use this occasion to make clear to the American people that the PRC is acting in an increasingly belligerent manner. Mr. Bush needs to talk about these threats as well as his commitment to defend the American people, their forces overseas and their allies."[7].

September 11, 2001

View of the burning WTC from the water, with the Statue of Liberty in the foreground on 9/11

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and The Pentagon, however, the influence of neoconservatism—at least as it is understood to mean a muscular stance toward foreign policy threats—in the Bush administration appears to have found its purpose in the shift from the threat of Communism to the threat of Islamic terrorism.

Neoconservative identification with the State of Israel's struggle against terrorism was furthered by the September 11 terrorist attacks, which served to create a perceived parallel between the United States and Israel as democratic nations under the threat of terrorist attack. Moreover, some neoconservatives have long advocated that the United States should emulate Israel's tactics of pre-emptive attacks, especially Israel's strikes in the 1980s on nuclear facilities in Libya and Osirak, Iraq.

"Bush Doctrine"

The Bush Doctrine, promulgated after September 11th, incorporates both the idea of considering nations that harbor terrorists as enemies of the United States, as well as the view that pre-emptive military action, unilateral if necessary, is justified to protect the United States from the threat of terrorism or attack. The doctrine also states that the United States "will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equalling, the power of the United States."

This doctrine can be seen as the abandonment of a focus on the doctrine of deterrence (in the Cold War through Mutually Assured Destruction) as the primary means of self-defense, although some note that preemptive strikes have long been a part of international and American foreign policy, as exemplified by the unilateral U.S. blockade and boarding of Cuban shipping during the Cuban Missile Crisis. (See preemptive war.)

Neoconservatives won a landmark victory with the Bush Doctrine after September 11th. Thomas Donnelly, a resident fellow at the influential conservative thinktank, American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which has been under neoconservative influence since the Reagan Administration, argued in "The Underpinnings of the Bush doctrine" that

"the fundamental premise of the Bush Doctrine is true: The United States possesses the means—economic, military, diplomatic—to realize its expansive geopolitical purposes. Further, and especially in light of the domestic political reaction to the attacks of September 11, the victory in Afghanistan and the remarkable skill demonstrated by President Bush in focusing national attention, it is equally true that Americans possess the requisite political willpower to pursue an expansive strategy."

In his well-publicized piece "The Case for American Empire" in the conservative Weekly Standard, Max Boot argued that "The most realistic response to terrorism is for America to embrace its imperial role." He countered sentiments that the "United States must become a kinder, gentler nation, must eschew quixotic missions abroad, must become, in Pat Buchanan's phrase, 'a republic, not an empire'," arguing that "In fact this analysis is exactly backward: The September 11 attack was a result of insufficient American involvement and ambition; the solution is to be more expansive in our goals and more assertive in their implementation."

President Bush has expressed praise for Natan Sharansky's book, The Case For Democracy, which promotes a foreign policy philosophy nearly identical to neoconservatives'. President Bush has effusively praised this book, calling it a "glimpse of how I think".[8]

Paul Wolfowitz

As of 2005, the most prominent supporters of the neoconservative stance inside the Administration are Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

At the same time, there have been limits in the power of neoconservatives in the Bush administration. The former Secretary of State Colin Powell (as well as the State department as a whole) was largely seen as being an opponent of neoconservative ideas. However, with the resignation of Colin Powell and the promotion of Condoleezza Rice, along with widespread resignations within the State department, the neoconservative point of view within the Bush administration has been solidified. While the neoconservative notion of tough and decisive action has been apparent in U.S. policy toward the Middle East, it has not been seen in U.S. policy toward China and Russia or in the handling of the North Korean nuclear crisis.

Impact of 2003 Iraq War on Neoconservative philosophy and influence

Neoconservatism and charges of Appeasement

Neoconservative proponents of the 2003 Iraq War likened the conflict to Churchill's stand against Hitler. In a major turnaround within the conservative movement, some prior practitioners of realpolitik such as United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld[9], who had supported Saddam Hussein as part of the Reagan Administration's opposition to the Iranian Revolution (much like President Roosevelt's support of Stalin during WWII), now employed idealistic rhetoric that likened Hussein to Stalin and Hitler. President George W. Bush singled out Iraq's dictator as the "great evil" who "by his search for terrible weapons, by his ties to terrorist groups, threatens the security of every free nation, including the free nations of Europe."

In the writings of Paul Wolfowitz, Norman Podhoretz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Max Boot, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, William Bennett, Peter Rodman, and others influential in forging the foreign policy doctrines of the Bush administration, there are frequent references to the appeasement of Hitler at Munich in 1938, to which are compared the Cold War's policies of détente and containment (rather than rollback) with the Soviet Union and the PRC.

