Defining Neoconservatism Down

Joshua Muravchik, explaining why neoconservatism remains our surest guide to the struggle against jihadism:

As for the neoconservatives, they have taken their lumps over the war in Iraq. Nonetheless, the tenets of neoconservatism continue to offer the most cogent approach to the challenge that faces our country. To recapitulate those tenets one last time: (1) Our struggle is moral, against an evil enemy who revels in the destruction of innocents. Knowing this can help us assess our adversaries correctly and make appropriate strategic choices. Saying it convincingly will strengthen our side and weaken theirs. (2) The conflict is global, and outcomes in one theater will affect those in others. (3) While we should always prefer nonviolent methods, the use of force will continue to be part of the struggle. (4) The spread of democracy offers an important, peaceful way to weaken our foe and reduce the need for force.

These "tenets" are pretty anodyne, I'd say. Certainly most liberal internationalists would claim to agree with them; I'd imagine you could get many self-styled realists to say the same (particularly tenets 1-3); and depending on how you interpret them, I could see myself agreeing with all four. Of course, these banalities aren't what actually define foreign-policy neoconservatism, as Muravchik more or less allows elsewhere in the essay. Rather, the neocons are distinguished by what Muravchik, quoting Max Boot, calls their "hard Wilsonianism": The "hard" part makes them more likely to resort to force than liberal internationalists, while the Wilsonian part makes them more likely than realists to favor putting military force in the service of democracy-promotion. It's these tendencies, not Muravchik's four tenets, that look dubious in the aftermath of Iraq, and it's in defending how they played out in our invasion of that unhappy country that Muravchik is largely unpersuasive.

Comments

I wonder why you think "realists" would buy into the view that the struggle against Islamists is a "moral" one? That seems plainly wrong.

Posted by Michael Simpson | October 17, 2007 1:25 PM

"the Wilsonian part makes them more likely than realists to favor putting military force in the service of democracy-promotion"

I'm not sure I buy that. That's the rhetorical cover, of course, but it's not clear to me that it's more than that.

Muravchik would have been horrified at the lack of pre-war planning, as it was actually going on, if democracy, and the extremely hard work it would take to get there, were actually important to him in anything beyond a notional way.

I agree with most of your points, though, about the curious vagueness of neoconservatism as Muravchik defines it.

I wrote about "what neoconservatives think" at length a little while back, quoting Muravchik, Kristol, and others, link at my handle. It seems to me to be about focusing on the evil of enemies foreign and domestic, prioritizing the use of force, and eschewing discussion of costs, benefits, or likely results of our actions.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | October 17, 2007 1:32 PM

I dunno ... I think it's only the hardest of the hard realists who would shrink from calling al Qaeda evil, and our struggle against Islamist terrorism a just cause. (Think about how George H.W. Bush, our last realist President, talked about Saddam ...)

Posted by Ross Douthat | October 17, 2007 1:37 PM

Michael, are you arguing that realists don't take up morality as a reason to do things in foreign policy? Otherwise, it seems Ross is right.

Though you can argue that Bush Sr. referred to morality solely because it played in Peoria, or, citing Somalia, you can argue that he wasn't a realist...

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | October 17, 2007 2:08 PM

I disagree with the emphasis on democracy promotion. This takes a decided second seat to promotion of what they see as American interests. No neocon would advise us to respect the results of the Venezuelan or Palestinian elections, for instance. The hard neocons in the Administration would have infinitely preferred the undemocratic installation of Ahmad Chalabi in Baghdad over the current elected Iraqi government.

Posted by tequila | October 17, 2007 2:28 PM

For me, number three is the sticking point:
While we should always prefer nonviolent methods, the use of force will continue to be part of the struggle.

I've always been suspicious of the claim that they prefer nonviolent methods. Far from being reluctant to go to war, the neo-cons have always struck me as preferring war over other methods. The last seven years have only increased that impression for me.

Posted by Peter Bautista | October 17, 2007 2:33 PM

I dunno - aren't we seeing a bit of a contradiction here?

1. Our struggle is moral, against an evil enemy who revels in the destruction of innocents...

3. While we should always prefer nonviolent methods, the use of force will continue to be part of the struggle.

Beyond the fact that neocons have proven that they prefer force rather than nonviolent methods, by this definition the difference between al Qaeda and us is that while they revel in the destruction of innocents, OUR destruction of innocents is, you know, tragic and regretful and everything. But stuff happens.

