January 3, 2003
DO NEOCONS EXIST?
Don't attack neoconservatives – it's a 'hate crime'!
Max Boot starts out his essay on "What the Heck is a 'Neocon?'" – which
should have been titled "Who, Me?" – by claiming to find the label affixed to
his political persona "mystifying." Yet he winds up writing a mini-manifesto
of the Neocon Creed:
"It is not really domestic policy that defines neoconservatism. This was a
movement founded on foreign policy, and it is still here that neoconservatism
carries the greatest meaning, even if its original raison d'être – opposition
to communism – has disappeared."
The neocons may have wavered and waffled on domestic policy issues, arguing
among themselves over how many cheers to give capitalism (one, or two?), but
on the war question they have always spoken with a single hoarse voice,
howling for war at the slightest provocation. Not only that, but they
positively delight in the prospect of bloodshed, which they perversely find
ennobling: it was Max Boot, after all, who bemoaned the lack of casualties in
the Afghan campaign and fervently hoped not to be disappointed in the next
phase of what his fellow neocons optimistically call World War IV.
9/11 galvanized the neocons, who immediately jumped at the opportunity to
turn the "war on terrorism" into the sort of general conflagration that might
fairly be dubbed a new world war. As Boot describes the neocon argument:
"If we are to avoid another 9/11, they argue, we need to liberalize the
Middle East – a massive undertaking, to be sure, but better than the
unspeakable alternative. And if this requires occupying Iraq for an extended
period, so be it; we did it with Germany, Japan and Italy, and we can do it
again."
Either build an empire on the ruins of Baghdad, Damascus, and Riyadh, or else
suffer another attack by our implacable enemies, who are not just the Bin
Ladenites skulking in their caves but all the Muslim peoples of the Middle
East (except the Turks). "What is a neoconservative in the year 2003?" asks
Boot in the first paragraphs of his screed, and by the end he seems
considerably less puzzled:
"The most prominent champions of this view inside the administration are Vice
President Dick Cheney and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. Their
agenda is known as 'neoconservatism,' though a more accurate term might be
'hard Wilsonianism.' Advocates of this view embrace Woodrow Wilson's
championing of American ideals but reject his reliance on international
organizations and treaties to accomplish our objectives. ('Soft Wilsonians,'
a k a liberals, place their reliance, in Charles Krauthammer's trenchant
phrase, on paper, not power.) Like Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and
Ronald Reagan, 'hard Wilsonians' want to use American might to promote
American ideals."
By dressing up the War Party's militant triumphalism in presidential
trappings, Boot hopes to Americanize what is essentially an alien, European
tradition, one that owes more to Trotsky than Teddy. "I like to think I've
been in touch with reality from day one," avers Boot, "since I've never been
a Trotskyite [sic], a Maoist or even a Democrat." Boot's oblivious disdain
for history, and his obvious unfamiliarity with the rightist axiom that " ideas have consequences," as Richard Weaver put it, seems odd in an
ostensible "conservative" of any sort.
As many of the original neocons were ex-Trotskyists, or independent left-wing
critics of Stalinism – whose Russian colleagues were sent to the gulag, and
whose leader met his end on Stalin's orders – their foreign policy monomania
is best understood as Trotsky's revenge. The founder of the Red Army had
wanted to carry the struggle into Poland, and Germany, after the 1917
Revolution, and this later developed into a comprehensive critique of
Stalin's policy of "socialism in one country." Throughout the cold war era,
Trotsky's renegade followers called for "rolling back" their old enemies, the
Stalinists – but even the implosion of the Soviet empire did not calm their
crusading instincts.
All this is ancient history, Boot and his fellow crusaders complain. Yet " benevolent world hegemony," the fatuous phrase in which William Kristol and
Robert Kagan summed up the goal of a neocon post-cold war foreign policy, has
a positively Soviet ring to it. The idea that the U.S. government must
"export democracy" at gunpoint all around the world is a frankly
revolutionary program, profoundly alien to the American conservative ethos
that considers hubris a sin and distrusts power in the hands of imperfect
men. The idea of democratism in one country – that constitutional
republicanism can thrive only in the West, because of cultural and historical
factors – is anathema to these militant internationalists. The
neoconservative anomaly is that they have succeeded in redefining
"conservatism" as Trotskyism turned inside out.
That the third or fourth generation of rightists seems unaware of or
indifferent to their ideological legacy merely underscores the success of the
"entrist" infiltration tactic often used by Trotskyists over the years.
