Unpopular Politics

There is little doubt that the notion most Americans have in their heads of neoconservatism has been at least temporarily skewed due to the perceived failures in Iraq. Regardless of the fact that things are actually improving on the ground finally, the bad taste left in many proverbial mouths when uttering the term “neocon” is more than apparent.

Of course, the fact is what the vast majority of people associate with neoconservatism is, in fact, a complete misconception of what it actually means to be a neoconservative. Even Kristol’s article may be only one aspect, one perspective on what it means to be a neocon. Indeed, a whole new generation of neoconservative thinkers is sprouting up, both here in the US and overseas.  Why?  Irving Kristol says it well,

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….The fact that conservatism in the United States is so much healthier than in Europe, so much more politically effective, surely has something to do with the existence of neoconservatism.

Critics abound, of course, both amongst the ill-educated masses, as well as amongst more scholarly circles. The right has its fair share of hostility toward the neoconservative movement. Paleoconservatives, especially, view the ideals presented by the neocons as incompatible with “true” conservatism. True conservatism, it seems, takes on many guises. True liberalism does as well, I suppose. Neoconservatism certainly stirs up the waters, challenging both left and right in their equal denail of the new global economy, and the realities that accompany it.

Indeed, as Douglas Murray has said:

Neoconservatives stand at a curious place in the middle of the political debate – not to the far-sides of it as is often alleged, but rather in the middle, making common cause with lots of people for often differing reasons.

Neoconservatism is that peculariar ideology that falls both to the right and to the left of mainstream politics. It is not a political vision of controlling oil in the middle-east as so many on the Left insist. The fact that Iraq had oil, in my mind, is incidental. Whether or not the architects of the Iraq War had their eyes fixed on Saddam’s oil fields, I do not know. The few men in charge of planning that war may be labeled neoconservative, but they do not speak for the movement at large–only for themselves; just as McCain hardly speaks for the GOP at large, or Obama for the Democrats. Within any group, any ideoligically driven circle, there will be differing visions, differing tactics.

What does unite neoconservatism is its complete lack of popularity in modern political circles. It is too militaristic for the liberals–most of whom like to cry foul at the atrocities being committed in Darfur and Tibet and Myanmar, but none of whom would dare lift a finger to actually do anything about them–and too socially tolerant for many conservatives–even too “big government” for many conservatives, though this is debatable.  Certainly not every neocon advocates large or small government.  Indeed, many neoconservatives are motivated at once by the desire to preserve liberty and to provide a secular counter to the rise in religious extremism especially present in the Middle-East and in the Islamist trends in Europe, as well as the global rise in terrorism.

Of course, neoconservatives should also be aware of the rise in religious extremism here in the United States. The extreme Religious Right in America, the radical Fundamentalist fringe, is growing and they are no ally to neoconservatives, states-rights conservatives, or anyone who values the separation of Church and State as a critical component of our Republic.

Traditional conservatives take issue with the common neoconservative view of the state.  As Kristol puts it,

Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his “The Man Versus the State,” was a historical eccentricity.

This alarm, however, is perhaps made too much of.  After all, in virtually the same breath, Kristol says, that “cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth” is an essential policy.

Douglas Murray goes further, stating:

I’m in favour of a very small state, am a low-tax type etc. I suppose the key is that I want government to do very few things, and what I want it to do least is to believe that it can make many choices for me better than I could have made them for myself. However, those things that only the state can do (police, raise armies etc) I think it should be good at.

When it comes down to it, however, there is no doubt that neoconservatism equals unpopular politics.  We alienate ourselves from both left and right.  But we also unify the better ideals of both sides.  The neoconservative movement is not about oil.  It is not about world domination.  It is about taking the necessary steps, when all other means fail.  It is about denouncing the genocide in Darfur, the oppression in Burma, the human rights violations all across the globe.

Force can be necessary to maintain peace, to realize peace in any form, and as the neoconservative movement reels from its recent failures, the recent coup of its larger goals by a few men who could see only the Middle East and lost the grander vision, we must begin to take new steps toward how we approach the globe.  Africa will be a critical step in the future of this planet, both in terms of raising living standards for the African people and in facing the challenges that such improvements will cause.

Commentators have asked “Is neoconservatism dead?” My response to them is no.  It has suffered bad press.  That is all.  It will need some reinvention.  We will need to examine the mistakes made in regards to strategy and military planning leading into the Iraq invasion.  It is not dead.

Brent Budowksy of the Huffington Post writes:

While they cover up their dirty laundry, and
plan their next wars, and hire their criminal
attorneys, and lobby for their pardons, the
clock is ticking, the day is coming, when a
a grateful nation will celebrate their removal
from the high councils of government, once
and for all.

Neoconservatism is dead.

Along with Rock & Roll?  Once again the misconception is obvious–that all neocons must be heart and soul bound to the men in the Bush administration.  This is patently untrue and absurd.

In a somewhat less virulent and more thoughtful critique, Stephen Eric Bronner of the Guardian writes:

That strategy’s popular appeal will not end with the Bush
administration, because neoconservatism feeds on a set of public fears
that are deeply rooted in American history. Changing that will require
not merely confronting a new ideological outlook, but also deciding
which policies reflect what is best about the American political
tradition.

On the first count he is correct.  The appeal of neoconservatism will not end–especially in this global world of ours.  Wherever one can witness brutality and oppression, or the brutality inflicted upon Muslim women, homosexuals, and other oppressed people who were born unluckily into a Sha’ria society of radical Islamism–wherever this is present, neoconservatism will come back with its promise of action, not merely talk.

The second notion, however, that neoconservatism “feeds on fear” is ludicrous.  Sometimes fear, like pain, can be a healthy realization.  When one witnesses the spread of hateful theocratic tendencies across the globe, or the slaughter of entire populations, one should feel afraid, and they should channel that fear into action.

That is neoconservatism–the willingness to act when necessary.  It may be unpopular politics, but there is something to be said for the unpopular views.  Sometimes they are unpopular because they contain a frightening truth that must be faced.  They raise uncomfortable questions that must be answered.  So I will risk alienating right and left because history and reality are far better allies.

Technorati Tags: Add new tag, china, conservative blogs, conservative news, conservative politics, darfur, Iraq, Islam, Israel, liberal politics, military, myanmar, National Security, neo-conservative, neocons, neoconseravatism, neoconservative blog, oppression, politics, social tolerance, Terrorism

Bookmark It

Hide Sites