While more conventional foreign policy experts argued that Iraq could be restrained by enforcing No-Fly Zones and by a policy of inspection by United Nations inspectors to restrict its ability to possess chemical or nuclear weapons, neoconservatives considered this policy direction ineffectual and labeled it appeasement of Saddam Hussein.

Practical impact of the 2003 Iraq War on Neoconservative influence

The war that the Bush administration continues to fight in Iraq can be considered a fair test of the practical validity of neoconservative thinking and principles. If the war in Iraq is successful in stabilizing Iraq and the Middle East, then the neoconservative ideas will have achieved a victory. If, however, the war in Iraq further destabilizes the Middle East or leads to a new regime which funnels oil revenues to terrorists then the neoconservative ideas will have been dealt a serious blow.

Furthermore, if the Iraq War is successful in establishing a robust and self-sustaining liberal democracy in Iraq, then the influence of neoconservative thinking on the Republican party will likely solidify or possibly even increase. But if the war in Iraq is drawn-out, requiring an excessive expenditure of American lives and money, and establishes a weak or ineffective Iraqi government unable to control terrorism, then the influence of neoconservatives within the Republican party will likely be greatly diminished in the future.

Neoconservatives are perhaps closer to the mainstream of the Republican Party today since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon than any competing faction, especially considering the nature of the Bush Doctrine and the preemptive war against Iraq.

Criticism of neoconservatism

Neoconservatives have often been singled out for criticism by opponents of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, many of whom see this invasion as a neoconservative initiative.

Jacobinism, Bolshevism

The "traditional" conservative Claes Ryn has argued that neoconservatives are "a variety of neo-Jacobins." Ryn asserts that true conservatives deny the existence of a universal political and economic philosophy and model that is suitable for all societies and cultures, and believe that a society's institutions should be adjusted to suit its culture, while Neo-Jacobins

are attached in the end to ahistorical, supranational principles that they believe should supplant the traditions of particular societies. The new Jacobins see themselves as on the side of right and fighting evil and are not prone to respecting or looking for common ground with countries that do not share their democratic preferences. (Ryn 2003: 387)

Further examining the relationship between Neoconservatism and moral rhetoric, Ryn argues that

Neo-Jacobinism regards America as founded on universal principles and assigns to the United States the role of supervising the remaking of the world. Its adherents have the intense dogmatic commitment of true believers and are highly prone to moralistic rhetoric. They demand, among other things, "moral clarity" in dealing with regimes that stand in the way of America's universal purpose. They see themselves as champions of "virtue." (p. 384).

Thus, according to Ryn, neoconservatism is analogous to Bolshevism: in the same way that the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy established ways of life throughout the world to replace them with communism, the neoconservatives want to do the same, only imposing free-market capitalism and American-style "liberal democracy" instead of socialism.

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, had the following to say in a December, 2005 interview with the German weekly Der Spiegel: "They are not new conservatives. They're Jacobins. Their predecessor is French Revolution leader Maximilien Robespierre."[10]

Conflict with Libertarian Conservatives

There is also conflict between neoconservatives and libertarian conservatives. Libertarian conservatives are ideologically opposed to large government and regard neoconservative foreign policy ambitions with considerable distrust. Rep Ron Paul a Republican libertarian who holds a Texas district, has spoken out consistently against the Bush Administration's foreign wars on both a fiscal point and as a moral point on non-intervention.

Disagreement with Business Lobby, fiscal conservatives

There has been considerable conflict between neoconservatives and business conservatives in some areas. Neoconservatives tend to see China as a looming threat to the United States and argue for harsh policies to contain that threat. Business conservatives see China as a business opportunity and see a tough policy against China as opposed to their desires for trade and economic progress. Business conservatives also appear much less distrustful of international institutions. In fact, where China is concerned neoconservatives tend to find themselves more often in agreement with liberal Democrats than with business conservatives. Indeed, Americans for Democratic Action - widely regarded as an "authority" of sorts on liberalism by both the American left and right alike - credit Senators and members of the House of Representatives with casting a "liberal" vote if they oppose legislation that would treat China favorably in the realm of foreign trade and many other matters.

Friction with "Paleoconservatism"

The disputes over Israel and domestic policies have contributed to a sharp conflict over the years with "paleoconservatives," whose very name was taken as a rebuke to their "neo" brethren. There are many personal issues but effectively the paleoconservatives view the neoconservatives as interlopers who deviate from the traditional conservative agenda on issues as diverse as states' rights, free trade, immigration, isolationism, the welfare state, and in some cases abortion and homosexuality. All of this leads to their conservative label being questioned.

Neoconservatism, Judaism, and "Dual Loyalty"

Some opponents of neoconservatives have sought to emphasize their interest in Israel and the relatively large proportion of Jewish neoconservatives, and have raised the question of "dual loyalty". A number of critics, such as Pat Buchanan, have accused them of putting Israeli interests above those of America. In turn these critics have been labeled as anti-Semites by many neoconservatives (which in turn has led to accusations of professional smearing, and then paranoia, and so on).

Some neo-nazi conspiracy theorists such as David Duke have attacked neoconservatism as advancing 'Jewish interests.' Classic anti-Semitic tropes have often been used when elaborating this view, such as the idea that Jews achieve influence through the intellectual domination of national leaders. Similarly, during the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, left-wing magazine AdBusters published a list of the "50 most influential neocons in the United States", noting that half of these were Jewish (see [11]).

Many prominent neoconservatives are not Jewish, among them Michael Novak, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Frank Gaffney, and Max Boot. Neoconservatives in the 1960s were much less interested in Israel before the June 1967 Six Day War. It was only after this conflict, which raised the specter of unopposed Soviet influence in the Middle East, that the neoconservatives became preoccupied by Israel's security interests. They promote the view that Israel is the United States' strongest ally in the Middle East as the sole Western-style democracy in the region, aside from Turkey (George W. Bush has also supported Turkey in its efforts to join the European Union).

Commenting on the alleged overtones of this view in more mainstream discourse, David Brooks, in his January 6, 2004 New York Times column wrote, "To hear these people describe it, PNAC is sort of a Yiddish Trilateral Commission, the nexus of the sprawling neocon tentacles".

In a similar vein, Michael Lind, a self-described 'former neoconservative,' wrote in 2004, "It is true, and unfortunate, that some journalists tend to use 'neoconservative' to refer only to Jewish neoconservatives, a practice that forces them to invent categories like nationalist conservative or Western conservative for Rumsfeld and Cheney. But neoconservatism is an ideology, like paleoconservatism and libertarianism, and Rumsfeld and Dick and Lynne Cheney are full-fledged neocons, as distinct from paleocons or libertarians, even though they are not Jewish and were never liberals or leftists" (see [12]).

Lind argues that, while "there were, and are, very few Northeastern WASP mandarins in the neoconservative movement", its origins are not specifically Jewish. "...[N]eoconservatism recruited from diverse farm teams including Roman Catholics (William Bennett and Michael Novak) and populists, socialists and New Deal liberals in the South and Southwest (the pool from which Jeane Kirkpatrick, James Woolsey and I [that is, Lind himself] were drawn)" (see [13]).


Institutions

Publications

Conservative magazines that regularly feature neoconservative ideas.

See also

References

  • John Dean, Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush (Little. Brown, 2004) ISBN 031600023X (hardback) -- Deeply critical account of neo-conservatism in the administration of George W. Bush.
  • Mark Gerson, ed., The Essential Neo-Conservative Reader (Perseus Publishing, 1997) ISBN 0201154889 (paperback) or ISBN 0201479680 (hardback)
  • Jim Hanson, The Decline of the American Empire, (Praeger Publishers, 1993) ISBN 0275944808
  • Halper, Stefan & Clarke, Jonathan, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order (Cambridge University Press, 2004) ISBN 0521838347
  • Robert Kagan et al., Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy (Encounter Books, 2000) ISBN 1893554163.
  • Irving Kristol, Neo-Conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea. (Ivan R. Dee Publisher, 1999) ISBN 1566632285
  • Michael Lind, "A Tragedy of Errors", The Nation, February 23, 2004, 23-32.
  • Tod Lindberg, "Neoconservatism's Liberal Legacy." Policy Review, 127 (2004): 3-22.
  • James Mann, Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet. (2004) Viking. ISBN 0670032999 (cloth)
  • Joshua Muravchik, "The Neoconservative Cabal", Commentary, September, 2003
  • Michael C. Ruppert, Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil, New Society Publishers, 2004. ISBN 0865715408
  • Claes G. Ryn, America the Virtuous: The Crisis of Democracy and the Quest for Empire. Transaction Publishers, 2003. ISBN 0765802198 (cloth).
  • Peter Steinfels. The Neoconservatives: The Men Who Are Changing America's Politics. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1979.) ISBN 0671226657.
  • Leo Strauss , Natural Right and History. (University of Chicago Press, 1999) ISBN 0226776948.
  • Leo Strauss , The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism. (University of Chicago Press, 1989) ISBN 0226777154.
  • Joseph Wilson, The Politics of Truth. (2004) Carroll & Graf. ISBN 078671378X.
  • Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack. (2004) Simon and Schuster. ISBN 074325547X.
  • Irwin Stelzer (ed), Neoconservatism, Atlantic Books 2004

Further reading

  • The NeoCon Reader, edited by Irwin Stelzer, ISBN 0802141935
  • Neoconservatism: the Autobiography of an Idea, Irving Kristol, ISBN 0028740211
  • The Neoconservative Vision, Mark Gerson, ISBN 1568331002.
  • Neocon Middle East Policy: The 'Clean Break' Plan Damage Assessment, edited by Grant F. Smith, ISBN 0976443732
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Neoconservatism&oldid=45435144"