# Neo-Cons = Trotskyists? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 2, 2003, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-cons-trotskyists/205028 "2003-10-02T00:51:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-cons-trotskyists/205028/1 "2003-10-02T00:51:00Z")
I’m submitting this here because I don’t currently posess sufficient background in these matters to make an informed judgement. initial exhibits: > [@](#): > > \*\*[Trotsky’s ghost wandering the White House > Influence on Bush aides: Bolshevik’s writings supported the idea of pre-emptive war\*\*](http://www.majority.com/news/jeet1.html) > As evidence of the continuing intellectual influence of Trotsky, consider the curious fact that some of the books about the Middle East crisis that are causing the greatest stir were written by thinkers deeply shaped by the tradition of the Fourth International. > > …Bush administration (notably Paul D. Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defence, and Dick Cheney, the Vice-President) frequently consulted Kanan Makiya… > As the journalist Christopher Hitchens notes, Makiya is “known to veterans of the Trotskyist movement as a one-time leading Arab member of the Fourth International.” When speaking about Trotskyism, Hitchens has a voice of authority. Like Makiya, Hitchens is a former Trotskyist who is influential in Washington circles as an advocate for a militantly interventionist policy in the Middle East. Despite his leftism, Hitchens has been invited into the White House as an ad hoc consultant. > > Among neo-conservatives…is Stephen Schwartz, a historian whose new book, The Two Faces of Islam, is a key text among those who want the United States to sever its ties with Saudi Arabia. Schwartz spent his formative years in a Spanish Trotskyist group. > Schwartz speaks of Trotsky affectionately as “the old man” and “L.D.” (initials from Trotsky’s birth name, Lev Davidovich Bronstein). “To a great extent, I still consider myself to be [one of the] disciples of L.D,” he admits, and he observes that in certain Washington circles, the ghost of Trotsky still hovers around. At a party in February celebrating a new book about Iraq, Schwartz exchanged banter with Wolfowitz about Trotsky, the Moscow Trials and Max Shachtman. > > To understand how some Trotskyists ended up as advocates of U.S. expansionism, it is important to know something about Max Shachtman, Trotsky’s controversial American disciple. Shachtman’s career provides the definitive template of the trajectory that carries people from the Left Opposition to support for the Pentagon. > > By the early 1970s, Shachtman was a supporter of the Vietnam War and the strongly anti-Communist Democrats such as Senator Henry Jackson. Shachtman had a legion of young followers (known as Shachtmanites) active in labour unions and had an umbrella group known as the Social Democrats. When the Shachtmanites started working for Senator Jackson, they forged close ties with hard-nosed Cold War liberals who also advised Jackson, including Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz; these two had another tie to the Trotskyism; their mentor was Albert Wohlstetter, a defence intellectual who had been a Schachtmanite in the late 1940s. > > The distance between the Russia of 1917 and the Washington of 2003 is so great that many question whether Trotsky and Shachtman have really left a legacy for the Bush administration. > [@](#): > > \*\*[THE NEO-JACOBINS\*\* > Why the neocons abhor the spotlight](http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j100103.html) > The Trotskyists argued that the Communist Revolution of 1917 could not and should not be contained within the borders of the Soviet Union. Today’s neocons make the same argument about the need to spread the American system until the U.S. becomes a “global hegemon,” as Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol puts it. Trotsky argued that socialism in one country was impossible, and doomed to failure: encircled by capitalism, surrounded by enemies constantly plotting its downfall, the “workers state” would not survive if it didn’t expand. The neocons are making a similar argument when it comes to liberal democracy. Confronted by an Islamic world wholly opposed to modernity, Western liberal democracy must implant itself in the Middle East by force – or else face defeat in the “war on terrorism.” Expand or die is the operative principle, and the neocons brought this Trotskyist mindset with them from the left. I hope that those with the necessary background knowledges of history and political science can help explain these things to me. While, this _ **may** _ be a factual question, I know that a poor mod’d have to move this here to GD at some point anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-cons-trotskyists/205028/2 "2003-10-02T04:06:39Z")
The problem here is that some people do not understand the basics of classification. Are dogs birds? Dogs have vertebrae. Birds have vertebrae. No, dogs are not birds. Dogs and birds are vertebrates. Are neocons Trotskyites? No. They are just both global totalitarians. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-cons-trotskyists/205028/3 "2003-10-02T04:12:17Z")
