While attending Brown University, Adoniram Judson came to reject the pious Congregational ism of his upbringing in favor of Deism. His 1807 valedictory address hailed the value of free inquiry unhindered by religious faith. A few years after graduation, however, the ambitious freethinker’s intellectual confidence was shattered by a haunting experience in a drafty New England inn. Judson’s rest was repeatedly disturbed one night by the pitiful moaning of a terminally ill man in the adjacent room. He began to ponder his own eventual death, but he dismissed these thoughts as mere night-time fancies. In the morning, Judson asked the innkeeper how the sick man was doing. Upon learning that the man had died, Judson asked who the man was. Tohis horror, the now deceased man was his best friend and fellow Deist from Brown. Convinced that there was a God who providentially arranged this incident to jolt him from deistic detachment, Judson reconverted to Christianity and sailed to Burma in 1812 as America’s first foreign missionary.
I recount this story because it illustrates the birth of the neoconservatives-those Vietnam-era liberals who were “mugged by reality.” Just as Judson was mugged by the failure of his newfound rationalism in offering any hope or meaning, so also a small cadre of New York intellectuals was mugged by the rapid deterioration of the liberal tradition. Neoconservatives, like Judson, also had a convert’s zeal for propagating the truths they discovered. In a word, neoconservatives became missionaries of Americanism.
As one of the founders of the movement, Norman Podhoretz, puts it, “Neoconservatism came into the world to combat the dangerous lies that were being spread by the radicalism of the sixties and that were being accepted as truth by the established liberal institutions of the day.” The neoconservatives’ primary weapons in this combat were political periodicals, starting with William Kristol’s Public Interest and Norman Podheretz’s Commentary. These journals and those that followed them (e.g. Weekly Standard, First Things, New Criterion)created a haven for disillusioned liberals and for conservatives wanting an intellectually credible voice.
But, if neoconservatism is a reaction against the excesses of modern liberalism, then what does it stand for? The unofficial website of the movement, http://www.neoconservatism.com defines neoconservatism as a perspective” committed to cultural traditionalism, democratic capitalism, and a foreign policy promoting freedom and American interests around the world.”
This is a good working definition since it indicates that neoconservatives fight a constant two-front war: a culture war at home and a war against terror and tyranny abroad. Far from constituting a risky over-extension, neoconservatives believe that this war on two fronts has an inherent reciprocal complementarity. An effective foreign policy requires a healthy state and successful military campaigns for noble causes, which, in turn, rekindle patriotism by instilling citizens with a sense of serving a cause greater than self gratification.
On the domestic front, the goals of neoconservatives are slightly distinguishable from those of other conservatives. While they may distance themselves from the firebrands of the extreme libertarian and religious right, and appear to be more” moderate” on issues like social security and medicare, neoconservatives forcefully argue for a return to an ordered liberty that fosters individual and national well-being. Whether it be through welfare or affirmative action, neoconservatives excel at demonstrating how the Democrats’ overreaching attempts at social engineering have failed to produce their promised “Great Society” and, moreover, have hurt their intended beneficiaries.
Neoconservatives are united in their deep appreciation for the vital role of faith and religious institutions in the public square. A number of neoconservative journals such as the explicitly Jewish Commentary the largely Roman Catholic First Things make frequent appeals to our Judeo-Christian heritage. True to their hawkish mentality, many in the movement second the call of Boston College professor Peter Kreeft for an “ecumenical jihad” of moral conservatives—Christian, Jewish and Muslim—against secular moral liberalism. This would further neoconservative activist-intellectuals in combating abortion, euthanasia, pornography, cohabitation, homosexuality, and the overall decadence in popular culture.
Above all, neoconservative leaders take up their pens to debunk the various liberalisms that encourage the deterioration of American greatness. One of their favorite targets is the diversity-extolling, West-excoriating, truth-expunging pseudo-religion of multiculturalism. If everything is relative and all cultures are morally equivalent, then how can we advance American values and Western democratic norms? We can’t. Boston University professor Andrew Bacevich warns, “As the sludge of multiculturalism seeps from the academy into everyday life, national identity becomes a cause for remorse or self-flagellation rather than a source of inspiration, collective self-confidence lapses, and moral certitude gives way to doubt and bewilderment.”
Neoconservatives also seek to maintain a sense of moral certitude as it is essential to their foreign policy. Being a movement born during the anti-communist fervor of the Cold War,neoconservatism remains unequivocally dedicated to rolling back the pall of tyranny and lighting the lamp of liberty around the world. They see America’s long-sought, hard-fought victory over the Soviet Union as a matter of national and ideological vindication. Moreover, they believe the United States has won the right to be the world’s unchallenged superpower. Prominent neoconservatives William Kristol and Robert Kagan have argued that the United States now has a mandate to exercise a “benevolent global hegemony” founded upon” moral supremacy and moral confidence.”
This conviction has led other neoconservative columnists and authors, such as Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute, to articulate the moral and political case for pre-emptive war against Iraq. Over and against the arguments of isolationists, multilateralists, and even realists, neoconservatives contend that the war on terrorists and the regimes that harbor them provides what Ledeen calls an historic opportunity to lead a “worldwide mass movement against all forms of tyranny.”
