What it is and how it came about...

Neoconservatives and their influence on American society

September 29, 2003   www.1924.org

Introduction

On July 10th, 2003, Congressman Ron Paul addressing the US House of 
representatives about the influence of the neoconservatives on American 
politics said, ³We got here because ideas do have consequences. Bad 
ideas have bad consequences, and even the best of intentions have 
unintended consequences. We need to know exactly what the philosophic 
ideas were that drove us to this point; then, hopefully, reject them and 
decide on another set of intellectual parameters.²

On August 11th, 2003, Howard Dean, the democrat presidential candidate 
said, ³[President Bush is] an engaging person, but I think for some 
reason he¹s been captured by the neoconservatives around him².

Both statements epitomise the growing sense of unease amongst American 
politicians, presidential candidates, journalists, academics and media 
pundits alike about the mounting influence of the neoconservatives on 
American politics. Neo-conservatism is a relatively unknown school of 
thought amongst American conservatives let alone mainstream thinkers and 
today has become the most powerful intellectual force in American 
politics.

The aim of today¹s presentation is to answer some of the crucial 
questions surrounding the neoconservatives. Who are they? What do they 
believe in? What impact do their ideas have on post September 11 
America? And most important of all- how long will their influence last 
on American politics?

What is conservatism?

Broadly speaking conservatism can be described as a body of ideas, which 
has long shaped western thinking, government and politics. Conservatives 
primarily believe in the preservation of the existing social order. They 
like to call the embodiment of ideas and values which make up the social 
order- tradition. Because of this the conservatives are the natural 
custodians of the interests of the capitalists and other powerful groups 
in society e.g. the aristocracy or the monarchy. To the conservative 
mind tradition outweighs reason and theory when it comes to solving 
problems. Lord Hailsham once said,² An ounce of practice is worth a ton 
of theory². Hence they do not spend time intellectualising about 
problems or producing theory, rather they rely on experience, tradition 
and wisdom to solve problems. 

The conservative¹s loath excessive freedom, as in their view it 
contributes to the disintegration of society. They advocate that through 
strong government institutions freedoms for the people should be 
secured. Neither do they like the concept of utilitarianism or 
individualism as both ideas place self-interest above the welfare of the 
community and family, thereby undermining social responsibility.

The conservatives view religion essential to the moral fabric of 
society. Disraeli once said,² Religion gives politics its meaning and 
dignity². The conservatives believe that rule of law is paramount to 
maintenance of social order and often they call for strict punishments 
to be implemented upon offenders.

The conservatives are champions of free market economy and advocate 
minimum government interference in the market place. However, they do 
believe that the government must be strong and powerful and not huge. 
Furthermore, in their opinion government must be free from bureaucracy.

These are the core ideas that make up the conservative thought in 
western countries like the UK and the US. American conservatism differs 
from British conservatism as it justifies most of its ideas on the 
American history. In America, the Republican Party stands for the 
conservative ideas.

It should also be noted that conservatism is a school of thought and 
there are many flavours of conservatism ­ some of which are moderate, 
while others are very extreme. In American politics, the 
neoconservatives are considered to be on the extreme right of the 
conservative movement.

What are the ideas that make up the neoconservative philosophy?

Neoconservatives are followers of Leo Strauss and are commonly known as 
Straussians. Leo Strauss, a Jew from Nazi German arrived in the US in 
1938 and taught at the New School for Social Research. Later he taught 
at the University of Chicago where he managed to gather about a 100 
Ph.D. students who later became disciples of Straussian philosophy and 
took up important posts in various institutions. The pertinent points of 
the Straussian thought can be summarised as follows:


1. Rejection of modernity and preference to reason over tradition

Straussians believe that pre-modern philosophy is better than post 
modern philosophy i.e. the enlightenment age. The Straussians are 
pre-modern and anti-modern, not in the name of religion (like the 
various forms of religious fundamentalism all over the world) or of 
tradition (like conservatives since Edmund Burke), but in the name of 
reason, of philosophy: an understanding of reason and philosophy 
different from the Enlightenment's. This has two implications. Firstly, 
this mode of thinking is a departure from mainstream conservatism which 
holds tradition in esteem. On the contrary, Straussians consider reason 
to be the only valid form of thinking and despise empirical thought and 
to a lesser degree tradition. Secondly, this brings the Straussians in 
direct conflict with post modern philosophers who consider pre-modern 
philosophers outmoded and irrelevant. Hence Straussian draw heavily on 
philosophers such as Plato, Hobbs and Locke etc

2. Philosophers are the natural rulers of society

The teachings of Leo Strauss place great emphasis on impressing 
philosophical ideas to society. In essence his teachings can only be 
described as political philosophy, where power is necessary to implement 
the ideas upon society.

