Flight of the Neocons

From liberal hawks to "National Greatness" conservatives

Michael C. Moynihan from the May 2008 issue

(Page 2 of 2)

In this latest iteration, Heilbrunn convincingly argues, neoconservatism would destroy itself. The Bush administration, which campaigned in 2000 on a policy of nonintervention abroad, had no intention of embracing the neoconservative outlook until the terror attacks of 2001. Condoleezza Rice, Heilbrunn writes, “hewed to her stated course of leaving nation building to the Democrats.” Some neocons shared this distaste for aggressively exporting democracy. In her famous 1979 essay “Dictatorships and Double Standards,” which blasted President Carter’s “human rights”–centered foreign policy and argued for toleration of certain America-friendly, anti-communist authoritarian regimes, the neocon heroine Jeane Kirkpatrick argued that “the belief that it is possible to democratize governments, anytime, anywhere, under any circumstances…is belied by an enormous body of evidence based on the experience of dozens of countries which have attempted with more or less (usually less) success to move from autocratic to democratic government.”

Kirkpatrick strongly supported the “rollback” policy Reagan adopted toward the Soviet Union, but she surely would have balked if, instead of merely stunting Soviet imperial advances, the United States attempted to build mini-Americas in every liberated land. “There is no inherent or historical ‘imperative,’ ” Kirkpatrick would write during the Iraq War, “for the U.S. government to seek to achieve any other goal—however great—except as mandated by the Constitution or adopted by the people through elected governments.” There is, after all, a significant difference between assisting in the abrogation of the Soviet empire and a quixotic policy of democratization.

It also worth noting, as Heilbrunn does, that the Reagan nostalgia of many neoconservatives requires a selectively deployed memory and a distorted reading of history. Reaganism held much promise for the neocon movement, though most neocons soon felt betrayed by the president’s nuanced handling of nuclear disarmament. Midge Decter declared herself “disgusted” with the administration’s willingness to sit down with the Soviet Union. Norman Podhortez called Reagan’s refusal to send ground troops into Nicaragua “appeasement” and was enraged by the administration’s “half-hearted” support of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon and the president’s apparent volte-face on arms control.

Heilbrunn recognizes that, from Nixon to Bush, the neocons actually have angered the right far more than the left. For many libertarians, paleoconservatives, and Reagan Republicans, this is certainly true. The American Conservative, a magazine that Heilbrunn misidentifies as beginning operations in the late 1990s (it was founded in 2002), is a case in point, launched in large part as a reaction against the neocon rebirth. It would have been helpful and interesting had Heilbrunn explored these internecine battles in greater detail.

To Heilbrunn, the legacy of neoconservatism is one of long-term disaster for the Republican Party, an ideological digression that “quite possibly not only destroyed conservatism as a political force for years to come but also created an Iraq syndrome that tarnishes the idea of intervention for several decades.” This sounds right. The surge has undeniably mitigated the violence in Iraq, but it seems likely that—barring a continued military presence in Iraq for “100 years,” as John McCain posited—the neocons’ nation-building project will be a millstone around the movement’s neck. The Iraq fiasco will also obscure the fact that many of their Cold War–era arguments with the left were prescient. They were right about the ineffectiveness of Great Society welfare programs and about the colossal evil of the communist bloc.

But the failures of the neoconservative approach to both foreign and domestic policy are recognized even by consummate neocon David Frum, partial author of the infamous “axis of evil” State of the Union speech. In his recently released book Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again, Frum concedes Heilbrunn’s point that a conservative regeneration is needed after the Bush administration’s big spending and disastrous foreign policy. While Frum is upbeat about conservatism’s prospects, Heilbrunn ends They Knew They Were Right on an ominous note: “These reckless minds…aren’t going away. Quite the contrary.”

Perhaps. But unless Iraq becomes an Arab version of Switzerland in the next decade, I wouldn’t bet on it.

Michael C. Moynihan is an associate editor of Reason.

Page: < 12

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|4.30.08 @ 5:24PM|#

A severe recession would probably do more to kill neoconservatism (at least in its "National Greatness" guise) than anything else. All that jingoistic crap costs money.

Plant Immigration RIghts Suppo|4.30.08 @ 5:29PM|#

I once badly misunderstood the meaning of the term. I think part of this is that the term is not always used in a consistent way. At the time, before the second term of GWB, it sounded more like a slur against conservative Jewish people than anything else. The only connection I could see among all of the people described as "neocons" were that they were all Jewish people who supported at least some tenants of mainstream conservativism.

Father Coughlin|4.30.08 @ 6:39PM|#

neocon = jew

it is more polite than "kike"

|4.30.08 @ 6:49PM|#

i've heard arguements that dubya and the neocons are socialists over the years that i grow more and more open to. the idea that it's our government's duty to fix iraq is socialist in nature. i don't think it's a mistake that christopher hitchens, who was and is a liberal no matter what the left who hates him now thinks, is the most articulate person (IMHP)in favor of the war that i've come across. he can articulate pro-war sentiments much better then the neo-con hawks can.
i also don't think it's false that ron paul, a real conservative is the most articulate critic of the war. he's much more articulate (again IMHP)then most of the anti-war left.

Sam Grove|4.30.08 @ 7:47PM|#

he's much more articulate (again IMHP)then most of the anti-war left.

