David Harsanyi Doesn’t Know What a Neo-Con Is, But He Knows He Hates Them

Oil-articleLarge

David Harsanyi responds to Reihan Salam’s piece “Why I Am Still a Neocon” with “Why I’m Not A Neocon” and it turns out that neither man has much of a working definition of neoconservative.

That’s true of most people. The few who still use the term reduce it to Iraq, which is what Harsanyi does in the second paragraph. The name Leo Strauss is never mentioned.

“As I understand it, contemporary neoconservatism is a philosophy that advocates the promotion of “democracy” and liberal ideals abroad,” Harsanyi writes.

It’s a loose definition prefaced by “As I understand it” giving it the confidence level of a weather report for next year. It’s not the confidence level you would expect from a piece with a title like that.

Then Harsanyi attacks Salam for his definition, accusing him of “reimagining the doctrine and reframing” it with a “false choice.” But his rebuttal is ” I’m also pretty sure that being a neocon entails a lot more than supporting the two aims Salam mentions above.”

I suspect that disproving someone’s definition of neo-conservative requires more than an “I suspect”.

Harsanyi is attacking an attitude more than a policy which is what most people who use neocon in a derogatory way do. In practice, there isn’t much of a policy difference to attack because neo-conservative policies tend to fit into the general consensus, for better or worse.

Salam was hammered for his article by people on the left who supported Obama’s intervention in Libya. Many of them would support one in Syria. The Democrats nearly went into Iraq under Clinton.

On the right, there isn’t much dissent except to the Paulite isolationist side which Harsanyi is sympathetic to.

Otherwise the differences are mainly gradations. They often focus on specific countries and events, rather than the bigger picture, which is why so many critics cite Iraq.

Neoconservative positions on foreign policy have shifted over the years. Their broad center, a strong military, peace through strength, values export and international alliances against geopolitical enemies don’t have much opposition from either side which is why most of Washington is neo-conservative; whether or not it uses that term.

Obama may be the only White House occupant since Carter to have rejected at least part of that consensus.

Harsanyi attacks Salam for an excessively broad and uncontroversial definition, but policywise, that’s what it is. Culturally, it’s another matter. And the resentment is more cultural than it is about policy.

Then he echoes some Paulite criticisms.

“Does our presence in South Korea stop North Korea from firing off missiles and creating a dystopia for millions?” he asks.

Not particularly, but it may be stopping a war that would drag us in anyway once it got started. A war that might become nuclear.

The Paulite response would be that our presence there is more likely to cause the war. A critique that tellingly resonates with the left which agrees with the basic premise that America causes more problems than it solves.

“Does the democratically elected* government of Iran seem overly concerned that we’re right next door?)” he asks.

Concerned enough not to blockade the Strait of Hormuz which would have all sorts of economic consequences.

Most of these are pragmatic moves that avert worse consequences in the long run. Keeping troops in South Korea isn’t neo-conservatism.

“There are worse things we could do than take each foreign policy situation as it comes and assess the costs and potential rewards – sans ideology,” Harsanyi writes, and then goes on to tout the “emergence of a more libertarian-centric GOP foreign policy — led by Rand Paul.”

So should we be doing some sort of non-ideological foreign policy or the Paulite take on stopping the expansion of the American Empire?

Every situation can be taken on its own terms, but there’s still an overall worldview behind that. Rand Paul brings that worldview to the table. So do Harsanyi and Salam. That worldview is part ideology, part emotional identification and part culture.

Neo-conservatism has become a shorthand for a dissatisfaction with a particular strain of Washington politician and foreign policy expert. It remains more of an emotional and cultural critique than a policy critique.

  • Race_Dissident

    If we accept–as I do–that exporting liberal democracy is the sine qua non of neoconservative foreign policy, then I think it is important to look at what has become of America and to ask ourselves whether what we are exporting is a good or a bad thing. Until fairly recently, I would have argued that liberal democracy with a very broad franchise is clearly a good thing and that it could succeed with all peoples in all places. Given, however, America’s precipitous decline and impending implosion, I am no longer convinced that this is the case. What’s more, I certainly no longer believe that all peoples are suited to liberal democracy. By my lights, therefore, there simply is no justification for blithely exporting American ideals. It is a waste of treasure and human life. But it’s all academic now. Neoconservative foreign policy, promulgated by Bush or by Obama, has swept the American field and looks to remain the consensus for the foreseeable future.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      I don’t believe that democracy is exportable to much of the world especially since who export it, talk about it as a value,but export it as a system, but democracy export long predated the neo-conservatives.

