A central contention of those who insist that neoconservatism explains the Iraq War is that the doctrine is not only new but outside the foreign policy traditions that have guided the United States throughout its history. Where, for instance, did the idea of promoting democracy come from? To find an answer, Packer, along with many others, feels he must follow a winding intellectual path back to Leo Strauss, or to Leon Trotsky, or to the Jewish experience after the Holocaust. The point is that the “neoconservative” foreign policy of the Bush years needs to be understood as an alien presence in the American body. The further implication is that once this alien worldview is exorcised, the United States can return to its traditional ways and avoid future Iraqs.
Robert Kagan, of the Kagan intellectual triumvirate, has published an essay in the esteemed journal, World Affairs, questioning the definition and conventional wisdom regarding the origins of what is labeled neoconservatism in America. He poses the following question for the historical record:
Is this right? Is it true that moralism, idealism, exceptionalism, militarism, and global ambition—as well as imprudent excesses in the exercise of all of these—are alien to American foreign policy traditions? The question must seem absurd to anyone with even a passing knowledge of American history. But then, perhaps, it is also very American to forget the past so willfully.
In recalling the epic battles of competing ideals and principles among Americans, Kagan quotes one prominent citizen declaiming publicly in the best neoconservative tradition, “Let Americans disdain to be the instruments of European greatness!”. His passionate and eloquent opponent’s response was, in the American voice of neo-isolationism, to accuse the former of attempting to “convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire”. He further contended, “When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: liberty, sir, was then the primary object.” This debate could have occurred yesterday in any number of venues in the U.S.A., but it did not. Those heated words were exchanged more than 200 years ago by Alexander Hamilton and Patrick Henry.
The moral and ethical underpinnings, the weaknesses and strengths of what today is called neoconservatism were born with this nation, have survived under different banners, across political parties and have been variously shared and rejected by all the factions populating American history. Read the Kagan piece in full.
Hat Tip: Shannon
Filed Under Front Page ·
Comments
33 Responses to “The True Origins of “Neoconservatism””Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
I thought the term ‘neo-conservative’ stemmed from the likes of Reagan and others that had liberal beginnings but became more conservative as the left moved out further and further? I guess I’ll RTFA and learn something.
#1 raiderdav
The modern generation of neoconservatives are usually cited as the group of intellectuals who served under or were associated with Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson D-Washington. That would include George Will, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Ben Wattenberg, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Charles Horner, and Douglas Feith. Norman Podhoretz, more so, and Irving Kristol, less so, as more senior members of the neoconservative school of thought. Those are just a few of the ones that come immediately to mind. The historical roots can be traced, as Kagan observes, back through our national history to the beginning.
Kagan is misdirecting here, when a much more substantive argument may be made against “neoconservativism.”
The problem with what can be termed neoconservative foreign policy is not a dispute over the presence of its major themes in American history. Those themes indisputably exist, and at various times they have been dominant. At other times they have not been so dominant though, and very different competitor approaches to foreign policy - some of them more prudent - have emerged in their place.
For example, I’m much more sympathetic to a foreign policy approach that takes the good old fashioned Realism of George Kennan, Walter Lippman, and Hans Morgenthau to assert and protect American vital interests, plus a heavy dash of Jeffersonian restraint to guide us away from Wilsonian nation-building and the Clinton/Bush style of foreign policy as social work.
While neoconservatism is compatable with Realism’s security aims, it far exceeds the boundaries of Realism in its ambition, and takes on far too much Wilsonian/Clintonian garbage in its scope, all cloaked under the idea of “spreading democracy” for democracy’s sake, which is simply a horrible idea. That makes me dismissive of neoconservative foreign policy not as an anathema to the American political tradition, but rather as an accentuation of its worst attributes at the neglect of its best.
I agree with that part completely. The problem is it also traces to a repugnant part of our national history called Alexander Hamilton, as do so many other pernicious doctrines of political thought.
I do not jest in the slightest when I say that this country owes much credit to Aaron Burr for relieving us, however slightly, of a scourge that has plagued our political culture from the beginning. Burr sacrificed his reputation in that act, but he gave the rest of us a brief respite from the road to serfdom.
Now we have people in the neoconservative movement actively trying to revive Hamilton’s legacy. There is no good that will come of it.
Kagan is not misdirecting so much as simply disagreeing with you, Phil. He points out the Realist/Neocon opposition and tension has existed in various forms throughout our history.
