Since the beginning of the War on Terror much slander has been directed at the ideological tendency known as "neoconservatism", which had its origins in the United States of America and has gained prominent adherents here in the UK such as the journalist Douglas Murray.
When people use the term "neoconservative", or, still more derisively, "neocon", it is meant to be a form of derision, a manifestation of ugly contempt for a person or their position. It is meant to obfuscate and to derail meaningful debate by mischaracterising someone's position and making them akin to a fascist or a Neo-Nazi. The word is bandied around as blithely and ignorantly as the terms "racist" and "Zionist" are in today's political discourse.
Many people have observed that neoconservatism has become synonymous with "warmonger", "imperialist", or even, in more sinister corners, "Jew", or "Jewish conspiracy". The controversy resulting from the War on Terror and the lives and money lost as a result has sullied the reputation of neoconservatism presumably for all time. Now, few self-respecting politicians will dare label themselves neoconservatives for fear of the opprobrium it will bring.
It is time to clarify once and for all, especially for the misguided and misinformed youth of today, what is neoconservatism?
Neoconservatism: What is it?
The Conservative New Right, also known as Neoconservatism, is a form of conservatism which developed in the 1970s as a reaction to what was regarded as the permissiveness of the 1960s counter-culture. Neoconservatives place a strong emphasis on authority and leadership in society, and seek to strengthen the state and reverse social reform. Neoconservative thought has been influenced by the German-Jewish US political philosopher Leo Strauss, who claimed that the “crisis of the West” was due to the West having abandoned the wisdom of ancient philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. Neoconservatives were vociferously anti-communist and supported Ronald Reagan’s tough stance against the Soviet Union, as well as his military buildup which forced the Soviets to bankrupt themselves trying to catch up. After this neoconservative influence on foreign policy declined slightly as it seemed to have achieved its goal, but Samuel Huntington’s 1996 theory on the “clash of civilisation” encouraged neoconservatives to push for the USA to consolidate its “benevolent global hegemony” and maintain a unipolar world led by the USA. This neoconservative influence encouraged the USA to launch an aggressive foreign policy, especially after 9/11, which led to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Neoconservatives hold that military force should be used to spread liberal democracy and Western values worldwide and so usher in an era of global peace as it is believed that democracies will not go to war with each other. Such ideas have been encouraged by the philosopher Francis Fukuyama, who spoke of “the end of history” in which Western-style liberal democracy would be the norm throughout the world.
Similarities With Other Forms of Conservatism
Neoconservatism and the liberal new right (and, to some extent, libertarian conservatism) are similar in their desire to roll back the state’s economic responsibility. For example, the British journalist, Douglas Murray argued in his book Neoconservatism: Why We Need It (2006) for the withdrawal of state support for single mothers (p.185). Neoconservatives support the free market as a means of imposing social discipline, indeed, Burke argued that the laws of the market were “natural laws”. Both neoconservatives and libertarian conservatives would see the free market as helping, not hindering, the social order. Neoconservatism is also similar to some extent to paternalist conservatism in strongly supporting traditionalism, social duty, the concept of an organic society, hierarchy, social responsibility and a natural order. Neoconservatism is however most similar to authoritarian conservatism with its strong belief in authority and the necessity for its reassertion, which involves tough stances on law and order and the strengthening of the family. An example of neoconservatives’ belief in the necessity of the family is Murray’s suggestion that single mothers be compelled to live with “partners, parents or other relatives.” (p.186). This is nevertheless seen to be compatible with the neoliberal economics championed by the liberal new-right.Although Christian democracy is generally a phenomenon in mainland Europe, it has similarities with neoconservatism. Its emphasis on the social group rather than the individual and its strong support for religion as a means of ensuring tradition is something which it has in common with neoconservatism. Like in neoconservatism, in Christian democracy the market is not an end in itself but a means of generating wealth in order to achieve broader social goals.
