Here's my first foray into our little Blogosphere.
David, at our recent dinner ( I had a great time, by the way, and am looking forward to coming closer to your hometown soon!)) you very nonchalantly threw out the term neoconservatives or "neocon" in the newer lexicon of the day. This is a term used extensively by the liberal press in a very perjorative way to describe those in positions of power within the Bush Administration. But it is done in such a way that those reading the term and subsequently use it are often anaware that it is a very controversial term in historical context with anti semitic overtones. Also, almost no one describes themselves as a neoconservative these days. It referred mostly to Democrats who had become Republicans in the Reagan era. You might find the following excerpt from a Google search interesting.
Shortcomings and criticism of the term "Neoconservative"
Some of those identified as neoconservatives refuse to embrace the term. Critics argue that it lacks coherent definition [citation needed], that it is coherent only in a Cold War context, or is used as a pejorative by anti-Semites. See e.g. Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Institute, Interdisciplinary Center of Herzliya, in a letter from Washington for Sunday, April 6, 2003:
First, "neo-conservative" is a codeword for Jewish. As antisemites did with big business moguls in the nineteenth century and Communist leaders in the twentieth, the trick here is to take all those involved in some aspect of public life and single out those who are Jewish. The implication made is that this is a Jewish-led movement conducted not in the interests of all the, in this case, American people, but to the benefit of Jews, and in this case Israel.
The fact that the use of the term "neoconservative" has rapidly risen since the 2003 Iraq War is cited by conservatives as proof that the term is largely irrelevant in the long term. David Horowitz, a neoconservative author, offered this critique in a recent interview with an Italian newspaper:
Neo-conservatism is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no "neo-conservative" movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today neo-conservatism identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists.
Similarly, many other supposed neoconservatives believe that the term has been adopted by the political left to stereotype supporters of U.S. foreign policy under the George W. Bush administration. Others have similarly likened descriptions of neoconservatism to a conspiracy theory and attribute the term to anti-Semitism. Paul Wolfowitz has denounced the term as a meaningless label, saying:
[If] you read the Middle Eastern press, it seems to be a euphemism for some kind of nefarious Zionist conspiracy. But I think that, in my view it's very important to approach [foreign policy] not from a doctrinal point of view. I think almost every case I know is different. Indonesia is different from the Philippines. Iraq is different from Indonesia. I think there are certain principles that I believe are American principles – both realism and idealism. I guess I'd like to call myself a democratic realist. I don't know if that makes me a neo-conservative or not.
Jonah Goldberg and others have rejected the label as trite and over-used, arguing "There's nothing 'neo' about me: I was never anything other than conservative." Other critics have similarly argued the term has been rendered meaningless through excessive and inconsistent use [citation needed]. For example, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are often identified as leading "neoconservatives" despite the fact that both men have ostensibly been life-long conservative Republicans (though Cheney has been vocally supportive of the ideas of Irving Kristol). Such critics thus largely reject the claim that there is a neoconservative movement separate from traditional American conservatism [citation needed].
Other traditional conservatives are likewise skeptical of the contemporary usage of the term, and may dislike being associated with the stereotypes, or even the supposed agendas of neoconservatism. Conservative columnist David Harsanyi wrote, "These days, it seems that even temperate support for military action against dictators and terrorists qualifies you a neocon."
During the 1970s, for example in a book on the movement by Peter Steinfels, the use of the term neoconservative was never identified with the writings of Leo Strauss. The near synonymity, in some quarters, of neoconservatism and Straussianism is a much more recent phenomenon, which suggests that perhaps two quite distinct movements have become merged into one, either in fact or in the eyes of certain beholders.
[edit]Pejorative use
The term is frequently used pejoratively, both by self-described paleoconservatives, who oppose neoconservatism from the right, and by Democratic politicians opposing neoconservatives from the left. Recently, Democratic politicians and television personalities, notably ex-Carter speechwriter and Hardball host Chris Matthews, have used the term to criticize the Republican policies and leaders of the current Bush administration. [citation needed]
I am looking forward to our little discussions, it should help enlighten us from both sides of the issues!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
So, let's see if I can articulate the issue you had with my use of the term "neoconservative." You believe that I used the term pejoratively, but that it doesn't really refer to anything real. It has taken on a negative connotation, mostly by what the mainstream media (Chis Mathews, etc.) has done with the term. And it has also become somewhat anti-semetic to boot.
The reason that I use the term is to differentiate it from what I believe are conservative principles when "conservative" is used in the sense of Barry Goldwater conservatives. I believe that much recent US policy (both foreign and domestic) does not have a true "conservative" underpinning, but rather follows different principles. When I use the term "neoconservative" (as when others use it), I am trying to make a distinction between the hawkish, use-the-military-to-show-our-power sensibility that I believe is espoused by the neoconservative movement (and I am aware that most of its founders were, indeed Jewish).
This sets up a truly basic issue from my perspective. What are the underlying principles of one's philosophy? As I understand it, the core tenets of "conservative" philosophy are as follows: (1) we must be fiscally responsible (read "balanced budgets"); (2) that we must have a great respect for the US governental system, including the concepts of checks and balances and oversight (this would include a healthy skepticism of the powers of the Executive Branch); and (3) that the government should stay out of our personal lives to the greatest extent that it can.
In my view, the current administration doesn't seem to be guided by any of these principles and therefore can't be called conservative. They might like to call themselves conservative because it plays well with many people, but unless you truly subscribe to conservative values, you can't just automatically be conservative.
Thus, "neoconservative."
From my understanding, the neoconservative movement believes that defending America is so important that any actions that are performed in that service trump any other principles. Neoconservatives also believe that America should use its military to show the world that we are not afraid to do so. This will, in turn, keep us safer. It seems to me that the actions we have taken over the past few years are guided by these principles and not conservative principles. The problem is that I don’t believe these are really “principles” at all, but rather a vague mandate to use the military without a lot of accountability (if anyone tries to criticize you for your strategy or tactics, they are being unpatriotic).
I was curious to read that the last time habias corpus (sp?) was put in jeopardy was during the Civil War and not during World War II. I find it hard to believe that we are more threatened now than we were during World War II and as much as we were during the Civil War. Giving the executive branch the power to take away this right doesn’t seem like a conservative thing to do. If anything it seems consistent with communist principles.
I would be curious to know your views on what it means to be a conservative and how they square with current US decisions. I probably haven't addressed the core aspect of your post, but let me get the ball rolling with that.
My own sense of a conservative viewpoint is slightly different. To respond to your outline of conservative markers
1) Keeping government as small as possible. Balanced budgets are indeed important from a fiscally prudent viewpoint. Bush has not been a fiscally conservative enough president in the estimation of most conservatives.
But balancing a budget by raising taxes on the highest earners as Clinton did leads to bigger downturns in the economic cycle (and even bigger deficits), so I don't equate budget balancing with conservative. True attempts at minimizing the size of the government and it's budget are more directly conservative goals. Everone since Reagan has been a failure in this regard. Did you know that The size of the State of New Jersey's government spending has doubled since 2000? Why don't the local media mention this in there reporting? We are now last in job creation out of the 50 in the latest results from a business group study. We are also first in taxes per person in the country on a % basis. Can't anybody connect the dots!? And still the people go to the polls and reelect the same people year after year in this state. And the papers like the Star Ledger refuse to keep there feet to the fire about the double dipping and play for pay scandals that they touch on but never actually fix. Sorry, I've digressed into a bit of a rant.
2) there are indeed a basic set of checks and balances built into the very fine 3 headed government we have. But states rights should trump federal law in courts unless there is a compelling reason why the state law might injure the country as a whole. Activist federal judges have made a mockery of the system put in place where they are supposed to interpret the laws Congress enacts, not make up their own.
3) agreed, conservatives believe government should stay out of our lives. A local lawyer recently told me that zoning of districts by local governments we're considered illegal at the turn of the 20th century because it limited the rights of the rightful landowner. How far we haved strayed from that principal! Are you aware that it is was "liberal" side of the Supreme Court who upheld the "right" of local governments to seize private property from the individual homeowners so that they can give it to the consortiums who then build condos and malls to increase the tax base for the local governments under the eminent domain clause?
How ironic is it that the little guy gets screwed by the liberal side of the court (Stevens Kennedy Souter Ginsberg, and Breyer voted to uphold it's use) that supposedly is always for the "little guy" and against "big money" groups? That's because they are for government intervention in our affairs IMHO and they have the mind set that whatever the government (at even the smallest levels) decides trumps individual rights. That is not how the founding father's felt, that's for sure. We came into existence as a country rising up against that kind of "government knows best" ideology. What's being done to people (taking their rightful property) in the name of eminent domain so they can then hand it off to other's to make money on it is shameful. And then they kick some money back in the form of "campaign contributions". It has happened in New Jersey a number of times in the last few years since the Supreme Court decision. Most people are unaware of this decision and who voted for it and how it is being abused. A perfect example of over reaching government policy to me.
You talk about the Bush's decisions to use military power like they are a big bully who can't wait to show off how powerful they are. I don't think that's accurate, but I'll agree that more of the military people as opposed to the non military decision mkaer's in the Whit House we're duly wary of getting involved in "Nation Building" once the military aspect of the conflict is over. I'll get into that more on the Afghanistan" entry, so I'll leave that stuff for later.
So in conclusion, what I read is that you use the term to describe the current administration because calling them conservatives does not do justice to the term "conservative"? That's fair enough for me. I guess it's like when I use the term "activist judges". Let's be honest though, it is deragatory in both cases, right? And I don't see how military action decisions play into the idea of conservatism. When discussing foriegn poilcy, there is no over arching conservative poloicy that I'm aware of.
Do you have any thoughts on the eminent domain ruling? Even most liberal minded people I know agree it is a travesty upon individual rights.
Lastly, to say Habeus Corpus is under assault is inaccurate to me. They ruled that it did not apply to foriegn combatants not affiliated with any particular country. I agree that it is a sticky situation because the warpower act that denied the the rights of Habes to foriegn combatants has no time frame to process these individuals till they decide what to do with them. On the world stage, it makes us look bad if we just hold them without regard to individual rights, since habeus corpus is a part of most common law in the western world. But these are very bad guys from the feed back given by the guards and people who have visited Guantanomo. So what should we do with them? I don't think anybody has a great idea, but it is great fodder for those who hate America and or just hate Bush to point ot as a sign the government is fascist etc. I don't care if these guys are denied habeus corpus, They all want to kill us, and they tell the guards that everyday. What would you like us to do with them? They were caught during military actions and will try to kill again if they are let go. Should we have a trial?
Errr- "Did this man try to shoot you on the battlefield, Major?". How do you have a trial on a military battlfield situation? I'm more worried about my security than these guys rights, and I think it'd be hard to convince me otherwise.
See this link I just read on the subject
http://newsbusters.org/node/9033
Wow! Great stuff! I see what happens to you is the same thing that happens to me. When you get fired up about a position, the words and ideas start flowing. The difficult part (as it is for me) is to stay on point and flesh out the argument.
I am actually heartened at how much we agree on.
I take away the following topics from this comment (and I suggest) that we set up a new post for each one:
1. Afghanistan (we've already got that one)
2. Eminent domain (a very interesting one that, indeed, defies left-right characterization)
3. Bloated Government (NJ in particular)
4. The need for balanced budgets (fiscal conservatism).
5. Habeas corpus (specifically whether and how it deals with US citizens)
We're still not done with "neoconservativism." I will get back to it with another comment in this thread.
Post a Comment