Strauss also stressed the need re-interpret the philosophical ideas of 
classical philosophers. In his opinion the pre-modern philosophers were 
unable to express their opinions freely for fear of persecution and 
resorted to writings which contained hidden meanings. He believed that 
only he had the ability to uncover these meanings or truths and apply 
them in the modern world. He loathed the modern day philosophers whom he 
accused of opening up the doors knowledge to the ordinary men thereby 
diminishing the status of philosophers. Thus the followers of Strauss 
were driven to discover new meanings or truths and hungered for power so 
that their version of the truth could be implemented upon society.

3. Lying and deception essential to maintain power

Like Plato, Strauss believed that some are fit to lead while others must 
be lead. But, unlike Plato, who believed that leaders had to be people 
with such high moral standards that they could resist the temptations of 
power, Strauss thought that those who are fit to rule are those who 
realise there is no morality and that there is only one natural right, 
the right of the superior to rule over the inferior. In other words this 
requires perpetual deception on part of the rulers to govern the 
subjects. In this type of society the masses are told what they need to 
know not what the truth is. Comprehending the truth is the 
responsibility of the ruling elite and cannot be assigned to anyone 
else. Michael Ladeen a leading neoconservative commenting on the need to 
lie said, ³In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the 
leader may have to Œenter into evil.²

4. Using religion to control the masses

For Strauss religion is the glue that holds society together. Other 
neoconservatives like Irving Kristol have argued that separating church 
and state was the biggest mistake made by the founders of the U.S. 
republic. On the same subject Michael Ladeen said, ³Dying for one¹s 
country doesn¹t come naturally. Modern armies, raised from the populace, 
must be inspired, motivated, indoctrinated. Religion is central to the 
military enterprise, for men are more likely to risk their lives if they 
believe they will be rewarded forever after for serving their country.² 
So why are neoconservatives pro religion? This is because Strauss 
believed that religion was absolutely essential in order to impose moral 
law on the masses who otherwise would be out of control. At the same 
time, he stressed that religion was for the masses alone; the rulers 
need not be bound by it. ''Secular society in their view is the worst 
possible thing'', because it leads to individualism and liberalism might 
encourage dissent and in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability 
to cope with external threats.


5. Aggressive nationalism

Strauss was also strongly influenced by Thomas Hobbes. Like Hobbes, he 
thought the fundamental aggressiveness of human nature could be 
restrained only through a powerful state based on nationalism. ''Because 
mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed,'' he once wrote. 
''Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united 
- and they can only be united against other people''. Shedding more 
light on the subject Irving Kristol wrote in an article called the 
Neoconservative Persuasion that patriotism was a natural and healthy 
sentiment and should be encouraged by both private and public 
institutions. Precisely we are a nation of immigrants this is a powerful 
American sentiment. 

What all of this means is that America requires a constant threat or a 
perpetual enemy to fuel patriotic or nationalist sentiments. In the eyes 
of the neoconservatives the fall of the Soviet Union had to be quickly 
replaced with another enemy. And today that enemy is Islam.

6. Permanent war leads to stability

Strauss believed that a political order could be stable only if it is 
faced with an external threat. Following Machiavelli, he maintained that 
if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured. In 
Strauss' view, you have to fight all the time to survive. Perpetual war, 
not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in. Such views 
naturally lead to an ''aggressive, belligerent foreign policy'' and to a 
domestic policy where dissent is not tolerated. Strauss' neoconservative 
students see foreign policy as a means to fulfill a "national destiny" ­ 
as Irving Kristol defined it already in 1983 ­ that goes far beyond the 
narrow confines of a ³myopic national security."

