NeoConservatism

by C. Bradley Thompson, Yaron Brook

An obituary so soon! Surely the reports of neoconservatism's death are greatly exaggerated. C. Bradley Thompson has written (with Yaron Brook) the most comprehensive and original analysis of neoconservatism yet published and in the process has dealt it a mortal blow. "Neoconservatism" reveals publicly for the first time what the neocons call their philosophy of governance their plan for governing America. This book explicates the deepest philosophic principles of neoconservatism, traces the intellectual relationship between the political philosopher Leo Strauss and contemporary neoconservative political actors, and provides a trenchant critique of neoconservatism from the perspective of America s founding principles. The theme of this timely book--neoconservatism as a species of anti-Americanism--will shake up the intellectual salons of both the Left and Right. What makes this book so compelling is that Thompson actually lived for many years in the Straussian/neoconservative intellectual world. "Neoconservatism" therefore fits into the "breaking ranks" tradition of scholarly criticism and breaks the mold when it comes to informed, incisive, nonpartisan critique of neoconservative thought and action.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, History, Political Science, Nonfiction

318 pages, Hardcover

First published May 1, 2010

About the author

C. Bradley Thompson is an American writer who is the BB&T Research Professor in the Department of Political Science and the Executive Director of the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism. He received his Ph.D. at Brown University where he studied under Gordon S. Wood. He was also a visiting scholar at Princeton and Harvard universities, and at the University of London. He also was a James Madison Program Garwood Visiting Fellow at Princeton University in 2004–05.

Reviews

[AC · Rating 1 out of 5]

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/1...

Also got tired reading this one. The old adage that where you come from dictates where you're going -- or, as Aristotle puts it, the beginning is more than half -- applies here. They approach Strauss from a conservative (re: liberal - with a small 'l') perspective, and this leads them to spend a considerable amount of time criticizing the neoconservatives for supporting (not a typo) the welfare state. Rubbish.

On the other hand, at least they have the balls to come out and call Strauss and the Neocons precisely what they are: fascists. Thompson opts for "soft fascism", and that will do, I suppose -- until they hook their harness to the likes of Beck and Palin and...

oopss... they already have.... well, scratch the "soft" then.

For those who have the fortitude to plough through yet another exegesis of Strauss' nonsensical (re: bullshit) interpretations of Plato -- based on no sound textual methods -- "good on ya, mate'.

Better to read Shadia Drury's book, which is brilliant (imho):
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

[Ron Housley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Neoconservatism: an Obituary for an Idea
C Bradley Thompson & Yaron Brook
© 2010


John Allison once said that his intention is to read at least one “difficult” book per month; presumably, he also reads a slew of other less challenging ones to balance his goal. “Neoconservatism: an Obiturary for an Idea” was a bit on the “difficult” side, but only insofar as it challenged me to re-order my previous understanding of Neoconservatism’s role in shaping the decline of America in the last 60 years.

Similarly, I have struggled with terms like “the left,” “the new left,” “the radical left.” My confusion had been to presume that Neoconservatism aligned on the right of the political spectrum, rather than on the left.

Once I realized that Bush, McCain and Romney were all basically Neocons, and that therefore they were inclined to support leftist premises, it all made perfect sense that they would ultimately lose out to those who were more consistently aligned with those same premises.

What premises are at play here, shared by both the left and the Neocons? They include:
(1) the belief that the “common good” or the “public interest” trumps any priority to protect individual rights;
(2) the belief that political decisions are to be made ad hoc, according to an “assessment” of any current situation, rather than in concert with any applicable principles;
(3) the belief that some people (society) should coerce other people (citizens) whenever rational persuasion fails to achieve an objective;
(4) the belief that it is proper for the State to censor speech and thought, irrespective of the First Amendment;
(5) the belief that self-sacrifice can be forced on the citizenry if they are led by powerful statesmen.

Neocons do exactly what their explicitly leftist counterparts do: they dress up their positions in the rhetoric of the American Founders. And the low information citizen takes it all in, or rather, is taken in by it all.

But in the end, a driver of Neocon doctrine is to first acquire power, and THEN use force prudently — and it’s the “use force” part of the formula that puts the Neocons solidly on the left side of the political spectrum.
Prudence and Principle

I can still hear President G. H. W. Bush saying: “…must do the prudent thing.” He was relentlessly lampooned on Saturday Night Live for this often articulated expression. But who knew (I guess not me) that “prudence” would turn out to be a nearly defining attribute of Neoconservatism.

And I was stunned, disappointed and deeply confused with President G.W.Bush’s explicit decision to “abandon free market principles” in order to save the free market(!) — when he was attempting to justify spending for TARP and for the Bush mini-Stimulus.

But I was merely witnessing Neoconservatism in action, only I didn’t understand that at the time.
Abandoning a principle in order to save that same principle is exactly the sort of non-principled pragmatism that defines Neoconservatism itself! It’s right up there with believing in married bachelors. Astonishingly, the majority of Americans bought it(!).

