iro
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Posts: 376
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:03 pm Post subject: The History of Neo-conservatism |
 |
|
Ok, there was a run off on a thread in illusions about some comments I made regarding neo-conservatism. I have been doing a lot of work on this issue lately, its something I was sick of reading partisan and ill-considered opinion pieces on and I wanted to get to the bottom of it in some sense of credible context. A lot of the work I did on it is part of my academic work and I can't just copy it here as 1) its too technical language wise and 2) plagiarism issues can arise by putting original research on the net, as even if you wrote it its hard to prove you wrote it as by nature the internet stuff gets around. So, ive done a summary job, in sufficient detail, pasted here for general interest.
The History of the Neo-conservatives
Neoconservatives as we know them began with a bunch of mainly Jewish academics in New York who evolved along an ideological path starting with Socialism, converting to liberalism in the aftermath of WW2 and finally becoming disenchanted with the liberal mindset in the late 60's and formulating what we know today as neo-conservatism (NC). The socialism is explained by Irving Kristol as a result of their lower middle class and immigrant backgrounds. Indeed, there was even a point where Kristol, the 'grandfather' of NC referred to himself as a Trotskyist in his 2005 autobiography of NC. The disenchantment with liberalism is more important however. This is the crux of why the NC's think like they do.
Liberalism had become too 'liberal' by the 1960s. College campuses were rioting, preset social fixtures such as religion and family values were being overturned and America was caught up in a cultural relativism where people no longer understood what was ‘American’ or ‘normal’ – everything was up in the air. This is where the term ‘neo-conservative’ was pushed as a label onto these early characters in the movement as it appeared they were appealing for a return to simple, conservative values. This is incorrect however. That is the first misconception with readers of NC ideology – they are not conservatives of any sort. The name was applied by a critic, and it stuck. But it is not descriptive of what they are.
What they are is much more complex, and its only recently that it has begun to be understood fully what these people believe. Allen Bloom’s 1987 book ‘the Closing of the American Mind’ is a valuable insight here. His thesis was that through the cultural relativism American minds had become so open they had become clouded, confused and finally closed. He was a student of Leo Strauss, a classical scholar who read and translated Plato, something of direct relevance here. Bloom’s critique of culture, and Strauss’s reading of philosophy gave the NC’s their bible of sorts. Simply, America needed reigned in and controlled before it got so relativist that it was adrift in a mess. Bloom highlighted the problem and Strauss provided the answer – create a Platonist society - an elite driven patriarchy which harnesses religion for its clear morality (but doesn’t necessarily believe in it). This society can be steered by men who ‘know better’ – like Plato’s race of ‘philosopher kings’. This was to be a new ideology, a rival to the liberal ideology that underpinned American politics. Reagan was the first NC President – looking back at his rhetoric in the light of the above description makes that apparent. Although, the public did not realise this – to them he was a good religious conservative fighting the evil empire.
The Rise to Power
The NC’s made a long, careful march to prominence in Washington, and one has to remember this is a distinctly American phenomenon. There is no comparison anywhere else in the Western World to NC. They came in and out of favour – in with Reagan, out with GHW Bush (explained later), remained out with Clinton, inching back with GW Bush – but still sidelined, and finally rushed to power following 9/11 gaining the ear of the President and ‘converting’ him to their ideology. It is therefore out of evidential track to assume Bush was a NC before he was elected – if he was, he kept it quiet, and did so until his speeches after 9/11 – there is no evidence he was anything more than a standard evangelical ignoramus regarding foreign policy and complex political ideology.
When the NC’s were out of favour they made their clearest and loudest pangs to be heard. It is therefore in this post Reagan, pre 9/11 period that the bulk of the literature can be mined.
The Neo-conservative Agenda for America and the World
Domestically, NC ideology is simple, as already explained it focuses on establishing a clear morality, a stable system dominated by ‘expert elites’ and a strong patriotic focus centred on maintaining American pre-eminence, unity and strength. In the Foreign policy sense, it is a little more alarming. International politics has always been carried out (at least outwardly) in a cold calculated manner, this is known as ‘realpolitik’ or ‘realism’. Statesmen do their best to maintain alliances and keep the status quo – but when friction occurs small wars break out and then the system settles again – perpetually – ‘international anarchy’. NC’s reject this.