      That’s my larger point. The so-called neo-con issues in foreign policy were, for better or worse, a larger consensus that transcended them.

      • Race_Dissident

        True–America has attempted to export liberal democracy since at least the Cold War, which means that neoconservatism isn’t especially innovative with regards to foreign policy. But in my opinion, neoconservatism isn’t defined by foreign policy alone. Domestically, neoconservatism largely favors open borders and looks with a benign eye upon multiculturalism. Those domestic stances, yoked to its messianic foreign policy, are what constitute neoconservatism and make it a thing apart.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Domestically there are sharp distinctions, much more so than on foreign policy.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            For myself, I am absolutely opposed to open borders, and if I had my way about it, no Muslims would get into this country.

  • AG

    From what little I know about either one of these guys, why should anyone care what they think on this matter. Neither one seems to hold any credentials that back up their wild foreign policy ideas. As far as Neoconservatism goes, it’s all Liberal anyways and as far as I’m concerned the reason every war since post WWII has gone so terribly wrong for us. Neoconservatives are what brought us such brilliance as the COIN doctrine, and “winning hearts and minds” or simply put, sacrificing our soldiers for politics.

  • SCREW SOCIALISM

    Better a neo-con than a neo-commie.

  • Ed Haywood

    An excellent critique of the loose terminology and analysis in the Harsanyi and Salam pieces. That was especially surprising to see from Harsanyi, who is normally very tight and precise. However, in dismissing the general usefulness of the term “neoconservative”, the author ignores the original purpose of that label.

    Sometimes it is useful to state the obvious. The term neoconservative arose to differentiate adherents from other conservatives. In this case the “other” was the establishment conservatism that prevailed from the 1970′s through the 1990′s. The main point of contention between the two groups was the relative importance of values vs interests in the conduct of foreign policy.

    Establishment conservatives from Kissinger to GHW Bush embraced foreign policy realism, which held that national interests trumped moral values in the conduct of policy. That policy was embodied in the support for anti-communist dictators such as Marcos and Somoza.

    Neoconservatives rejected that formulation, arguing that values should have equal or greater weight than interests. The central premise of neoconservative thought was that the spread of democratic values would prove more favorable to the US than the strict pursuit of foreign policy realism.

    That this distinction is not controversial in DC today is a reflection of how far towards the Democratic position the Neocons moved the consensus. It’s also worth noting that the entire shift was made possible by the disappearance of the existential threat of communism. But in the late 90′s the term NeoCon was a very useful term to identify which school of thought a conservative held.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      That’s one way of isolating or identifying neo-conservatives, the problem is that many of the people most identified as neocons don’t actually believe that exporting values is as important as national interests, let alone that the United States should turn on otherwise helpful dictators.

      The problem is complicated further because most politicians from across the spectrum use values language in justifying even the most pragmatic conflicts, often with an emphasis on Democracy and freedom.

      There isn’t really a sharp division, more of a contextual continuum and the identification of various figures as neo-conservative is more cultural than policy based.

  • wileyvet

    That was very illuminating. Excellent helpful posts by all. Clarifies things because I thought neo-cons was a euphemism for Jews in the GWB administration.

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      It was …

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Some have used it that way which further confuses the issue

      • wileyvet

        Thanks. I didn’t mean to sound snide or anything. I just kept hearing it used with such derisiveness in association with his administration post 9/11 and during the Iraq War. It invariably came from the left because I only heard it in the MSM.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          I know

  • Naresh Krishnamoorti

    To call Leo Strauss a neo-conservative is to use the term equivocally. He cannot be identified with American political neoconservatism.

    The difference between conservatism and neoconservatism in foreign policy is the difference between George F Kennan and Woodrow Wilson (realism vs idealism); the difference in economics is the difference between Jesse Helms, or Alexander Hamilton, and Teddy Kennedy (protectionism vs free trade).

  • Texas Patriot

    The difference between a Conservative and a Neoconservative is that Conservatives care about people and Neoconservatives care only about power. As Barry Goldwater said in his classic The Conscience of a Conservative which was written and published in 1960:

    The conscience of the Conservative is pricked by anyone who would debase the dignity of the individual human being.

