Origins of Neo-Conservatism - Essay Example

Origins of neo-conservatism The term ‘neo-conservatism’ has several definitions. First of all, it can be defined as political movement, which has been taking place in the United States up to these days. Furthermore, the term refers to ideology and objectives of public policy of neo-conservatives in the United States, who are generally known for their relatively interventionist and hawkish attitudes towards foreign policies, and their unsufficient support for the "small government" standards and limitations of social spending, comparing to other American parties and classical conservatives in particular. Neoconservatives originally approached this standpoint from the left political wing, particularly in reponse to main changes in modernhistory of the United States. The majority of predecessors of neoconservativism were liberals or socialists who actively supported theWorld War II, and whose views were influenced by the Depression-era concepts of ex-New Dealers, Trotskyism followers and trade unionists, especially those who supported the political study of Max Shachtman. “A number of future neoconservatives such as Jeane Kirkpatrick and Ken Adelman were Shachtmanites in their youth, while others were later involved with Social Democrats USA. Most neoconservatives, however, including those who have been close to SDUSA, will strenuously deny, even contrary to evidence, that they were ever Shachtmanites” (Dean, 2004,p.65). Disagreement with Détente with the USSR and the ideas of New Left, who were against both Soviet and capitalist ideologies, which occurred as a reaction to the USSR’s break with Stalinism ideology in the middle of 1950s, led the Neoconservatives to break with ‘liberal consent’ established in postwar years. The ‘prototypical’ neoconservative intellectuals I.Kristol and N.Podhoretz were connected to with the magazine named ‘Commentary’, and their academic development is quite apparent in those publications of that period (Stelzer, 2004). Over the course of the 1950s and early 1960s the original neoconservatives rejected communism, but accepted socialism and supported Civil Rights Movement initiated by Martin Luter King, and integration. Whereas, at the beginning of its development, the ideas of neoconservatism became well-known among the followers of hardline Communists, usually Jewish immigrant families, who lived in great poverty and those who has now become famous neoconservative thinkers. “Many neoconservatives also came to despise the counterculture of the 1960s and what they felt was a growing "anti-Americanism" among many baby boomers, exemplified in the emerging New Left by the movement against the Vietnam War” (Steinfels, 1979,p.143). As the reinforcement of the Neoconvervatives pushed these theorists farther to the right, they approached a more forceful militarism, whilst also being disappointed with the Johnson’s Administration. Scholars and intellectuals of these groups, many of whom were still Democrats, disapproved of the actions of Democratic Party’s leftward ‘subdivision’ on defense problems and arguable questions in 1970s, in particular, after the appointment of George McGovern in 1972. Lots of prominent intellectuals clustered around Senator Henry ‘Scoop’ Jackson (known as ‘Senator fron Boeing’), who was a representative of Democratic wing, but then they started supporting Ronald Reagan and the Rebublican Party, who promised to handle Cold War and Soviet expansion. Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, who promised to confront charges of Soviet "expansionism." Michael Lind, who aligned himself to neoconservatism, wrote that this ideological doctrine "originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ("Scoop") Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves paleoliberals. When the Cold War ended, many paleoliberals drifted back to the Democratic center” (Lind, 2004,p.28) Modern neoconservatives are Todays neocons are a weak rudiment of the initially broad neoconservative group. Nonetheless, the background of their concept on the left are still obvious. Starting from the left political wing, such intellectuals as William Kristol and John Podhoretz, developed the new ideological concepts. Lots of scholars (Halper, Clarke, 2004; Ruppert, 2004) claim that the desire of neoconservatives to spread democracy to other countries, if necessary, by force, represents the Trotskyist idea of eternal revolution. Michael Lind states that such Trotskyists as James Burnham and Max Shachtman, who claimed that the United States and other bostbourgeois societies are controlled by the neobourgeoisie or a ‘new class’, had a critical impact on the neoconservatives (Gerson, 1997). He views neoconservative idea of ‘worldwide democratic revolution’ as originating from the Trotskyist Fourth Internationals understanding of eternal revolution. He also indicates that he has identified Marxist origins of neoconservatives, such as the ‘economic determinist idea that liberal democracy is an epiphenomenon of capitalism’ (ibid, p.217), which he illustrates as Marxism, in which managers and company owners are subsituted for labour