Differences With Other Forms of Conservatism
Neoconservatism contrasts with elements of the liberal new right, whose belief in an atomistic society contradicts the belief of neoconservatives in an organic society linked by bonds of duty and obligation. Neoconservatives are also limited in their support for the free market, supporting it only to the extent that it preserves society, not out of a belief in the inherent virtue of free markets as an end in themselves, support social order over economic dynamism. As such, neoconservatives would be cautious but supportive of the liberal new right’s support for classical liberalism. Neoconservatives uphold traditional values over the idea of self-interest, and a strong state over a minimal one, as well as an insular nationalism over internationalism. They are also strongly opposed to the globalisation favoured by the liberal new right, believing strongly in the right of nation-states to make unilateral foreign policy decisions in their best interests, even if that involves using military force contrary to international law, and are sceptical of international bodies like the United Nations.
Neoconservatism and the Pillars of Conservative Thought
Neoconservatism is strongly tied to the conservative concept of tradition. Neoconservatives pine for a return to traditional values and are concerned about public morality. Unlike liberals who believe that moral pluralism is a good thing as it generates rational discussion and diversity in society, neoconservatives are concerned that a society in which everyone chooses their own morality will collapse if people choose “evil” or immoral values. A return to traditional values is favoured by neoconservatives to effect the stronger, more united and more homogeneous society that neoconservatives want. The Moral Majority and religious right in the USA in particular have campaigned for a return to “family values”. Neoconservatives are staunchly opposed to a permissive society which lacks unifying ethical or moral standards. Such a society is seen by neoconservatives as a “pathless desert” which leaves individuals lost and civilised society impossible to maintain. Perhaps the most important manifestation of neoconservatism’s respect for tradition is its strong support for religion. Irving Kristol, the “godfather of neoconservatism”, said, “People need religion. It's a vehicle for a moral tradition. A crucial role. Nothing can take its place.” This is linked to Burke’s idea of tradition being God-given rather than man-made, and any attempt to alter it being a challenge to the will of God. Neoconservatives are believers in human imperfection, and as such desire a stronger state to prevent society from falling into permissiveness and ensure that everyone feels secure and equipped with the right moral values to live in a civilised society. This explains neoconservatism’s preoccupation with public morality and its desire to preserve and uphold it. Neoconservatives’ tough stance on law and order links tightly with the concept of human imperfection in conservatism, as neoconservatives believe that only a harsh criminal justice system can deter criminality.Neoconservatives believe in an organic society rooted in shared values, history, culture and civic identity, which they believe gives individuals in a nation meaning in their lives. They believe that it is something that has developed naturally, much like the family has developed naturally with parents having authority over their children, and should be preserved and maintained for the good of all by a strong state. This explains neoconservatism’s preoccupation with strengthening the family. This also explains neoconservatism’s support for nationalism and its passionate belief in the preservation of the “host” community’s culture from other cultures and limited immigration. A manifestation of this is many British conservatives identifying themselves with Euroscepticism, believing the EU is a threat to Britain’s national identity. Neoconservatism is closely tied to hierarchy and authority. Neoconservatives are strong believers in the family and in the natural authority of parents over their children, of employers over their workers and of government over its citizens. Neoconservatives believe that only by strengthening authority can society be secure. The idea that the government knows best for its citizens was expressed by Douglas Murray when he criticised the Blair administration for giving the public “too much” information about the Iraq War. Neoconservatives are fearful of permissiveness and the cult of the individual which they feel encourages the questioning of authority. Neoconservatives’ enthusiasm for hierarchy and authority is seen even in their views on the family, which for neoconservatives is naturally hierarchical, with children listening to their parents, the husband providing and the wife home-making. This is buffeted with a strong stance on law and order to deter acting against authority. Neoconservatives, like all conservatives, are strong supporters of the idea of property, something furthered by their support for economic liberalism.
Conclusion
So as can be seen, neoconservatism is about a lot more than what the left caricatures it to be. Perhaps, in time, some of its ideas will be seen as necessary for the preservation of Western society today, crumbling as it is before the assault of runaway liberalism, permissiveness and cultural relativism. Granted, it is not perfect, and there are many features of it that could be legitimately criticised, but it helps to get the meanings of words straight. I recommend Douglas Murray's book Neoconservatism: Why We Need It (2006) for more insight on this peculiar and novel political philosophy. I am not a neoconservative, but it is nice to have some balance given the opprobrium neoconservatism has gotten over the past decade.