By Bill Narvey

American pundits sure like political labels as a shortcut to explaining where any politician or politically affiliated spokesperson is coming from.

Neo-con is one of the latest labels that Joshua Muravchik, a self described neo-con, seeks to explain the meaning of as to what neo-cons think and what they believe. Writing for the Foreign Policy web, at http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3602, Muravchik says that the label neo-con, has become more like an accusation akin to dirty Jew. By his piece, he seeks to explain why those who think so poorly of neo-cons have really got neo-cons all wrong and then devotes the focus of his article on trying to explain what neo-cons think and stand for.

Unfortunately, Muravchik only winds up confusing, more than explaining what neo-cons are all about and what views they hold.

Seeming at first to be speaking out of both sides of his mouth, Muravchik says that neo-cons do not have the power that contemporary legend attributes to them. From the other side of his mouth, he proudly claims it was the neo-con’s intellectual contributions that helped to defeat communism, helped to make Ronald Regan the success he was, and that it will be neo-con intellectual views that will help to defeat Jihad.

Muravchik, contritely admits mistakes have been made in the failure to explain neo-con thinking in a meaningful way to Americans, in failing to anticipate certain unintended consequences and charging the Bush administration with its own mistakes to the extent that Bush’s well founded neo-con policies have not been implemented or executed as well as they ought to have been or that in some cases it just comes down to theoretical positions and policies that are great on paper do not always work out as planned on the ground.

It is all well and good that neo-cons recognize they have made mistakes and need to learn from them to better enhance their influence on American policy and to better explain their views and thinking to the American public to show that neo-cons do know best what is in America’s best interests.

That said, Muravchik embarks on his explanations.

On the threat of Iran, Muravchik is clear. He predicts that before Bush’s term is out, America will have no choice but to attack Iran and put an end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, to their ability to threaten America, Israel and to their threat to destabilize the Middle East and indeed to destabilize the world oil based economy.

Muravchik says that neo-cons have their work cut out for them to convince Americans that attacking Iran is the right thing to do and they need to start now.

Crushingly attacking Iran now before it is too late is not however a new neo-con idea. It has been seen as a necessity by the conservative right who also have expressed the desire to better inform the American public.

On understanding the danger Iran poses to America, Israel and indeed the world and as to what they believe must be done to stop Iran, neo-cons are on the same page as many political centrists and the conservative right and that is that Iran must be attacked and put down.

The online Miriam Webster dictionary defines the label neo-con as:

1: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2: a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and U.S. national interest in international affairs including through military means.

Seeking to explain what neo-con means, Muravchik lays out a number of notions consistent with the foregoing dictionary definition. In doing so, he gives an idea of just where neo-cons want to take America with their intellectualism and beliefs.

In explaining the fundamental thinking of neo-cons, Muravchik states:

“The essential tenets of neo-conservatism—belief that world peace is indivisible, that ideas are powerful, that freedom and democracy are universally valid, and that evil exists and must be confronted—are as valid today as when we first began.”

That sounds pretty good, but just what is Muravchik talking about?

What does world peace being indivisible mean? Is this some idyllic dream that neo-cons want to make a reality of the prophetic words of the prophet Isaiah about nations making war no more? History shows there are war and peace regions in the world. There are no signs that things are about to change so that peace will become universal anytime soon, so what is Muravchik talking about?

Ideas are powerful? Everyone knows that so there is nothing new there. Neo-cons might just want to examine why Islam and Islamic culture are so powerful in binding so many of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims together in their suspicions, anger and hatreds towards the West?

For whom is freedom and democracy universally valid? Is there some universal consensus that only the neo-cons see? If so, where and what is it? Must that universality include both democracy and freedom or is there just a universal validity to the concept of freedom?

From Muravchik’s comments it appears that neo-cons fervently believe that by continuing to pay monies to Middle Eastern dictatorships, theocracies and autocracies, by giving them more free aid and more free access to Western technologies and by getting Middle East Muslims to join with Westerners in enough kumbaya focus groups or friendships, Westerners will eventually be able to prove to Muslims the virtues of democracy and Judeo-Christian culture upon which democracies are built.

With proving all that to Middle East Muslims, then neo-cons contend that Middle Eastern Muslims will abandon their dictatorial power that they so jealously now guard and will turn to embrace democracy for their people. That, neo-cons believe will result in radical Islam’s defeat, Since Western democracies generally do not make war on other Western democracies, the problems Western democracies have had with Middle East Muslim nations will they believe be pretty much resolved. That of course assumes that Muslim Middle Eastern democracies will not only not be inclined to make war on each other, but also would not be inclined to make war on the West.

Even if Middle East Muslim nations embraced democracy, just what makes neo-cons so sure that they won’t have their own version of democracy and democratic freedoms, but within the context of Islam and Islamic culture that will still retain all the suspicions, anger and hatred for the West?

Has the Bush administration or the neo-cons considered that if the Muslim Middle East can eventually be democratized with all the benefits they hope for, that it will come in time to defeat radical Islam before the West loses more people and more ground to radical Islam?

Finally, has the Bush administration or the neo-cons even considered the possibility that the reason democratizing the Muslim Middle East is so difficult is because most Muslims in the Middle East do not want democracy? Have they even considered that the Muslim Middle Eastern world actually prefers the dictatorial, monarchic or theocratic systems of government they have always had?

If such is the case, then for America and the West to pursue a policy of trying to democratize the Muslim Middle East, it will forever be an exercise in futility, the cost of which has already been exorbitant in loss of lives, injuries, damage to Western property and interests and billions of dollars being spent daily in that pursuit and the war against Islamic radicalism which money drained from Western economies is hardly healthy for those economies.

Evil exists and must be confronted? No one is going to give Muravchik much argument in saying that evil exists and must be confronted. That evil exists and must be confronted is stating the obvious, but what that obvious statement really means is anything but obvious.

What Westerners might consider evil, many in the Muslim world do not. There does not appear to be some universal consensus as to what evil is and what it looks like? There is not even a universal readiness, willingness and ability to confront evil.

In admitting that neo-cons are guilty of poorly explaining neo-conservatism, Muravchik’s explanations in his article unfortunately do little to cast further light on neo-con intellectualism and what neo-cons stand for and end up simply further confusing what neo-cons are all about.

---

Related: United States, Islam, War Against Islamo-fascism, Europe, Philosophy / Ideology

---