The same could be said of forms of Realist philosophy. The larger problem is the misinformation, disinformation and outright ignorance that abounds today. Few people genuinely understand those two schools of thought and fewer still even realize they should. I don’t think Kagan is really targeting people who already understand the debate.
Sure, but that’s not really in dispute as Kagan’s opening suggests. My point though is that Kagan sidesteps the substance of that dispute to talk about an imagined argument that neoconservatism is an intruder upon American political traditions. Realists do not contend that by any means, and never have. Kagan gives us an unnecessary history of the dispute instead of reconciling its two sides, and I submit he does so because the neoconservative side is the harder of the two to defend.
Then he should be writing this thing for USA Today, not the World Affairs Journal.
texpat - thanks for the info. Sometime in the coming months, would you be able to put together a post with some recommended reading on American history, conservatism, policy, etc.? Unfortunately my public school upbringing and highly technical college degrees haven’t given me much of a foundation other than forcing me to read the Federalist Papers. The recent HBO series on John Adams has spurred me into fixing my history weaknesses.
#7 Phil_M
I agree wholeheartedly. The people he needs to reach are not you and me, those who agree or disagree on the philosophical merits.
#8 raiderdav
I’ve been working on something like that. My problem is in how I will reduce the scope into something manageable for this blog. My lists and recommendations are too large and long.
My question is: can all the intellectual banter lower the price of gas?
#10 texpat - whatever you find time for would be great. I don’t trust online reviews much.
Bottom line, ignore at one’s own risk;
We are best when we set the example for other nations to aspire to, we are at our worst when we indulge in hubristic nation building. Our times do not permit Pax Americana, that opportunity passed once the spies among us funneled nuclear technology to the Soviets.
We must defend our interests with utmost vigor, but it is reasonable and necessary to discuss just what those interests are.
Now, log off and enjoy the weekend. Semper Gumby
I just looked at the word neoconservative as a pejorative from either side of the isle for anybody they disagreed with in the Republican party - regardless of the issue or the stance of the person being labeled as such.
Some issues are complex, but as Ronald Reagan pointed out, “There are no easy answers’ but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.”
Liberals/Democrats ideas of that are often repugnant to decency. They disdain common sense and logic. Conservatives do not hesitate to point out this type of thinking from any and all parties. But within the GOP we can find it easier to eliminate or moderate such thinking. Not always. But often. And the GOP is a lot more likely to expose those within its own party as charlatans. Of course some here will scream about that, but I really don’t care. They are the ones who will cut their nose to spite their face.
Muhawhahahahaha. You are kidding right? Please tell me you are joking.
GOP Checklist
1. Does he have an “R” behind his name?
2. Vote for him
/Rememeber
Republican Good Democrat Bad
that is all we need to know.
Here is the difference as I understand it:
conservative is for smaller government and fiscal responsibility, with few foregin entanglements.
neocon wanted streamlined government that encouraged a certain moral code and played a role as an exporter of ideas to the world stage.
#14 Big45Iron
That is precisely my point. People in general, and specifically commenters on this blog, throw around legitimate political terms without the slightest notion of their meaning or origin. Neoconservatism and its adherents are a recognized political school of thought as are the Realists and their Realpolitik. I am trying here to get to a basic understanding of the taxonomy* of political science and philosophy so we can move past arguing semantics and start seriously debating policy and ideas.
*1. The classification of organisms in an ordered system that indicates natural relationships.
2. The science, laws, or principles of classification; systematics.
3. Division into ordered groups or categories.
#16 monkeyincognito
It’s a little more complicated than that. Also, the ideas and themes held by Realists and Neoconservatives can historically be found in the Democratic, Whig and Republican parties and promoted by Presidents of all persuasions. Remember, there are several different subsets of Conservatives as well.
No Squawk. For the umphteenth and second time, it’s:
Republicans alive
Democrats dead
Seems to be a tough concept for you to grasp. But you’re a smart guy. Keep working at it. I’m sure you’ll catch on.
Monkey, the fewer foreign entanglements worked fine until Dec 7, 1941, and then got really complicated on August 6, 1945. After that, all the old rules on world economy and foreign affairs went right out the window. We had moved into an era where the push of buttons from 8,000 miles away could render your whole lst world industrialized nation a smoking, radioactive cinder. That’s what the Squawkers of the world don’t seem to really believe. It’s a head in the sand mentality. Of course they look at us EXACTLY the same way. However, death my a covert nuclear weapon brought into this country by Islamic terrorists is a far great reality than the Squawkers view of death my political nitpicking.
make that death by political nitpicking.
