Neoconservativism

[Agathon]

Re: Neoconservativism

Originally posted by VetLegion
I got the book Neoconservativism by Irving Kristol, I just started reading it and me and that guy are on the same wavelength immediately.

Not to be mean, but why not read a political theory book by someone serious rather than a hack journalist?

Books like this are to political theory what Britney is to music.

[snoopy369]

Just out of curiousity, are there any books about Neoconservatism by people you would not consider a hack journalist, that aren't anti-NC?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Just out of curiousity, are there any books about Neoconservatism by people you would not consider a hack journalist, that aren't anti-NC?

No, because it isn't a serious political philosophy. I guess you could read some Leo Strauss, but he's widely regarded as a fraud.

Old style conservatives have people like Oakeshott, but, as I have said many times, it is difficult to write a proper book on conservatism because it really isn't a coherent political philosophy. Witness the repeated failures of Apolyton conservatives to provide a simple account of what they mean when prompted.

On the right, the Libertarians are to be excluded from this, since there are many well thought out and academically respectable books that lay out their basic ideas. Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia is worth anyone's time.

[snoopy369]

I would suggest that perhaps your personal biases might affect your opinion here a bit I'm not a neocon myself, but they do have a philosophy, odd as it is.

[chequita guevara]

Given that Irving Kristol is one of the leaders of the neo-con movement, what he has to say on the subject is somewhat valid. Intellectual snobbery is unbecoming a communist.

[DinoDoc]

Re: Re: Neoconservativism

Originally posted by Agathon
Not to be mean, but why not read a political theory book by someone serious rather than a hack journalist?

Aren't all Trotskyites hacks? What makes Irving so special in your eyes?

[DirtyMartini]

I don't know much, but is seems to me Neoconservatism as it is used today, bears little relation to the original Neoconservative movement/philosophy.

Currently, Neocon seem to be one of those words which is just thrown out by those on the left as a general insult toward those on the right. Not sure it retains much real meaning outside of that, at least as it is commonly used.

Does the book go into that issue/evolution/misundersstanding at all? I'd find that interesting.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini
I don't know much, but is seems to me Neoconservatism as it is used today, bears little relation to the original Neoconservative movement/philosophy.

Well duh. It's become a pejorative meaning whatever the person using it doesn't like rather than a foreign policy school of thought.

[Patroklos]

"Communist" and "fascist" has suffered the same fate in many circles.

[DanS]

You might try studying Wilson's foreign policy as a start to understanding neoconservativism.

(OK, so I took the OP seriously. Sue me.)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Patroklos
"Communist" and "fascist" has suffered the same fate in many circles.

A surprisingly intelligent post from Patroklos.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini
Currently, Neocon seem to be one of those words which is just thrown out by those on the left as a general insult toward those on the right.

Like the "Right," or "conservative?"

[Agathon]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I would suggest that perhaps your personal biases might affect your opinion here a bit I'm not a neocon myself, but they do have a philosophy, odd as it is.

They have things they believe. My point is that none of these add up to a coherent ideology.

Let's take liberalism for example. I guess that modern day liberalism tends towards the Rawlsian view (although there are variants). It is clearly a well-defined system, with a precise set of arguments underlying its fundamental principles.

Or what about Popper's political philosophy. His vision of the open society and the reasons one should believe in it are clearly stated in his works and the works of his followers.

Note that I am not a liberal or a Popperian, and I think Rawls is wrong, but I would never accuse him of lacking coherent reasons for his beliefs. The same goes for Libertarianism. There are clear axiological principles that underlie the Libertarian political program, and Libertarians tend to be better than most at connecting the two.

Neoconservatism, on the other hand, just seems to be a laundry list of policies much like other forms of conservatism. Like conservatism it doesn't have a coherent axiology.

A well-formed political theory has a coherent axiology and a system for transforming that axiology into a practical political programme. This is unavoidable, since every political theory has to provide some answer to the question "why should we do that?" in order to be up for rational consideration.

Let's look at what Kristol says necon policies are:

1. Taxes and Federal Budget: "Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth." In Kristol's view, neocons are and should be less concerned about balancing fiscal budgets than traditional conservatives: "One sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth."

2. Size of Government: Kristol distinguishes between Neoconservatives and the call of traditional conservatives for smaller government. "Neocons do not feel ... alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable."

3. Traditional Moral Values: "The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives". Here Kristol distinguishes between traditional conservatives and libertarian conservatives. He cites the shared interest of Neocons and Religious Conservates in using the government to enforce morality: "Since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power."

4. Expansionist Foreign Policy: "Statesmen should ... distinguish friends from enemies." And according to Kristol, "with power come responsibilities ... if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you."

5. National Interest: "the United States of today, inevitably ... [will] feel obliged to defend ... a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces ...that is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II ... that is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today."[8]

Any decent political theory would be able to generate answers on these issues in terms of fundamental principles. For example, if you asked a Libertarian about each of them, he would be able to tell you exactly what the Libertarian view is and why. What's more, the answer would be more or less coherent. Anyone reading this probably already knows what they would say, and why.

Now people know that I disagree strongly with Libertarians, but I would never accuse them of not having a well-structured theory. Conservatives on the other hand are the masters of vague bull****.

[chequita guevara]

Actually, "neoconservative" has a very specific meaning, but through association with the Bush administration, has come to be a catchall phrase for anything unthinking radicals don't like.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
A surprisingly intelligent post from Patroklos.

Now, now... be nice .