Before you accept that assumption, read Joshua Muravchik’s superb essay.
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
I doubt that neoconservatism is dead, any more so than any political ideology is… However, I do think that the label will be tarnished for some time to come.
I think NeoCons would have done better to have formed their own party, rather than falling in step with the mess that is the Republican Party of the 21st century. NeoCons seem to disagree on nearly all domestic positions held by the Republicans and mostly seem to agree on international issues, only as far as being willing to invade to force change. Here I mean neocon as in ex-liberal. However, the loudest voices of the Republican party are not ex-liberal, they are conservative. So neo-con has become a subset of conservativism in the minds of many Americans.
Now, neo-cons in 2002 touted the war and since it didn’t go so well… they will be tagged with the failures of that war. Perception is 9/10 of reality and the perception among most Americans is that “neo-cons” believed a small force could take out Saddam, bring peace to Iraq, have flowers thrown at our feet and have all the damage paid for by oil revenues… (though in that 1/10 reality, the neo-cons basically only agreed that Saddam needed to be taken out).
Here is the lesson, I think. We can both support and criticize our government. If the Neo Cons had done this over the past five years, rather than rallying to the President no matter the issue… then perhaps there would be a notable difference. Yet, most neo-cons fell in step. Fox News, in its rush to get away from the failures of CNN, simply became its twin. Where CNN rarely fired shots at Clinton, Fox rarely fired at Bush. Where the liberals blindly followed their party, the neo-cons did the same. If, instead, they had supported the war and still criticized Bush when necessary (and fought his when absolutely necessary)… maybe the public would see a difference between Rumsfeld’s bad idea and the Neo-Con philosophy.
I think neo-cons will stick around, I hope they do. We need a group that can balance out the pacifists of the liberal far left. However, I doubt that they will have much direct influence post-2008 for at least 4-12 years (unless they cut with the Republicans and form their own party).
Or, if Rudy gets the big chair and the not quite circular office
It’s always been easier to demonize personalities rather than ideas. (Petraeus ñ Betray-us)
Neo-conservatism has been mostly personalized so it can be demonized.
To battle ideas you have to think.
Thanks Roger. It’s an enlightening read.