Customer Reviews

NeoConservatism: Why We Need It

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

The term 'Neo-Conservative' is now a term of reprobation in most American political discourse. The 'neo-cons' are taken to be responsible for the highly problematic war in Iraq. Legitimate fair critics of the Neo- Cons are unfortunately outshouted by radical left, often Anti- Semitic critics of the neo- Cons who ridicuously accuse Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney of being servants of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith.
Murray's book comes not specifically as a defense of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq but rather as an effort to outline the basic Neo- Con position, and to argue that it is the right one for the people of the West to take. He devotes his first chapter to an outline of the thought of the principal theoretician of Neo-Con thought Leo Strauss. The bulk of the book is devoted to outlining Neo- Con thought in international and domestic areas.
Peter Berkowitz in his highly favorable review of this book in the 'Weekly Standard' writes of it as follows:

"In contrast to traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are more comfortable with capitalism, always accepted the moral and political necessity of the welfare state, and consistently sought a prominent role for America in creating a stable and just international order.
In contrast to progressives, neoconservatives are more concerned about the costs of modernity's disruptive ways to the family and traditional morality, strongly doubt the ability of the federal government to improve America through higher taxes and more aggressive social policies, and are skeptical of the integrity and efficacy of the United Nations, while maintaining confidence in the ability of the American armed forces, when diplomacy is exhausted, to advance American interests and ideals."

Berkowitz goes on to to say that Murray shows how Neo- Conservatism is a new kind of Conservative thought aimed at and placing greater emphasis on America's leading role in the world.

However difficult the situation may be in Iraq, and it certainly seems like a no- win situation now , even to many who supported the original incursion Murray's thesis is that the Neo-Conservative ideology is the one which will best serve the U.S. and the world in the years ahead.

My reservation would be - With less arrogance, with less certainty, with more caution, with more consideration of what other peoples and other worlds are about - and with greater understanding that one can wholly hope to improve the world and not to dramatically transform it overnight.

What does the West stand for, and is it worth fighting for? These are the fundamental questions that relate to neoconservatism; a school of thought that has found itself both increasingly relevant and voraciously attacked in recent years. Despite this onslaught, Douglass Murray has managed to present an extremely convincing defence of neoconservatism, as well as presenting a damning expose of the irrationality, naivety and often blatant stupidity of those who continue to misrepresent and oppose it.

Effortlessly debunking the tired anti-Semitic canard that neoconservatism represents a secretive Jewish cabal, Murray traces the origins of what is essentially a general way of perceiving the international political landscape. The origins of the term are traced back to the mid 20th Century with a split in the Left, and Leo Strauss, Allan Bloom and Irving Kristol emerging as the intellectual leaders of an offshoot claiming to have been 'mugged by reality'. Horrified by the brutal tyranny of USSR, and disgusted by the nihilism of the 1960's counterculture, this group endeavoured to form a new conservatism, arguing for the inherent
goodness in Western civilisation and the necessity to adopt a hostile, interventionist approach against its enemies.

For Leo Strauss, the enemy was Communism. September 11th dramatically exposed a new enemy; one that caught many traditional conservatives by surprise. Murray destroys the paranoid fantasies of those who accuse neoconservatives of using 9/11 to further a hawkish agenda, pointing out that the vast majority of those who lent their support to the War on Terror, including the liberation of Iraq, were not previously considered to be interventionists. Why the change? Because the status quo changed.

Douglass Murray does not waste his words. There is an enemy plotting to destroy the West. But what is the West? Murray broadly defines it the society that has been broadly shaped by a Judeo-Christian tradition, the Enlightenment and the values of liberal democracy. It is these values that the West holds to be precious that are under attack, and nothing other than the destruction of these enemies will do. The paeloconservative limited strategy of defence is not enough. Neither is cant regarding cultural sensitivity It requires no effort to see the barbarity that predominates the Middle-east. Those that deny this, or ethically equate it with the West, are telling falsehoods. This loathsome habit of equalising good and evil explains the antipathy felt by neoconservatives towards the United Nation, and an anecdote involving Daniel Moynihan fiercely exposing prominent anti-Israel liars at the UN demonstrates that any organisation claiming to equally represent democracies and totalitarian regimes must be viewed as, at best, useless.

Neoconservatism holds that the West is worth for fighting for. For Murray, neoconservativism is not merely another political theory. It relates to the very survival of the values we cherish against a growing onslaught. And Murray shows that we do need it.