Anything that leads to world stability such as the UN or world 
government is detested by the followers of Strauss. Irving Kristol in 
his article the neoconservative persuasion wrote that Œworld government 
is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny. International 
institutions that point to an ultimate world government should be 
regarded with the deepest suspicion.¹

7. Benevolent American hegemony

Strauss did not write about American hegemony but his students wrote 
extensively on the subject. Neo-conservatives, William Kristol and 
Robert Kagan first sounded this trumpet in Foreign Affairs (³Toward a 
Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy,² July-August 1996). Now that the ³evil 
empire² is vanquished, they write, the U.S. must aspire to exercise a 
³benevolent American hegemony.² For never has the U.S. had such a golden 
opportunity to promote democracy and free markets abroad, while 
Americans themselves ³have never had it so good.² Hence, the 
³appropriate² goal of the United States should be ³to preserve that 
hegemony as far into the future as possible.² The authors dismiss those 
pessimists who warn of imperial overstretch or the danger of conjuring 
enemies, and call instead for a sharply increased U.S. defence budget 
³to preserve America¹s role as global hegemon²; measures to enthuse the 
American people, perhaps through some form of military conscription; and 
a bluntly moral foreign policy that aims at ³actively promoting American 
principles of governance abroad.² Robert Kagan in another book entitled 
³Of Paradise and Power² wrote that American armed forces can not be 
defeated. In another passage Kagan praised American exceptionalism i.e. 
what happened to other powers that attempted to establish world dominion 
would not happen to America. Simply put the American empire will not 
fall.

The hegemonic theory does not allow for a multilateral world to exit. 
Rather it supports the notion that a powerful state which possesses 
unrivalled authority should reshape the existing world according to its 
interests. Through the enforcement of rules the hegemonic power is able 
preserve its dominant position in the world. By subscribing to this 
view, the neoconservatives have split both the Republican Party and 
government departments. Many republicans still believe that US can 
retain its super power status by exercising US power in a multilateral 
world.

These are some of Leo Strauss¹s ideas and underpin much of the 
neoconservatives thinking. Some of the ideas are rooted in the 
conservative view of the world for instance the role of religion in 
society or the projection of American power. Nevertheless, the most 
telling aspect of Straussian philosophy is that even by conservative 
standards they are indeed extreme to say the least.

How did the Neoconservatives come to power?

Before discussing the impact of neoconservative thought on American 
society it is important to understand how they rose to power. Like I 
mentioned before, a key attribute of their thinking is that philosophy 
must be related to society i.e. philosophical ideas are meant for 
implementation and not mere intellectual enjoyment. This notion drove 
many of the Strauss¹s students to take up important posts in government, 
think tanks, and of course the media.

Within the government, the most powerful neo-conservative is Paul 
Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defence. He is the defence mastermind 
of the Bush administration. Others neoconservatives include Douglas 
Feith, US Undersecretary of Defence for Policy who is No. 3 at the 
Pentagon; Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a Wolfowitz protégé who is Cheney's 
chief of staff; John R. Bolton, Undersecretary for Arms Control, who is 
currently assigned to the State Department to keep Colin Powell in 
check; and Elliott Abrams, recently appointed to head Middle East policy 
at the National Security Council. On the outside, the most influential 
neoconservatives are James Woolsey, the former CIA director, who has 
tried repeatedly to link both 9/11 and the anthrax letters in the U.S. 
to Saddam Hussein, and Richard Perle, who recently resigned his unpaid 
chairmanship of a defence department advisory body after a lobbying 
scandal

The neoconservatives are at the center of conservative think tanks. 
Think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) boast 
several prominent neo-conservatives. Personalities like Richard Perle, 
Michael Rubin a Middle East expert; John Bolton are all former members 
of the institute. The money to finance such think tanks largely is 
contributed by decades-old conservative foundations, such as the Bradley 
and Olin foundations. Neoconservative foreign policy revolves more 
around ideology than business interests.

The major link between the conservative think tanks and the Israel lobby 
is the Washington-based and Likud-supporting Jewish Institute for 
National Security Affairs (Jinsa), which co-opts many non-Jewish defence 
experts by sending them on trips to Israel. It flew out the retired 
general Jay Garner, who was unceremoniously dropped from running post 
war Iraq. In October 2000, he cosigned a Jinsa letter that began: "We 
... believe that during the current upheavals in Israel, the Israel 
Defence Forces have exercised remarkable restraint in the face of lethal 
violence orchestrated by the leadership of [the] Palestinian Authority."