Trotsky and his followers, in league with Sidney Hook – a major neocon icon –
did this in the Socialist Party in the 1930s, and the Trotskyists became
infamous for their skill at infiltration. (The most recent example was the
discovery of French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin's membership in a secretive Trotksyist cell.) Contemporary neoconservative thought bears the marks of its
Trotskyist origins in the style of its expression. The essentially leftist
utopianism of the neoconservative foreign policy analysts is succinctly
summarized by Boot in a single sentence:
"Many conservatives think, however, that 'realism' presents far too crabbed a
view of American power and responsibility. They suggest that we need to
promote our values, for the simple reason that liberal democracies rarely
fight one another, sponsor terrorism, or use weapons of mass destruction."
The old-fashioned conservative virtues of prudence, restraint, and humility
are too "crabbed" for the world-saving all-conquering neocon imagination.
Caution would cramp their style. These revolutionaries of the Right would
cast all caution aside, and instead move boldly to "promote our values" just
as Lenin, Trotsky, and Mao once moved with equal boldness to promote their
values: to establish a world order, a state or federation of states, unified
by adherence to a common ideology.
Communism was supposed to have been the only road to world peace: socialist
states, we were solemnly assured, would never go to war against each other.
When China disproved this by attacking not only Vietnam but also starting a
cold war against the Soviet Union, Communist theorists covered over this
giant hole in their theoretical edifice by declaring that either China or the
Soviets had gone "capitalist."
Like the commies of yesteryear, the neocons of today proclaim that the
triumph of their ideology, "democratic capitalism," will lead to the same
universal convergence of interests. But history refutes their panacea: surely
the American War of Independence, which pitted a parliamentary monarchy
against an emerging republic, is an important historical exception to the
rule that democracies "rarely" war on one another.
Like the "proletarian internationalists" of old, the democratic
internationalists of the post-9/11 world declare it is our moral duty to
impose our form of government on foreign peoples. Eerily echoing the
Communist mouthpieces of a bygone era, the pundits who push this
neo-imperialist nonsense explain away inconvenient facts as exceptions that
somehow prove the rule. The dead souls of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I fear,
would take vigorous exception to Boot's suggestion that their immolation is a
mere speck on the otherwise brilliant raiment of Democracy.
I note, in passing, the similarity of the rhetorical sleight-of-hand
practiced by commies and neocons alike: democratist ideologues, like their
communist alter-egos, do not claim their system is inherently pacific, but
only in relation to states of a similar orientation. This is supposed to make
us forget that democracy, unrestrained by customs and constitutions, morals
and the demands of commerce, is the most warlike ideology of them all, as
evidenced by the history of the U.S. since the era of Wilson, not to mention
the history of Athens, or that of the Roman republic.
Sometime around the late 1950s, American conservatives picked up a
hitch-hiker on the road to power who wound up hijacking their movement. The
thuggish style of the left – with its organized smear campaigns,
race-baiting, expulsions, and enforced ideological conformity – was imported
to the Right via the neconservative influx: the ugly viciousness of, say, David Horowitz, didn't derive from a careful reading of Russell Kirk, but
from the intellectual hooliganism of the "New" Left (and its Old Left
progenitors). The running dogs of capitalism have merely been transformed
into the running dogs of "anti-Americanism."
Again, Boot doesn't even realize the source of his own bile, as he smears Pat
Buchanan and The American Conservative using not only the tactics but also
the language of the Left. He moans that some who have rightly tagged him as a
neocon "have ulterior motives." Oh, poor baby! He then launches into an
extraordinary tirade:
"Patrick Buchanan, for one, claims that his views represent the true faith of
the American right. He wants to drive the neocon infidels from the temple
(or, more accurately, from the church). Unfortunately for Mr. Buchanan, his
version of conservatism – nativist, protectionist, isolationist – attracts
few followers, as evidenced by his poor showings in Republican presidential
primaries and the scant influence of his inaptly named magazine, the American
Conservative. Buchananism isn't American conservatism as we understand it
today. It's paleoconservatism, a poisonous brew that was last popular when
Father Charles Coughlin, not Rush Limbaugh, was the leading conservative
broadcaster in America."
This nonsense about Father Coughlin being a "conservative broadcaster" shows
not only Boot's complete ignorance of what Couglin's movement stood for, and
its origins as a radical pro-Roosevelt movement of the 1930s, but also his
complete acceptance of the traditional liberal view of conservatism in
America.
Coughlin was a man of the Left, who rose to prominence on the strength of a
broadcast entitled "Roosevelt or Ruin!" He urged the Democrats to "drive the
money-changers out of the temple," not only echoing the President's own
rhetoric but declaring that the President's programs didn't go far enough.
Lapsing into anti-Semitism and money crankery late in his career, Coughlin
hailed the rise of Hitler and was never a conservative in any sense of the
term. Coughlin supported the rise of National Socialism and fascism precisely
because they were revolutionary doctrines. The Left has been tagging the conservative movement with the "Coughlinite" label ever since the 1950s, but
it is certainly odd to hear an alleged conservative give voice to this
ancient canard.