    Unfortunately, Neoconservatives routinely debase the dignity of anyone who disagrees with them or represents any imaginable threat or obstacle to their unrelenting quest for power. What Neoconservatives seem to have forgotten is that the purpose of American democracy is the human dignity of the individual and the health, wealth, and happiness of the American people, which is why the future of Neoconservatives in American politics is likely to be short-lived and is, indeed, already on the way out.

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      As I indicate in my comment, it is out, Patriot. It’s an idea that has outlived the short window of opportunity that was presented to the US, and to the West.

      Also, as a former neoconservative, I can truthfully say that I never had the slightest intention of “debasing” anyone. But I was regularly attacked for embracing the notion.

      • Texas Patriot

        WTKA: Also, as a former neoconservative, I can truthfully say that I never had the slightest intention of “debasing” anyone.

        The idea of projecting American military force around the world on borrowed money may be “out”, but the idea of debasing political opponents with derogatory and dehumanizing personal attacks is definitely alive and well, and if you doubt that just look at the highly inflammatory personal attacks of David Horowitz and Ron Radosh against Diana West when she published her book, American Betrayal back in August of last year. You’re really kidding yourself if you think that Neoconservatives have abandoned that aspect of their game plan. Perhaps you have, but many more haven’t, and they routinely use it against anyone who disagrees with them in any way. Unfortunately, no one likes it and no one is fooled by it, and those who continue to practice it will soon find themselves all alone in the arena of American politics.

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          I have never seen the “debasing” of political opponents that you speak of. Note that I was once close to the summit of the movement. I may have been a “kinder, gentler” neoconservative, but I really don’t remember it.

          I’ll look up the articles about Diana West, and her book, and see if it meets the “debasement and dehumanization” criteria that you speak of. But I do know of Ms. West and little opinion on her conclusions, but I do have some problems with the methodology of her research.

          • Texas Patriot

            WTKA: I have never seen the “debasing” of political opponents that you speak of. Note that I was once close to the summit of the movement. I may have been a “kinder, gentler” neoconservative, but I really don’t remember it.

            I’ve never known you to be like that, but you must be wearing some pretty serious blinders not to see it going on all around you more or less all of the time from every point of view of the political spectrum. It’s absolutely toxic, antithetical, and counterproductive to the proper functioning of democratic free speech, and it has no legitimate place in the American marketplace of ideas.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            “It’s absolutely toxic, antithetical, and counterproductive to the
            proper functioning of democratic free speech, and it has no legitimate
            place in the American marketplace of ideas.”

            The closest that I have ever come to “debasing” the political ideas of anyone … besides the Left, and I freely debase them and their ideas … is Dr. Paul. And this is in spite of the fact that I admire him, for the most part. We simply cannot have a meeting of the minds on military and foreign policy (and so, despite my admiration for him, I could not vote for him).

            I was under the impression that there is always a place for the free expressions of ideas, in America. It’s what the nation is all about, and I fought for those ideals.

          • Texas Patriot

            The closest that I have ever come to “debasing” the political ideas of anyone … besides the Left, and I freely debase them and their ideas … is Dr. Paul.

            If you are now saying that you “freely debase them and their ideas” So much for these statements:

            I have never seen the “debasing” of political opponents that you speak of.

            I can truthfully say that I never had the slightest intention of “debasing” anyone.

            As Barry Goldwater pointed out, the problem with thinking it is alright to debase the dignity of an individual human being for any reason is that you immediately cross the line into the kind of inhuman nihilism and totalitarianism that America, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, is the “last best hope of the earth” for purposes of standing against it. If Americans can no longer find it within themselves to respect the human dignity of their fellow countrymen who happen also to be their political opponents, it is truly the case that we have already gone beyond the last point of no return.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            I said, “… intention.”

            You keep using the term “debase”. I simply disagree with Dr. Paul, and I certainly disagree with the Left. Is this debasing? If so, then I am guilty …

            Debase simply means to degrade something in value. I can disagree with someone without degrading them, as a human. Is this not possible?

            I’m disagreeing with you, today, but am I “debasing” you?

          • Texas Patriot

            It is possible to disagree with the ideas of someone without debasing their dignity as a human being, but that is a line which most Neoconservatives either (a) don’t see, or (b) choose to ignore. And let me remind you, the word “debase” is not my term. It is the term used by Barry Goldwater in his book The Conscience of a Conservative:

            The conscience of the Conservative is pricked by anyone who would debase the dignity of the individual human being.

            Individual human dignity and individual human freedom are the hallmarks of American Conservatism, and the right of all Americans to formulate and express their own opinions free from debasing and demeaning personal attacks should be the absolute and indispensable right of all American citizens.

