The Neoconservative Persuasion

So what is this neoconservatism anyway? Is it militancy, an 'inverted Trotsyism,' 'creative destruction,' or just following through on 'Moral Clarity'? While the neocons were in the background during the Reagan years, they pretty much ran the Iraq show, and people are gradually sifting through this puzzle to shake out how it's a movement distinct from the usual in American politics.

To begin with look at an article by neocon 'Godfather' William Kristol, "The Neoconservative Persuasion," a rather subtle and crafty piece of writing.

This story is a collection of lengthy ideological screeds which aren't mine, so I put it off the front page. Hit "read more" to follow along. Or don't, if you think it doesn't matter.

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. That this new conservative politics is distinctly American is beyond doubt. There is nothing like neoconservatism in Europe, and most European conservatives are highly skeptical of its legitimacy. 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....

Neocons do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state and are happy to study alternative ways of delivering these services. But they are impatient with the Hayekian notion that we are on "the road to serfdom." 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. People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today's America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not.

But it is only to a degree that neocons are comfortable in modern America. The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives--though not with those libertarian conservatives who are conservative in economics but unmindful of the culture. The upshot is a quite unexpected alliance between neocons, who include a fair proportion of secular intellectuals, and religious traditionalists. They are united on issues concerning the quality of education, the relations of church and state, the regulation of pornography, and the like, all of which they regard as proper candidates for the government's attention. And since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power. Because religious conservatism is so feeble in Europe, the neoconservative potential there is correspondingly weak.

AND THEN, of course, there is foreign policy, the area of American politics where neoconservatism has recently been the focus of media attention. This is surprising since there is no set of neoconservative beliefs concerning foreign policy, only a set of attitudes derived from historical experience. (The favorite neoconservative text on foreign affairs, thanks to professors Leo Strauss of Chicago and Donald Kagan of Yale, is Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War.) These attitudes can be summarized in the following "theses" (as a Marxist would say): First, patriotism is a natural and healthy sentiment and should be encouraged by both private and public institutions. Precisely because we are a nation of immigrants, this is a powerful American sentiment. Second, world government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny. International institutions that point to an ultimate world government should be regarded with the deepest suspicion. Third, statesmen should, above all, have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies.

Finally, for a great power, the "national interest" is not a geographical term, except for fairly prosaic matters like trade and environmental regulation. A smaller nation might appropriately feel that its national interest begins and ends at its borders, so that its foreign policy is almost always in a defensive mode. A larger nation has more extensive interests. And large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns. Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal. 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, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.... This [American military] superiority was planned by no one, and even today there are many Americans who are in denial. To a large extent, it all happened as a result of our bad luck. During the 50 years after World War II, while Europe was at peace and the Soviet Union largely relied on surrogates to do its fighting, the United States was involved in a whole series of wars: the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Kosovo conflict, the Afghan War, and the Iraq War. The result was that our military spending expanded more or less in line with our economic growth, while Europe's democracies cut back their military spending in favor of social welfare programs. The Soviet Union spent profusely but wastefully, so that its military collapsed along with its economy.

In a direct response to this piece, the old-school American conservative and adamant pacifist Justin Raimondo points out a variety of the neocon's dangerous, hidden views.

The idea that America has "ideological interests" that are in any way "like the Soviet Union of yesteryear" is certainly repulsive to most conservatives, and to most Americans: which is why all the sound and fury about how neoconservatism is from the native soil sprung comes across as completely phony. Beyond the Beltway, the number of Americans who believe that we are destined to spread our system by force of arms around the world is minuscule, because nothing could be more un-American...

How the man glories in war: that is the leitmotif of the neocons. Lovingly he ticks off what he regards as the high points of human history in the modern era: World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Gulf War II. There is something distinctly weird, and unhealthy, in this litany of mass slaughter. Aside from that, however, there are a few problems with the Kristolian analysis: The Soviet Union was too wasteful, he avers, but how wasteful is the American occupation of Iraq? No one should be surprised that Kristol considers the U.S. to be an "ideological" superpower in the old Soviet sense: that is precisely the essence of the neoconservative vision. The neocon project of forcibly "transforming" and "democratizing" the Middle East is a perfect replica of the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. Soviet satellites were so many millstones around the Kremlin's neck: eventually, the burden dragged them down into a terminal decline. The same fate awaits us if we are so unwise as to ignore the bones of our predecessors lining the side of the road to empire.

