Good reading from a “a classical conservative with neo-Hegelian intellectual tendencies” (whatever that means):
You mean neoconservativism?
From the article:
Basically, pseudo-conservatism would more accurately name what is going on in the Republican party right now.
The article is a mixed bag of decent insight, and unsupported slurs.
Let’s take them one at a time:
1. Leader worship: let’s put Ronald Reagan on Mount Rushmore!
This is not a neoconservative thing. Conservatives of all stripes worship Reagan. And if Democrats had a dynamic leader who had revolutionized the party and government, they’d worship him too.
- Rugged individualism - except when submission is called for
The author uses as examples the PATRIOT Act, the Defense of Marriage Act, and flag-burning amendments. In fact, these are widely supported by ALL conservatives. If anything, the neocons break from traditional conservatives on the libertarian side - there are more libertarians among neo-cons than among ‘paleo-cons’. You will find widespread disapproval of the flag burning amendments and the DMA among neo-cons. And the author is cherry-picking. If you’re going to try to come up with an honest picture of neoconservatism, you have to consider the areas where they favor more freedom than traditional conservatives. For instance, there is almost universal support for Free Trade among neo-cons, whereas the old style conservatives like Pat Buchanan are protectionists.
3. Chickenhawk militarism: "the military is not a part of government"
This is just a slur. Just because some prominent neo-con leaders never served, he’s painting the whole movement. But here’s the thing: Neo-cons are young. The Masthead over at National Review contains a whole bunch of people in their 20’s and 30’s. It’s no surprise that they didn’t serve in the military - post-Vietnam, only a small minority of people of any political stripe served. The Paleo-cons are generally of an older generation, when military service was much more widespread.
4. Crackpot pseudoreligion: Elmer Gantry meets Armageddon
I’ve seen absolutely no evidence of this. And in fact, the article offers none, other than a wacky article by Jerry Falwell, as if Falwell were the spiritual father of neo-conservatism or something. But I’ve got news for the author: Neo-cons hate people like Falwell. He’s more of a paleo, old-school conservative. In fact, old style conservatives are much more in lockstep on the whole religion thing. The Neo-con movement is made up in equal parts of Catholics, Jews, lapsed Catholics of the P.J.O’Rourke variety, and lapsed Jews like Jonah Goldberg. Plus a pretty large minority of various athiests. There are even a handful of Muslims. In other words, pretty much a cross-section of society.
“Messianism”? Talk about your loaded terms. There is some truth to this one - a lot of Neo-Cons favor a more interventionist policy by the U.S. to right wrongs in the world. For example, they split from paleo-cons to advocate intervention in Rwanda, and also to support Bill Clinton’s intervention in the Balkans. There’s nothing 'Messianic" about that.
6. Big government: for my purposes
The author’s ‘evidence’ for that is nothing more than the fact that the government is running a big deficit. This is an idiotic point, since A) Neo-cons widely disagree with George Bush over the amount of money that he’s spent, and B) There have always been deficits after recessions and during wars.
The author totally misses the fact that the Neo-cons broke ranks with President Bush on almost all his major spending initiatives. They strongly opposed the farm subsidy bill, they strongly opposed his prescription drug benefit for seniors, and they have constantly called for the Bush administration to veto spending bills.
7. America first! - except for [insert your favorite country here]
Sorry, I can’t figure out what he’s trying to say here. Neocons get engaged in foreign entanglements, and they want a Catholic State, except for the Jewish ones, who want to do something for Israel, but they’re also like Communists, except that they like Reagan. Or something. He’s just tarring with a very broad brush, trying to come up with some sort of cohesive philosophy where none exists.
8. Crony capitalism: none dare call it the corporate state
I’ve seen ZERO evidence for this. In fact, it’s the old-style conservatives that tend to be the crony capitalists. And after reading his ‘defense’ of this assertion, I’m puzzled. He offered no evidence I could see that Neo-Cons are crony capitalists. He just throws the smear out there and that’s it.
The biggest problem with this article is that it’s an exercise in data-mining for evidence to support conclusions he’s already drawn. He calls people like Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill Bennett “Neo-Cons”, simply because they make his point. But they are not part of the movement. And the National Review FIRED Ann Coulter when she made the only Messianic foreign policy I can think of when she said America should invade the middle east and “convert them to Christianity”. They also published an editorial disassociating them from her comments. And where he can’t pin things on Neo-Cons, he widens the net with the new phrase “Pseudo-Con”, which he can use to include anyone he wants, since he defined the term. It’s a lousy article.
Hmmm, okay. I thought it was well written and the guy certainly seemed knowledgeable and well-read… Do you think he is a conservative or a liberal pretending to be one so he can better bash them?
What were the decent insights in your opinion?
This particularly resonated with me after reading the numerous debates on this board:
Of course, the Left is also attributed the same problems:
Certainly, these sorts of things are intentional hyperboles, yes?
That’s beautiful. The most succint way to describe contemporary media-related post-hoc reasoning. Hats off.
I don’t take the article seriously.
I’d also advise against anyone else doing so, if I were ever asked.
It’s not so much a useful survey making meaningful comparisons as it is a smear piece.
In the Pit there is such a thing as a pop-con, though.