The concept of ‘pre-emptive war’ predates Trotsky by almost two thousand years, going back to times of Rome. Much of the early Roman expansion was nominally a defensive affair, born out of a sense of ‘Never Again’, following their near destruction in the Second Punic Wars. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-cons-trotskyists/205028/4 "2003-10-02T06:03:16Z")
First, let me ask a question. What do you think neoconservatism is? What is the difference between neoconservatives and paleoconservatives? Is George Bush a neoconservative? Is Rumsfeld? Is Cheney? If not, why not? Why are some people called neoconservatives, and others called conservatives, and others called liberal? ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-cons-trotskyists/205028/5 "2003-10-02T07:28:58Z")
Actualy, I’ve always thought of Neocons as the Jesuits of the Republican party. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-cons-trotskyists/205028/6 "2003-10-02T11:27:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*[The Neoconservative Persuasion\*\*](http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp) > > …one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy. > …neoconservative policies, reaching out beyond the traditional political and financial base, have helped make the very idea of political conservatism more acceptable to a majority of American voters. Nor has it passed official notice that it is the neoconservative public policies, not the traditional Republican ones, that result in popular Republican presidencies. > > Neocons feel at home in today’s America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not. > > The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives–though not with those libertarian conservatives who are conservative in economics but unmindful of the culture. > Because religious conservatism is so feeble in Europe, the neoconservative potential there is correspondingly weak. > > The older, traditional elements in the Republican party have difficulty coming to terms with this new reality in foreign affairs, just as they cannot reconcile economic conservatism with social and cultural conservatism. ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-cons-trotskyists/205028/7 "2003-10-02T12:16:47Z")
\>historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would \>seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American \>conservatism in general, against their respective wills, … \>have helped make the very idea of political conservatism more \>acceptable to a majority of American voters. Note the use of the words “very idea”, implying that the concept is inherently unpalatable and the EvilNeoCons ™ have converted all the BigFacelessMasses ™ to the unpalatable cause. From the above two quotes, I can but conclude that the word Neocon is simply a new derogatory term for conservatives. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-cons-trotskyists/205028/8 "2003-10-02T12:49:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by athelas \* > \*\* > Note the use of the words “very idea”, implying that the concept is inherently unpalatable and the EvilNeoCons ™ have converted all the BigFacelessMasses ™ to the unpalatable cause. > > From the above two quotes, I can but conclude that the word Neocon is simply a new derogatory term for conservatives. \*\* Yeah, I can see why you’d think that. But, did you actually look at the link? It’s written by Irving Kristol, the self proclaimed godfather of neo-conservatism. So I doubt if he meant these things to be condemnations of the neo-con movement. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-cons-trotskyists/205028/9 "2003-10-02T14:19:59Z")
Neo-con has always been a perjorative term since it was coined. In the sixties when some liberals began to question the welfare state or whether revolution was a good thing they were called neo-conservatives. Eventually neo-conservative meant a former leftist who became a conservative. Because some of the most famous of these were Jewish it has also been taken by some to mean Jewish conservative. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-cons-trotskyists/205028/10 "2003-10-02T14:51:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Alessan \* > \*\*Actualy, I’ve always thought of Neocons as the Jesuits of the Republican party. \*\* What does this mean? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-cons-trotskyists/205028/11 "2003-10-02T16:44:01Z")
