PURGING THE NEOCONS
January 6, 2004
by Joe Sobran
Did you know that the word "neoconservative" --
often shortened to "neocon" -- is an ethnic slur? Neither
did I, but some, er, conservative pundits have set me
straight.
David Brooks of the NEW YORK TIMES says of "the
people labeled neocons" that "con is short for
'conservative' and neo is short for 'Jewish.'" So when
other people call these people "neocons," you see,
they're really calling them Jews, which for some reason
is anti-Semitic.
This must come as a surprise to Irving Kristol, who
long ago cheerfully, indeed proudly, accepted the term.
Though Jewish himself, he never suggested that you had to
be Jewish to be a neocon. His Irish friend Daniel Patrick
Moynihan was also called a neocon in those days, as are a
number of other notable non-Jews today.
Kristol is still known as "the godfather of
neoconservatism" and in a famous bon mot defined a
neoconservative as "a liberal who has been mugged by
reality." The neocons were known for a qualified
skepticism about the welfare state, though, unlike
traditional conservatives, they accepted it in principle.
Kristol wanted to ditch a lot of conservative baggage
about limited government, the free market, and the U.S.
Constitution. Nothing particularly Jewish about all that.
(Kristol's son William, by the way, is also a leading
neocon.)
So what's the problem? Well, the neocons broadly
agreed with conservatives about foreign policy. They were
anti-Communist and wanted an activist, some would say
aggressive, U.S. foreign policy. And a lot of them, many
of whom happened to be Jewish, especially wanted the
United States to fight Israel's enemies. In the last few
years, "neocon" has become synonymous with these
particular neocons, though it's perfectly possible to
adopt the neocon philosophy in principle without being
either Jewish or pro-Israel.
In the real world, people can't help noticing that a
pro-Israel faction has come to dominate the neocon
movement. To say this, however, is to court the charge of
bigotry. I like to define a bigot as "one who practices
sociology without a license." There are certain social
realities which it behooves one to discuss in euphemisms
and circumlocutions. To talk about them bluntly is
bigotry; to talk about them in academic lingo may be
permissible.
Raising alarms about neocon influence is sometimes
also called "a new form of McCarthyism." But of course
lots of things -- hundreds, would be a safe estimate --
have been branded "a new form of McCarthyism," including
any observation that communists and their sympathizers
actually did infiltrate the administration of Franklin
Roosevelt.
The real Joe McCarthy rose to prominence by
affirming, none too academically, not only that there
were Reds under the bed, but that a lot of them were *in*
the bed with their pinko friends. This forced liberals to
make sure that they kept a careful distance from Stalin's
little helpers, who had infiltrated the liberal movement
and often hid behind liberal "fronts." The Reds often
found liberal causes handy for their own purposes.
Is there a lesson here for the neocons? I think so.
Like the liberals of yore, they have carelessly allowed
their movement to be infiltrated by Zionist partisans and
agents who have brought suspicion on all of them. And
just as the liberals of McCarthy's day had to purge
Communists from their ranks in order to preserve their
good name, it's up to patriotic American neocons --
surely the great majority -- to weed out the
Israel-firsters among them.
At stake is the good name of the neoconservative
philosophy. It would be a disaster to its principles for
the general public to get the false impression that those
principles are nothing but a "front" for agents of a
foreign power who want to trick us into wars against our
own interests.
Any genuine political philosophy can stand on its
own feet. It must never be reduced to any particular
interest if it is to have a broad appeal to ordinary
people. The exposure of people calling themselves
"neocons" (or taking shelter behind the label) as chums
of the Israeli Likud threatens to discredit all the truly
principled neoconservatives, who must now show that they
represent a universal creed, not a narrow sect.
Otherwise, neoconservatives may find themselves once
again mugged by reality.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read this column on-line at
"http://www.sobran.com/columns/2004/040106.shtml".
Copyright (c) 2004 by the Griffin Internet
Syndicate, www.griffnews.com. This column may not
be published in print or Internet publications
without express permission of Griffin Internet
Syndicate. You may forward it to interested
individuals if you use this entire page,
including the following disclaimer:
"SOBRAN'S and Joe Sobran's columns are available
by subscription. For details and samples, see
http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml, write
PR@griffnews.com, or call 800-513-5053."