With America seemingly bogged down in Iraq, there are those looking for scapegoats to blame. Neo-conservatives, Likudniks and Israel have become frequent targets, besides the standard fare of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice. Attacks from the Left and the Democrats can be seen as purely partisan, but attacks from the Right need further clarification.
I want to start by saying I don't claim any special expertise in the minutia of the history of conservative thought. But the areas I do claim some knowledge in, I feel, are sufficient to give an educated opinion on what's really going on, in this Neo- vs. Paleo- thing in American Conservatism today, what it has to do with Jews, Israel, international affairs and the evolving "Clash of Civilizations" taking place in the 21st century.
But first, a brief look at the history of religious - i.e., cultural - and political thought, as I see it. I hope after reading this you will better understand what I'm going to say about the above.
As we all know, early Christianity broke away from Judaism. It was a protest movement. Although the Christian or New Testament criticizes the Jewish civilization of the time - especially the priests and Temple cult, some of which criticism was already being voiced by the rabbis - many historians view these as veiled critiques of the excesses of Roman pagan culture; that is, not really Judaism itself, so much as Greco-Roman culture's inroads into Roman-occupied Judea, and its people. Under severe persecution by the Roman authorities for a couple hundred years - long after any semblance of Jewish autonomy ended - Christianity stressed the imperfectability of "This World" - an idea that helped to move it further away from Judaism - promising its adherents a great life in the next world, in heaven.
Simply put, Judaism with its legal system - Torah and Halacha - for the Jewish nation, living in its own homeland, believed in ultimate perfectibility of the world under G-d's Laws. Christianity, first having rejected "The Law", later rejected this understanding of the nature of social life. Without getting any deeper into the differences between Christian and Jewish theology, one can summarize thus: Judaism's ultimate fulfillment is achieved by the group, in one's lifetime, in this world. Christianity's ultimate fulfillment is for individual believers to gain "eternal life" after death in the next world.
Judaism desires the establishment of a "Messianic Nation-State" in the Land of Israel - run according to the Torah, Jewish Law - to lead the Jewish people onto individual and group, spiritual and social perfection. Judaism's goal is to establish a "Model State" and society, whose purpose is to influence mankind, in proper individual practice and social organization to worship G-d; i.e., national and universal redemption. Christianity, having rejected the group concept of a "Chosen Nation", substituted individual salvation for national and universal redemption. Christianity sees the world as ultimately not perfectible, which led to a separation of religion and politics best expressed by the Christian Testament statement, "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto G-d what is G-d's" - a clear call for the separation of religion and state. Judaism sees state power as a necessary requirement - not evil - along the way to messianic redemption.
One further point, Judaism's primary goals are meant first and foremost for the Jewish people - nation of Israel - and then as a byproduct of completion, to influence the whole world toward Godliness without any thought of converting people. Christianity is individualistic and otherworldly, but missionary - i.e., it tries to gain as many followers as possible.
Now to complete the triangle, to better understand the "Clash of Civilizations" taking place in the 21st Century, one needs to know where Islam fits in. Islam can be summarized as more group-oriented than individualistic, law-based (they have Sharia law), universalistic, missionary and this-world oriented. Therefore, whereas Judaism is for the Jews - i.e., nation of Israel - Islam, like Christianity, aspires to convert all mankind. Whereas Judaism aspires to political control over only one territory on earth, the Land of Israel - i.e., the Promised Land - Christianity's kingdom is of the spirit, and Islam aspires to control the whole world under Allah's rule. Both Judaism and Islam have legal traditions capable of governance, Christianity does not. And finally, whereas Christianity puts an inordinate emphasis on the individual, and Islam makes him subservient to the group and state, Judaism holds the two values in balance.