Krstol's essay is suffused with a sense of power, and an implicit threat to "the older, traditional elements in the Republican party" who "have difficulty coming to terms with this new reality in foreign affairs, just as they cannot reconcile economic conservatism with social and cultural conservatism." These reactionaries, we are assured, will be swept aside by the new order ushered in by the President, whose top officials "turn out to be quite at home in this new political environment, although it is clear they did not anticipate this role any more than their party as a whole did."

The gloating is unmistakable, as if to say: 9/11 caught you unawares, but now you're cooperating, as you should have been all along. "As a result," avers Kristol triumphantly, "neoconservatism began enjoying a second life, at a time when its obituaries were still being published."

Yes, the neocons certainly have thrived since 9/11, unlike the rest of us, but surely this is nothing to advertise. To do so seems unnecessarily provocative, and in poor taste, to say the least. But conceit is pointless if it can't be openly displayed. Wrapping himself in the mantle of presidential power and favor, invoking the full might and majesty of the rising American Empire, Kristol is telling conservatives to ditch their entire program of rolling back an overgrown and often tyrannical federal government, in favor of perpetual war ?"the new reality in foreign affairs."

Yes, says Kristol, we neocons exist. Not only that, but we have the power ? and won't shrink from using it. So get with the program, buster, or get out. That is the chief theme and the whole point of Kristol's essay.

The more anonymous Michael Tennan adds that the neocons are cramming an unconstitutional attitude down the nation's throat.

Says Kristol, "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.? It?s easy to see the liberal?and, indeed, Straussian, as Kristol claims Leo Strauss as one of the forerunners of neoconservatism?mind at work here. We, the enlightened ones, will "convert" you, the unenlightened, from your backward, parochial ways to our progressive, global ways; and we will do so against your will, by deception if possible, by force if necessary.

...Now for the big subject of the day: "foreign policy, the area of American politics where neoconservatism has recently been the focus of media attention," as Kristol puts it. That, of course, is because neocon foreign policy is exemplified by precisely the foreign policy that the Bush administration has implemented, contrary to Bush?s paean to a "humbler" foreign policy while campaigning. It seeks to dominate the world at any cost, sending troops to far-flung countries ( Afghanistan , Iraq , Liberia ) in pursuit of, well, hegemony, in the guise of bringing liberation and democracy to the oppressed of the world. It is completely contrary to the vision of the Founding Fathers and to the American tradition, which is why it had to be imposed on us against our will as well.

Essentially, neocon foreign policy is that might makes right. Oh, Kristol doesn?t come right out and say this, but his words add up to the same thing. For "a great power," he writes, "the ?national interest? is not a geographical term." That is, U.S. foreign policy should not be confined to safeguarding the territorial United States . Oh, no. We must be concerned with the entire world. "A larger nation has more extensive interests. And large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns." Yes, according to Irving Kristol, neocon foreign policy applies equally to the Soviet Union and the United States, both of whom have (or had, in the case of the Soviets) "ideological interests" which trump mere territorial concerns. Kristol further notes that since the U.S. "will always feel obliged to defend...a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces," the neocons thus "feel it necessary to defend Israel today." Apparently only the holding of elections, not what those elected governments? policies are, matters to neocons, and even then they?re more than willing to give some leeway to cooperative dictators. Once again, I must give Kristol credit for being accurate in his assessment that no central principles (other than the one left unmentioned, spelled p-o-w-e-r) guide the neocons in their quest for "national greatness" (as Kristol?s equally arrogant son, William, put it). It?s clear, though, that this power-grubbing, world-dominating foreign policy is certainly not in the interest of the average American, which is why he has to be converted against his will by the neocons.

Kristol continues to celebrate the power of the U. S. , and he notes that "[w]ith power come responsibilities, whether sought or not, whether welcome or not. And it is a fact that 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." The neocons, of course, are not content to let the world find uses for the power they?ve worked so hard to achieve. As a matter of fact, they?re more than happy to "find opportunities to use it." Whether those "opportunities" are in the best interest of the country or the world is irrelevant; all that matters is that the neocons are the ones finding the opportunities and wielding the power.

