It seems that the churning within the GOP is a conflict at various levels between the forces of individualism and collectivism. There is the question of whether the party faithful should do what they think is best or what the party determines to be best. There is the question of whether the national party should be uniform, or whether the local parties should be more autonomous, and there is the question of whether government should enforce the collective good, or allow for more individual choice in society.
With all the jockeying within the GOP there have been plenty of calls for a return to small government principles within the party and generic statements about various groups spoiling the supposed conservatism of the party but in a Los Angeles Times article yesterday Edward Crane sounded a call I never thought I would hear – The GOP Should Dump the Neocons. The first thing I had to do as I read that was confirm the accepted definition of “neocon” to decide if I could believe what I was reading and if there were any implications that I would disagree with. It turns out that I think I can fully agree with this position.
Crane starts by explaining how neoconservatives came to be such an integral part of the GOP and how that immediately twisted the conservative movement:
William F. Buckley {made} anti-communism the litmus test for joining the conservative movement. Dealing with the Soviets during the Cold War was clearly an important task, but it should not have opened the door of the limited-government movement to the neoconservatives, who are now — and always have been — advocates of big government. With the neocon foot in the policymaking door after the Cold War ended, the drumbeat for war in Iraq began in earnest a decade before 9/11.
I had always understood neoconservatives to be proponents of an interventionist foreign policy – which already made me uncomfortable with that wing of the party – but then Crane goes on to show how neoconservatives do not stop at an aggressive foreign policy:
It is important to realize that neocons are not just nation-building, America-first advocates. They like big government across the board. . . Consider this comment from the late Irving Kristol . . . “Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable.”
That was where I really began to think about what we were dealing with here. I agree with Kristol that growth in government power is a natural phenomenon. It is a function of human nature, especially among those who have achieved positions of power within the system, to seek to bolster the systems they are familiar with and to turn to familiar tools to solve emerging challenges. On the other hand I cannot accept that such growing power is inevitable, nor that simply allowing nature to take its course is always desirable. In fact, allowing nature to take its course is rarely desirable – intervention in natural processes and systems is the hallmark of civilization.
Government itself is an intervention on the natural system of anarchy (I mean anarchy as individual choice without any central establishment of authority). As with all human intervention it is most valuable to intervene in a way that works with the natural course, channeling or transforming it to something more suitable to the needs of society, rather than either of the extreme positions of killing nature or throwing up our hands and being swept along in the current of natural forces.
Crane identifies what he calls the “insidious philosophy” underlying neoconservatism with a quote from David Brooks:
Ultimately, American purpose can find its voice only in Washington.
That is a scary thought. American greatness has always been based on enlightened individualism. The nation was founded on the idea that government should be limited so that individuals could thrive. If American purpose can only find its voice in Washington then individuals cannot expect to choose what is best for them with a healthy regard for how that affects those around them, instead the individual must wither so that the collective can flourish.
Speaking only for myself, I would much rather be an individual organism seeking to find a place within the societal ecosystem where I can bloom and grow myself while contributing to the health and well-being of the environment I live in rather than being a Borg with no individual identity devoted solely to the good of the collective whose very existence has no value unless it benefits the (Washington) collective.
Right you are. The 19th century Democrats were the real libertarians following Jefferson and Madison. The 20th century Democrats follow Rousseau and Marx, and the Republicans have trouble shaking off Hamilton, Clay, Lincoln to Teddy Roosevelt, all centralists who, like Obama, seem to believe the interests of community are more important than are the interests of individuals, as cited in THE CHANGING FACE OF DEMOCRATS on Amazon and http://www.claysamerica.com. America began with Plymouth as a nation founded on individual freedom. The rest of the world stayed with the Obama plan, which he hopes to bring to America shortly.
I think that individualism might be the key that must be reintegrated into society if we are to have any hope of reversing course and restoring the societal forces taht made America great in the first place.
We began at Plymouth as a group strongly opposed to government running religion. But that first group was a socialist commune. The individual was completely subservient to the group. Individualism grew later.
Interesting concept. But there are a few problems with it. The first one is simply a numbers issue. The GOP, already having troubles with viability, may be insufficiently viable without the Neocons.
Then there is the question of how a party goes about divorcing itself from one of its major factions. Not that parties and factions haven’t parted ways in the past. But usually it’s been pretty ugly business that has required years of major rebuilding, following which the party is rarely discernibly better off than it was before the split.
Another problem is that the anti-Neocons already succeeded in gaining control of the party. And then they lost it. Let me explain. The Neocons were the biggest losers with the advent of the GWB 2000 campaign and initial 2001 presidency. The movers and shakers in the administration were strongly opposed to the whole Neocon approach. Then 9/11 slapped them in the face, and voila! an administration full of instant Neocons emerged. People should really study Dr. Rice’s pre-administration writings and compare it to her tenure in the administration. It’s a real eye opener.
Given this, what do you think will happen the next time Leon Trotsky’s adage, “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you” is proven?
The GOP has long been home to supporters of the military. Let’s see. Who was the next GOP president after Lincoln, the first GOP president? Ah, yes, it was Gen. U.S. Grant. Since then the GOP has had a number of presidents that served in the military, including Eisenhower. Count how many the Democrats have had. You see, the military hawks have had a home in the GOP much longer than other factions. Many Neocons have ideas of their own about which factions ought to be ousted from the party.
I’m not saying that I disagree with you about the odd fit of a big government faction in the Republican Party. I’m merely pointing out some realities surrounding that issue.
I agree with you that this is simply a theoretical concept and not a legitimate course of action – I don’t believe there is any single element int he GOP that is strong enough right now to dictate the terms of the party’s new direction (and it will have a new direction). On the other hand, considering this concept makes me wonder about a more realistic goal – educating people, especially among the members of the Republican party, about the fundamental differences between limited-government conservatism and neoconservatism. I recognize that this is not something that can happen overnight or even over the course of a four year election cycle, but it might get more people (conservative and neoconservative alike) to recognize the realities of the coalition they are part of.
P.S. I do think that it is possible to be supportive of the military without favoring an ever expanding government or accepting the inevitability of endless growth in the public sector.
I’m all for educating the public. I was once somewhat comfortable with Neoconservatism until I became more informed and started thinking seriously about the matter.
I also agree that it’s possible to support the military while opposing government expansion. But that requires a very strong stand on principles. And that goes back to educating the public.