class as the prominent personalities of history. Critics argue that there is no conceptual relation between Trotskys idea of ‘eternal revolution’ which deals generally with the speed of radical social transformation in the third world countries , and neoconservative ideal of a ‘worldwide democratic revolution’, with it’ Wilsonian origin (Hanson, 1993). On the other hand, ‘Wilsonianism does share with the theory of permanent revolution very similar concerns about the democratization of ostensibly backward parts of the world’ (Hanson, 1993, p.92). Moreover, Lind claims that the origins as well as the theoretical basis of neoconservative movement are close-knit to left-wing ideology (Gerson, 1997). The scholar draws a parallel between the the center-left anti-communist Congress for Cultural Freedom, the Committee on the Present Danger and the Project for the New American Century. Moreover, he adds that European models of social democracy empowered the neoconservative institution and the National Endowment for Democracy. One more author, who is concerned with the origins of neoconservatism and who narrowed his discussion to abovementioned phenomenon, is Justin Raimondo (Raimondo, 2003). He interprets the idea of left-wing roots of neoconservatism in following way: “Shachtman split off from the main body of Trotskyism in 1940, forming the Workers Party, of which Burnham was briefly a member. He stubbornly maintained his devotion to the cause of socialism, but alongside it began to develop a strategic orientation that involved less revolutionary means to achieve it” (ibid). After Workers Party started moving into the 1950s and beyond, they converted themselves (their name at least) into Independent Socialist League, they ‘buried themselves’ (ibid) in the old Socialist Party. Because of their sudden reinforcement, by that time they were a main force in the AFL-CIO in terms of their support for union offices, and the radical anti-Stalinism of the left cluster of Trotskyists. Consequently, the term was transformed into radical anti-Communism that was related to senator ‘Scoop’ Jackson, the prominent Democrat and ‘cold warrior’ that to a classical translation of Communism and Communist ideologists. Shachtman and his supporters referred to the senator as to the vivid example of their attitudes towards foreign policy, and due to Shachtman’s support for Jackson’s unsuccessful presidential bid and active political position of his followes, neoconservatives first appeared in Washington. This reationship was the first beachhead set up by Shachtman and his supporters in Washington, when they still belonged to the Democratic Party. As one can see, the followers of Democratic political tradition were not exactly loyal, since they easily turned their face to Rebublican Party once both necessity and opportunity demanded it. As one can see, “the Shachtmanites, from Social Democrats USA and into the Reagan Administration onward, were acting on a totally orthodox Leninist trajectory of entryism, and a massively successful one at that” (Strauss, 1989, p.87). The traditional Leninist combination of the front group was especially obvious, in the Coalition for a Democratic Majority and the Committee on the Present Danger in the 1970s as well in the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies nowadays (Lind, 2004; Kagan et al, 2000). Some researchers of political history state that there was theoretical inconsistency in a unification with the Straussians (Kagan et al, 2000) - on the other hand, Strauss was a firm supporter of the power of the higher classes with esoteric opinion to lead the masses, as well as Trotsky, who viewed bourgeisie as a very ‘promising’ class. Therefore, some thinkers and political scientists state that there is an essential continuity of doctrinal basis from L.Trotsky to the existing neoconservative movement. They indicate particularly to the French Turn, by which Trotsky defended the idea of social democracy as a Leninist forefront (Kristol, 1999). Indeed, that was a conceptual standpoint for which Shachtman broke with Trotsky, and that vision has reamined in the nature of neoconservatism. This view has endured lots of arguments and discussions, and was supported by such neoconservative thinkers as P.Berman, I.Kristol, Ch. Hitchens and Stephen Schwartz - they substantiated their position concerning the nature of neoconservatism and its theoretical basis and really proved the connection between Trotskyism and neoconservatism. One more prominent personality in the mosaic of neoconservatism was J. Kirkpatrick, who criticzed Demmocratic Party when being its member. During 1980s, Ronald Reagan successfully advirtised his future policies, became a president of the United States and hired her as his foreign policy advisor. Later she became a U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. This woman has firm anti-communist views and tolerated right-wing dictatorship, simply calling it ‘moderately repressive regimes’ (wikipedia, 2005). Kirkpatrick claimed that U.S. politics should not remove from power right-wing parties (and, to the global extent, right-wing governemnts) if these