Philosophy, Politics, Society

What is Neo-Conservatism?

Since before the recent US election the use of the term conservative has been driving me crazy. To tell you the truth, it has driven me crazy since I learned about ideology in university over ten years ago, but now that I have a blog, and now that I am inundated daily with misuse of the term, I figured maybe I should try to get my consternation out there. The word conservative is used by media, public and politicians to describe a particular ideology or set of beliefs that isn’t conservative in most ways, and this is extraordinarily frustrating to me.

Some myths about Conservatism

Conservatism is not

  • neoconservativism, neoliberalism, libertarianism or classical liberalism, and if it is now neo-liberalism or a revival of classical liberalism, then it only is this in a very relative sense – i.e. relative to the last 50 years or so
  • about creating new forms of government for, or spreading forms of government to, other societies
  • traditionally associated in any way with “free” markets
  • utopian
  • revolutionary
  • fascist
  • new.

The nature of Neoconservativism

There is a reason why we have to call conservatism neoconservativism and that’s because it doesn’t resemble conservatism in most ways. In fact, neoconservativism – at least the most common version, the one dominating US political discourse – is a blend of all three major ideological traditions, which is why it cannot strictly be called conservative.

Neoconservativism’s  economic ideas – which its proponents arbitrarily separate from other matters for reasons that remain unclear to me – are rooted in classical liberalism, libertarianism, or neoliberalism, depending on the proponent. What that generally means is that neoconservatives dislike taxes and government spending, unless of course that spending is on security or morality. (Libertarian-leaning neocons would disagree with most of this spending too.) This is a complete reversal of the conservative position of using government as a tool to preserve the organic nature of society, and to help out those less privileged.

Neoconservativist social ideas are the only thing that could be called conservative about neoconservativism, and perhaps that is why the term is so popular. It is easiest to see reaction in social areas, where there appears to have been some discernible progress – if you accept the term progress – as opposed to other areas of human social and political life, where there is little to no sense of progress, or where progress can only be contemplated in material ways, which, of course, is not helpful.

However, the values of most neocons – except, perhaps, for Straussian neo-cons, see below – are rooted in fundamentalist, born-again Christianity, which is hardly a conservative movement. Yes, their interpretations of some biblical passages are ultra-conservative but other aspects of their interpretations are not at all – the willingness to participate in politics, for instance, is not a conservative Christian view in any way. In comparison to that most conservative of Christian sects the Orthodox Church, fundamentalist Christianity is radical, not conservative. So, in some sense, neoconservativism is rooted not in conservative Christian morality, but in radical Christian morality, which merely appears conservative to us because its most controversial positions are extremely socially conservative.

Finally, there is the radical socialist nature of neoconservativism. Socialism is the only one of the three major ideologies that features as a major characteristic an attempt to seize power and force that power on others – democratically or otherwise. In the context of the rise of socialism as an ideology of the lower classes fighting against the dominance of conservative or liberal establishments, this made sense.

Neoconservativism has taken this idea – some of the founders of neoconservativism in the 60s were recovered neo-Marxists – and used it to drive domestic “culture wars” – an us-against-them attitude taken directly from socialism and having no basis whatsoever in the society-as-an-organism approach of conservatism – as well as foreign policy. Neoconservative foreign policy resembles radical revolutionary socialist or neoliberal foreign policy – both of which seek to change the rest of the world, not just their own tiny piece – in its attempt to convert every other society on the planet to a reflection of its own values.

So you can see that, at the level of theory, neoconservativism is not conservative and, moreover, is internally inconsistent. It says

  • “government, stay out of my life!…
  • except in matters of “morality”, when you should tell me – and everyone else everywhere – what  you know is best for me”
  • and it seeks to create both “moral” and “free” states – both of which are impossible, but especially impossible in combination –  both domestically and internationally.

It is theoretically inconsistent any which way you look at it. So it’s hard for those of us who don’t believe to understand why people subscribe to it.

So why do Neo-Conservatives Exist?

That is a tough question. And it’s one I don’t intend to answer, beyond saying that

  • people aren’t rational and
  • most people don’t fully subscribe to any one ideology despite the political support they may show for it, so apparent neo-cons may only agree with small aspects of neoconservativism.

I’d rather just publicly discuss the nature of neoconservativism, so we can recognize it for what it actually is.

It makes sense to me that something so clearly anti-conservative arose in the US and became “conservative.” The US doesn’t have much experience with conservatism so they need to label something conservative. The founders were a hybrid of liberalism and mild conservatism, so the “conservative” side of the debate always relied to some extent on liberal ideas, as did the liberal side.True conservatism really didn’t get its start in the US because of this. (Nor did socialism, but socialism has at least had some popular support here and there, whereas traditional conservatism in the US has had virtually none.)

The US has had virtually no experience of traditional British or Canadian conservatism (Toryism), of 19th century German conservatism, or any other European form, and it is only since the rise of neoconservativism that the US has had the European experience of radicalism-posing-as-conservatism of the fascists and Nazis.

And that’s what neoconservativism ultimately is; it is of the same breed as fascism: an ostensibly conservative movement that prioritizes emotion over reason, and that hides its radicalness behind supposed conservative positions.

Straussian Neo-Conservatism

This isn’t exactly true of all neocons, though. I can’t speak for British neocons, as I don’t know them well enough, but in Canada are neocons are led by what we might call “Straussian” neocons, even though many of the neocons who follow these Straussians would fit the above American version.

Straussianism is really what we might call neoconservativism: it was a revival of really, really conservative ideas; the moral ideas of the ancient Greeks (specifically Plato and Socrates). It was, in this sense, at least potentially anti-liberal and anti-democratic, as you might expect conservatism to be, at least at some level. It also had nothing to do with “free” market economics. (Though a Strausian might believe that it is the job of government to manage the economy in the way they see fit, which could entail “free” markets.) We might take from it the most salient point: some people are better at governing than others, and those people deserve to govern.

Straussian neoconservativism, then, makes the assumption within American neoconservativism, that the “elect” are those who should rule, all the more explicit. However, Straussian neoconservativism focuses on a much smaller elect – an elite elect within the elect – who should rule. It still combines the strange combination of economic freedom and social control, but in the case of this variant, the social control is necessary because we are stupid – except, of course, economically – not because we are fallen or lost. This is neoconservativism in Canada. It may not occur anywhere else for all I know.

So there you have it. I hope that clarifies things for at least some people. Neoconservativism is so scary to so many of us – and so repellent to actual conservatives like John Gray – because nothing about it – or very little, in the case of the Canadian variant – is actually conservative, but rather an amalgam of radical and less radical ideas which have existed for so long in so many guises that their radical nature has become commonplace. It is a wish of mine that will never be satisfied that we call a spade a spade. That will never happen. But hopefully at least one or two people will read this and call neoconservativism what it actually is: a new form of fascism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.