FYI, Squawkers is not a deliberate rendering of his screen name….it’s meant to indicate those who believe like Squawk.
I don’t deal in concepts Big. In fact it is the concept that you seem to think that just because some guy has an “R” behind their name makes them automatically righteous that I rail against.
We are looking at a Dem controlled Congress, at best a constipated Senate and John McCain. John McCain has all but said he ain’t too concerned about the conservative base. He has a history of “reaching across the aisle” to make himself look good. Yup nice concept you got going there. You show me where your concept is valid then I will back off.
Oh you can’t. Can you?
Lemme see I am supposed to ignore the fact he twice considered leaving the republican party to join Kerry.
McCain Lieberman
Gang of 14
McCain Feingold
McCain Kennedy
I am supposed to ignore all that and you have the gall to say
IN FACT the GOP corporately ignored the Conn Republican Senatorial ‘06 candidate and openly backed Lieberman. I could go on but why bother?
Oh and as far as you explaining “what I think” to a third party…. you have no idea what I think or believe.
Squawk, you know that is BS. I don’t look at somebody with an R and say they are good. You are the ONLY one I see who keeps spewing that lie. What we are saying is R is better that D/L. Get it?
A shorter list (for American History anyway) would be of the New Left Revisionists of the sixties and seventies as sources and interpretations to stay away from. At the very least, a post discussing them would be an eye opener for a lot of folks.
Followed by a recommendation to find source documents and contemporary accounts, not for the information presented in them per se, but using them to gain an understanding of the zietgiest of the time. This is especially essential if you do find yourslef having to use NLRs as a source. They tend to project modern morality onto persons of the past (as in attempting to denigrate the ideas of Washington and Jefferson because they were slave holders) and I’ve found it helpful to read accounts of actual participants written shortly after the event to be helpful in cutting through that crap—especially when it comes claims of “American Imperialism” of the early 20th Century.
Big
You are telling me you can trust McCain. I don’t trust the sob for nothing. I am saying you along with me (and more like me) better use what you got NOW to get McCain’s attention. If that boy gets elected, he “might” be better than Hillary/Obama but he is going to fall somewhere between Carter and Bush II in his governing and he will give away the farm all in the name of bi-partisanship.
Furthermore, if the scenario I described above comes to fruition McCain will be a lame duck from day one and then my fear of him giving away the farm becomes even scarier.
Get it?
The word “neoconservative” has pejorative connotations according to some, but I’ve often found that those who take offense to its use (a) do so only when it is being used by somebody they don’t like and (b) have no problem using it to describe themselves among other self-described neo-conservatives, regardless of how others use it or how often those same people criticize others for using it.
The complexities of its usage are strangely similar to a certain other n-word in that regard.
We certainly are in a dilemma with John McCain as the Republican candidate. If you are observing the polls, he is pulling democrats and independents. As those people move to the republican ticket, or decide the democrat party has left them, they will dilute the conservative movement until it may be such a minority, we are powerless. Rick Perry. How many people are glad he’s governor? He’s a democrat who saw a better opportunity with republicans. The republican leaders are welcoming all these newcomers, while they move us to the middle. Moderates. Party platform…… useless. Republican leaders giving a litmus test to those who run? It will never happen. That’s why we have John McCain as our candidate. And no one can tell us how he will vote on important issues.
Mc Cain doesn’t have a snow ball’s chance in hell. What polls are you looking at? Iraq will be his demise - it already is.
#30 LivBV
RealClearPolitics.com is a highly respected, political website. They take half a dozen or more of the major national polls and keep a running average. Here it is for yesterday:
General Election:
RCP Average
McCain (R)44.6%
Obama (D)45.2%
Und6.0%
Obama +0.6%
…………………………………
RCP Average
McCain vs. Clinton
McCain (R)46.2%
Clinton (D)45.0%
Und5.3%
McCain +1.2%
That is quite a bit more than a snowball’s chance in hell, Liz.
We might want to look at those polls after this weekend.
Obama’s “clinging to guns and religion” statement isn’t going to play very well except with people who have already decided that John McCain doesn;t havea snowball’s chance in Hell—and those folks will only ignore it, just like they’bve ignored all the other negatives sloawly and surely piling up on the young man.
tex, I was just simplifying.
big, you are absolutely correct. Those did change the world. I do think there is still room in the world for a less interventionist policy. I’m not saying stay out of it, just pick your battles… and win them.