The Neocon Reader [Paperback]

Irwin Stelzer (Editor)

Book Description

Publication Date: November 19, 2004

Although neo-conservatism isn't new, the term is widely misapplied, and neo-conservative foreign and domestic policies are little understood. In this anthology of essays written by today's leading neocons, columnists, politicians, and other prominent thinkers give a comprehensive overview of neo-conservative ideology in a bold collection of classic and original essays written especially for this book. Contributors include Max Boot, Lady Margaret Thatcher, George Will, and Condoleezza Rice, among others. Editor Irwin Stelzer attempts to dispel many of the myths built up by foreign and some domestic media that have led many Americans to view neo-conservatism as a radical and cohesive movement. Rather, Stelzer seeks to prove neocons are an eclectic group of intellectuals and politicians who agree on some major policy issues but who pride themselves on their individuality. The Neocon Reader provides a collection of the ideas that are exerting enormous influence on American foreign and defense policy, and serves as an important reminder of how a loose-knit band of intellectuals and politicians thought, wrote, and preached their way into the halls of power.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Neoconservatives have formed the first successful American political movement of the 21st century, and this anthology takes a needed step toward identifying the ideas, most of them at least 20 years old, that can be loosely identified as their platform. Though Stelzer, a former American Enterprise Institute resident scholar, points to a diversity of neocon positions in his introduction, most would probably agree with the contributor who considers democracy "a framework to protect, and be protected by, a moral ethos," a belief shaping many of the views on foreign policy found here. Many of the names are familiar: Kristol, Kirkpatrick, Rice, Thatcher, Will, James Q. Wilson. George L. Kelling's famous "Broken Windows" essay (1982), which re-envisions police forces as a means of preserving social order before crime breaks out, is absorbed into the neocon canon in a prominent example of Stelzer's historical reach. The anthology's more significant achievement, however, may be in its presentation of lesser-known views on domestic policy, such as a relative lack of concern over federal deficits. Whether David Brooks and Tony Blair can genuinely be viewed as belonging here may be open to question. Some contributors defensively downplay the movement's influence, while others dwell repeatedly on fringe accusations of neoconservatism's alleged roots in a pro-Israeli cabal. The prevailing tone throughout, though, is one of cautious optimism.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Product Details

• Paperback: 320 pages
• Publisher: Grove Press (November 19, 2004)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0802141935
• ISBN-13: 978-0802141934
• Product Dimensions: 8.9 x 5.8 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 2.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (8 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #790,110 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

34 of 44 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars An informative book, April 4, 2005

By 

Jill Malter ([e-mail]) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Neocon Reader (Paperback)

I'm not a conservative. I'm neither paleoconservative nor neoconservative. I'm a liberal.

Still, this book tells us who the neoconservatives are and gives us a fair sampling of what they say, and what others say about them.

Basically, neoconservatives are former liberals. Most started as Democratic hawks. Some of them were startled by the anti-war Democrats in the 1960s and 1970s, and felt that the anti-war movement went beyond constructive criticism and rejected traditional American attitudes, values, and goals. Others, including many "Scoop Jackson" Democrats, were liberals who wanted to avoid appeasing Soviet tyranny. And some were liberals who were shocked by the treatment of liberal values at the United Nations.

Obviously, none of these people had to leave the Democratic Party to maintain their liberal views. But most did. And I was curious to see what views they wound up with.

One article is about foot patrols by policemen. But this strikes me as an issue anyone might take either side of, liberal or conservative. Another article discusses pornography and censorship. Well, that certainly might get a different reaction from liberals than from conservatives. Still, both sides surely would draw a line somewhere as to what constitutes obscenity. The only question is where.

There is a fascinating article on the deficit. It is pointed out that the deficit only includes money that the government has borrowed and chosen to pay interest on. Social security, which swamps the deficit in size, doesn't count. Neither do America's assets. Even the interest rate is not factored into the size of the deficit in many comparisons. Good points. But what does that have to do with being a liberal or a conservative?