Worth asking who has actually caused the death of more innocents. And whether the uncomfortable answer to that might be a factor in how folks in the Mideast view wonderful magnanimous us.

Posted by Gil | October 17, 2007 2:37 PM

Gil,

I would note that the difference between most Americans and Al Queda is that Al Queda purposely targets civilians, and most American (rightly) believe this is horrible and immoral. Without denying that many civilians are dying in Iraq, we are not targeting those civilians they way Al Queda targeted New Yorkers on 9/11.

Where hard-core neo-cons and Al Queda start to come together, though, is in defining "civilians." Presumably, AQ saw the people in the towers as participants in a global order they oppose, and so, by their lights, those people were not civilians.

Along the same lines, there is a worrying trend among the far right to conflate "terrorists" with "all Muslims." Not by all on the right, and not by all neo-cons, but there definitely ARE neocons who see Islam as a whole as the enemy.

It should go without saying that the view that Islam is the enemy is as despicable and immoral as AQ's view that all Westerners are the enemy.

Posted by Peter Bautista | October 17, 2007 4:15 PM

I would note that the difference between most Americans and Al Queda is that Al Queda purposely targets civilians, and most American (rightly) believe this is horrible and immoral. Without denying that many civilians are dying in Iraq, we are not targeting those civilians they way Al Queda targeted New Yorkers on 9/11.

I agree with that, but my point is that we want to give ourselves gold stars for intent even when the outcome is bloodier. I think we have to be real careful about that.

Posted by Gil | October 17, 2007 4:28 PM

Gil -

I agree the outcome matters. Even the Catholic church, which hews to a non-consequentialist approach to ethics (i.e. they believe actions can be good or bad in and of themselves, instead of allowing the good or bad to be determined by consquences), says that for a war to be just, it must not produce greater harm than that which it was intended to redress.

With regards to the Iraq war, one criticism, going in, was that many believed it did not meet this test. In hindsight, looks like they were probably right. Too late to be relevant for Iraq, but perhaps those who are so hot on Iran should take a moment to think this through.

Posted by Peter Bautista | October 17, 2007 4:52 PM

There's nothing objectionable about any of Muravchik's tenets. The enemy; whether Saudi
Wahhabis, Iraqi or Jordanian Salafi, Iranian
Twelver Shia Revolutionary Guard, target
innocents sometimes as far afield as New York
or Buenos Aires. The conflict is global in 60 countries with regards to AQ; in fewer countries
with regards to Hezbollah and other elements. I'm
sure Kristol, Ledeen & co; would prefer non military action in many theatres; but is that a realistic option in Taliban ruled Afghanistan, Saddam's Iraq, Iran or even Darfur today. Democracy in many of those lands are weak if non-existent; Bismarkian Germany, with the Weimar transitition was no match for the 'civil war' between communist partisans and brownshirts. Meiji era Japan, collapsed to the National Salvationist junta of Tojo; the same for Mussolini. One cant' forget that Chavez started
his public life with two military plots; one failed plot in the 80s; prior to the '92 plot;
and the flaws in Palestinian society going back
to Haj Amin Husseini's flirtation with Nazism
need not be elaborated.

Posted by narciso | October 17, 2007 9:37 PM

The Palestinian "flirtation" with Nazism was far less emphatic and received far less enthusiastic public support than in the Baltics, Ukraine, Croatia, Spain, Romania, Hungary, etc. etc. despite having the same root: hope for German aid in fighting local enemies as opposed to any particular enthusiasm for fascism (excepting Spain, where fascist enthusiasm was real).

At any rate, I think this thread is replete with examples of how the neocon love of democracy is so much flimflam to bedazzle the rubes and useful idiots on the Left.

Much more emblematic of neoconservatism seems to be faith in the power of violence, the value of intimidation and force over diplomacy and negotiation, and a neocolonialist view of the world where Western powers (restricted to right-wing elements within the United States and Israel) have the inherent right to reorder the world according to their own interests or whims.

Posted by tequila | October 18, 2007 4:45 AM

Ross,

No, I agree - even realists will use the terms "evil" and think in moral terms. After all, even thinking that your foreign policy ought to be guided above all by national self-interest (what I take to be a quick definition of realism) is itself a moral claim about how a government ought to act vis-a-vis the rest of the world.

