On Neoconservatism

Originally Posted at The Festering Swamp on August 21, 2007

My thoughts on what remains an overused term, often employed as a euphemism for a host of standard insults, not unlike "fascist." – Mike LaRoche

Among the developments in the realm of political ideology during this decade, few have elicited more controversy than the revival of the term "neoconservative." When the term first emerged in the 1970s, it was used to describe a number of urban, American, liberal intellectuals who drifted rightward toward the Republican Party primarily (but not solely) due to disagreements with other liberal intellectuals (and by extension, the increasingly leftist and isolationist Democratic Party) over foreign policy. Many of the aforementioned outcasts were content to simply identify themselves as Cold War Liberals. However, according to Jonah Goldberg, their detractors had a more derisive term in mind:

The word "neoconservative" was coined by Michael Harrington and the editors of Dissent to describe their old friends who'd moved to the right. It was an insult, along the lines of "running dog" or "fellow traveler." Or perhaps the "neo" was intended to conjure "neo-Nazi," the only other political label to sport the prefix. As Seymour Martin Lipset, one of the most-respected social scientists of the 20th century and an original neocon wrote, the term "was invented as an invidious label to undermine political opponents, most of whom have been unhappy with being so described."

As the old saying goes: the more things change, the more they stay the same. In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the term underwent a revival - being used not only to describe the old Cold War Liberals but also anyone who had the gall to support or speak favorably of President George W. Bush's interventionist foreign policy.

Among the sharpest critics of neoconservatives have been self-described "paleoconservatives" - individuals such as Patrick J. Buchanan, the late Samuel Francis, Thomas Fleming, Taki Theodoracopulous, and Paul Gottfried, among several others. As a long-time subscriber to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture (the premier journal of paleocon opinion) I'm not necessarily hostile to their viewpoints. Reading through any issue of the magazine will give the reader a jolt of unabashed old-fashioned Americanism, recalling not only the resoluteness of Senator Robert A. Taft, but also the spunk of H.L. Mencken and Westbrook Pegler along with the quaint Southern agrarianism of Donald Davidson. For me, the monthly musings of Chilton Williamson, Jr. and Roger McGrath are a true joy to read.

But not all paleoconservative critics of neoconservatism are so level-headed. Some like Paul Craig Roberts, Gary North, and Joseph Sobran seem to see little difference between "neocons" and Jewish conservatives, mainly because of the strong support that neoconservatives have given to Israel. Of course, it's important to keep in mind that while many of the original neocons were (and are) Jewish, many were (and are) not: Jeane Kirkpatrick, William Bennett, Michael Novak, and Richard John Neuhaus to name a few. While there is nothing wrong with analyzing the involvement of Jews in American politics from an historical and sociological perspective, there is something seriously wrong with suggesting that a "Jewish cabal" hostile to American interests exists at the core of the American body-politic. Unfortunately, while such ahistorical, tinfoil-hat nonsense has long been in decline on the right, it has lately enjoyed a revival in the dark corners of the unhinged left.

Our own Catherine Seipp, herself a neoconservative of a later generation, often dealt with the latter when contributors and commenters at DailyKos would link to her work. Among the many ridiculous statements made by the Kos kids was the unintentionally humorous accusation (leveled by a commenter) that Cathy was part of a cadre of Texans and Jews plotting to take over the world. Hilarious and ridiculous, but scary at the same time since there is always a percentage of people at both ends of the political spectrum willing to believe the most outlandish conspiracy theories irrespective of facts and logic.

The material I've brought up here ultimately requires that I answer this question: am I a neoconservative? The short answer is no. For one thing, there is nothing "neo" about my conservatism - I have been a conservative my entire adult life. I am not a political convert by any definition. I could go through a laundry list of positions on various issues to further delineate my conservatism, but I won't. Instead, I'll invoke the words of Russell Kirk, a man considered my many to be the godfather of contemporary conservatism. Of conservatism, Kirk wrote, "...the diversity of ways in which conservative views may find expression is itself proof that conservatism is no fixed ideology," adding "the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise." Or to put it more succinctly, "The intelligent conservative combines a disposition to preserve with an ability to reform."

There is much wisdom to be found among the various expressions of conservatism, and conservatives of any stripe do themselves no favors by limiting themselves to one sect or another.

Shalom, y'all.