- FrontPage Magazine - http://www.frontpagemag.com -

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

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On April 11, 2014 @ 9:25 am In The Point | 36 Comments

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.


Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://www.frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/david-harsanyi-doesnt-know-what-a-neo-con-is-but-he-knows-he-hates-them/

Copyright © 2009 FrontPage Magazine. All rights reserved.