I found this an excellent book and I gained a lot of information and opinions.

Murray does an excellent job of demonstrating the broad foundational conceptions of the ideology by virtue of historical chronology, philosophical application, and the political implications involved. He also discusses at great length the esoteric nature of the ideology in relation to the popular misconceptions of it which are pervasive. Neoconservatism offers a dynamic, cohesive, and comprehensive vision for the future that is premised out of the realities of the modern era, and the eternal rights which were self-evident to the founding fathers of America. Unlike mainstream conservatism, neoconservatism is not fixated on the politics of nostalgia but is in contrast almost entirely focused on the future, and has a captivating, intellective, as well as convincing vision for it. Perhaps the most appealing aspect of neoconservatism is the intellectual diversity within the ideology that is only binded together by a broad set of principles that all neoconservatives agree upon.

A criticism would be that Murray only briefly touches upon the famed 'New York Intellectuals' which Irving Kristol was a part of, and never directly mentions them specifically from what I can remember. Additionally, Murray could have spent more time discussing the intellectual evolution of Kristol from his original far-left ideological predilections, which were predominant early in his life.

Douglas Murray begins by stating that neoconservatisms way of looking at the world is based on intolerant fundamentalism because much modern thought is tolerant of open discussions and opinions.

Murray then gets into the topic of moral relativism. Allan Bloom's reaction from his Closing the American Mind, brought an attack on those who failed to polarize their ideas, claiming liberals fail to see what is evil. I disagree. Equality does not have to exist in all things to oppose absolutism, intolerance and neoconservative manipulations.

Murray cites one major incident that brought neoconservative ideas into the political forefront, namely the United Nations resolution that in 1975 it equated Zionism with racism.

Murray feels the UN had supplied evidence that having a world government is dangerous, while the neocons support unilateral absolute executive powers. It is obvious to me that the later is far more closer to despotism. The claim that the West could not tell the truth from lies I find as the denial of democracy in favor of closed ended decisions (tyranny).

Murray quotes Robert Kagan, who says that Americans did not change on 9/11 but became more itself; I disagree, rather it brought out the fear tactics and a police state with a Patriot Act, a Military Commisions Act and attack on civil liberties now with a premptive war footing equal to Nazi Germany.

Some opponents of neoconservatives are antisemic, claiming a Jewish conspiracy, but the majority are not this way, but are critical of despotic rule and intolerant military actions.

The author seems to be devaluing truth into an absolute of polarized manachean theology. It is a sad frame of mind, the mindset of the neocons, where everyone and anyone who dares to disagree commits treason.

Peace activists have strongly criticized the war on Iraq. Murray asks where are their counterproposals. They are there, but Murray can not see them because of his fundamental and polarized mindset in good verses evil. The neocons can only see black and white, zero tolerance, not the gray areas, like lying about WMDs and the lack of evidence of the Irag and Al-Queda connections, facts where only the blind, ignorant and bullies ignore.

Enough with this review. Screw the neocons! I love democracy!

Upon examination, this book looks like an other attempt at political manipulation, at flattering our vanity, in order to excite us into becoming imperial. The author's perception is founded on an assumed superiority of Westerners, a belief that Westerners often learn since early childhood. But this self-conceit goes much father here: he thinks he's got it right on one international issue after another. It's hard to deal with such people; they mask their biases or ignorance by pre-emptively declaring their opponents ignorant. So, there is a lot of scorn here.

I always feel suspicious when foreigners come here to flatter us as if we are the last hope for the West. They urge us to adopt particular positions. Sometimes the manipulation may be in our interest (as was the case in the 1930s when the Brits manipulated America to enter WWII). But manipulation is underhanded, so you better be wary of it. If we need any exhortation now, it should be to become less ignorant of the world, less hastily judgmental of those we don't even understand, less dismissive of those we imply to be ignorant. A significant fraction of the country is happily predisposed to judge those who are foreign as inferior, irrational, or some mindless terrorists who want to bite us for no good reason.

In other words, I would be less wary of an author who exhorts me to be informed, discerning, and cautious than someone who is flattering my base instincts to apply blind force. I'd rather be more educated about the history, perspective, and real motivations of "terrorists" than to be a knee-jerked ass-kicker, a self-righteous bomb-dropper. Before dropping bombs on people one does not really understand, it's better to learn to understand them first.

However, the author has a few reasonable thoughts here and there, too. What he says about immigration should be food for thought for those whose take on immigration is mere love for the underdog (let them in because they are poor).