That's because they are more anti-capitalist than anti-war.

gmatts|4.30.08 @ 11:11PM|#

"the idea that it's our government's duty to fix iraq is socialist in nature"

Then God is a socialist. Remember, Dubya has said that what we're giving the Iraqis is not really a gift from us(America). dubya claims that it's really God's gift to all of us(the human race) and He's just using the US Armed Forces to deliver this "gift".

which has me thinking now that Mothers Day is just around the corner: I was planning on sending my mother flowers so maybe I'll see if I can have the gift attached to a hellfire missle and delivered right into my mothers living room. It will be just like God's gift, via America, to the Iraqis. I'm sure she'll be pleased - as are avergae Iraqi's.

Fritz|5.1.08 @ 12:11AM|#

I wouldn't call Paul's position on the war the most articulate, but he does hew closer to the big picture--the intellectual roots of the war. The anti-war Left has simply burnt itself out focusing, myopicly, on the crony capitalism engendered by the occupation of Iraq. And they can't get past the sloganeering, the symbolic actions, the mob-marches. Realatively speaking, Paul's is the most enlightened anti-war stance (at least in the public sphere).

|5.1.08 @ 1:19AM|#

I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him...

sigh, if only.

Artie Lange|5.1.08 @ 2:42AM|#

At the risk of sounding anti-Semitic, I think that neoconservatism is a reaction against the perceived Jewish lack of physical toughness; that they're the nerds of American society (while black people, and arguably Southern whites, are the uber-jocks--the best football players are disproportionately Southern blacks and whites). Neoconservatism allows these guys to act tough in a vicarious way. Also, the intense attachment they have to Israel is because Israel acts contrary to the Western Jewish stereotype; they win wars, they kick ass, they're like modern day Samurai, etc. Israel allows the world to see that the Jews are a lot tougher than they were before 1948. If I was Jewish, I would take inordinate pride in the IDF's martial success.

PC|5.1.08 @ 10:31AM|#

Neoconservatism? What is the philosophy of Neoconservatism? Frankly Classical and Biblical philosophy have many common premises, then throw in a certain Italian "fallen angel" and the German elements that tie it all together and you get Neoconservatism. Neoconservatism just applies this philosophical construct, in the proper context, to the present situation with the biggest superpower in the world. The supremecy of Jewish Biblical philosophy is why jews are so far advanced compared to Neocons of other religions, in my opinion. Anyone who is anti-semitic and thinks it is merely a Jewish thing does not adequately respect the Jewish religion and thus is ill prepared to combat Neoconservatism with their vulgar racist rants. To understand Neoconservatism is to respect its concepts, but you don't have to agree with it's conclusions, or respect the "legacy intellectuals" that are its driving forces. What did Thomas Paine think of legacies?

Neoconservatism unfortunately is not going anywhere, to look at this situation with Iran, one can see them potentially coming into greater prominence than every before. Kristol just might get his "war of civilizations...that everyone had hoped to avoid" and is still hoping to avoid. When Podhoretz says that he had to change his prediction of an attack on Iran from high confidence to what the NIE preparers would call "low to moderate confidence" that clearly told me to be concerned.

gmatts|5.1.08 @ 11:17AM|#

"At the risk of sounding anti-Semitic, I think that neoconservatism is a reaction against the perceived Jewish lack of physical toughness; that they're the nerds of American society (while black people, and arguably Southern whites, are the uber-jocks--the best football players are disproportionately Southern blacks and whites). Neoconservatism allows these guys to act tough in a vicarious way."

I don't think it has as much to do with simply being Jewish as it does with being converts from the far Left. Never underestimate how much of an impact such a dramatic change in attitude can have on an individual. It's almost as if they feel that they have to make up for time lost while engaging in those discarded views that they now must go full tilt in the carrying out of their new philosophy. Hence the need for so many neoconservatives to be constantly fixated on engagaing and eliminating teh next great "threat" on the horizon.
Maybe thats why they found such a willing enabler in George W Bush. After all, Bush is a both a recovering alcoholic and a religious convert. So he can share in the neoconservative mindset of making up for lost time and accomplishing big things as compensation for time wasted.

Brian|5.1.08 @ 11:45AM|#

One of Ron Paul's money-bomb organizers needs to get a website going for a July 4th "Get Out the Write-in Vote" for his campaign...now while the book sales are hot.

|5.2.08 @ 8:25PM|#

I have a couple of problems with this.

1. Is it really true that the Bush administration had 'no interest' in neoconservatism until 9/11? What about the many neocons on his senior staff, such as Wolfowitz? I was under the impression that the Bush administration always had aspirations to a "muscular" foreign policy, and that 9/11 merely provided them with the perfect reason. Perhaps the article isn't really disputing this, and it's their view of nation-building that changed with respect to Iraq.

2. were they primarily for welfare or against it? Moynihan seems to make the opposite claims, arguing that they didn't have a problem with it but then saying that they criticized the left's Great Society programs. My read is that they were tolerant of it.

|2.14.10 @ 10:29AM|#

Iran needs only to be patient. Demographics will eventually take care ofIsrael.

nfl jerseys|11.5.10 @ 10:42PM|#

jedthg

Jordan 6 Rings|8.11.11 @ 4:28AM|#

perfect

Nike Dunk SB High|8.12.11 @ 11:58PM|#

is good

Reason.com