were only to be substituted by less democratic left-wing regimes. The removal from power of the leftist governments in foreign countries was seen as more acceptable, since it was a step against Soviet expansion. According to kirkpatrick doctrine, the Reagan government, for a long time, had been tolerating Augusto Pinochet, a dictator from Chile, and Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. On the other hand, at the end of 1980s, new generation neoconservatives, such as Elioth Abrams, proclaimed clear policy of reinforcing democracy against both left and right wing dictatorships. As the 1980s wore on, however, younger, second-generation neoconservatives, such as Elliot Abrams, pushed for a clear policy of supporting democracy against both left and right wing dictators. “Thus, while U.S. support for Marcos continued until and even after the fraudulent Philippine election of February 7, 1986, there was debate within the administration regarding how and when to oppose Marcos” (Ryn, 2003, p.301). During the period, which followed the refusal to recognize Marcos as a winner, In the days that followed, with the widespread popular refusal to accept Marcos as the purported winner, chaos in the Philippines spread across the country. The Reagan government, thus, suggested Marcos to accept his loss and leave the country, which he did. The Reagan administration and Elioth Abrams, the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, in particular, were the supporters the 1988 Chilean plebiscite that led to the transformation of democratic rule and Pinochet’s final removal from governing. During the National Endowment for Democracy, initiated by another neoconservative, Carl Gersman, funds were transferred to the anti-Pinochet Committee in order to provide a fair election. To this extent, the foreign policies of neoconservatives of the Reagan period, differed from those of more classical conservative precursors and from the idea of previous generation of neoconservatives as well. The idea of the global democracy (Strauss, 1999) is probably a main neoconservative principle which played a critical role during the post-Cold War period. “Some critics would say however, that their emphasis on the need for externally-imposed "regime change" for "rogue" nations such as Iraq conflicted with the democratic value of national self-determination” (Woodward, 2004, p.12). The majority of neocons, however, see this argument as not valid until a state has a democratic administration to express the actual will of its people. For instance, Ronald Reagan avoided many radical steps to initiating social changes in Third world countries that lots of his advisors would have supported. Conversely, he chose an opposite course from the neoconservatives concerning to the Soviet Union under M. Gorbachev, following a conciliatory line towards liberalization and disarmament instead of confrontation and rearmament as neoconservatives suggested (Ehrman, 1995). In general, many neocons see the collapse of the Soviet Union as having occurred directly due to Reagans hard-line stance, and the bankruptcy that resulted from the Soviet Union trying to keep up the arms race. They therefore see this as a strong confirmation of their worldview, in spite of the great extent to which it is rewritten history. After a brief history of neoconservatism, let’s examine its main principles. Strauss’ approach implies two main standards of neoconservatism (Who are neoconservatives?, 2003). First, it is connected with his personal experience. Strauss, who witnessed the breakdown of the Weimar Republic under the devastating waves of Communists and Nazis throughout his youth, made a conclusion that if the democracy is still weak and does not stand firm against totalitarianism, it has no opportunity to make itself adequate and sufficient. The second principle of Strauss’ reflection is his regular orientation to the ancient philosophers and their suggestion that the political organization should shape the characteristics of citizens. Furthermore, “Strauss tried to defend liberal democracy, and like other liberal French philosophers such as Montesquieu and the political-scientist Touqueville, he preferred to rejoice in paradoxes” (ibid). This contradictory justification of democracy and liberalism has now developed in political areas as one of the most acute issues of neoconservatives. They believe that to preserve global peace, “the nature of political regimes is much more important than all institutional and international compromises” (ibid). That is to say, neoconservativism has dual nature. First of all, it is realistic and supports to some extent conservative approaches to the society (such as elitism of governing and support for new American aristocracy, which can be widely seen in the support of neoconservatives for current president of the United States). Then, neoconservatism, influenced by the humanistic doctrines of the Enlightenment Age (Rousseau for instance), proclaims principles of liberty and freedom (in governmental approaches to ‘free’ market and special attention to the development of market economy). “Their support for the welfare