            As ideological heirs of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Barry Goldwater, we don’t have to like the ideas of our political opponents, much less agree with them, but we do owe them a basic respect for their dignity as human beings if we want to call ourselves American Conservatives. And that quality of basic human respect is what the American Conservative Movement has lost today. Whether we can get it back remains to be seen.

            One thing seems clear above all things. An Authentic American Conservative must first be an Authentic Human Being, and that requires recognizing that none of us has all the answers, and each of us can learn something from everybody else.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            I really don’t see what we’re debating here. We’re on the same page regarding our treatment of other human beings.

            By the way, The Conscience of a Conservative occupies an honored place in my study’s bookshelves. My father was a delegate to the 1964 GOP Convention, and he took me along (I was 14, at the time). I sat next to him and listened to Mr. Goldwater’s … in my opinion … stirring speech.

            I do disagree with the absolutist statement you made about neoconservatives “not seeing” or “choosing to ignore” the humanity of others. It reflects a refusal to acknowledge the humanity of those who once called themselves “neoconservatives”.

            At any rate, there is no need to worry. The movement is dead. It died when American forces went into Iraq. Those who supported it … I didn’t, though I wanted victory for the sake of the troops … won’t be elected to anything, in the foreseeable future.

          • Texas Patriot

            I personally was completely in favor of going into Iraq because of the fact (a) that Saddam Hussein was in gross breach of the cease-fire agreement that left him in power after the Gulf War and (b) there was no certainty that he was not continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons. Under those circumstances, I don’t think we had any alternative but to remove him from power, which our military accomplished with in a matter of weeks with a minimum number of American casualties.

            Where we went wrong is deciding to remain in Iraq as peacekeepers for the ostensible purpose of securing the Iraqi oil supplies. Although the people of Iraq did in fact initially greet us as “liberators”, once they realized that we were there to stay and take control of their oil as “occupiers”, they were all against us. It was the worst example of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in American history. If we had at that time pulled out of Iraq and turned our attention to defanging the mullahs of Iran, they would still be cheering us in Iraq today, and the Iranian nuclear threat would be non-existent.

            If you want a defining idea where the Neoconservative movement went astray, you need look no further than Iraq. If we had stayed focused on our mission and left the oil wealth of the Iraqi people alone, we may well have created a beachhead of democracy in the middle east. Greed killed any hope of that, and at this point in time, the American “brand” could not possibly be held in any lower esteem around the world. After the horrors of Abu Ghraib, even the Russians look good.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            I was a Young Republican and campaigned actively for Barry Goldwater
            in 1964. I was fifteen at the time, so that means I have seniority on
            you. ;-)

            :-)

            I went door-to-door with my father in Chicago in 1964. He let me do most of the talking!

          • Texas Patriot

            Hahaha. Our High School Young Republicans Club gave Johnson everything we had in Houston, because in our hearts we knew Goldwater was right! I was out on election day after school going door-to-door, neighborhood to neighborhood in my ’57 Chevrolet, six cylinder, four-door Biscayne with no AC and no radio offering to give little old ladies rides to the polls. We stayed at it until the polls closed. I was shocked the next day to hear the news that Goldwater lost. I couldn’t believe that a majority of the American people didn’t see things exactly the way I did. ;-)

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Goldwater’s loss in the ’64 Election was a wake-up call, and that’s a fact. I never took it for granted that a Republican would win the Presidency, ever again.

          • Texas Patriot

            Goldwater’s greatest strength was also his greatest weakness. He really was an honest politician who cared about the health, wealth, and happiness of the American people, and he couldn’t imagine that anyone would actually think of him in any other way. As such, when he was portrayed by the Democrats as a madman and a war-monger who wanted to start WWIII, he was unable to respond to it effectively. Basically, Goldwater had no chance against the Big Lie Machine of the Democrats, and the rest is history.

            Since then, it’s been the Democrat Lie Machine versus the Republican Lie Machine, to the point that giving the truth to the American people about what is really happening to our nation is the last thing on anyone’s mind. As one of the articles now appearing on Front Page Magazine suggests, the overriding mantra of today is “Just Win, Baby!” The problem with that approach is that no matter which party wins, the American people lose.

            Unfortunately, unless and until we have another politician like Goldwater who is actually prepared to put the best interests of the American people ahead of party politics, nothing about that situation is likely to change.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      “The difference between a Conservative and a Neoconservative is that
      Conservatives care about people and Neoconservatives care only about
      power.”