Angello Codevilla, professor of International Relations at Boston University, makes the implications of neoconservative foreign policy a bit more explicit. He argues that “to be rid of those who would commit terrorist acts against America, we must deal with the fact that anti-Americanism …has become institutionalized in regimes whose very existence inspires such acts.” Furthermore, Codevilla reminds us that” Communists and Nazis everywhere ceased to be a problem when the regimes that inspired them died.” Codevilla asserts that victory over militant Islamists necessitates “using military force to kill the regimes…of countries that are in any way associated with terrorism.”
Not surprisingly, many on the Left and Right concur that neoconservatives are too hawkish. Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com claims” warmongering is the very essence of neoconservatism.” Jason Vestof The Nation magazine charges “the right-wing defense intellectuals” with” strident advocacy of bigger military budgets, near-fanatical opposition to any form of arms control and zealous championing of a Likudnik Israel.” Yes, critics from both sides blast neoconservatives—most of whom are Jewish—for their uncritical love affair with Israel. Pat Buchanan, in his most recent tirade in the American Conservative writes, “neoconservatives seek is to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel.” He claims that influential neoconservatives are conspiring with Israel to start wars that damage “U.5. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people’s right to a homeland of their own.”
What are neoconservatives to make of this criticism? Rather than dismissing their detractors as isolationistic, unpatriotic, or anti-Semitic as they usually are prone to do, neoconservatives would do well to listen to these concerns, acknowledging the many domestic and foreign obstacles to a global democratization crusade. That isn’t timidity, that’s humility.
On both fronts of their war, the neoconservatives do face immense opposition. Much of the world, most notably the Middle East, is hostile to the spread of American values. Compounding the problem, Americans themselves have a growing problem with the spread of these values. Our opportunity to spread the ideal of liberty around the world will be squandered if we continue to ingest the amoral liberalism of our entertainers and intelligentsia-the highfalutin hogwash of Hollywood and Harvard.
It is imperative that neoconservatives not, to use a Bushism, “misunderestimate” the extent of America’s moral crisis. They have a propensity to allow foreign affairs to divert their attention away from domestic decay. It has always been easy for us to label them the “Evil Empire,” the” Axis of Evil,” and the” evildoers,” while ignoring, in biblical language, the plank in our own eye. The domestic front must be the first priority and effective culture warring requires partnering with all types of conservatives in an” ecumenism of the trenches.”
However, this tendency shows that neoconservatives realize that the United States cannot shirk its global leadership role. They credit the United States with any good that occurred during the otherwise tragic twentieth century. We saved Europe from Hitler and East Asia from Tojo. Moreover, thanks to American aid and involvement, Germany and Japan are now healthy democracies with robust economies. We also contained the Soviet Union until it self-destructed, and have since helped its former satellites along the transition from totalitarianism to free elections and free markets. American humanitarian aid saves thousands of lives each year. Our military protects our allies and maintains geopolitical stability around the world. In the words of President Clinton, we are “the indispensable nation.”
Most Americans embrace the “benevolent global hegemony” of the United States and the military preeminence it requires. This is clear evidence of the wide acceptance of neoconservative ideals. Also, it should be clear to any student of American politics that these ideals also have become identified as mainstream conservatism. For evidence of this acceptance, look no further than evangelical Christians. Often labeled the Religious Right, pious Protestants have long been aligned to conservative politics. Today’s evangelicals are (for eschatological reasons) stalwart supporters of Israel and the Bush administration’s hawkish stance toward the Middle East.
Others on the far Right may continue to fight for their particular brand of conservatism, but, for all practical purposes, neoconservatism is contemporary conservatism. Then should they drop the Latin prefix denoting novelty and distinction from other expressions of conservatism? Many leaders of the movement answer in the affirmative. Both Irving Kristol and Norman Podheretz have hailed the end of neoconservatism as its victory. Speaking of these first generation neoconservatives, scholar Mark Gerson writes, “Their ideological development over the past fifty years has culminated in what we now identify as American conservatism; in that sense, they have been so successful that it is now appropriate to drop the prefix ‘neo’ from their appellation.” This would be possible if it were not for the persistence of other conservatisms such as those defined and defended in this issue of The Spectator.
Not only has neoconservatism made massive imoads into the heartland, it has also made its way from the Big Apple to the Beltway. With men like Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz advising the President, it is safe to say that neoconservatism is the guiding paradigm of the Bush administration. Is Dubya himself a neoconservative? The President’s support for faith-based initiatives, his principled objection to the affirmative action policies of the University of Michigan, and his tough-talk and God-talk on the matters of terrorism and regime change all seem to indicate his neoconservative leanings.
Only time will tell what long-term impact the current application of neoconservative ideals will have at home and abroad. Will Americans return to the traditional values and founding principles that made their nation great? Will we see a decisive victory over terror and tyranny and movement toward greater freedom in Iraq and across Middle East? Though many questions remain, Bacevich reminds us that which we do know:
The tale of the neoconservatives makes for a worthy topic, one rich with fascinating personalities and laden with drama. In the aftermath of Vietnam, a band of mostly New York based, largely Jewish, passionately anti-Communist, and thoroughly combative literary intellectuals abandon liberalism and the Democratic Party.. .and throw their impressive energies into a vigorous campaign aimed at salvaging American foreign policy. They succeed and in the process contribute mightily to the rise of a new conservative coalition that achieves political dominance: this is a story to which scholars will no doubt be returning again and again.”