Boot's claim that he was never a "Trotskyite," a Maoist or even a Democrat
just shows how the methods and mindset of the Left have been universalized,
as he displays expert skill at another favorite tactic of the Left: promoting
ethnic divisions. Boot plays the ethnic card in a way that can only leave Al
Sharpton and Jesse Jackson gasping with admiration:
"When Buchananites toss around 'neoconservative' – and cite names like
Wolfowitz and Cohen – it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is
'Jewish conservative.' This is a malicious slur on two levels. First, many of
the leading neocons aren't Jewish; Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, Father
John Neuhaus and Michael Novak aren't exactly menorah lighters. Second,
support for Israel – a key tenet of neoconservatism – is hardly confined to
Jews; its strongest constituency in America happens to be among evangelical
Christians."
The insight that the biggest supporters of Israel are Christian
fundamentalists of a dispensationalist bent is one made by TAC writer Eric Margolis, as well as myself, and, lest anyone detect an ethnic bias in TAC's
targets, what about this outright attack on Christianity by Norman Mailer in
a recent issue?:
"I would say that flag [neo] conservatives are not Christians. They are, at
best, militant Christians, which is, of course, a fatal contradiction in
terms. They are a very special piece of work, but they are not Christians.
The fundament of Christianity is compassion, and it is usually observed by
the silence attendant on its absence."
This victimological explanation for Buchanan's war on the neocons is just a
lot of whining, combined with the usual liberal-leftie slurs routinely hurled
right-ward. Is it is now forbidden to criticize anyone connected with the
present administration if they are Jewish, on pain of being labeled a
follower of Father Coughlin, or worse? Imagine the reaction from the same
crowd if identical rules had been invoked to deflect criticism of Clinton's
African-American appointees, or of black elected officials, most of them
Democrats.
Paleo-conservatism "a poisonous brew"? What could be a more toxic than the
mixture of warmongering and sloganeering that our trendy neocons have put on
the menu for 2003? Combined with the police state methods rapidly eroding
constitutional protections, the smear tactics practiced by the neocons, who
routinely describe their political enemies as "fifth columnists" in the
service of terrorism, are an implicit threat.
Jonah Goldberg chimes in, obsequiously declaring that "Boot is, of course,
absolutely right," but then deciding that the neocon label is a bad one after
all:
"Anyway, the only place I'd disagree with Boot is his willingness to adopt
the label neocon. The term does more damage than good because it allows
people to hide their real intent. People who want to denounce the influence
of Jews get to use the word 'neocon' when they really mean 'Jewish
conservatives' without being held accountable."
So now we are supposed to forget about all those non-Jewish neocons Boot
catalogued, because the mind-reading Jonah can peer into the inner thoughts
of his critics, and excavate their real motives. Not only is it forbidden to
mention any Jewish names in a critical context, but now the word
"neoconservative" is also evidence of a "hate crime." What do Jewish paleos,
such as Paul Gottfried, and the late Murray N. Rothbard, mean when they
denounce the pernicious influence of the neocons? Only Jonah Goldberg knows….
"The term [neocon] distorts more than it reveals," says Goldberg, "and should
be thrown over the side." Along with the numerous books, doctoral
dissertations, and other scholarly and journalistic discussion of the
subject, over a period of some twenty years. Throw it over the side, shove it
down the Memory Hole – let's restrict the political debate in this country
until no one can criticize the drive to war without being accused of treason,
anti-Semitism, or both. Goldberg rails on incoherently:
"Doves refer to neocons when they mean 'hawks' – when there's no evidence
that all neocons are hawks or Jews."
No one ever said all neocons are Jews: that's a neocon canard. But I
challenge Goldberg to come up with the name of a single prominent neocon who
is not a hawk on Iraq. He claims to believe that Boot is "absolutely right,"
but the theme of Boot's Wall Street Journal piece is that warmongering is the
essence of neoconservatism. Neoconservatism is not the Jewish Party, it is
the vanguard of the War Party, and the two are certainly not synonymous, as
many Jews are in the forefront of the antiwar movement.
"Don't hide behind one word when you mean another," cries Goldberg, but who
is he to tell us what we mean? The new grand inquisitors of political
correctness, neocon-style, have proscribed an entire list of subjects. Like
the compilers of a Newspeak dictionary, in George Orwell's 1984, they are
busy getting rid of words, constricting the permitted limits of language to a
very narrow spectrum so that it is increasingly impossible to think incorrect
thoughts.
They are, in short, the enemies of freedom, the Thought Police of our time.
<A HREF="">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
