by Roland X, 2-13-04

Discuss this in our online forums

"He who fights against monsters should see to it that he does not become a monster in the process." -- Friedrich Nietzsche, "Beyond Good and Evil" (as translated in the Columbia World of Quotations).

What is a neoconservative?

Given what we face in this election, that is a very important question. There has been considerable argument on this topic, with definitions ranging everywhere from neo-imperialists to -- according to defensive neocons trying to smear their opponents -- a code word for "Jewish conservative."

The latter accusation is interesting, given the influence of Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld (apparently both Methodists) in the Project for a New American Century, widely recognized as the leading neoconservative think tank. Of course, this is the same bunch that tries to claim neocons really aren't that influential. I suppose having the Vice-President and the Secretary of Defense (both of whose political careers stretch back to the Nixon administration) in your camp, particularly with the most pliable president in living memory sitting in the White House, does not constitute influence.

To the point: some among the libertarians and "classic" conservatives have a different definition for neocons -- neo-Communist:

The Trotskyist pedigree of neoconservatism is no secret; the original neocon, Irving Kristol, acknowledges it with relish: "I regard myself to have been a young Trostkyite and I have not a single bitter memory." Nor is there any doubt about the influence -- one might almost say hegemony -- of "former Communists" on the post-war conservative movement. Just read the words of one neocon, Seymour Martin Lipset:

From the anti-Stalinists who became conservatives -- including James Burnham, Whittaker Chambers, and Irving Kristol -- the Right gained a political education and, in some cases, an injection of passion. The ex-radicals brought with them the knowledge that ideological movements must have journals and magazines to articulate their perspectives. In 1955, for example, William F. Buckley, Jr., launched National Review at the urging of Willi Schlamm, a former German Communist. In its early years, National Review was largely written and edited by the Buckley family and a handful of former Communists, Trotskyists, and socialists, such as Burnham and Chambers. It played a major role in creating the Goldwaterite and Reaganite New Right and in stimulating an anti-Soviet foreign policy.

The politics of destruction, of course, were a staple of Soviet politics. To be sure, in any healthy democracy, there are going to be rising passions and low blows. For those searching for the beginning of the end in American political discourse, look no further than Newt Gingrich's memo "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control," a textbook example of demagoguery:

Often we search hard for words to help us define our opponents. Sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast. Remember that creating a difference helps you. These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party. decay... failure (fail)... collapse(ing)... deeper... crisis... urgent(cy)... destructive... destroy... sick... pathetic... lie... liberal... they/them... unionized bureaucracy... "compassion" is not enough... betray... consequences... limit(s)... shallow... traitors... sensationalists...

Say what?

When it comes to conflicts between dictators and their victims, Mr. Murdoch, like Mr. Kissinger, is mighty sympathetic to the needs of the guys with the cattle prods in their hands, irrespective of ideology. He has consistently kowtowed to the Communist Chinese, happily censoring his broadcasts, canceling book deals and what many view as paying millions of dollars in ill-disguised bribes (in the form of book advances) to family members of the aging Marxist gerontacracy. In pursuit of a chimerical profit in the Far East, Mr. Murdoch himself has repeatedly spoken out in favor of dictatorship and against media freedom. When he agreed to remove the BBC from Star TV's offering there, he explained, "We're trying to get set up in China. Why should we upset them?" He later added, "The truth is -- and we Americans don't like to admit it -- that authoritarian societies can work."

Finally, of course, the rights themselves must be eliminated. The long, sad story stretching from Bush's now-infamous line "some people have too much freedom" to the recent attempt to subpoena peace activists for exercising their right to peaceably assemble. Mercifully, the tide seems to be turning:

Federal prosecutors withdrew a subpoena Tuesday ordering Drake University to turn over a list of people involved in an antiwar forum in November, as well as subpoenas ordering four activists to testify before a grand jury.

While we must remain vigilant and oppose their movement on all fronts, the real tragedy is not in what the neoconservatives have done to America, but what they have turned themselves into in the process. By all appearances, the neocons fought the Soviet Union for so long, they lost sight of what they were fighting. In their zeal to become the dominant global power, they lost sight of what they were fighting for. In the process of destroying a totalitarian enemy, they've become the very foe they worked so hard and so long to destroy. The neocons have made themselves into their own monster.

(/) Roland X
Someone hook a generator to Eisenhower's tomb, quick -- the spinning could solve the energy problem!