NEOCONSERVATISM: An Obituary for an Idea 1st Edition

Prior to reading this book, I had loosely considered neoconservatism to be rehash of 20th century Democratic Party foreign policy. Similarly, I had considered Big Government Conservatism to be merely a repackaging of Rockefeller Republicanism. Neoconservatism - An Obituary for an Idea has profoundly altered those views, and did so in a very systematic, comprehensive, and plausible manner. My former lazy notion that the term neoconservatism was simply "hype" has now been laid to rest.

Lest one categorize this book as strictly a political account, the author states his primary focus to be "the philosophical essence of neoconservatism" (p. 6). Although there is also ample illustrative treatment of its contemporary political manifestations, emphasis on the underlying philosophical bases for neoconservatism serves to establish and characterize its ideological credentials. In consequence, the pivotal element in the neoconservative creed, as expropriated largely from Leo Strauss, is seen to be a somewhat tortured synthesis of Platonic idealism and Machiavellian realism. This reduces to "Platonic ends achieved by Machiavellian means" (p. 227).

Given the dubious if not unpalatable core tenets of neoconservatism, it is not surprising that its proponents/practitioners are evasive or disingenuous regarding its nature/goals. "They resist any attempt to...identify or define...their views" (p.15), which is mainly why this book is so important. In part, neocons obscure its ideological nature, strategies, and doctrine via a two-level formulation that distinguishes a purportedly wise and beneficent ruling elite (theory level) from an inherently base citizenry (practice level). Here, the ruling elite is composed of philosophers, their specially trained statesman, and to some extent by their surrogates. In turn, the allegedly hapless citizens are subsumed into the pitiable organic whole of society, which must be managed by the ruling elite primarily for the good of the state.

The neocon ideological doctrine/strategies per se are shown to be strictly the esoteric province of the philosophers and their anointed statesman. The intended homogenous society is then privy to just exoteric propaganda, directives, obligations, and constraints that are bestowed on it, primarily for the good of the governing state. Secondarily, society is held to benefit by its relegation to a managed collective life granted unto it by the all-knowing/all-controlling state. Welcome to the "new managerial State" (p. 226).

In all, appreciable detail and disturbing implications of the neocon ideology are convincingly explicated in the book. In consequence, the thrust of this ideological formulation is shown necessarily to entail the demise of the traditional/constitutional form of US governance as well as the repudiation of the principles of American conservatism per se. Ultimately, the underlying premises and the consolidated esoteric doctrine of neoconservatism would seem to be wholly repugnant and fatuous to all traditional Americans and to all persons who value liberty and the rights of individual citizens.

To render the author's characterization and analysis of the neoconservative ideology more tangible, there are ample illustrations of neocon influence at the highest levels of government, mainly through leverage within the Republican Party. Perhaps the most significant is the neocon domination of President George Bush's foreign policy, notably with regard to the Iraqi War. After their decisive role in initiating the war, the neocons enacted an indecisive mode of conducting it: foolishly restrictive rules of engagement; the policy of not pursuing outright military victory; and largely free reign for the Iraqis to disdain our "benevolence" following the war. This prominent exercise in orthodox neocon foreign policy is also examined in Claes Ryn's The New Jacobinism.

Many thanks to Professor Thompson for his thoughtful, thorough, and compelling examination of neocon ideology, and his exemplification of neoconservatism in practice. It probably took as much fortitude as scholarly endeavor to expose the actual nature and ends of this powerful and pervasive ideology. The insights he offers render the interpretation and understanding of Washington politics much clearer. Accordingly, my observations of the failures and dysfunction there are now rather less perplexing. To wit: the counter-productive results issuing from Washington are largely explainable in terms of the common goals of both the progressives AND the neocons. In the words of their prophet and godfather Irving Kristol, neocons seek "liberal ends...achieved through conservative means" (p. 26).

Great read on the shortcomings and downright failures of the NeoCon movement and how it is anything but conservative. It’s a political philosophy book and not the easiest read. Just be prepared. I thoroughly enjoyed it

Up to this point I have found 2 types of documents to help me expose the "Masters of Deceit" in the so-called Neoconservative movement. One, of course, is the writings of those who admit to being leaders in the movement -- like Irving Kristol. The second is careful researchers like Dr. Ron Paul and the Publisher of The New American magazine, John F. McManus.

But C. Bradley Thompson is a third type of source -- a long-time Neoconservative himself -- who became disgusted with the deceit involved and decided to blow the whistle on all his Neoconservative friends and associates in this heavily documented book. He tells us the purpose for his book right up front: "I have written this book to alert Americans -- and especially those who value our nation's founding principles -- to the threat posed to this country by neoconservatism,

And on the very last page he charges the Neoconservatives with being "the false prophets of Americanism" and "America's Trojan Horse".

After studying this book by C. Bradley Thompson, I (1) appreciate his honesty, and (2) urge all Americans to learn from this courageous whistleblower that "Neoconservatives" should be more properly be called "pretend conservatives" -- those who seek to lead their own opposition so that can throw the game to those who want to promote socialism and expansionism. (Experience has shown us that we can't afford either -- and that having bases all around the globe creates resentment in other nations. How would we feel if some foreign country established permanent military bases in Florida, for example?)

DonFolkers@gwi.net Dartmouth '59

This is an extremely valuable book for anybody who wants to understand the lack of a principled defense of capitalism, individual rights and a rational morality in the conservative movement.