But I think the difference between the neocons (and I suppose I'm pretty neoconnish at least on this point) and the realists, I think, is that the mere fact that some evil thing or evil actor is out there is itself enough of a reason for the state to consider acting. Witness, if you will, some recent suggestions (from Kristol?) regarding what the US should do regarding Burma, to include the use of military force. Or Frum and Perle's book _To End Evil_. For the realists, the fact that something is a threat to important American interests is sufficient reason to act. If it is some monstrosity, all the more reason. I think the calculation is reversed for the neocons (though my sense of things is that they think the moral calculation works in America's long-term interests).

A brief historical sketch might make what I mean more clear (or get me into more trouble, I suppose). Consider the difference between the realists and neocons regarding the Cold War. The realists (Kissinger et. al.) thought accommodation and detente were simply necessary - they didn't like the Soviets and hoped for their implosion, but they thought they were there for the long term. The neocons wanted to roll the commies back (see Podhoretz's latest book where he recounts how often he criticized Reagan's temporizing between the two camps). It seems to me that the events of the late 1980s and 1990s obscured the differences between the camps a bit, as the collapse (and subsequent partial democratization) of the Soviet empire and the first Gulf War seemed to suggest that one could be *both* a realist and idealist/neocon. You started to see a fissure in regard to the former Yugoslavia, one that has entirely blown up now with Iraq. The neocons argued for the Iraq invasion on any number of "realist" grounds, to be sure (WMDs, Hussein's threat to neighbors, sanctions breaking down, etc.), but it seems to me the most powerful rhetorical claims were the ones about creating a new Middle East, one where the people there could enjoy the same "blessings of liberty" that we enjoy. Democracy is, in their view, a powerful anti-terrorist measure, but it is also a recognition of universal human dignity. A realist might have indeed thought that invading Iraq would be helpful as an anti-terrorist incubation measure (or somesuch thing) but they would never have worried so much about democracy per se - a stable, reasonably free society would be fine (say, like a Jordan).

Realists can't get away from moral language, but it does seem to me that moral concerns divorced from some fairly specific claims about American self-interest don't rank very high on their list of reasons for action (military or otherwise). There's certainly no bright line in the sand here between the realists and neocons, but there does seem to me to be a distinction worth making.

Posted by Michael Simpson | October 18, 2007 9:40 AM

Adding on to what Gil said:

Ross: "...while the Wilsonian part makes them more likely than realists to favor putting military force in the service of democracy-promotion. "

I'm going to call 'lie' here, Ross. This administration has been supremely dedicated to anti-democracy at home. In Iraq, the original plan was to install a strongman, Chalabi. When the 'strongman' turned out to be a nothing, the back-up plan was to run Iraq as a military dictatorshop for 4-5 years. Elections were only plan C, after Sistani threatened to put the Shiites out in the street, and shut the US down in Iraq.

This is not a secret; everybody who's not getting information from the AEI knows this.

Posted by Barry | October 18, 2007 9:46 AM

I think the fact that Burke, De Maistre, Kirk or Weaver would not agree with any of these tenants demonstrates how unconservative neocons are.

Neocons are globalist rogues drunk on Wilsonian idealism, yet with a double standard. For the rest of the world, they prescribe liberal internationalism and propositionalism, yet in Israel they practice real conservatism, nationhood based in kith and kin. I don't begrudge them for this, but I wish they wouldn't call any Western conservative who wants the same a "bigot."

Posted by Bede | October 18, 2007 10:17 AM

Errrg, tenets, not tenants (unless we're talking about the aliens that live in neocons' brains).

Posted by Bede | October 18, 2007 10:19 AM

Some realists explicitly warn against letting moral interests dictate US foreign policy decisions. Others argue that realism is the only viable moral and ethical course, because it recognizes the limits of military power and prevents leaders from getting caught up in ideological struggles that end up as moral calamities (e.g. Vietnam, Iraq).

In either case, it is *not* the case that realism is consistent with three of the major tenets of neoconservativism. Not even close.

Posted by JR | October 18, 2007 1:14 PM

buy sale viagra

Posted by buy uk viagra | November 12, 2007 8:33 PM