Neoconservatism: Why No One Needs It

Douglas Murray, a British author who, oddly, detests being called a European, is making the rounds in defense of his book, "Neoconservatism: Why We Need It." Here is one for the time capsule.

If the rapid dissolution of empire, the pound’s loss of value during the past 20 years, and the transparent superficiality of an obsolescent "monarchy" weren’t conclusive proof of a culture in decline, the rise of an indigenous neoconservative movement based on the bankrupt American strain is surely the last nail in the coffin.

Proselytizing a nouveau variation of the white man’s burden, Murray and his cohorts, including Andrew Sullivan, have gravitated to American ideology the way Americans fans once flocked around the Beatles. My, how times have changed. Is this obsequious behavior merely a manifestation of, If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em? Is it true? Has the nation that gave us Locke, Adam Smith and Bertrand Russell run out of fresh ideas? Or do these Anglo Neocons really believe that under the guise of neoconservative "Freedom" the once politically correct notion of imperialism can reestablish a sense of legitimacy?

On the one hand, Murray bemoans multiculturalism. On the other hand, he’s from a different culture - one largely opposed to the war in Iraq. In his view, the two are united under the auspices of being part of Western civilization, which is being trashed by leftists and pacifists. Thus, accordingly, our super heroic Neocons are going to save the day.

There is, of course, a widespread uniformity to Western civilization, which appears at first glance to represent a singular culture. But its progressive development, i.e., part Semitic, which was part Egyptian, part Greek, part Roman, part Judeo-Christian, part secular, part French, part Italian, part African, part Islamic, etc., has been the quintessence of multicultural mingling. Yet Neocons would like to treat it as a monolith at odds with all other cultures which haven’t yet jumped on board with market-driven practices, corporate greed, American zombie-style escapism, and last, but not least, the Quarter Pounder. If only they would tap into the glorious diversity of Western civilization instead of insisting on its exceptionalism, they would find many imaginative ways for making peace. But peace, of course, is not their objective.

According to the Neocon logic, peace = appeasement; it’s what permissive parents provide bratty kids, who should be deprived of all privileges until they shape up. And in this delusional play, the liberals are kids and the Neocons are the parents. What’s wrong with this picture? You don’t have to look hard to see that these "parents" strike back with ferocity instead of proffering wisdom, use force rather than extend mutually established accommodation, reflexively issue overt threats as opposed to sound logic that resorts to violence only as a last measure. Why, these are the kinds of parents kids had back in the ’50s, which, it seems, is why they call themselves Neoconservatives. They’re conserving behavior that should’ve been permanently retired.

As Murray explains it, the worst of liberal thought is relativism. This perspective shows how far out of touch the Neocons are with modernity, as well as reality. Since 1900, when Picasso and Braque shattered the canvas into slivers of Cubist Primitivism, Einstein established Relativity, Wittgenstein illustrated the imprecision of language, Godel proved the uncertainty of math, jazz composers reoriented Western composition, surrealists bent the rules of physics, String theorists reconstructed the elements of the universe, various indisputable and theoretical forms of relativism have predominated in many fields of study. And now, we find that Pluto was only a planet relative to what people believed about it. No doubt all these uncertainties are driving absolutists like the Neocons stark raving mad. Mad enough to go out and reclaim as much certainty as possible.

Instead of being Socratic and embracing what they don’t know so they can then learn what they need to know, the Neocons are modern Sophists convinced they know all they need to know to shape the world to meet their own limited standards. For example, when there were no WMDs, then it was regime change. When regime change didn’t work out, it was democracy. And when democracy isn’t working out, then it’s, "These things take time." Yeah maybe centuries.

Actually, the sort of comforting self-deceptions, such as the ironclad superiority of American values, the unimpeachable legitimacy for the War on "Terror", believing that "We’re making progress" when in fact the Iraqi war plunged the country into civil war, that Westerners can reshape the Middle East in order to mitigate terrorism, that fighting Islamic enemies won’t expand terrorism are tales similar to the bedtime stories kids want to hear before drifting off at night. Really, who are the kids in this relationship of Neocons vs. liberals?

In truth, the basis of Neoconservatism - a backlash to ’60s radicalism - was not without merit. In general authority in America was, and still is, under assault. Ask any grade school teacher in a major metropolitan city, if not those in the backwoods. And many liberals have ignored or subordinated the issue and this resignation gave the Neocons the upper hand.

The question was, How to restore authority, tradition, decency, and civility - all necessary values for social harmony. For Rousseau, it was a struggle between the General Will - the overall embodiment of laws and ethics - and the Will of All - the untamed desires of the masses. For Hegel it was a battle between objective will and subjective will. This volatile dynamic is, undeniably, a pivotal dilemma for democratic cultures that have been secularized and unfettered from traditional authorities. How far is too far? It’s a fair question, and one that still needs a wise answer.

In response to ’60s radicalism the Neoconservatives became radical and swung the pendulum too far in the other direction, while polarizing the discourse. In many ways, such as the policy of military preemption, the in-your-face aggressive stance on the global stage, the neo-imperialist superiority, the unitary Presidency, and the moral self-righteousness, are quite similar, psychologically speaking, to the tone of ’60s radicalism. Too often, extremism prompts extremism.

Somewhere in the middle, where cooler heads prevail, is a form of moderation the world so desperately needs. And the sooner people like Murray and Sullivan get off the stage, the better. Then, hopefully, there’ll be room for wiser, more moderate voices and Americans will finally start to put the Neocons behind them the way the Neocons put the ’60s radicals behind them.