The Israel lobby itself is divided into Jewish and Christian wings. 
Wolfowitz and Feith have close ties to the Jewish-American Israel lobby. 
Wolfowitz, who has relatives in Israel, has served as the Bush 
administration's liaison to the American Israel Public Affairs 
Committee. Feith was given an award by the Zionist Organization of 
America, citing him as a "pro-Israel activist." While out of power in 
the Clinton years, Feith collaborated with Perle to coauthor a policy 
paper for Likud that advised the Israeli government to end the Oslo 
peace process, reoccupy the territories, and crush Yasser Arafat's 
government. Such experts are not typical of Jewish-Americans, who mostly 
voted for Gore in 2000. The most fervent supporters of Likud in the 
Republican electorate are Southern Protestant fundamentalists. The 
religious right believes that God gave all of Palestine to the Jews, and 
fundamentalist congregations spend millions to subsidize Jewish 
settlements in the occupied territories. 

The final corner of the neoconservative pentagon is occupied by several 
right-wing media empires, with roots ­ odd as it seems ­ in the British 
Commonwealth and South Korea. Rupert Murdoch disseminates propaganda 
through his Fox television network. His magazine, the Weekly Standard ­ 
edited by William Kristol, the former chief of staff of Dan Quayle (vice 
president, 1989-1993) ­ acts as a mouthpiece for neoconservatives such 
as Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith and Woolsey as well as for Sharon's 
government. The National Interest another publication is funded by 
Conrad Black, who owns about 500 newspaper publications world-wide the 
most prominent of which are the Jerusalem Post, Daily Telegraph and the 
Sunday Telegraph. Strangest of all is the media network centered on the 
Washington Times ­ owned by the South Korean messiah (and ex-convict) 
the Rev. Sun Myung Moon ­ which owns the newswire UPI. UPI is now run by 
John O'Sullivan, the ghostwriter for Margaret Thatcher who once worked 
as an editor for Conrad Black in Canada. 

The neoconservatives were linked together in the 1990s by the Project 
for the New American Century (PNAC), run by Kristol out of the Weekly 
Standard offices. They used PNAC to issue a number of public letters 
whose signatories often included Wolfowitz and other future members of 
the Bush foreign policy team. They called for the U.S. to invade and 
occupy Iraq and to support Israel's campaigns against the Palestinians 
and issue dire warnings about China 

Once the neoconservatives succeeded in bringing all of their resources 
together they set about capturing George Bush junior who would lead them 
to power. How did this happen? Few supported Bush during the 
presidential primaries. The neoconservatives feared that the second Bush 
would be like the first ­ a wimp who had failed to occupy Baghdad in the 
first Gulf War and who had pressured Israel into the Oslo peace process 
­ and that his administration, again like his father's, would be 
dominated by moderate Republican realists such as Powell, James Baker 
and Brent Scowcroft. They supported the maverick senator John McCain 
until it became clear that Bush would get the nomination. 

Then the neoconservatives had a stroke of luck ­ Cheney was put in 
charge of the presidential transition i.e. the period between the 
election in November and the accession to office in January. Cheney used 
this opportunity to fill the administration with his neo-conservative 
friends. Instead of becoming the de facto president in foreign policy, 
as many had expected, Secretary of State Powell found himself boxed in 
by Cheney's right-wing network, including Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, 
Bolton and Libby. 

What encouraged Bush to form a close relationship with the 
neoconservatives was his upbringing. A son of upper-class parents, he 
converted to Southern fundamentalism in a midlife crisis. Fervent 
Christian Zionism, along with an admiration for macho Israeli soldiers 
that sometimes is a feature of the Southern culture. So even before 9/11 
George Bush was tilting away from Powell and toward Wolfowitz ("Wolfie," 
as he calls him).

Neoconservatives post September 11

When Bush came to power his administration enjoyed close ties with the 
oil and defence industry through officials such as Rice, Cheney and 
Rumsfeld. An extreme right wing ideology became the source of ideas for 
the administration manifesting in personalities such as Wolfowitz, 
Libby, Feith, Bolton and other neoconservatives. To communicate the 
administration¹s policy to the electorate, Bush¹s close friend Karl Rove 
the master strategists for the Republican Party was charged with the 
task. His challenge was and still is to win the electorate over to 
Bush¹s policy which in essence represents a set of business interests 
enmeshed in Straussian thought. All of this meant that Colin Powell and 
his state department were effectively reduced to persona non grata 
status.

