Neoconservatism, since its revival in the popular consciousness after 9/11, is often misunderstood. It defies old-fashioned classification as either idealist or realist, being in many ways both. Most often, it is used as a general, usually derogatory, term to describe the policies of the Bush administration. This association, while in some ways accurate, often is not. Using it as such a simplistic political label is misleading. It disregards the ideology’s classical liberal origin and basis, its history as offshoot from the Democratic party in the United States, and the guiding political and philosophic principles it retains today. Even the term “ideology” itself could use some clarification, being often misunderstood in a similar way: as a rigid, blind dogma, rather than as a set of underlying ideas or philosophical principles on which logical political argument can be based.
In a long but eminently readable article for Commentary magazine, republished in the Wall Street Journal, Joshua Muravchik, who has been closely associated with the neoconservative movement and its central figures, does a remarkably clear and comprehensive job of describing what neoconservatism really is and where it’s at. First he explains its origins and principles. Then he sets the record straight on a number of misconceptions and fallacies. Finally, he analyses its current vitality in the light of both global and American domestic politics. Many commentators — including some neoconservatives themselves — have declared neoconservatism dead, or at least irreparably damaged by the failures and complications of the war in Iraq. Muravchik begs to differ. He concludes that as political ideology, is still the only game in town.
It’s essential reading, in my view. Especially if you want to understand, for example, why neoconservatives think the way they do, or why I’m not afraid to describe myself as one, despite the popular opprobrium with which the label is used, and despite my deep affinity with libertarian economics.