There’s no mystery. The **neoconservatives** are a group of American political intellectuals (there is no equivalent mass-based movement) who believe the United States should pursue an aggressive and interventionist foreign policy. They emerged in the 1970s, and many of the early ones were converts from 1960s left-radical movements. Yes, many of them were and are Jewish, and from the start, neocons have been markedly pro-Israel. You can read the story in _Up from Conservatism_ by Michael Lind (Free Press, 1996). In the course of the '80s, _The New Republic_ became a markedly neocon magazine in its foreign-policy slant. No, I don’t know what **Alessan** mean by comparing the neocons to Jesuits. Perhaps it is because the Jesuits were founded to fight back against the Protestant Reformation and aggressively expand Catholicism; and because the Jesuits, since their founding. have been the most intellectual order of the Catholic Church. The word **paleoconservative** usually is used to mean someone like Patrick Buchanan, who favors an isolationist foreign policy, withdrawal of the U.S. from the United Nations, strict limits on immigration, breaking the power of big business (especially international big business) limited and decentralized government, and preservation of traditional American (that is, Christian) social and moral values (very strongly pro-life). Buchanan consciously stands in the tradition of the pre-WWII “America First” isolationists, and before that, the late-19th-century Populists and the early-19th-century Know-Nothings. You can read more about his views on the website of his new political party, the America First Party ([http://www.americafirstparty.org/](http://www.americafirstparty.org/)); and his “The American Cause” website ([http://www.theamericancause.org/](http://www.theamericancause.org/)); and Buchanan’s new weekly magazine, _The American Conservative,_ which you’ll find on any newsstand that also carries _The Nation_ or _The National Review_ or _The New Republic._ Although there is some overlap, paleoconservatives of this kind are not quite the same as religious-social conservatives and white-supremacist conservatives. It’s really a matter of emphasis. Some statements in Buchanan’s books can be read as hostile to racial sensitivity and political correctness but there is little that is **overtly** racist, a la _Mein Kampf._ (In fact, sorting out this tendency has caused some trouble to the fledgling America First Party, which was forced to postpone its 2003 national convention to an undetermined date after furor arose over the influence of a racist wing led by Bo Gritz.) And Buchanan (although a Roman Catholic) probably agrees with Pat Robertson on most points, but chooses to emphasize different areas, i.e., foreign, military, and immigration policy. Libertarians, radical and moderate, can be clearly distinguished from paleoconservative. They are likely to see eye-to-eye with Buchanan on the issues of isolationism and limited government, but would probably oppose his policies on immigration and foreign trade on the grounds of “freedom.” Libertarians want free markets and open borders, even if that means economic globalization and the American job markets being flooded with impoverished Third-Worlders. And big-business Republicans are yet another group. They agree with the neocons in a lot of ways, with the Libertarians in some ways. The Libertarians, however, are pro-market, which is not the same as pro-business; they would never support corporate welfare. The point is, paleoconservatives are diametrically opposed to neoconservatives in many ways. The neocons are running the country right now; the paleocons are relegated to the margins. The neocons were all for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the paleocons dead against them. The neocons are for NAFTA, the WTO, and economic globalization; the paleocons are against these things and are economic nationalists. The neocons are for the interests of big business and Wall Street, the paleocons hate these things as much as Communists do. The paleocons want to stop or restrict immigration; most neocons probably regard their cheap foreign nannies as basic necessities of life. Another difference is that neoconservatism is purely an intellectual-elite movement and paleoconservatism has an actual mass base among the voters. As for neoconservatism being equivalent to “Trotskyism” – if a parallel can be drawn, it doesn’t help us much in analyzing the situation. Remember that the neocons, together with the big-business Republicans, are running the country right now. In all aspects of foreign and military policy, the Bush Administration follows the neoconservative line. There was never any analogous situation in Soviet history; the interventionist, expansionist Trotsky fled the country shortly after the isolationist Stalin came to power. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-cons-trotskyists/205028/12 "2003-10-02T21:49:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SimonX \* > \*\*What does this mean? \*\* It means that like they’re the intellectuals of the American right, the rationalists. They try to live in the real world, and are willing to deal with their opponants in their own language. They’re practical, unsentimental and tend to avoid spouting dogma. If I’m not mistaken, the Jesuits were formed as a reaction to the Reformation. Aren’t the Neocons likewise a reaction to '60s-era liberalism? ---
