Some thoughts on the Neocons.
In the 1960's in was not unusual for individuals to jump around socially and politically. I met more than one person who started out as a Goldwater conservative, swiftly became immersed in the anti-war movement, jumped heavily into right wing religious fanaticism, and finally emerged heavily in the drug culture. The orders can be reversed, in some instances a base may have been touched more than once.
I noticed:
- They never stay long with one idea; what they wanted was action
- Some reversed position only once and then stayed with their new world view for the rest of their lives. This happened if their previous commitment was brought more by the influence of others rather than their own beliefs. This kind of transition was always the most credible.
- Their knowledge of the new movement was shallow but the immersion was very rapid. There was not a long period of time and reflection as they made the jump.
- Their need to join was more out of filling a void in their personal life more than a need to bring justice and fairness or freedom to society
- If they brought a deep intellectual commitment to the endeavor, they were more interested in ordering the world in their image rather than learning about the world
The last two observations apply to some of the Neocons, the most obvious, by his own admission is David Horowitz.
When ideologues make these conversions they have core values that continue, unchanged and firmly held. In the Neocons I see twov alues that I share with them.
First, a belief that the United States has a role in the world to further democracy, stand up to brutal dictators, and stop the slaughter of innocent people. Both the New and the Old Left subscribed to this notion. Franco's Spain, Hitler's Germany, numerous African and South American regimes and finally Communist China and Russia were all the targets of progressive opposition.
This was not universal, there were elements of the Old Left that supported Stalin and the New Left that supported Mao's China, but even SDS was one of the most outspoken critics of Communist Chinese repression. There we people like myself who criticized Cuban repression of free speech, the failure to hold free and open elections, and the treatment of homosexuals.
Secondly, there is a belief that Israel must be protected. It is that simple.
Where the Neocons and I part company was how to achieve the goals that grew form these values.
They believe that United States military action should take care of the problem of toppling dictators accompanied by a naive and horribly erroneous notion that once the shackles of oppression were cut, democracy would grow like a thousand flowers. There was, and tragically are, two fatal flaws. First that toppling a dictatorship equated with controlling a freed nation. Secondly that the cultural traditions and mores of a culture were not an impediment to the American concept of democracy.
If there is any question on this point look at the dismantled Soviet Union. Four generations of Communist repression, torture, and death could not stop or crush the reemergence of nationalism, hatred, religious warfare, and family feuds going back to the nineteenth century.
Perhaps the greater fault of the Neocons was to make it clear to the Israeli right wing that they could do anything they please without fear of loss of support from the United States. In 1967, from a position of strength following the Six Day War, Israel should have been working towards peace with its neighbors. Instead as the years and then decades wore on, right-wing Israelis became more and more bellicose, the West Bank settlements being a step towards war, not a step towards peace.
I will be the first to support a United States military support of Israel, should it be invaded. I will not accept anything less than a recognition of Israel's right to exist. But that is a far cry from a policy for the last twenty-five years of providing the most reactionary extremists in Israel a blank check.
The Neocons did not change their core values relating to the United States role in fostering democracy internationally and the protection of Israel. They changed in concluding that a belligerent foreign policy, shifting from diplomacy to war was the way to accomplish these goals. Tragically, in the New Left there was always an element that believed that the ends justified the means. Some are still in the left, many of the most influential jumped to the right.