What's interesting about these attacks on the neocons is that to a great extent they stem from the right, not the left. I think this is because all the 'lefties,' those who opposed the war because they were liberals, have yelled themselves hoarse. Meanwhile the many and varied strands of conservatives out there are getting anxious about a collection of clever, ex-Marxist Straussians who actually want to obliterate traditional conservatism against their wills. Along these lines is another right criticism from the interesting site LEWRockwell.com. DiLorenzo describes "'Godfather' Kristol?s Statist/Imperialist Manifesto" as follows:

[T]he historical task and political purpose of neoconservativism 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 (emphasis added).

Like all neocons, Kristol claims to be a champion of democracy, but his words and actions often contradict this claim. Consider the language in the above quotation, "against their respective wills." According to the traditional theory of democracy, the role of competing ideas in politics is supposedly a matter of persuasion. Political debates are supposedly aimed at persuading voters that you are right and your rival is wrong. But Kristol will have none of this. He is the "Godfather," after all. What he apparently means by transforming traditional conservatives against their will is not to attempt to persuade them to become statists and imperialists like himself, but to intimidate and censor them by conducting campaigns of character assassination against anyone who disagrees with the neocon agenda. He means to purge all dissenters, Stalin style.

Kristol claims that the three biggest neocon idols are Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Ronald Reagan; all other Republican party worthies are "politely ignored." Teddy Roosevelt, whom the neocons affectionately call "TR," was simply nuts. Mark Twain, who met him twice, called him "clearly insane." In any number of "TR" biographies we learn that after an argument with his girlfriend as a young man he went home and shot his neighbor?s dog. When he killed his first buffalo ? and his first Spaniard ? he "abandoned himself to complete hysteria," as biographer Edmund Morris recounts.

Like Kristol, Max Boot, Charles Krauthammer, and many other neocons, Teddy Roosevelt was infatuated with war and killing. A college friend of his wrote in 1885 that "he would like above all things to go to war with some one. He wants to be killing something all the time." As president, he constantly announced that America "needed a war," which is exactly what the neocons of today believe. War - any war - the neocons tell us, gives us "national unity."

TR was a statist in domestic policy, a foreign policy imperialist, and an inveterate warmonger. He was, in other words, the real "Godfather" of neoconservatism.

As for FDR, the neocons idolize him as well because the older ones like Kristol are all former leftists - like FDR - and they have never abandoned their statist beliefs. Further evidence of this lies in the one reason Kristol gives for why neocons idolize Ronald Reagan: Although they had nothing to do with initiating the "Reagan tax cuts," neocons supported them because they believed they would spur economic growth, which in turn would enable them to fully fund the welfare state. (In this regard California gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger is a neocon: In his initial press conference announcing his candidacy he said he wanted to "bring business back to California" so that the Golden state?s massive welfare entitlement bureaucracy could be fully funded).

In foreign policy Kristol says neocons are, well, imperialists. For a "great power" there are no boundaries to its pursuit of "national interest." He says we have an "ideological interest" to defend, and that means endless warfare all around the globe to ostensibly "defend" that ideology. (And Mark Twain thought TR was insane.) Of course, someone has to decide for us what that "ideological interest" is, and then force the population, with the threat of imprisonment or worse (for nonpayment of taxes, for instance) to support it.

In Kristol?s case, his primary ideological rationale for military intervention is: "We feel it necessary to defend Israel today" in the name of democracy. Well, no we don?t. If Irving Kristol wants to grab a shotgun and take the next flight to Tel Aviv "to defend Israel" then Godspeed, and I will offer to buy him a first-class plane ticket. But leave me and my family out of it.

Translating "we feel it necessary to defend Israel" from neoconese, we get this: "Young American soldiers must die in defense of Israel." Like hell they must. Young Americans who join the military for patriotic reasons do so because they believe they are defending their country. It is a fraud and an abomination to compel them to risk their lives for any other country, whether it is Israel, Canada, Somalia, or wherever.

Heh, as long as we're on the topic of getting told to march off to the quicksand for other people's interests, lets look at what Irv Kristol's son William (the editor of key neo-con instrument Weekly Standard) said about the brilliant idea of War with Iran in mid-May, in a tasty piece "The End of the Beginning" (of the war on All Who Annoy):

the war in which we are presently engaged is a fundamental challenge for the United States and the civilized world. It is a defining moment for America and American foreign policy. The victory in what the president called Thursday night "the battle of Iraq" is, perhaps, the end of the beginning of this larger war. President Bush understands that we are engaged in a larger war. His opponents, on the whole, do not, and this accounts in large measure for the yawning gulf between the supporters and critics of the Bush Doctrine. It is unclear, to say the least, what actual policies most of Bush's critics would follow. Different opponents would presumably embrace differing combinations of the sporadic use of American force, wishful exercises in appeasement, and endless negotiations at the United Nations and elsewhere.

