Has anyone noticed that staunch neocons....

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think you misunderstood my post. I wasn´t trying to make a nuanced and intellectually coherence point on Marxism to be raised for discussion. I was merely making a completely trollish and unprovoked attack on Spiked and its associated evils.

Oh, I understood what you were getting at. Laughed as well. I was just playing at a very specific form of naïvety.

[Insula Dei]

Well, firstly Marx never actually used the term 'dialectical materialism'...

Diamat is just the Soviet attempt at a metaphysics of their own. Marx uses 'Historical materialism', to describe his position.

[Person Man]

"Historical Materialism". Is that a Hagelian thing? I think it was once said that Marx told Charles Darwin that his theory of evolution provides scientific evidence for the Communist Manifesto's idea that socialism was the natural synthesis of capitalism.

[seanobr]

I think anyone familiar with the ideological formation of the neoconservative movement wouldn't find it surprising if many of its practitioners are receptive to centrist, if not outright liberal social and economic policy, but I believe that is largely happenstance and not significant in any way.  Whatever barrier there was between the Republican Party and neoconservatism fell during the Reagan administration, and while Richard Perle is still a titular Democrat out of nostalgic loyalty, the remainder of his colleagues are safely within the Republican framework today.  As for the defining tenet of neoconservatism, its commitment to idealism and the proliferation of democracy, there probably is a correlation between that essential thought and the Fourth International's imprint on several of the initiators of neoconservatism, but I don't have the knowledge to make that argument.

To revive something I wrote here last month, the schism that helped create neoconservatism as a distinct entity began with internal debate on the left of the political spectrum over the war in Vietnam, between those who felt America had to be willing to intervene to oppose Communism wherever it flowered, and the anti-war bloc that was preeminent in the Democratic Party's 1972 primary.  The incongruity is that some of the most virulent proponents of the effort in Vietnam were in the gray area of America's political environment, often incorrectly conflated by the public with the broader ideal of Marxism and thought to have a resemblance to the Soviet Union itself.  Max Schactman's Unity Front, a faction within the Socialist Party, is probably more emblematic of this than any other group: uncompromising in its championing of Vietnam, they eventually succeeded in forcing out their internal opposition and re-imaged what remained of the organization into the devoutly anti-Communist SDUSA.  

It's also true that a neoconservative of the era would've held a jaundiced view of the counterculture sweeping the Democratic Party; many were circumspect regarding the overall benefit of the Great Society's expansion of government, including Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who later left the movement.  This reluctance probably facilitated their assimilation into the Republican Party, because while they were originally inclined to support such a drastic increase in social welfare programs, neoconservative intellectuals came to the fore in publishing empirical, rational opposition to that facet of domestic liberalism.  Once they were against the seminal achievements of their Democratic Party, an eventual transition to the right was no longer that difficult to envision.

There was nothing wrong, in principle, with their passionate opposition to the Soviet system; I believe the Frankfurt Declaration of the Socialist International was very explicit in its objection to Communism.  But it left them on the fringe of the Democratic Party, leading to the creation of the Coalition for a Democratic Majority and, later, the Committee on the Present Danger to give institutional expression to their hard-line perspective.  Neoconservatism advocacy helped propel Senator Henry Jackson's amendment to the 1974 Trade Act, which intended to deny any state that did not comply with the legislation's freedom of exit requirements most favored nation status, although the President was empowered to waive this provision if he so chose.  The primary controversy was the Soviet Union's diploma tax, which had been implemented in 1973 to prevent its intellectuals, many of whom were Jewish, from emigrating to the West.  Depending on which interpretation you wish to believe, this was either a self-fulfilling prophecy, endangering Nixon's detente and therefore enhancing the justification for their aggressive foreign policy advice; or it brought an important humanitarian issue to prominence and eventually forced the Soviet Union to accede to international condemnation.

One idiosyncrasy of the neoconservative belief system is that all of its architects, even today, tend to maintain a high degree of intimacy with one another in their intellectual endeavors.  The neoconservative cabal managed to obtain an influential presence on the infamous Team B study, which contained simply fantastical assertions regarding Soviet technological development and economic capability; this was lauded by Donald Rumsfeld as underlining the urgent need for America to abandon its mutual disarmament efforts and start expanding its military to counteract the Eastern Bloc threat.  Eventually, they became so disenchanted with the recalcitrant Democratic Party that they were lured into the web of the Reagan administration, helping to guide the foreign policy of his first term, and I think that began their amalgamation into the Republican Party at large.  Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, a prototypical neoconservative, was a Socialist in college and an otherwise extremely liberal Democrat who was apart of this migration after she caught Reagan's eye with "Dictatorships and Double Standards", eventually becoming a nominal Republican at best.  Norman Podhoretz, however, who wrote the "Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy" article expressing his displeasure at Reagan's frailty, has undergone a total transformation and is now openly sympathizing with Sarah Palin's political platform, which is rather incompatible with the historical conception of a neoconservative.  

