The Secret History of Neoconservatism
- 04.10.2008 - 12:17 PMThe furor over the supposedly perfidious influence of “neocons” in the making of Bush foreign policy seems to have died down a bit. But it will nevertheless remain part of the lasting legend about this administration. Bob Kagan, one of our foremost foreign policy sages, has a must-read article on the subject in the latest issue of Lawrence Kaplan’s new foreign policy quarterly, World Affairs.
Kagan makes many valuable points, but in essence his argument is that there is absolutely nothing new or foreign about the “neocon” vision—combining power with idealism to make the defense of democracy a central tenet of American policy. The more fevered critics of the neocons insist on explaining their world view with reference to Leon Trotsky, Leo Strauss, and other philosophers of marginal influence in modern America. (I can’t speak for anyone else, but I personally have never read a single book by either Trotsky or Strauss.) They would be better advised, Kagan notes, to look to figures as varied as Alexander Hamilton, William Seward, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Dean Acheson, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan, all of whom advocated an expansive vision of America’s role in the world.
The opposing viewpoint—which denounces American “imperialism” and abjures the defense of liberty abroad—has an equally long history. It lists among its proponents not only modern-day neocon-bashers such as Michael Moore and Pat Buchanan, but also such illustrious predecessors as the “progressive” historians Charles Beard and William Appleman Williams and realpolitik thinkers like Hans Morgenthau and Walter Lippmann.
Nor is this the first time that the more fevered critics of the war effort have wound up charging that the country was “lied” into war by nefarious conspirators. Today it’s neocons. In the past it was banana companies, “merchants of death,” and international bankers. Such assertions have been heard about the Spanish-American War, World War I, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. (In other words, after every conflict that has turned out to be tougher than anticipated.) Even when it came to World War II, some die-hard isolationists accused FDR of somehow forcing Japan to fight us and of deliberately not warning Pearl Harbor in advance of the attack.
Kagan does not deny that folly and miscalculation played a large role in planning the Iraq War. But, as he notes, there is nothing unique about America being overweening or imprudent in the pursuit of its ideals. The only way to avoid such setbacks is to pursue an isolationist or narrowly realpolitik agenda—which would wind up causing us far greater problems in the long run.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
April 10th, 2008 at 12:40 PM
This was a fascinating link. Kagan’s Dangerous Nation should be a must-read for anyone seeking to understand American history. Thanks, Max.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:55 PM
An excellent piece by Kagan, and superb comments from Max Boot. The most basic proposition of the “anti-interventionists” is what is faulty: that is, that if America is passive, she is avoiding the problem of influencing events in the rest of the world, and can carry on as if she is vacuum-sealed from the rest of the world’s turmoils.
The reality is that America is having an impact on the world no matter what she does. Our choice is not between engagement and non-engagement, it is between which impacts we will try to have. The world will not leave us alone, nor was any part of it ever in some “better” steady state that WE disturbed by failing to remain passive or absent. In our absence, for example, Germany, Britain, and Russia would still be duking it out, with explosions and carnage, for Europe; China and Japan for the Far East; and all of them for the Middle East. To think that Americans could live in prosperity and security with all that going on is to hallucinate wildly: either the world’s transit lanes are safe for commerce, or they are not, and in a chaotic situation like the one that would obtain outside a Pax Americana, all of the Americas would be a rich prize, and each great power would see mastery of some part of the Western Hemisphere as necessary to its own regional security.
No doubt we had greatness thrust upon us. But if we are to be America, we can’t let the other nations dictate to us what our effect on them is to be. We ARE engaged with the world; what we get to choose is how.
April 10th, 2008 at 1:49 PM
I haven’t read any books by Trotsky or Strauss, either.
April 10th, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Kagan points ot that messianic American exceptionalism is not a theme that sprang new-born from the brow of the Kristols. He also points out, accurately enough, that the Democrats today largely echo these themes, even if they are more partial to multilateral and less risky schemes of aggression, such as bombing Serbia from 35,000 feet rather than risking infantry on her soil.
Neoconservatism, however, is not a mere figment of Pat Buchanan’s imagination. All Kagan points out, correctly enough, is that many of its themes are recycled from the first Roosevelt, Adm. Mahan, and the horrid Wilson. It cannot be gainsaid, however, that the Podhoretzes and their crew are among the fervent propagandists for war after war to save the world from one or another evil.
Cconsistent anti-interventionism, even if today in the political wilderness, also has a long pedigree in US history, some of which Kagan points to. Unlike the left critics of the war, conservative anti-interventionism is not indifferent or hostile to American military strength and security. We regard the Cold War as exceptional, and doubt the wisdom and morality of trying to spread democracy, an undesirable system in any case, through the expenditure of blood and treasure. Hence we regard NATO as obsolete, and immigration restriction and not bombing and invasion as the first line of defense against the jihadis.
Those who conceived and mismanaged the Iraq adventure cannot be exonerated by Kagan’s correct observation that the themes of their discourse have echoes in the American past.
As an afterthought, I do recommend that Mr. Boot and Mr. Totten read some Trotsky. Though a villain, he’s an interesting writer. Perhaps he will open their eyes.
April 10th, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Some neoconservative founders and second generation leaders have read Leon Trotsky, Max Shachtman, James Burnham, George Orwell, and other hard-headed authors. I might suggest some actually read Karl Marx! Wow.
April 10th, 2008 at 6:21 PM
the isolationists were absolutely right every time. vietnam was a mistake. iraq was a mistake and FDR’s statecraft prior to ww2 was absolutely the reason the japanese bombed us. not to mention the treaty of versailles kick starting hyperinflation in germany, which led to hitler.
“The only way to avoid such setbacks is to pursue an isolationist or narrowly realpolitik agenda—which would wind up causing us far greater problems in the long run”
yeah, we’d have lots of money and our children would be able to live. how would we ever manage.
sorry- neocon 2.0 is not going to get off the ground post iraq. once bush is out there will be no reason for anyone to listen to any of these discredited clowns. the neo con bubble is no where near bottom. wait till 09.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:41 PM
I’d like to think that there’s quite a bit of real estate between “isolationism” and “imperialism”, and that it’s possible to be actively engaged in foreign affairs without being militarily engaged, so I’m inclined to reject this sort of black and white characterization.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Russell Kirk was one the the leading post-war conservative intellectuals and was at best lukewarm about the neo-conservatives. Here’s one indictment from a lecture he gave at the Heritage Foundation(1)1:
“And not seldom it has seemed as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States..”
Midge Decter, the wife of Norman Podhoretz, called this line “a bloody outrage, a piece of anti-Semitism by Kirk that impugns the loyalty of neoconservatives.”
(1)December 15, 1988
The Neoconservatives: An Endangered Species
by Kirk, Russell
Heritage Lecture #178
April 10th, 2008 at 11:07 PM
” Bob Kagan, one of our foremost foreign policy sages,”
Oh please! Just before Basra, this clown said:
“The first thing I want to say is that: The Civil War in Iraq is over. And until the American domestic political debate catches up with that fact, we are going to have a very hard time discussing Iraq on the basis of reality.”
April 10th, 2008 at 11:45 PM
Steve J.:
It looks to me like Midge Decter got it just about right.