Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
63 of 79 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Worth Reading, August 15, 2006
I am not a conservative of any type. But I found this book informative and interesting.
Douglas Murray begins by stating that "neoconservatism is not a political party, or a social set, but a way of looking at the world. It is a deeply rooted and relevant philosophy which only seems to be out of kilter with modern thought because there is so little modern thought."
In this book, we see quite a few examples of what is supposed to pass for modern thought, so what Murray says is not really a joke.
There is a chapter on the theory and roots of neoconservatism. And we see Allan Bloom react to the university student culture of the 1960s. Bloom is quoted as saying (about this culture) that "never in history has there been such a marvelous correspondence between the good and the pleasant." And in fact, that is clearly one of the drivers for the neoconservative reaction.
Obviously, one major aspect of liberalism is the notion of equality of opportunity. However, that concept can simply degrade into the idea of "equality" in all things. And that's not a reasonable or practical political philosophy. Murray quotes William Kristol's complaints about a philosophy of equality here.
Murray cites one major incident that brought neoconservative ideas into the political forefront, namely the absurd and wicked United Nations resolution that (in 1975) equated Zionism with racism. Daniel Moynihan spoke as UN ambassador in opposition to this travesty. He explained that if there were no General Assembly, this could never have happened. And that the UN had just granted amnesty and more to the murderers of six million European Jews. And that the UN would now be regarded by many as "a place where lies are told."
Murray, to his credit, points out some aspects of this resolution that were especially significant to neoconservatives. First, it supplied surprisingly strong evidence that "world government was a dangerous and potentially tyrannical concept, giving, as it did, equal significance to freedom and tyranny, equivalent significance to right and wrong." Second, it was clear evidence that a "moral inversion" was indeed taking place; "vast swathes of the West's population, as well as their representatives, were proving incapable of telling truth from lies." And third, many supposedly reasonable people appeared persuaded by this nonsense, which allowed aggressors to "masquerade as victims."
There is some interesting material on America's reaction to the terrorism of September 11, 2001. Here, Murray quotes Robert Kagan, who says that American did not change that day; it just became "more itself." I pretty much agree here. Meanwhile, some opponents of neoconservatives have represented neoconservatism as a Jewish conspiracy (this seems strikingly like an old idea that some thought had gone out of fashion in 1945). And these sorts of accusations have been common within the anti-war movement, with some people blaming the war on a pro-Israeli lobby. My feeling about all this is that such comments ignore the three major facts: America's top policymakers are not Jewish, America's Jews tend to be more anti-war than the non-Jews, and the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq have done little to benefit Israel.
Murray then gets into the topic of moral relativism. This is a serious issue where I think both conservatives and liberals can go astray. Conservatives do risk becoming too intolerant of different (but possibly useful or enlightening) ideas. Liberals want to be more inclusive and tolerant, but that puts us at risk of becoming overly tolerant and refusing to oppose outright falsehoods or totally counterproductive behavior.
The author reminds us of the importance of valuing truth, quoting Marianne Talbot, who warns us against believing that "to suggest that someone else is wrong is at best rude and at worst immoral." Yes, one should always "be alive to the possibility that one is wrong," but one should avoid falling into the trap of thinking that "one should never be so arrogant as to believe that one is right." That's good advice.
We go from there to obvious concerns that those who fall into this trap are failing to discern the difference between "cultural defense and cultural aggression." And Murray quotes Francis Fukuyama as warning that this could create "no barriers to a future nihilistic war against liberal democracy on the part of those brought up in its bosom."
Plenty of "peace activists" have strongly criticized the war on Iraq. That's fine, but where are their counterproposals? As the author explains, they had no solutions to the Iraqi menace. That is a controversial statement, but I agree with Murray here. On the other hand, maybe there is a solution proposed by peace activists. John Pilger has recommended supporting the Iraqi "resistance." Well, that's an easy way to avoid fighting terrorists! But it seems to me to make one a Hawk: the terrorists favor a gratuitous war against the West. Not all true peace activists might want to do that! The fact that some "peace activists" do take this position merely convinces me that they were Hawks from the start.
We also see Murray criticize a similar "solution" to the problem of what to do about the Arab aggression against Israel: join it!
Murray does have some recommendations. My favorite of them is his warning that the UN is not the answer to any of these problems.
The author says that in Rotterdam, a painting of a dove with the comment "Thou shalt not kill," designed to protest the murder of Theo van Gogh, was ordered removed by the local police on the grounds that "the message was an incitement and racist." I think that incidents of this sort show that we all have some work to do in figuring out how to defend not just "Western" society but global society against those who would wreck it.
I recommend this book.
|
|
|
16 of 20 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent analysis of neoconservatism, June 4, 2007
I'm not a neoconservative, but Murray almost converted me with this book. This is a terrific read. Murray explains what neoconservatism actually is, not what many misinformed people think it is. He takes on anti-Semites like Pat Buchanan and shows that they are lying about the neoconservatives' motives, showing their own bigotry in the process. Murray clearly shows that neocons are not primarily motivated by love of Israel, but by a desire for morality in foreign policy and love of democracy.
My only quibble with Murray is his suggestion that we cut taxes when we need revenue for the war against Islamist fanaticism. Notwithstanding that, I highly recommend Neoconservatism: Why we need it.
|
|
|
21 of 28 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
a call for democracy, September 3, 2006
Douglas Murray has written a book that is easy to read and understand. I always favor books on timely and serious subjects that appeal to the widest possible readership. Such writing is definitely in need at this crucial point in history. I admire Murray's book, generally agree with it, and think it is important as part of the ongoing discussion about how to proceed in our dangerous world.
The first chapter is used to provide a brief history of neoconservatism from its origins in the thought of 20th Cent. political philosopher, Leo Strauss. Murray provides an overview of Strauss's political theory, but wisely refers the reader to Strauss's work rather than getting bogged down in the complexities of this profound thinker. To oversimplify, Strauss believed there is a "natural right" within human beings and human history which make it "self evident" that democracy is the best form of governance for individual freedom, happiness and fulfillment.
In the remaining three chapters Murray takes the gloves off. Exposition gives way to exhortation. It becomes increasingly a polemic and a call to action. It calls for a return to unalloyed belief in democracy and the discarding of the nihilistic "multi-culturism" and "moral relativism" concepts that clutter the minds of liberal and leftist intellectual elites.
Murray intersperses his polemic with numerous historical examples so his ideas are well grounded in the realities of world politics. He doesn't put it in these terms, but it's almost as if the question of the day is: if not democracy, then what? There aren't that many choices in political governance. Socialism is a bygone fantasy, and that leaves basically only democracy or one of the variants of autocracy that plague the world with backwardness and threats of violence and destruction.
Douglas Murray has done all that can be done to rehabilitate neoconservatism as the only viable political option for our times. But can the theory be put into practice? So far the experiment in Iraq has been unpromising. But can political thinkers as well as politicians afford to sit on the sidelines and take a "wait and see" attitude? Or worse yet, duck and run for cover? If Murray is right politicians and intellectuals must join the battle for world-wide democracy with words and actions. Our attitude must be hopeful and optimistic, rather than hopeless and defeatist.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Irving Kristol
by Robert Kagan
by Jacob Heilbrunn
