Joshua Muravchik defends neoconservatism. A highlight:
First, following Orwell, neoconservatives were moralists. Just as they despised Communism, they felt similarly toward Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic and toward the acts of aggression committed by those dictators in, respectively, Kuwait and Bosnia. And just as they did not hesitate to enter negative moral judgments, neither did they hesitate to enter positive ones. In particular, they were strong admirers of the American experience—an admiration that arose not out of an unexamined patriotism (they had all started out as reformers or even as radical critics of American society) but out of the recognition that America had gone farther in the realization of liberal values than any other society in history. A corollary was the belief that America was a force for good in the world at large.
Second, in common with many liberals, neoconservatives were internationalists, and not only for moral reasons. Following Churchill, they believed that depredations tolerated in one place were likely to be repeated elsewhere—and, conversely, that beneficent political or economic policies exercised their own “domino effect” for the good. Since America’s security could be affected by events far from home, it was wiser to confront troubles early even if afar than to wait for them to ripen and grow nearer.
Third, neoconservatives, like (in this case) most conservatives, trusted in the efficacy of military force. They doubted that economic sanctions or UN intervention or diplomacy, per se, constituted meaningful alternatives for confronting evil or any determined adversary.
To this list, I would add a fourth tenet: namely, the belief in democracy both at home and abroad.
Interesting list. I agree with the first three propositions (as long time readers might have guessed) but am skeptical of his fourth. It is quite possible for a majority of the poeple to be wrong a majority of the time. In illiberal democracies, there’s a dangerous tendency towards “one man, one vote, one time.” Replace “democracy both at home and abroad” with “constitutional liberalism both at home and abroad” and I think Muravchik would be on stronger ground.
***************************************
The other interesting read is Sally Bedell Smith’s White House Civil War. Whenever something interesting gets published in DC, the guessing game begins: who leaked the juicy details? In this case, I’d say it was Al and Tipper Gore. Just read, and be wary of being a friend of the Clintons.
Posted by Hubbard in Philosophy, The Past Is Never Dead--It Isn't Even Past