What Neoconservatism is All About
LThomas has an interesting post up over at his own blog about neoconservatism. He explains what neoconservatism is all about, at least, from the perspective of a neocon himself that is – if you’re wondering, be sure to check it out.
Ira Chernus, a professor at the University of Colorado, argues that the deepest root of the neoconservative movement is its fear that the counterculture would undermine the authority of traditional values and moral norms. Because neoconservatives believe that human nature is innately selfish, they believe that a society with no commonly accepted values based on religion or ancient tradition will end up in a war of all against all. They also believe that the most important social value is strength, especially the strength to control natural impulses. The only alternative, they assume, is weakness that will let impulses run riot and lead to social chaos…
When you combine all that makes a Neoconservative you end up with someone who is opposed to counterculture and believes man needs to be controlled to a certain extent. Religion is the best way to control a man and to keep him essentially in Line. One does not even have to believe in God to be a Neoconservative, he only has to be in favor of religion in his politic. Foreign policy drives Neocons as they believe that to be safe one must export democracy abroad because democratic countries are less likely to pose a threat to Americans or the United States. It is this obsession with foreign affairs that tends to allow Neocons the luxury to tolerate more welfare then their conservative brothers and that stronger but not bigger government is necessary to insure that America can project her power while maintaining a government that is not intrusive into lives unduly.
Read the whole thing, it truly is an interesting read. The author also remarks that, although there are liberal and conservative movements, there is no such thing as a neoconservative movements: there are neoconservatives, but they have not organized themselves as such.
I disagree with that: I think that there is a neoconservative movement that has founded / influenced important think tanks, set up magazines and has, under George W. Bush’s presidency, (quite) some political power.
I think that there is a neoconservative movement that has founded / influenced important think tanks, set up magazines and has, under George W. Bush’s presidency, (quite) some political power.
I suppose that technically that if you have two people who are actively pushing their agenda you have a semblence of a movement.
Neoconservativism pales in comparison to even the Libertarians or the green party. We are essentially a few thousand people and perhaps could even be considered dinosaurs.
Any Neoconservative movement in the USA is essentially almost non existent and therefore I believe that there is really no such thing.
http://lthomas.wordpress.com/
George
Many thanks for the pointer!
There’s a different profile of neocons in “Why Americans Hate Politics” by E.J. Dionne.
I can’t recall the details, but I got the impression that neocons were pragmatists opposed to the counterculture idealists, and originally were Democrats…like Patrick Moynihan.
Don’t know how well it compares to the above profile.
No such thing as a neoconservative movement?
Being the force and philosophy driving American policy for the last six years is not a movement? Well, I guess definitions are slippery things but if that isn’t a movement I don’t know what is.
No I will have to stick by my original assertion. There is no neoconservative movement in the United States.
There are Neocons to be sure. But we are few and far between. Because policy has been driven by Neocons in the Bush Administration does not equate to a movement.
Even less so now that the movement has failed to win the day in Iraq and the war on terror.
The neoconservative movement was founded in opposition to both conservatives and liberals. They both were too soft on the “Commies”
Once those evil commies had been dispatched the movement floundered and withered away. Much as the Republican party had to redefine itself after slavery was abolished because in fact they were founded on the main principal of “Opposition to slavery.”
Now I will grant you one thing. There is a Neoconservative philosophy that is still alive and embraced by some, but a movement? No. Sorry.
Indeed, and much of the Democrats demanded the right for Segregation as concessions.
Funny what time does.
Astute observation Interested.
I preach. Yes preach. No not to my parish to my students that time is the true decider of nations fates. The decisions that we make today will be felt for a 100 years.
The decisions that we make today should be dealt with in a careful and considerate manner so as to trully reflect the will of the people and not just some fad that in passing will become a point of contention.
A classic example of this would be Prohibition. It was passed based upon the passions of the day and in response to social pressures. Once it was the unintended consequences were dynamic and real. As Burke argues against change for changes sake because of Unintended consequences so must a society argue against them without the proper amount of thought.
Our do nothing congress is that way for a reason. It is unwritten and unspoken but it is never the less in the back of their minds. They do nothing for a reason. To make sure that the people really DO WANT the changes they are demanding and NEED them as well.
So while I poke fun at them from time to time I rarely get upset at them other then for example. Amnesty. This has been going on long enough. Time for them to DECIDE.
Interested–
Lthomas has an essay at his site on the about that kind of flux that you may be, um, interested in reading.
Sorry, there is a movement. It’s disinegneuous to say there isn’t, even if the disagreement is simply around the word “movement,” because the ideology has become a force to be reckoned with in politics. It’s an ideology that’s been around for 30 years, and got it’s first kick in the political pants when Reagan got elected. That’s when the whole thing started to gain traction.
Any quick bibliographic search, for example, is going to pull up sources that use the term neoconserative, in its contemporary meaning, that go long before the current administration. Peter Steinfels published in 1980, for example, one of the first studies on the topic: “The Neoconservatives: The Men Who Are Changing America’s Politics.” I read that book about ten years ago now, and found it to be a good summation.
The only way you can claim that there is no neocon movement is to ignore history—which, of course, is one of the reasons neocon is an ideology, because it likes to go just that, ignore history’s fabric to pick out only the threads it likes.
If you read various of the more extreme frnges of the blogsphere you will find that a warmongering conspiracy of neocon, zionist neo-liberals rules the western world. Don’t know if that makes it a movement though…