There are a couple of articles telling about the history of Britain in its fight against Napoleon, and against Vichy France, and against the Soviets, and even in Kosovo. That is more like it. And while much of this is simply historical, it is clear that George Bush senior and James Baker were anti-interventionist in the former Yugoslavia (clumsily so, if you ask me), while the neocons are interventionists.

Well, there is one more issue. Many neocons are Jews. And that leads to why I started reading this book in the first place. A friend of mine told me that the neocons got us into the war with Iraq. And said that "some folks are willing to hurt the United States if they can thereby help Israel."

Annoyed, I came up with a, um, jilllike reply:

"I'm willing to help Israel if I can thereby help the United States. Unlike some on the Right who are willing to hurt the United States if they can thereby hurt Israel. And some on the Left who are willing to hurt Israel if they can thereby hurt the United States."

Of course, all these statements go a little too far. We all know that relatively few Americans want to hurt the United States.

Still, we do see some folks imply that the neocons are simply Jews who are more loyal to Israel than to the United States, and who have taken over American foreign policy to boot. That is not accurate, just malicious. Joshua Muravchik's article in this book exposes this for the untruth that it is, and also shows how some in the media (especially the BBC) have tried to propagate this untruth.

Actually, I think the full untruth is that Israel is responsible for causing all Arab hatred of the West, that the war in Iraq is being fought for Israel's sake, and that the ungrateful Israelis don't even help us or thank us. And this seems rather like the claim that the reason some folks opposed the German National Socialists in 1938 was that a Czech conspiracy existed which opposed Germany and had conned many in the West into supporting it rather than doing what was right.

For those who want a little reality and truth about who the neocons are and what they say, I recommend this book.

31 of 53 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars The ideas that shape the world, May 19, 2005

By 

M. Capps Jr. "Right Reader" (Mannheim, Germany) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Neocon Reader (Paperback)

It's clear that some so called readers are not reviewing the book at all, but using amazon as a platform to strike out against the current administration. The book will introduce you to what the neocons have become since Irving Kristol first introduced the terminology to the political language. If that's what you want to know, read it.
I enjoyed it because I share the same philosophies as the neocons and I am a member of the military. That's right. I signed up to do the fighting. Nearly everyone that works for me joined the military after the war on terror began. That's right, after the neocon foreign policy was implemented in full action. So to say that neocons are cowards is a slap in the face to all those who serve with me. We are making great things happen because of the bold philosophy explored in this book. And we believe in what we are doing. After all it is a volunteer Army.
Someone who refers to it as a cowards philosophy doesn't know what a hero is. The progressiveness of introducing liberty to the far reaches of the world needs the intellectuals who come up with the ideas and the muscle that brings those ideas home. Everyone has a role. I'm glad this political leaning is gaining steam and allowing America to find its place in the post cold-war world. Read the book to understand why this philosophy will change the world.

7 of 14 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars From the horse's mouth., March 17, 2006

By 

Andrew (Gainesville, Florida United States) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Neocon Reader (Paperback)

Even if you're a bleeding heart liberal, you should read this book. Actually if you're a bleeding heart liberal, you should definitely read this book. I'm fairly left leaning myself, and I found this book pretty interesting. It's easy and simplistic to regurgitate Michael Moore when debating someone; it's a lot more effective to actually understand where your opponent is coming from.

The quality of essays in this book is extremely uneven. The introduction by Irwin Stelzer is masturbatory crap. If you can get by his drivel, the quality of the book improves markedly. There are some essays written by real neocon heavy hitters. If they can't sell their beliefs, then I doubt that any ditto heads will be able to either.

I think that a lot of the essays in the book have become dated, and some are available for free elsewhere. Any of the essays regarding the motivations for the Iraq War are now embarrassingly wrong.

Despite all the problems with this book, I think that it is still worth reading. The opportunity to read the "best" of what influential neocons have to say is well worth the price.