It is perfectly fitting now, however, because I think the neoconservative future is inseparable from whatever interpretation of conservatism is fashionable at the moment.  Its acolytes will enhance their credibility by advocating for regime change in Iran, Syria and wherever else (see John Bolton casting himself as a Korean expert and exhorting for decisive action against the North in November), and take solace in the fact that we are generally more amenable to a stronger military than the Democratic Party.  George W. Bush was a proponent of large government, so that's what the neoconservative denomination supported; if the next Republican President is libertarian in their outlook, that's where they will fall.  Its influence is now limited to trying to direct Republican national security strategy, which was evidenced in John Bolton and Richard Perle helping to articulate the party's opposition to New START, and I don't see how the movement can ever regain its independent quality.  Norman Podhoretz actually proclaimed the demise of neoconservatism during the Clinton administration, believing that the ideology had run its course by achieving what it set out to accomplish, but that also occurred near or immediately after his retirement from Commentary, so it might have been conceit on his part.  In a way, he was right, but premature: neoconservatism will never again possess the unparalleled influence it acquired during the first term of the Bush administration.  The overwhelming majority are wary of its ubiquitous militarism altogether.

[Redalgo]

Isn't the definition of a neocon just someone that's a hawk on foreign policy, and apathy towards everything else?

Partly. Neocons are apathetic to the welfare state and are on the moderate right when it comes to economic issues. They are somewhat socially conservative. What really sets them apart from most people on the right is their pragmatism - expressed by the realist notions they embrace in foreign affairs. Libertarians are more idealistic, passionate in their love of capitalism, and willing to object to any sacrifice of individual rights or liberty for national interests. Paleoconservatives are usually more fixated on championing the Bible and/or Founding Fathers. Neoconservatives are devoted to liberal democracy too mind you, but are still too conservative overall - especially on social issues - to be considered Christian democrats or centrists. Or at least that's my impression of the matter.

Say what???

The view that states are self-interested actors competing with each other on an anarchical world stage for power and material resources without respect for moral considerations or ideological principles. States make decisions internationally based on national interests, not a set of ideals unless doing so comes with practical benefits. I suppose that may not be a fair assessment though since some neocons are more liberal or genuinely idealist (e.g. Wilsonians?).

Neocons are liberals who have been mugged by reality.

Basically, assuming that mugging makes their worldview a bit more cynical.


Having read it now, by the way, I do like seanobr's explanation quite a bit.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Wait... Cheney has positions beyond Kill All The Other Men?

Actually, he endorsed gay marriage.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

....tend to be moderate-to-liberal on social issues?

Examples: 

Rudy Giuliani
Joe Lieberman
Dick Cheney
John Bolton
The pre-2008 John McCain

And yet so-called 'libertarians' such as Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Bob Barr, etc go out of their way to appease the Religious Right. Ironic, isn't it?

John Bolton is seemingly libertarian on social issues.

[Person Man]

Isn't the definition of a neocon just someone that's a hawk on foreign policy, and apathy towards everything else?

Partly. Neocons are apathetic to the welfare state and are on the moderate right when it comes to economic issues. They are somewhat socially conservative. What really sets them apart from most people on the right is their pragmatism - expressed by the realist notions they embrace in foreign affairs. Libertarians are more idealistic, passionate in their love of capitalism, and willing to object to any sacrifice of individual rights or liberty for national interests. Paleoconservatives are usually more fixated on championing the Bible and/or Founding Fathers. Neoconservatives are devoted to liberal democracy too mind you, but are still too conservative overall - especially on social issues - to be considered Christian democrats or centrists. Or at least that's my impression of the matter.

Say what???

The view that states are self-interested actors competing with each other on an anarchical world stage for power and material resources without respect for moral considerations or ideological principles. States make decisions internationally based on national interests, not a set of ideals unless doing so comes with practical benefits. I suppose that may not be a fair assessment though since some neocons are more liberal or genuinely idealist (e.g. Wilsonians?).

Neocons are liberals who have been mugged by reality.

Basically, assuming that mugging makes their worldview a bit more cynical.


Having read it now, by the way, I do like seanobr's explanation quite a bit.

Yeah.  That was a good mini-article by seanobr. The narrative of the neocon movement is that they were really hawkish Progressives back before Vietnam.  Eventually, when the Dems and various other liberals turned on Vietnam,  they had a disagreement and by the 70s saw foreign policy as more important than any Domestic Policy. By the 80s, some neocons decided to become liberal single-issue hawks in the GOP and some totally sold out to the GOP so long as the GOP is considered the "pro-war" party....and that's where they have been ever since, with their fortunes changing with the GOP's fortunes....but it appears that they lost a lot of credibility by selling out to the GOP and having botched Iraq for 5 years.

[To be is the answer to all penus]

Uh...I lean towards a Hawkish foreign policy, and am extremely right wing on social issues...