state is not implied by the contemporary use of the term, which critics suggest implies support for an aggressive worldwide foreign policy, especially one supportive of unilateralism and less concerned with international consensus through organizations such as the United Nations” (aljazeera.com, 2005). On the other hand, neocons show their view as a principle of national security, which should be attained by spreading ideas of liberty and democratic organization in other countries through the support of pro-democracy movements, international aid and in particular cases military interference. Neoconservatives follow realistic views and realize that it is hardly possible to establish liberty and democracy in those countries, which have always had leaders with completely opposite views. Democratic world is a dream of neoconservatives, since these terms are close knit with market economy, which, having been established in foreign countries, will reinforce the position of the United states on the world market. Many countries have valuable natural resources and important industries, which may satisfy strategic interests of the United States (for example, oil in Middle Eastern countries). Neoconservatives, with their efforts to bring peace to the world, have hidden plans of U.S. reinforcement and globalization, which in general correspond to Bush’s foreign policy (Gerson, 1996). United States as an extremely large and powerful country, really attempts to control international policies as well as politics of each separate country. Thus, neoconservatives justify the use of military intervention as a radical measure of ‘global revolution’. Such ‘iron liberty’ principle is being actively implemented today, with respect to current events in Iraq. The Bush Doctrine, created after September 11th, integrates both the principle of viewing nations which support terrorists as enemies of the United States, and the idea that preventive military intervention is necessary and inevitable and thus is approved by the government in order to protect the citizens of the United States. The doctrine claims that "will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equalling, the power of the United States." (Muravchik, 2003) This document can be viewed as the cancellation of a previous doctrine in this area - the doctrine of deterrence, which implied neutral standpoint of the United States during the Cold War. The Iraq war which is being waged by Bush and his administration, can be seen as a empirical implication of neoconservative principles. Furthermore, it is testing solidity and consistency of neoconservatism and the unity of its followers. If the military intervention to Iraq successfully stabilizes the Middle Eastern relatins, then the neoconservative concepts will have attained a victory (Wilson, 2004). Conversely, if the war causes the appearance of new regime which provides terrorists with oil, the the neoconservatives will have failed to prove the rationality and utility of their ideas. Bibliography 1) Dean, J. Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush (Little. Brown, 2004) 2) Ehrman, J. The rise of neoconservatism: intellectuals and foreign affairs, 1945-1994. (New haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995) 3) Gerson, M. Neoconservative Vision: From the Cold War to the Culture Wars. (Lanham, Md. and London: Madison Books, 1996) 4) Gerson, M. (ed.) The Essential Neo-Conservative Reader. (Perseus Publishing, 1997) 5) Hanson, J. The Decline of the American Empire. (Praeger Publishers, 1993) 6) Halper, S. & Clarke, J.America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order. (Cambridge University Press, 2004) 7) Kagan, R.; Gerson, M.; Raimondo, J., Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy (Encounter Books, 2000) 8) Kristol, I. Neo-Conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea. (Ivan R. Dee Publisher, 1999) 9) Lind,M. "A Tragedy of Errors" .The Nation, February 23, 2004,pp. 23-32 10) Muravchik,J. The Neoconservative Cabal. Commentary, September, 2003 11) Neoconservatism. http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10451, 2005 12) Origins of neoconservatism in the United States. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States), 2005 13) Raimondo, J. Trotsky, Strauss, and the Neocons, Antiwar.com, 2003. 14) Ruppert, M. Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil. ( New Society Publishers, 2004). 15) Ryn, C. America the Virtuous: The Crisis of Democracy and the Quest for Empire. (Transaction Publishers, 2003). 16) Steinfels, P. The Neoconservatives: The Men Who Are Changing Americas Politics. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1979) 17) Stelzer,I. (ed), Neoconservatism. (Atlantic Books, 2004) 18) Strauss, L. The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism. (University of Chicago Press, 1989) 19) Strauss, L. Natural Right and History. (University of Chicago Press, 1999) 20) Who are neoconservatives? http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34517, 2003 21) Wilson, J. The Politics of Truth. (Carroll & Graf, 2004) 22) Woodward, B.Plan of Attack. (Simon and Schuster, 2004) Read More