NEOCONSERVATIVE FOREIGN POLICY
Neoconservatism is the reason that America’s response to 9/11 did not include a devastating retaliation against the state sponsors of terrorism. Neoconsrvatism places “all-out war — real war — off the table.” (p. 192)

And what has been the result? State sponsors of terrorism have been emboldened, and are ramping up for their next attack. Iran (the leading state sponsor of terrorism) is on the verge of developing an atomic bomb, which they have promised to use in wiping Israel (or, maybe, NYC) off the map.

And what, at a deeper level, is behind Neoconservatism’s hesitation toward basic self-defense? Altruism.

Neocons prefer, instead, a self-sacrificial war. Crippling rules of engagement are the brain-child of Neoconservatism thought embedded into American schools, up through and including the military academies.

Neocons are ultimately responsible for widespread acceptance of “Just War Theory” which kills American soldiers and preserves the lives of “civilian” terrorists.

We can’t help but see Obama’s foreign policy as consistent with Neoconservative thought (p. 194).

NEOCONSERVATIVE TROJAN HORSE
I wish that this WERE an “Obituary,” as hinted at in the book’s title. But every day in the news I learn of yet another Neoconservative idea actually supporting and justifying another government atrocity. Neoconservatism doesn’t seem “dead” enough to offer up an obituary. The left and the right appear animated by Neoconservative narratives; there is no end in sight.

Leo Strauss (the presumptive father of Neoconservatism) was shockingly explicit in his condemnation of individual rights in favor of embracing a Kantian duty. Herein may lie the hint to explain how the American Progressives of early 21st century have so devastatingly crushed the spirit in America which was geared toward preserving individual sanctity.

In the end, the Neoconservatives engineered a culture of control over both our spiritual AND our material concerns, of both our body AND our soul.

Previously, the dominant groups wanted to control only one of those realms: the conservatives seeking to control the spiritual realm and the liberals lusting to control the material realm.

“The Neocons, like those on the secular Left, want to control man’s temporal life, and like those on the religious Right, they want to control man’s spiritual life as well.” (p. 169)

The Neoconservative Trojan Horse went after them both. “The Neocons (became) the conservative version of central planners.” (p. 245) It is no surprise that the Neocons are solidly behind the redistributive-regulatory State (p.166)

* * * * *

I have discovered the Neocons to be an important force in the decline of America. The Neocon quest to replace reason with force is masked in a shroud of rhetoric and symbols which outwardly appeal to traditional American traditions.

They outwardly appear to be appealing to individual rights and to a foreign policy of self-interest. And so, ordinary decent people come to accept, one step at a time, the growing cancer of government tyranny — until finally, the citizens were NOT fundamentally upset when a bureaucrat’s whim destroyed the Washington Redskins very identity.

When the ordinary citizen yawns at this level of tyranny, they have set their own country on the Neocon’s path to duty and self-sacrifice, on a path to soft despotism, on a path to soft fascism. And so here we are.

America’s moral infrastructure may never recover.

The Neocon decades-long program of gradual steps has finally brought us to the brink. The free society of the American Founders is dead; long live the free society.



Notable Neocons
 Michael Ledeen
 Charles Krauthammer
 Stephen Hayes
 Robert Kagan (Brookings Institution)
 Irving Kristol (father)
 William Kristol (son)
 Dick Cheney
 Donald Rumsfield
 The Bush boys (41, 43)
 Norman Podhoretz
 Max Boot
 Paul Wolfowitz
 David Brooks (NYT)

[Stephen Bourque · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an extraordinary book, and one that is of crucial importance in our time, considering the rapid spread of neoconservatism and the seductive stealth with which it is grabbing hold in the United States.

Taking neoconservative ideas seriously, and with a solemn respect devoid of the shrill hysteria that is found in other treatments of the topic, C. Bradley Thompson and Yaron Brook pin down the essence of neoconservative thought, from its roots in the writings of Leo Strauss and Irving Kristol to its manifestations in the post-9/11 world. The authors systematically identify the neoconservative principles in each of the main branches of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics.

This is no small feat, for the neoconservatives themselves generally deny subscribing to rigid principles. Furthermore, built in to the very core of neoconservatism is a split between their exoteric preaching (which constitutes their public face, directed toward the masses) and their esoteric views (which they hold privately, as advanced ideas that only a special elite--namely, neocons--could be expected to understand). This duality creates a tangled mess, which Thompson and Brook manage to penetrate and put in order. The result is a thorough exposure of what the neoconservative message is and what it means.

[John Pattillo · Rating 5 out of 5]

First, as someone who got as far as a Master’s in Philosophy, I have enormous respect for the clarity with which Thompson and Brook explicate difficult philosophical material. If only all philosophers had this skill, a reader’s life would be bliss.

Second, having read this, one can only conclude that neoconservatism is a rehash of hoary ideas, without a shred of justification. Plato would perhaps blush to think that these are his heirs.

[Russ · Rating 5 out of 5]

Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea explains the philosophic roots of neoconservatism. By explaining the fundamentals of neoconservatism, the implications of their ideas and actions, and what they may have in store for the future, Neoconservatism exposes the neoconservative movement and hopefully helps to bury it.

[William Green · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was more in-depth then I needed.

[Bob Zerbe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very clearly written and informative. I have a new understanding of this political movement.