Customer Reviews

The Neocon Reader

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

 

 

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.

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.

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.

After reading Irving Kristol's books, this was a big disappointment. With the exception of the essays by Irving Kristol, this book is a waste of your time. If you are interested in learning about neoconservatism, grab a book by Irving Kristol. This "reader" is junk.

If nothing else the neo-conservatives talk a good game and can lay out some fairly compelling arguments. The problem is that when you delve beyond the surface rhetoric things fall apart pretty quickly. Neo-cons argue that they were the ones who stood most resolute against Communism and now they are the ones promoting the strongest possible response to Islamic Fundamentalists who threaten our borders. Problem is the centerpiece of their stance against Islamic terrorism is against a country that was secularist, presented no credible threat to U.S. security and wasn't even on the lengthy list of countries harboring Al-Qaeda. Writers in the `Neocon Reader' try to differentiate themselves from the Left by claiming to have abandoned `Leftist utopian dreams' but all you need to do is listen to neo-cons like Paul Wolfowitz to hear fantasies spill forth of Iraqi's showering our troops in flowers and a domino effect sweeping across the Middle East. The predictions of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld were so removed from reality that it takes some serious brass for the author, Irwin Stelzer, to put out a book proclaiming the wisdom of the neo-con movement. Now that the war has turned into a complete debacle the neo-cons take the low road by shifting the blame onto the administration and in Adam Wolson's section of the book hedge their bets by claiming, " [neo-conservativism] has never produced a single approach to foreign policy. It [neo-conservativism] is... not an ideology with party-like planks on every issue of the day but an intellectual disposition.". The insistence that neo-conservativism is a persuasion rather than an ideology in order to deflect criticism is growing tiresome and cowardly.

On the domestic side the neo-cons puff out their collective chests for being pro-growth. Whoop de doo. Who isn't? The problem with the neo-cons is that they are often pathologically pro-growth. Reducing fuel efficiency standards on automobiles may sell more cars in Detroit but the long term effects could be devastating. If increasing the GDP requires damaging the environment, driving the country deep into debt and reducing worker benefits was it all worth it? The neo-con view seems to be that raising the GDP will be the panacea for all social ills despite the fact that the wealth of the nation is often moving into fewer and fewer hands. Bill Clinton used to use the metaphor of a rising tide raising all the boats. The truth is that many boats rise up by pushing others down. Just look at the Walton family with 5 members having assets in the top ten nationwide thanks to cheap labor.

Another domestic pathology is the belief that lowering taxes on the wealthy (neo-cons generally ignore mentioning that the linchpin of the theory is that the tax cuts target the wealthy) will spur a magical industrial renaissance. The theory is that the increase in private savings will spur an increase in corporate investment and that will cause a modernization bonanza and happy days for all. After three massive tax the indicator of corporate investment (the stock market) continues to languish. So where did all the money go? None of your business. The neo-cons are too busy and wise to actually reflect whether their theories match reality.

In a final act of cowardice the neo-cons try to downplay their political influence to imply it's negligible at best. It's true that the Bush Administration has few card carrying neo-cons (`Scooter' Libby is one) but they do have converts like Rumsfeld and Cheney. The Pentagon, on the other hand, is flush with neo-cons helping to shape policy. As much as the neo-cons would love to play the shrinking violet they seem unable to reign in their own ego's and constantly feel compelled to list their formidable ranks which flies right in the face of their `don't blame little old us' argument.

In the section written by Jeane Kirkpatrick she says that she moved away from the traditional left during the early to mid 70's thanks to the `anti-american' views expressed by leftists. Quoting Michael Novak she writes, "As matters stand, we are just a few short years from being a pariah nation". Ironically it wasn't the left that made the United States a pariah nation it was the very arrogant, bullying tactics advocated by the neo-cons who so loath international treaties, negotiations and multinational organizations. The United States is in the midst of the lowest worldwide approval ever. Thanks Neo-Cons.

They are, thankfully, on the way out. But for an overview of what they think on a range of issues, this is an effective showcase selected by one of their own. It is a political cul de sac that leads nowhere and one has to ask: what do the necons have against democracy? Because that is, despite the closet full of disguises, essentially what they are railing against.