They seek to inject the morality they profess domestically into the foreign policy arena. Telling the world it must follow a simple sense of good and evil and accept steering by those who have realised the ‘good’ direction the world must follow. This is again highly Platonic as interpreted by Strauss. The rhetoric of the War on Terror now suddenly seems understandable in context. And you can understand the rejection of this globally – just as America went through its own period of relativism, with people freeing themselves from traditional power relationships socially, the world is also doing so at large. The NC plan for the world is to defeat this process and in an evangelical sense – show us the light.
This light is an extension of what Charles Krauthammer described as the unipolar moment; “The centre of world power is the unchallenged superpower, the United States, attended by its Western allies” The NC’s sought to extend that into a unipolar era of unrivalled American strength. This unipolar era is an outward manifestation of a truth that has been evident since 1989, not September 2001. Simply, America is an expansionist nation. NATO’s creation and the War on Terror are necessities of that expansionist nature, democratisation is always married to American foreign policy, and overt hegemony is central to an American liberal order projected globally. This brings back the point that GHW Bush was not a NC. He had the chance to start this process with invading Iraq - but he stopped short and brought the troops home. This was a clear signal that he was more sympathetic to realpolitik. Either because it was better for his faltering image at home or because he did not want to create an American middle east by military occupation.
America is an Empire, with unrivalled power. The NC’s unashamedly wanted to use that power to create a new ideology globally. This was contextualised in ‘The Project for the New American Century’ in September 2000 document calling for “American global leadership”. “America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible… by maintaining the pre-eminence of U.S. military forces”. There is a problem however – the Middle East and more specifically, Islam.
Bernard Lewis, a NC and a middle east scholar was invited to the Whitehouse following 9/11 to give his advice on the situation. For Lewis, there are only 2 outcomes to the age of terrorism, democracy or Islam. This gave legitimacy to the NC ideology, gave them a reason to feel vindicated and placed the final fixture of their curious foreign policy package – democratisation. That was the solution to the threat to America – push democracy onto the whole world. Many people have been confused at the duplicity of being elitist and promoting democracy – this hopefully clears that fact up. Of course democracy isn’t always democratic… but that’s another story.
Hedley Bull noted that as Europe declined after the major World Wars, America will follow suit in the near future as part of a larger inevitable process of rebalancing internationally. This ties into Lewis’ fear of a future dominated by Islam – something Samuel Huntington contextualised in his ‘Clash of Civilizations’ thesis:
“the New World Order means that Jews and Christians control Muslims and if they can, they will after that dominate Confucianism and other religions in India, China and Japan” (Huntington 1997: 231).
The idea is that Islam and the other cultures of the world will reject this development and reject more virulently as time and events proceed unless efforts are made to bring the world together with tolerance and internationalism. This was theorised in 1993.
He recommends that any aggression by America is perilous and will ignite a world cultural war – the NC’s think they can win that war, so through the War on Terror they are waging it inverting Huntington’s thesis. Theirs is to be an American global system, not a new world order… which leads nicely onto the next area of confusion.
The Neo-conservatives are not Globalists
The Bush Doctrine, which is the closest thing you will find in the policy sense to NC ideology in action (read the 2002 National Security Strategy and the Bush 2002 speeches for references) is not a globalist agenda. This NC foreign policy is decidedly VS any threat to US pre-eminence. The War on Terror nearly destroyed the UN over Iraq and nearly split the EU down the middle. This is an aggressively nationalistic set of policies.
The postulates of NC foreign policy ideology are a strong opposition to any internationalism, the UN and all constraints on US power backed by a strong patriotism. A World Government is explicitly rejected and seen as abhorrent by Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol. The younger NC’s such as Wolfowitz and Perle agree. Sending John Bolton to the UN and Paul Wolfowiz to the World Bank was not a sign of accepting those institutions, but to make sure they were used in American interests and no more. The NC's would be happier if the UN and all international treaties were dissolved immediately. There is no sense that the NC’s fit into the conspiratorial ‘New World Order’ global government scenario unless they have been lured into power (by the globalist faction) to weaken and destroy American power and legitimacy – and in doing so bring down Iran and China leaving the ground ripe for another ‘UN’ type organisation to step in with the ‘solution’. That scenario remains completely theoretical at this stage. It is only inserted for clarity.
What that infers about 9/11 and the War on Terror is entirely up to the reader to decide for themselves.
hope this was of interest. |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