**Author:** ![presidebt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c37758/32.png) [@presidebt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/presidebt)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-cons-trotskyists/205028/13 "2003-10-02T23:04:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BrainGlutton \* > \*\*\ \*\* **BrainGlutton** , thank you. I wasn’t completely ignorant on the issue, but I in no way had this sort of understanding of conservative division as a whole. You filled in gaps and put it in perspective. I’m kinda in awe. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2003, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-cons-trotskyists/205028/14 "2003-10-03T01:21:41Z")
The Bush administration does not completely follow the neo-con line. The steel tariff and farm subsidies are widely despised by neo-cons, as is the big spending of the Bush administration. The best description of the Bush administration is political pragmatism. Bush throws bones to the neo-cons, the paleos, liberals, trade unions, etc. His tax policies shore up the ‘base’ to the extent that they’ll hold their noses and be quiet while he pumps huge dollars into government programs that workers, liberals, and others love. Bush’s ultimate strategy is to occupy the center, while keeping the base happy, This, by the way, is exactly what Clinton’s strategy was, except his ‘base’ was on the left. But both men covet the center, and that’s where they’ll govern from. For all this rhetoric about Bush being a right-wing extremist, the only thing you can point to to support that is the tax cut. On almost all other matters, Bush is very much a centrist. The fact is, it’s a very successful way to get into office. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2003, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-cons-trotskyists/205028/15 "2003-10-03T01:45:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\*\ \*\* Yeah, but how do you feel about the assertion that’s made by some that neo-conservatism has roots in Trotskyism? I tried to mention it in the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2003, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-cons-trotskyists/205028/16 "2003-10-03T03:10:59Z")
Well, I just wrote a long message about it, but the hamsters ate it. The gist of it was that after reading the article, it seems to me to be a pretty tenuous linkage. And the bottom line is that Trotsky was a socialist, and neocons are anything but. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2003, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-cons-trotskyists/205028/17 "2003-10-03T04:22:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Alessan \* > \*\*It means that like they’re the intellectuals of the American right, the rationalists. They try to live in the real world, and are willing to deal with their opponants in their own language. They’re practical, unsentimental and tend to avoid spouting dogma. \*\* Then you’re certainly not talking about neoconservatives, who spout a lot of dogma. Neoconservatives have applied the totalitarian mindset to conservativism in ways that it had hitherto not been used. They are “conservative”, and YOU will be “conservative”, whether you want to be or not, and the rest of the world will be forced at gunpoint to obey them. As for being living in the “real world”, where are all those “real” weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that were supposedly the reason for invading the country? Neocons live in a fantasy world and are an embarassment to conservativism as a whole. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2003, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-cons-trotskyists/205028/18 "2003-10-03T05:24:49Z")
IIRC, and I am not sure I do in fact RC, Trotsky became a sort of idol to 60’s-70’s leftists who wanted to cling to communist ideology but could no longer ignore Stalin’s slaughterhouses. Since many neo-cons are former leftists it is not too surprising that they may have held some affection for Trotsky in the past. However I can’t see any connection between neo-con ideology and any form of communism, although that qote for Schwartz in the OP sure threw me. As a side note, David Brock reports that Bush Political Guru Karl Rove has a portrat of Lenin on his wall. He doesn’t admire Lenin’s ideology, but rather his fanatical devotion to his cause and his ruthelessness. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2003, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-cons-trotskyists/205028/19 "2003-10-03T05:32:27Z")
> [@](#): > > Then you’re certainly not talking about neoconservatives, who spout a lot of dogma. Neoconservatives have applied the totalitarian mindset to conservativism in ways that it had hitherto not been used. They are “conservative”, and YOU will be “conservative”, whether you want to be or not, and the rest of the world will be forced at gunpoint to obey them. I would like some cites for this assertion. Some neocon writings that support this view, for instance. Because I don’t believe the above paragraph bears any relationship to reality. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2003, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-cons-trotskyists/205028/20 "2003-10-03T13:04:48Z")
Bush’s constant hammering that Iraq was filled with weapons of mass destruction. That counts as spouting dogma and disconnection from reality. Neoconservatives are totalitarians who would have loved Stalin. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neo-cons-trotskyists/205028.md?page=2)