Neoconservatism: Why We Need It

I'm not a neoconservative, but Murray almost converted me with this book. This is a terrific read. Murray explains what neoconservatism actually is, not what many misinformed people think it is. He takes on anti-Semites like Pat Buchanan and shows that they are lying about the neoconservatives' motives, showing their own bigotry in the process. Murray clearly shows that neocons are not primarily motivated by love of Israel, but by a desire for morality in foreign policy and love of democracy. My only quibble with Murray is his suggestion that we cut taxes when we need revenue for the war against Islamist fanaticism. Notwithstanding that, I highly recommend Neoconservatism: Why we need it.

I found this an excellent book and I gained a lot of information and opinions.

The term 'Neo-Conservative' is now a term of reprobation in most American political discourse. The 'neo-cons' are taken to be responsible for the highly problematic war in Iraq. Legitimate fair critics of the Neo- Cons are unfortunately outshouted by radical left, often Anti- Semitic critics of the neo- Cons who ridicuously accuse Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney of being servants of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith. Murray's book comes not specifically as a defense of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq but rather as an effort to outline the basic Neo- Con position, and to argue that it is the right one for the people of the West to take. He devotes his first chapter to an outline of the thought of the principal theoretician of Neo-Con thought Leo Strauss. The bulk of the book is devoted to outlining Neo- Con thought in international and domestic areas. Peter Berkowitz in his highly favorable review of this book in the 'Weekly Standard' writes of it as follows: "In contrast to traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are more comfortable with capitalism, always accepted the moral and political necessity of the welfare state, and consistently sought a prominent role for America in creating a stable and just international order. In contrast to progressives, neoconservatives are more concerned about the costs of modernity's disruptive ways to the family and traditional morality, strongly doubt the ability of the federal government to improve America through higher taxes and more aggressive social policies, and are skeptical of the integrity and efficacy of the United Nations, while maintaining confidence in the ability of the American armed forces, when diplomacy is exhausted, to advance American interests and ideals." Berkowitz goes on to to say that Murray shows how Neo- Conservatism is a new kind of Conservative thought aimed at and placing greater emphasis on America's leading role in the world. However difficult the situation may be in Iraq, and it certainly seems like a no- win situation now , even to many who supported the original incursion Murray's thesis is that the Neo-Conservative ideology is the one which will best serve the U.S. and the world in the years ahead. My reservation would be - With less arrogance, with less certainty, with more caution, with more consideration of what other peoples and other worlds are about - and with greater understanding that one can wholly hope to improve the world and not to dramatically transform it overnight.

Douglas Murray has written a book that is easy to read and understand. I always favor books on timely and serious subjects that appeal to the widest possible readership. Such writing is definitely in need at this crucial point in history. I admire Murray's book, generally agree with it, and think it is important as part of the ongoing discussion about how to proceed in our dangerous world. The first chapter is used to provide a brief history of neoconservatism from its origins in the thought of 20th Cent. political philosopher, Leo Strauss. Murray provides an overview of Strauss's political theory, but wisely refers the reader to Strauss's work rather than getting bogged down in the complexities of this profound thinker. To oversimplify, Strauss believed there is a "natural right" within human beings and human history which make it "self evident" that democracy is the best form of governance for individual freedom, happiness and fulfillment. In the remaining three chapters Murray takes the gloves off. Exposition gives way to exhortation. It becomes increasingly a polemic and a call to action. It calls for a return to unalloyed belief in democracy and the discarding of the nihilistic "multi-culturism" and "moral relativism" concepts that clutter the minds of liberal and leftist intellectual elites. Murray intersperses his polemic with numerous historical examples so his ideas are well grounded in the realities of world politics. He doesn't put it in these terms, but it's almost as if the question of the day is: if not democracy, then what? There aren't that many choices in political governance. Socialism is a bygone fantasy, and that leaves basically only democracy or one of the variants of autocracy that plague the world with backwardness and threats of violence and destruction. Douglas Murray has done all that can be done to rehabilitate neoconservatism as the only viable political option for our times. But can the theory be put into practice? So far the experiment in Iraq has been unpromising. But can political thinkers as well as politicians afford to sit on the sidelines and take a "wait and see" attitude? Or worse yet, duck and run for cover? If Murray is right politicians and intellectuals must join the battle for world-wide democracy with words and actions. Our attitude must be hopeful and optimistic, rather than hopeless and defeatist.

I am not a conservative of any type. But I found this book informative and interesting. Douglas Murray begins by stating that "neoconservatism is not a political party, or a social set, but a way of looking at the world. It is a deeply rooted and relevant philosophy which only seems to be out of kilter with modern thought because there is so little modern thought." In this book, we see quite a few examples of what is supposed to pass for modern thought, so what Murray says is not really a joke. There is a chapter on the theory and roots of neoconservatism. And we see Allan Bloom react to the university student culture of the 1960s. Bloom is quoted as saying (about this culture) that "never in history has there been such a marvelous correspondence between the good and the pleasant." And in fact, that is clearly one of the drivers for the neoconservative reaction. Obviously, one major aspect of liberalism is the notion of equality of opportunity. However, that concept can simply degrade into the idea of "equality" in all things. And that's not a reasonable or practical political philosophy. Murray quotes William Kristol's complaints about a philosophy of equality here. Murray cites one major incident that brought neoconservative ideas into the political forefront, namely the absurd and wicked United Nations resolution that (in 1975) equated Zionism with racism. Daniel Moynihan spoke as UN ambassador in opposition to this travesty. He explained that if there were no General Assembly, this could never have happened. And that the UN had just granted amnesty and more to the murderers of six million European Jews. And that the UN would now be regarded by many as "a place where lies are told." Murray, to his credit, points out some aspects of this resolution that were especially significant to neoconservatives. First, it supplied surprisingly strong evidence that "world government was a dangerous and potentially tyrannical concept, giving, as it did, equal significance to freedom and tyranny, equivalent significance to right and wrong." Second, it was clear evidence that a "moral inversion" was indeed taking place; "vast swathes of the West's population, as well as their representatives, were proving incapable of telling truth from lies." And third, many supposedly reasonable people appeared persuaded by this nonsense, which allowed aggressors to "masquerade as victims." There is some interesting material on America's reaction to the terrorism of September 11, 2001. Here, Murray quotes Robert Kagan, who says that American did not change that day; it just became "more itself." I pretty much agree here. Meanwhile, some opponents of neoconservatives have represented neoconservatism as a Jewish conspiracy (this seems strikingly like an old idea that some thought had gone out of fashion in 1945). And these sorts of accusations have been common within the anti-war movement, with some people blaming the war on a pro-Israeli lobby. My feeling about all t