      That’s an emotional response, not a policy critique.

      “Unfortunately, Neoconservatives routinely debase the dignity of anyone
      who disagrees with them or represents any imaginable threat or obstacle
      to their unrelenting quest for power.”

      That’s an ironic definition when used by someone defining political opponents by by debasing their dignity.

      • Texas Patriot

        I don’t think so at all. I’ve yet to hear an authoritative definition of the term, but Neoconservatives seem to have little or no concern for the health, wealth, and happiness of the American people.

        Instead, Neoconservative policies seem to be characterized by (a) globalism including a constant involvement in any and all conflicts whether or not the interests of the American people are directly involved or whether the conflict represents a direct threat to the security of the United States; (b) multiculturalism, including massive immigration by foreign nationals with no concern as to whether the net result will be beneficial to the cultural harmony and peaceful coexistence of the American people; and (c) open borders, including the most lax border security of any major industrialized nation. John McCain and Lindsay Graham seem to be the most prominent Neoconservatives in America today, and I can’t remember the last time I heard them talking about improving the competitiveness of American industry or raising the standard of living of the American people.

        Unfortunately, the net result of Neoconservative philosophies over the last fifty years is that America now has the worst educational system of any major industrialized nation, the most sedentary and obese population of any industrialized nation, the highest per capita health care expenditures of any industrialized nation, the worst record of losing jobs and entire industries to foreign competition of any industrialized nation, and the highest national debt of any industrialized nation. Where is the benefit in any of that to the American people?

  • Wolfthatknowsall

    Neoconservatism … primarily … was an outgrowth of the fall of the Soviet Union, when the United States was clearly the most powerful nation on earth, economically and militarily. The US was not an “empire”, but had the power and influence of one.

    Neoconservatives, including myself, believed that the time was ripe to spread American values to wherever they would, much as Roman values and government spread wherever Rome had gone. Would there be Christianity, today, without the Roman Empire? This was the basic theory.

    There all millions of people who believe that all neoconservatives were former Lefties, but that’s not so. I have always been a conservative Republican, and most of the people I met, in the movement, were exactly the same. Are there conservatives here who criticize David Horowitz for his past? Add “neoconservative” to him, and they would hate him.

    The time came, and it passed. Is there really a neoconservative left? Personally, I don’t think so. There may be, but they should realize that the time for this idea is over.

    One more thing …

    Because of some of the founders and leaders of a “movement” that was never really a movement, the term “neocon” has distinct anti-Semitic overtones to it. I would advise everyone to use the term carefully, lest you be misunderstood.

    • Texas Patriot

      Neoconservatism … primarily … was an outgrowth of the fall of the Soviet Union, when the United States was clearly the most powerful nation on earth, economically and militarily. The US was not an “empire”, but had the power and influence of one

      Are you saying that the foreign policy of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger was not Neoconservative?

      Neoconservatives, including myself, believed that the time was ripe to spread American values to wherever they would, much as Roman values and government spread wherever Rome had gone. Would there be Christianity, today, without the Roman Empire? This was the basic theory.

      Is it now possible, retrospect, for you to see that there might have been a rather large element of self-righteous hubris, ignorance, and outright moral blindness wrapped up in the idea that we could “spread American values” by military force? If the ultimate American value is the right of any people to determine their own destiny, under what logical construct were you operating to suppose that military force was the way to go about that?

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        Are you saying that the foreign policy of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger was not Neoconservative?

        It was not. The term wasn’t even coined until Irving Krystal did so, and that was long after Mr. Nixon left office.

        As to the other, hubris is a possibility, but we did win the Cold War, and had some right to spread democratic values, while the chance presented itself (I was in favor of starting the process with a ticker-tape victory parade in New York City, myself). We had a right to believe that American exceptionalism had overcome the greatest threat to freedom that the world had ever known.

        Vietnam stretched the Soviet economy, and Afghanistan brought it to the brink. Mr. Reagan pushed them over the precipice, partly in response to the ideas in Nixon’s book The Real War.

        There was a great opportunity for the West with the USSR’s fall, and it was squandered.

        Communism failed. American values prevailed. It was my belief that without the resort to military force, but with great military power, those values could spread. Hubris, perhaps. But one must take opportunities when they come. It would be a failure of conscience not to do so …

  • Texas Patriot

    A Neoconservative is someone who spends so much time worrying about everyone else’s problems that he becomes totally unaware of his own!