If you agree with them, the book is of course brilliant. If you disagree with them, the book is a waste of paper.

Since I do not agree with them, and wanted to learn their arguments, I thought it was a waste of paper. It seemed more like a collection of chatechismic provebs that social analysis, but then, much of the liberals, radicals, moderates essays suffer from the same ineffable quality.

The book is a waste of paper because readers might better read books such as Prestowitz's Three Billion New Capitalists, or Peterson's Running on Empty to encounter an intelligent and conservative critique of our nation today.

"The neo-conservatives run the Pentagon", so says one commentator recently. From the news reports, no matter how distorted they might be, and from some of the literature that has been pouring forth from those who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, one could believe the commentator's statement. They exude great confidence in their philosophy, provocative as it is, and they are unashamed of presenting it with gusto. But underneath their rhetoric and bombast one observes a conspicuous absence: the absence of the (Sartrian) belief that philosophy and action are one. Indeed, they are comfortable with putting pen to paper, and consequently whipping up hysteria and zeal for armed conflict, but they do not participate in that conflict. Readers will find an excellent compilation of their philosophies in this collection of articles and excellent examples of intellectual and moral cowardice. Space and time prohibit a detailed overview of them, so attention will be drawn to the two worst of them (the weighting scheme used by this reviewer to judge this was very difficult):

In his article "Beyond the Axis of Evil: Additional Threats from Weapons of Mass Destruction", John R. Bolton discusses what he considers to be the greatest threat to national security, namely state sponsorship of terrorists that use weapons of mass destruction. The article states the obvious, and has many unsubstantiated claims. One of these is the assertion that Iraq has developed, produced, and stockpiled biological warfare agents and weapons. In addition, they have developed, produced, and stockpiled chemical weapons. Also, Syria has been known to have a chemical warfare program. And Cuba has a well-developed biomedical industry, and that the US "believes" that Cuba has a limited biological warfare research and development effort. How does Bolton know all these things? What kinds of biological agents did they develop and how much of them did they have? What kinds of chemical agents? Bolton gives no references and the skepticism of this reviewer regarding these claims increased after completing the article. One fact though is beyond dispute: Bolton has not yet volunteered for military service to help America win "the fight to root out and destroy terror." He states in this article that America is leading this fight. Perhaps, but America is doing it without his assistance on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. Bolton, like so many others of his persuasion, has excused himself from doing the real fighting. His hands are too shaky and his intestinal fortitude too lacking for such an endeavor.

But by far the best example of vague and floating abstractions comes in the article by Condoleezza Rice entitled "The President's National Security Strategy". Rice is a Lieutenant Keefer with XX chromosomes, a person who keeps her skirts nice and starched and clean, even in the Iraq War. One will not find any Iraqi sand embedded into the fibers of her crisp, designer suits. What one will find, and this is exemplified perfectly in this article, is a capacity for stating much but proving little. She speaks of "existential threats", of the "crystallization" of our vulnerabilities after 9/11 and of threats being "fully materialized." These are certainly colorful metaphors, and an example of a sterile intellect hiding behind tact and prudence. They are never defined or subject to clarification, in spite of her statement in the article that "clarity is a virtue." Clarity is not to be found in this article, but what can be found is language that smoothes over the perturbations that real facts can induce when presented to an administration that is unprepared and ill-equipped mentally to deal with them. Rice speaks against the tension between the `realistic' and `idealistic' schools of foreign affairs, and asserts "these categories obscure reality." Her grasp of reality and facts though seems shaky at best, totally obscuring historical realities. This is readily apparent when she states that "we do not seek to impose democracy on others." Considering the carnage in the illegal and immoral war against Iraq, a war that Rice made happen and steadfastly supports, to make it a "stable democracy", this is indeed an odd statement to make, and is indicative of how shielded Rice is from the true realities of the world.

Indeed, throughout this book you will find a sizable collection of trembling hands, weak intellects, and yellow abdomens. But one thing you will not find in the book is an article that implores those in the neo-conservative camp to sign up for combat duty in the military. Nay, you will not find such an article, nor one that implores the sons and daughters of these individuals to do the same. They leave the horrors of warfare to those that do not think or act like they do.