But what Bush's opponents have in common is a refusal to come to grips with the fundamental character of the war on terror: the fact that it is a war, of which Afghanistan and Iraq, as the president said, are merely battles. Thus they refuse to embrace the president's ambitious agenda, eloquently reiterated aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, of targeting all terrorist groups and the states that support them, of confronting outlaw regimes that seek weapons of mass destruction, and of standing with the friends of freedom around the world....

The liberation of Iraq was the first great battle for the future of the Middle East. The creation of a free Iraq is now of fundamental importance, and we must do what it takes to make a decent, democratic Iraq a reality. But the next great battle--not, we hope, a military battle--will be for Iran. We are already in a death struggle with Iran over the future of Iraq. The theocrats ruling Iran understand that the stakes are now double or nothing. They can stay in power by disrupting efforts to create a pluralist, non-theocratic, Shia-majority state next door--or they can fall, as success in Iraq sounds the death knell for the Iranian revolution.

So we must help our friends and allies in Iraq block Iranian-backed subversion. And we must also take the fight to Iran, with measures ranging from public diplomacy to covert operations. Iran is the tipping point in the war on proliferation, the war on terror, and the effort to reshape the Middle East. If Iran goes pro-Western and anti-terror, positive changes in Syria and Saudi Arabia will follow much more easily. And the chances for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement will greatly improve.

WTO talks collapse; Korean farmer commits suicide as protest

The big news today is that the developing world finally scored a point in the World Trade Organizaion talks in Cancun, as they formed a 22-nation bloc (including Brazil, China and India) which demanded the wealthier nations address the imbalances in agricultural subsidies. When the us and EU wouldn't give any ground the talks imploded, to the cheers of the many and varied protesters outside. Farmers all around the world, but particularly in the developing world, have been hit hard with plunging, unpredictable food prices and escalating debt. A South Korean farmer stabbed himself at the front lines of the protest and later died in surgery. This is what the farmer said earlier:

Soon after the Uruguay Round (UR) Agreement was settled, we, Korean fellow farmers, and myself realized that our destinies are out of our hands already. Further, so powerlessly of ourselves, we could not do anything but just looking the waves destroy our lovely rural communities that had settle-downed over the hundred years. To make myself brave, I have tried to search the real reasons for and major forces of those waves. Reaching to my conclusion now here in Geneva, at the front gate of the WTO, I am crying out my words to you that have been boiled so long time in my body.

It is true that Korean agricultural reform programs increased the productivity of individual farms. However it is also fact that increased productivity simply added another volume to over-supplied market in which imported goods occupied the lowest price portion. Since then, we never be paid over our production costs. Sometime, price drop recorded four-timers of normal trend in a sudden. How would it be your emotional reaction if your salary drops suddenly to a half without knowing clearly the reason.

One part, those farmers who gave up earlier his farming went to urban slum. The others who had tried to escape from the vicious cycle had to meet bankruptcy with accumulated debts mostly. Of course, some fortunate peoples could come further but not all of them may go longer, I suspect. For me I couldn?t do anything but just looking around this vacant house of old and eroded.

What I could do was to check sometimes his house with hoping him back. Once I run to a house where a farmer abandoned his life by drinking a toxic chemical because of his uncontrollable debts. I also could do nothing but hearing the howling of his wife. If you were me, how would you feel?

If you walk into Korean rural villages, we may firstly see many ruined structures ? mostly livestock shelters and green (mostly glass) houses, which swallowed such big amounts of money. If you get into some houses, you can easily meet old-aged-peoples who suffer from illness in most cases. Rural amenities can be felt, at a glance, only in riding on your car in the road. In fact, good road systems of being paved widely pulls large apartments (a thousand people live in it, usually), buildings and factories in Korea. Those lands paved now mostly were the paddies that constructed for the generations of thousand years and provided the daily lives foods and materials in the past. Now in the contemporary society, the environmental functions of paddies, ecologically and hydrologically are even more crucial. Who shall keep our rural vitality, community traditions, amenities and environment?

Here is a totally unrelated site about Sept. 11 conspiracies, from a generally anti-conspiratorial point of view.