What do you think?
Rate this book
The Neocon Reader
In this anthology of essays written by today's leading neocons, Irwin Stelzer attempts to dispell many of the myths, built up by foreign and some domestic media, that have led many Americans to view neoconservatism as a radical and cohesive movement. Rather, Steltzer seeks to prove, neocons are an ecclectic group of intellectuals and politicians who agree on some major policy issues but who pride themselves on their individuality. "Neoconservatism is more of a persuasion than a movement." He also asserts that the domestic and foreign policies advocated by Bush and his supposed neocon band of ideologues may be a sharp break from the post-Cold War foreign policy consensus, but actually have deep roots in American history and are more consistent with Brittish foreign policy than many believe.
320 pages, Paperback
First published November 19, 2004
5 people are currently reading
70 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
January 22, 2017
An excellent and wide-ranging book of sources on this important strain of American political thought. It's always useful to hear from a political/economic group in their own words, and Stelzer deserves praise for adding a few friendly critics of neocons in this volume. George Will's essay on the Iraq War, for instance, is an absolutely outstanding Burkean criticism of why the neocons ideas about waltzing into Iraq and rebuilding it along more American lines is such an impossible idea. Other outstanding essays in this volume include the Broken Windows piece by James Wilson (this piece has been bashed a lot in certain political circles lately as racist, but I suspect a lot of these people haven't read it. Its basic insights about crime and community are outstanding), Tony Blair's Speech on the International Community (a tremendous and judicious defense of humanitarian intervention), Irving Kristol's essay on "The Conservative Welfare State," and Adam Wolfson's essay comparing neocons to other forms of conservatism.
Let me point out one major strength and then one major weakness of this volume. The major strength is that many of the authors define by contrast what neoconservatism is within the broader spectrum of American political thought. Neocons are largely a response to the New Left and the counterculture, but they did not veer very far to the right. They maintained the belief that the world needs an activist US foreign policy and that liberal democracy created in places like the US is the best form of government in the world. Unlike libertarian conservatives, they are reconciled to the New Deal and parts of the Great Society. Also unlike libertarians, they don't believe the state should be morally neutral on human/social behavior and understand people as parts of communities rather than atomized economic actors. Unlike more traditional conservatives, they are optimistic about the future rather than nostalgic for the past and pessimistic about change. They are far more oriented to the cities and to decent sized government than all other forms of conservatism. They are more open to technologically driven change although concerned about its moral effects. They are more open to non-WASP Americans, even though they were and are terribly color blind and gender blind in most of their thinking. Unlike the religious Right, they are not fundamentalists, not opposed to science and rationalism. In sum, as Irving Kristol puts it, they are conservatives reconciled to the modern world, seeking to guide that change rather than obstruct or reverse it.
Ok now for the bad part. What I described above largely applies only to the first generation of neocons. The second fused much more with the traditional right and became far more radical in foreign policy. This book was published in 2004, and it's funny in the sense that you can feel the ambivalence about claiming credit for Iraq in the pages of this collection. Writers like Boot and Muravchik deny the "neocon cabal" explanation for Iraq and downplay their significance as a movement in affecting American foreign policy. At other times, though, these same writers defend the Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War, claiming the centrality of their own ideas about security, terrorism, WMD, etc to the entire Iraq project. I personally would argue that the neocons and their allies (assertive nationalists like Cheney and Rumsfeld) were indispensable to making the IQ war possible because they oriented the US response to 9/11 towards Iraq. They put in on the table when no one else really was doing so, and then pushed the argument about WMD and 9/11 links to the public as a casus belli. In 03/04, you can see the ambivalence of some neocons about claiming full credit for regime change in IQ (a neocon project since the Gulf War, see my dissertation) as IQ started to become a major tar baby for the US. It is noteworthy how many of these same authors tried to eschew the neocon label once IQ became a true disaster.
I'd recommend this book for anyone studying modern US politics, especially conservatism, or anyone looking for neocon views on a particular subject. It's interesting and not overly long.
Let me point out one major strength and then one major weakness of this volume. The major strength is that many of the authors define by contrast what neoconservatism is within the broader spectrum of American political thought. Neocons are largely a response to the New Left and the counterculture, but they did not veer very far to the right. They maintained the belief that the world needs an activist US foreign policy and that liberal democracy created in places like the US is the best form of government in the world. Unlike libertarian conservatives, they are reconciled to the New Deal and parts of the Great Society. Also unlike libertarians, they don't believe the state should be morally neutral on human/social behavior and understand people as parts of communities rather than atomized economic actors. Unlike more traditional conservatives, they are optimistic about the future rather than nostalgic for the past and pessimistic about change. They are far more oriented to the cities and to decent sized government than all other forms of conservatism. They are more open to technologically driven change although concerned about its moral effects. They are more open to non-WASP Americans, even though they were and are terribly color blind and gender blind in most of their thinking. Unlike the religious Right, they are not fundamentalists, not opposed to science and rationalism. In sum, as Irving Kristol puts it, they are conservatives reconciled to the modern world, seeking to guide that change rather than obstruct or reverse it.
Ok now for the bad part. What I described above largely applies only to the first generation of neocons. The second fused much more with the traditional right and became far more radical in foreign policy. This book was published in 2004, and it's funny in the sense that you can feel the ambivalence about claiming credit for Iraq in the pages of this collection. Writers like Boot and Muravchik deny the "neocon cabal" explanation for Iraq and downplay their significance as a movement in affecting American foreign policy. At other times, though, these same writers defend the Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War, claiming the centrality of their own ideas about security, terrorism, WMD, etc to the entire Iraq project. I personally would argue that the neocons and their allies (assertive nationalists like Cheney and Rumsfeld) were indispensable to making the IQ war possible because they oriented the US response to 9/11 towards Iraq. They put in on the table when no one else really was doing so, and then pushed the argument about WMD and 9/11 links to the public as a casus belli. In 03/04, you can see the ambivalence of some neocons about claiming full credit for regime change in IQ (a neocon project since the Gulf War, see my dissertation) as IQ started to become a major tar baby for the US. It is noteworthy how many of these same authors tried to eschew the neocon label once IQ became a true disaster.
I'd recommend this book for anyone studying modern US politics, especially conservatism, or anyone looking for neocon views on a particular subject. It's interesting and not overly long.
December 30, 2019
A collection of essays that explain the origins and founding values of Neoconservatism, and contrast it against other political thought. Some of the essays are 30-40 years old now, and the newest were written in 2004, so there's some divergence and history since then, but these are generally very well written, whether or not you agree with *all* of the values and conclusions.
August 17, 2007
I read this book as an alternate point of view for a paper. It is obviously biased and slanted toward a conservative ideology. This can be useful for readers who want to understand the logic of another point of view or are interested in some of the neo-conservative columnists' arguments. That said, the book is a good tool even if you don't take it to bed.
February 10, 2008
This book should be considered fiction, because the authors included in it are living in an alternate realty that does not resemble the one the majority of us live in at all.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews