I am SO tired of the term "neoconservative," which means various things these days, depending on the source. For example, most people in the media use it as a broad term for those evil people they disagree with (terms like "conservative a-hole" still aren't allowed, even in the Howell Raines New York Times). And then there are the fringe Buchananites, who seem to imply a subtle (for them!) anti-Semitism when they use it.
It's probably a losing battle at this point to write about the origins of the term, and how it's misused to the point of being almost useless. Still, Jay Nordlinger sums things up pretty well:
What is a "neoconservative"? I believe that this word has little meaning today, except in the minds of the politically confused or mischievous. It was a word applied to former leftists who, in the 1970s and '80s, crossed over to the conservative camp, chiefly based on anti-Communism. This expanded to a tough-mindedness about social problems, including crime and education. Its flagship magazine was Norman Podhoretz's Commentary, of course.I like that. I'm for the spread of liberty and the principles of the American Founding at home and abroad. And that's Reaganite.Many years ago — I was there, listening to the speech at the American Enterprise Institute — I heard Podhoretz pronounce a "requiem" on neoconservatism. ("Deliver one for"?) The designation had outlived its usefulness.
Am I a neoconservative? That's a longish essay — and, come to think of it, I've written a few — but the answer is no. Not really. Oh, yes, I grew up in a leftist environment — as my regular readers know — and was educated by leftists (who wasn't?). But any ill effects were pretty much purged by the time I left college. Norman Podhoretz, through Commentary, and William F. Buckley Jr., through National Review — and Firing Line and a hundred other things — had won me.
If I have to call myself something, I call myself a Reaganite. That is the truest — as well as quickest — label. It simply takes too long to discourse on the gradations of conservatism, or the implications of genuine liberalism. You can just cut to the chase by saying: "Reaganite."
Does not Reaganism contain a vision of small government and social conservatism that is foreign to the neocons? See for instance David Brooks on National Greatness and Norman Podhoretz excoriating First Things for saying that the Court's abortion rulings call into question its legitimacy.
[04/29/03 09:22 PM] [Posted by oj]
I'm inclined to agree with OJ insofar as I think that neoconservatism is somewhat distinct from Reaganism. So it's not that the media is making a false distinction, but rather that they are falsely making it. Neoconservatives have a much more aggressive view of domestic governance.
I wouldn't call social conservatism "foreign" to neocons, but I would say that their emphasize different aspects of it (patriotism) and have mixed views on others (abortion).
What makes me chuckle about the media's portrayal of them is that it makes them out to be radicals, when in reality they are moderate in most respects, analogous to the placement of libertarian conservatives such as the Cato Institute who are on the whole right of center, but can vary greatly to how much of the conservative philosophy they adopt.
[04/30/03 01:29 AM] [Posted by RAW]
OJ: The notion of a "National Greatness Conservatism" as fashioned by Brooks is far less ambiguous to me than the term "neoconservative." I would agree completely that the Brooks view of conservatism seems far closer to, say, Eisenhower's than Reagan's. Some might go so far as to suggest it's not all that conservative at all.
Alex: No disagreement from me that neoconservatism as defined by Nordlinger in that first cited paragraph is not a carbon copy of Reaganism (though there were compatibilities), nor is it necessarily the same thing as the National Greatness conservatism advocated by Brooks/Kristol/McCain. But it strikes me that as we flesh out those differences, we are bringing more clarity to the matter than the label "neoconservative" allows.
That's my ongoing gripe (which I was happy to let Nordlinger make): I don't find "neoconservative" a politically useful term today, especially as liberal writers hostile to much of the conservative agenda use it largely in a pejorative sense.
[04/30/03 11:12 AM] [Posted by Kevin]
Your writings are interesting and certainly informative. To read and hear that Straussian Philosopy is influential in the navigation of our Ship Of State does suggest investigation, does it not? I,like you, dislike terms that generalize to the extent of being next to useless in dealing with valid political issues. To argue with Plato, Aristotle, Marx and yes, Leo Strauss, is for some a worthy use of leasure time; for others it becomes a compulsion with political agendas.
Have you observed that those writers with apparent political agendas make liberal use of the terms coservative and liberal. Have you offhandedly asked another to define these terms? Those who are well aware of the rules for defining them have trouble offering heuristic examples.
Another problem with politically involved writers seem they need to display contempt for those they hold in opposition. Attitudes rarely need to be displayed in the form of "put-downs" and pejoratives.
Insights are appreciated.
[05/22/03 03:25 PM] [Posted by Leonard Pfaff]
HTML will be stripped. URLs will be transformed into hyperlinks.
[b]text[/b] will produce bold text. [i]text[/i] will produce italicized text.
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003