Neoconservativism in Historical Context
Joshua Muravchik’s “The Past, Present, and Future of Neoconservatism” in Commentary Magazine is one of the most interesting political essays I’ve read in months.
Did you know that the term “neoconservative” originally described someone who agreed with liberal ideals — e.g., racial equality, world peace — but disagreed with the official liberal policies for achieving those goals — e.g., affirmative action, nuclear disarmament?
He says that neoconservatism ultimately boils down to four foreign-policy tenets:
(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.
The essay is long, but worth printing out to read carefully.
I would be particularly interested to read cogent criticisms of Muravchik’s article.
UPDATE: On a related subject, back in July Matthew Dallman offered some interesting answers to the question “What Is Neoconservatism?”
