|
The essence of neoconservatism
I have said all along that what defines neoconservatism is the belief that America is a universal idea, not a concrete entity. But the “proposition nation” idea is itself the expression of a more general characteristic of the neoconservatives’ mindset. The essence of the neoconservatives is that they are modern, rationalist liberals. I intend “rationalist” in the Michael Oakeshottian sense of people who grasp reality by means of simplified verbal formulae and think reality can be organized and re-organized on the basis of such formulae. Such rationalism is of course not the same as rationality, which means the attempt to understand and articulate truth in its fullness. These rationalist liberals, these men without chests, moderate in their instincts, and as uncomfortable with any notion of a higher truth as they are with political extremism, were horrified by the leftward lurch of liberalism in the Sixties, and so became “neoconservatives.” But at bottom they remained rationalist liberals. The view of neoconservatives as rationalist liberals explains so much. It explains not only why neoconservatives have no “feel” for nationhood other than as the incarnation of abstract universalist freedom and material well being; it explains why they are so appallingly tone-deaf on any subject that is not a matter of pure logic or social policy, on any subject requiring sensitivity and nuance. With utter predictability, they get things wrong. One example was Richard Brookhiser’s television program on George Washington, in which, in the name of extolling Washington, he reduced him to a set of static virtues, completely missing the incredible drive, dynamism, and complexity of the man. Another, more recent, example is David Brooks’s wildly inapt reference to the Bible in his New York Times op-ed column supporting homosexual marriage, in which, as hard as this is to believe, he treats the story of Naomi and Ruth as a symbol of homosexual marriage (!). Then there’s Terry Teachout, the neocons’ favorite culture maven. In one article, Teachout bifurcates culture into George Balanchine on one side and Fred Astaire on the other, with Balanchine as an exemplar of high art and Astaire as an exemplar of a uniquely American popular art (though Teachout likes and admires pop art), rather than as a high artist in his own right. (In reality, Balanchine greatly admired Astaire and based much of his own sublime choreographic style on Astaire’s.) I would venture to say that Teachout’s myopia on this point comes from the fact that as a modern rationalist, as an intellectual epicurian, as a consumer of “culture goods,” he doesn’t see things whole, but in easily digestible categories expressed by rationalist formulae, such as pop versus high. A neocon cannot see a Fred Astaire as he truly is, which is transcendent, outside any simple categorization. Neocons have no soul, and so they can’t see art whole, or culture whole, or meaning whole.
They also can’t see morality whole. Which is why, in defending marriage from the homosexualists, they come up with bizarre formulae such as that the main justification for marriage is that men are savages who need to be domesticated by women. Then, in turn, a David Brooks comes along and rejects that rationalist formula for an even more perversely reductive rationalist formula in favor of homosexual marriage, namely that (I’m paraphrasing here) “people can love each other with no reference to their bodies, their sex, their genes, etc. etc.” Indeed, it’s as though Brooks had applied the “universal democratic nation” idea to sexual and marital love. Just as all people in the world are the same, and therefore all people in the world are ready for American-style democracy (a quintessential rationalist formula if there ever was one), so all persons, regardless of their sex, have a common human essence, and so can love each other in a sexual but at the same time deeply spiritual way. Such grotesque notions could not arise from any whole and—in the true sense of the word—rational apprehension of reality. They arise from a self-interested desire to grab onto some verbal formula that can be easily digested, easily manipulated, and easily promoted as the basis for a political ideology and the advancement of one’s career and power. Comments
“The essence of neoconservatives is that they are modern, rationalist liberals. I mean that term in the Michael Oakeshottian sense of people who grasp reality by means of simplified verbal formulae and think reality can be organized and re-organized on the basis of such formulae.” We seem to be having similar thoughts today. I just wrote a post trying to express something along those lines. The idea of a “simplified verbal formulae” really seems to capture what I was trying to get at better than I did. http://thrasymachus.typepad.com/thras/2003/12/against_rationa.html I have never read Oakeshott. Where does he develop this idea? I am very interested in reading more about it. In his famous essay, “Rationalism in politics,” which is in “Rationalism in politics and other essays,” from Liberty Press. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on December 2, 2003 12:40 AMThis definition of the neoconservative essence is right on the mark. Everything is reduced to a rationalist/materialist point of view. The neocon is fundamentally incapable of comprehending the transcendent - the acknowledgment that a nation, a symphony, a novel, or anything - is greater than the sum of its individual parts. Posted by: Carl on December 2, 2003 1:19 AMIf the neocons are such rationists/materialists, why are they so in favor of open borders when it is clear that the millions of unskilled, multiculturalist, often non-English speaking immigrants coming into this country are not contributing anywhere near what they are taking in education, health, law enforcement, and other government services? In fact, many neocons resort to calling immigration restrictionists—even those who argue mainly from a rationalist/materialist standpoint as I do—“racists” and “xenophobes” and other touchy-feely, irrational nonsense. The softness of many neocons on issues like judicial activism and ballooning spending is also mystifying if the neocons are viewed to be rationalist and materialist. I understand that you are saying that the neocons are rationalist as opposed to rational, but many of the common neocon positions seem indefensible by any view that could be considered rationalist or materialist. I don’t see anything rational about opening the borders to a huge underclass that cannot support itself, nor do I see anything rational (from a ‘conservative’ viewpoint anyway) about supporting increased government spending. Posted by: Matt W. on December 2, 2003 2:11 AMMatt W has asked a good question. In my answer, I’ll treat neoconservatives (and modern conservatives generally) on the assumption that they are sincere and idealistic in what they believe rather than self-seeking and cynical. Modern conservatives _do_ believe in something higher and transcendent; in fact, this is the very thing that makes them seem like conservatives instead of liberals. But—and here’s the catch—the transcendent that they believe in is not the “full” transcendent believed in by traditionalists, i.e., the structure of existence in its natural, cultural, and spiritual dimensions, but only an abstract _idea_, the idea of universal equality and freedom. This is the modern conservatives’ religion. So each immigrant who comes over the border, each country where we attempt to implant “democracy,” the modern conservative sees as the fulfilment of a transcendent ideal. That’s why he’s indifferent to the actual effect of immigration on our culture. Culture has no transcendence for him, and nation has no transcendence for him, _except_ insofar as it is an incarnation of a universal democratic project to advance the equal rights and freedoms and opportunities of all men. In short, the modern conservative is a romantic in regard to the one, narrow dimension of the transcendent that he relates to (the universal idea of democracy), but a reductive materialist in regard to everything else. For more on this, see my article, “Immigration and Multiculturalism: Why are the conservatives silent?” http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/000637.html Posted by: Lawrence Auster on December 2, 2003 2:41 AMI appreciate Mr. Auster’s reference to C. S. Lewis’ profound essay _The Abolition of Man_, in which he writes, “Such is the tragi-comedy of our condition — we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.” Rationalist liberals are indeed men without chests. Posted by: Paul Cella on December 2, 2003 10:17 AMInteresting to compare in this context is Hayek’s view of “constructive rationalism” - the failure to realize that we live within a complex order that is not of our making, and that embodies wisdom we cannot fully comprehend, and the belief that all human activity is subject to rational analysis and determination. I believe that the neocons follow the shallow enlightenment view of man as a blank slate, perfectible through proper rationalistic intervention. They are heirs to Condorcet and Godwin, not Burke or Adam Smith, to give an example or two. They retain in common with the Left an essential Jacobinism. Posted by: thucydides on December 2, 2003 12:04 PMYou should enter the most inspiring and resourceful |