The Neoconservatives: The Men Who Are Changing America's Politics

by Peter Steinfels

SHIPS FROM CALIFORNIA!!HASSLE FREE RETURNS!!ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT SELLER !!

Genres: Politics, Political Science, Nonfiction, History

336 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1979

About the author

Peter F. Steinfels (born in 1941) is an American journalist and educator best known for his writings on religious topics.

A native of Chicago, Illinois, and a lifelong Roman Catholic, Steinfels earned his Ph.D from Columbia University and joined the staff of the journal Commonweal in 1964. He served as a visiting professor at Notre Dame in 1994-95 and then as visiting professor at Georgetown University from 1997 to 2001. He currently writes a biweekly column, called "Beliefs", for the religion section of the New York Times.

He is a professor at Fordham University and co-director of the Fordham Center on Religion and Culture. Steinfels has also written several books, including The Neoconservatives: The Men Who Are Changing America's Politics (ISBN 0-671-41384-8) and A People Adrift: The Crisis of the Roman Catholic Church in America (ISBN 0-684-83663-7).

Reviews

[Joseph Stieb · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is I think the first full book attempting to understand the critique the neoconservatives (written in late 70s). In that sense it was good, but I have some up front caveats and critiques. It's much too long and could have made the same arguments in much less space. It has been somewhat superseded by other works on the neocons, which is what happens in any scholarly field. It also unfortunately mirrors the writing style of the neocons themselves: too ornate and wordy and a little bit performatively intellectual. Lastly, it's as much a critique of the neocons as a history of them, which is fine, but not exactly what I was expecting.

But the main thing I liked about PS' argument is that he (like me) is somewhat torn about the neocons. On a positive side, he believes it is the most intelligent and modern form of conservatism, the one that people on the left can have a real conversation with. He also believes that they are serious people who have important points about global affairs and domestic politics. However, some of them he believes are more skilled propagandists (Kristol) and self-promoters (Moynihan) rather than genuinely insightful thinkers (Daniel Bell). At times, they can be dodgy, unfair, and pedantic in their argumentation, and they frequently ascribe bad faith to opponents or make sweeping and unsubstantiated changes (Moynihan's famous Commentary essays are a good example of this-entertaining but would never pass peer review).

PS assigns a couple of crucial traits that define the neocons: most are exiles from the Left or the Democratic Party in some way. Domestic political developments drove this shift, particularly the rise of the New Left and it's embrace of identity politics, Third World-ism, and domestic radicalism. They were people who said "hold on a second, our society and institutions actually work for the most part and are worth defending" as the New Left's assault escalated. They were skeptical of the ability of government to solve problems that required local, familial, and communal engagement, but they ultimately were not small government conservatives or anti-New Dealers in any sense. PS argues that they are intellectuals for the "New Class:" the educated middle class people that have a stake in society but aren't full on conservatives. They were also more a little skeptical of the excesses of democracy, fearing that the massive social movements of the 60s could get out of control and undermine social stability and even feed a new kind of totalitarianism. Finally, they were unreconstructed Cold Warriors, even after defeat in Vietnam, although PS spends relatively little time on this.

Anyways, this book is worth picking up if you are working on neocons directly, but if you are looking for an introduction to them check out Vaisse's Neoconservatism, which is the best single book out there on this intellectual movement.

[Michael Linton · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book may be dated but it was still interesting. I don't think anyone is called a neo-conservative now. It was worth reading but I'm not sure how much value I got out of this book.

[Erik Graff · Rating 3 out of 5]

I started reading Commonweal in high school, then, towards graduation, met the Steinfels family, becoming close to the youngest son, still one of my best friends. Peter, being much older, I never got to know well, but association with the family led to meetings not only back in Park Ridge, but also in New York City when I was studying near his home on the upper west side. During this time Peter moved on from Commonweal to the NY Times and I've read his columns there regularly. A hardcover copy of Peter's The Neoconservatives was given me as a gift. I read it out of respect for the giver more than out of any immediate interest in the subject. Neoconservatism was not so much in the news as it became later.

Indeed, this book may be taken as somewhat prescient as it does represent an earlier generation of neoconservatives than those who dominated the Bush White House. From a political science standpoint it is an important book insofar as it attempts to relate this group of individuals and publications to the traditions, such as they are in this Revolutionary Republic, of American conservatism.

What would have interested me, personally, would have been a much more detailed examination of the roots of so many of the neoconservatives of all generations to the Left, particularly to the Trotskyite Left and the Schachtmanite faction which migrated through the social democrats to such cold war liberals as Scoop Jackson ('the senator from Boeing') and from there to Reagan and Bush. This interest goes beyond the merely personal. I identify myself as a leftist, but find the associations between certain elements of the egalitarian left with the authoritarian right to raise serious questions. Mussolini, the Berlin Nazi faction in the thirties, Max Schachtman himself were all workerist in their origins. What happened? What are the significant, if there are significant, predicates which distinguish persons prone to the move right from others? I suspect they have to do with whether or not one is a libertarian and/or democratic socialist, but I'd be interested in seeing this assumption challenged.

[Kristin · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting early look at the political movement that has shaped much of the past thirty five years.