With the key element in place, the neoconservatives were waiting for a 
cataclysmic event that would enable them to transform American society 
in the light of Straussian philosophy. The cataclysmic event they were 
waiting for had been foretold earlier in 1999 by Michael Ladeen. Ladeen 
spoke of a Perl Harbour type of an event which would wake up America. 
Indeed, September 11, was that event - it set into motion the 
neoconservative plan for a Œhegemonic America¹.

The first point of call was to mobilise the American public with 
patriotic and nationalistic sentiments. The threat of terrorism from al- 
Qaida and Muslim rogue states was not only exaggerated but continuously 
repeated to the American public. This had the affect of uniting the 
American people behind Bush and muzzling dissent especially from the 
political opposition. America was now gripped with belligerent 
nationalism and the neoconservatives began to implement their ideas.

Avid enemies of freedom, individualism and secularism, the 
neoconservatives succeeded in passing the US Patriot Act which curbed 
civil liberties. They encouraged Christian fundamentalist like Jerry 
Falwell and Pat Robertson to publicly ridicule Islam and to play a 
greater role in society. George Bush became the first US President to 
hold bible sessions in the White House. His compatriot Attorney General 
Ashcroft holds similar weekly sessions at the department of Justice. 
Both men increasingly see the war on Terror in biblical terms i.e. good 
versus evil. By sponsoring such initiatives the neoconservatives aimed 
to strengthen society and give politics a strong moral backing.

On the international front the neoconservatives long before 9/11 were 
trying to ensure that hegemonic America made a clean break with its 
multilateral past. Treatise like the anti ballistic missile treaty and 
others were hastily discarded. After 9/11, breaking free from shackles 
of international law was accelerated. By the time, America went to war 
with Iraq, the US had effectively violated the Geneva Convention, 
ignored the world community and side stepped the UN to realise its 
ambition of world dominance. After the Iraq war, the neoconservatives 
expected that the demonstration of America¹s military might would cower 
the Iraqi¹s as well as Arabs into submission. A similar logic pushed the 
Pentagon to ignore the plight of the Iraqi population by withholding the 
restoration of basic services, so that they would succumb to America¹s 
benevolence and finally accept her occupation of Iraq. In line with the 
neoconservative thinking of perpetual war, various neoconservatives 
inside government and outside wasted no time in painting Syria and Iran 
as America¹s next target.

Since coming to power, the Bush administration has employed the 
Straussian method of Œhidden meanings¹ and Œdeception¹ to mislead people 
both at home and abroad. The creation of Office of Special plans (OSP) 
that was responsible for producing many of lies regarding Iraqi WMD to 
the unbelievably low American causality figures reported by 
Pentagon-became the hallmark of Bush¹s deception campaign on Iraq. Even 
when bare facts contradicted Pentagon¹s claim that Saddam loyalists and 
foreign fighter were behind much of Iraq¹s resistance, the Bush 
administration manufactured new lies- eager to avoid any impression that 
the Iraqi resistance was home grown. But the height of deception was to 
be unveiled before the UN general meeting, where Bush refused to admit 
the naked truth that America¹s justification for the war was a big lie.

Will neconservatism survive?

With the Iraqi population spurred on by Islam to resist the American 
occupation, cracks have started to surface in the pro-neoconservative 
policies. Still worse for the neo-conservatives is that the growing 
American casualties and mounting costs of the Iraq occupation have 
forced them to seek UN help. If Bush fails to secure Iraq and is unable 
to stem the growing domestic criticism, the wealthy capitalists who 
bankrolled Bush¹s 2000 election campaign may look elsewhere for an 
administration that can safeguard their interests. Stooped in arrogance 
and immersed in academia, the neoconservatives committed fatal political 
blunders. They underestimated the response of America¹s allies, 
misjudged the strength of the Iraqi Muslims and failed to prepare the 
American public for Œhegemonic America¹. Only time will tell how long 
the neoconservative experiment will last.

September 28, 2003.

Some references used:



*  Machiavelli on modern leadership (1999) by Michael Ledeen
*  The war against the terror masters by Michael Ledeen
*  Leo Strauss and the American Right by Shadia Drury (1997)
*  Neconservatism: the autobiography of an idea by Irving Kristol
*  Of paradise and Power by Robert Kagan
*  Toward a Neo-Reaganite foreign policy by William Kristol and Robert 
Kagan.
*  Leo Strauss and the world of intelligence (1999) by Shulsky.