Although its true that after Roman Emperor Constantine's conversion to Christianity in 335 CE, the Roman empire's adoption of Christianity as "State Religion", Christianity had a thousand-year fling with state power in parts of Europe, but that's just it, it was a fling. The revolt of princes and kings against the Catholic Church, the renaissance and reformation that led to the rise of secular state power and modern life in the West, returned European culture and society to the pristine vision of earlier Christian thought, separation of society and politics from religion. With that separation, and the later attack on the "divine rights" of kings, modern democracy arose with its emphasis on individual rights and liberties, pragmatism - as opposed to ideological consistency - and consent of the governed. One can now begin to understand how pluralist democracy developed in the Christian Western world, and why it has not developed in the Islamic East.
Terminology has been evolving over the centuries...
And to complicate matters, there are several spheres of discourse - economic organization, social-political policy and inter-state relations, or foreign policy. Classical Liberalism is not the same as the term Liberal today. Classical Liberalism, a term most related to the economic organization of society - i.e., the belief in the efficacy of free-markets and free trade - found expression in the 17th to 19th Century revolt against mercantilism, or state-supported trade. Today, liberalism stands for big government and its involvement in the economy - i.e., the welfare state - social leniency and the PC or politically correct movement, which includes government involvement to enforce social leniency, and, as the war in Iraq taught us, a non-interventionist foreign policy. Quite a distance from Classical Liberalism, isn't it?
So too, the meaning of conservatism has also changed over time. Originally, supporters of the monarchist order in Europe, conservatives have adapted to democracy, and incorporated free-markets just as liberalism metamorphosed to New Deal policies of big government and big spending. But, whereas conservatives believe in free markets and free trade and small government in the economic realm, they tend to stand for "traditional family values" in the social realm and are not adverse to big government in social policy. Those truly "Classically Liberal" (i.e., small government or no involvement) in all three spheres, economic, social-political and foreign relations, are the Libertarians - not the party per se, but the movement.
Which brings us back to the discussion I alluded to in the first paragraph.
What is all this talk about Neos and Paleos? Paleo-conservatives, or traditional conservatives, or old-style conservatives, claim that they represent "true" conservatism. They say that the neo-conservatives are, for the most part, escapees from the New-Old Left of the New Deal or the 1960s. Paleos say that Neos are interventionist in foreign affairs, whereas traditional conservatism is more isolationist. Paleos claim that Neos are not adverse to big government to achieve their goals of extending American power and influence overseas. Paleos accuse Neos of lack of interest in domestic economic issues and are more socially lenient than traditional conservatives. In that regard, for the most part, Pat Buchanan and the other Paleos are somewhat correct.
On the other hand... So what?
As I said earlier, terminology is evolving. 21st Century terminology - what's a conservative - might not be the same as 20th Century terminology; just as the term Liberal has changed its meaning over time.
In America today, there are economic interventionists and those who are for freedom from control; there are social-political interventionists and those who are for freedom from control; and there are foreign policy interventionists and isolationists. The only relevant issue is where a person, group, party or policy stands on this triad. The current terminology blurs distinctions and labels help to muddle thinking.
Pat Buchanan, Rep. Jim Moran, Louis Farrakhan, David Duke and others, all blamed the Neo-Cons - read: Jews - and Israel for the war in Iraq. More recently, Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings and retired general Anthony Zinni have also done so. So did elements on the far-left in America, the PC people and the Islamists. It's true that many neo-conservative thinkers are Jewish, and the war - in theory - benefited Israel (who doesn't like to see their sworn enemy defanged?), but many other neo-conservatives aren't Jewish, and the war also benefited the entire Western democratic world. Pointing out that many Neo-Cons are Jewish is the equivalent of pointing out that many Nazis or Ku Klux Klan members are white Christians. So what?
Blaming all Christians for the Klan or Nazis, just as blaming "the Jews", well I think you get the point...
The war in Iraq simply was America's attempt to suppress rogue state behavior, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, terror-supporting regimes and reshape the Middle East, whether others understood it, agreed with them, or not. Whether America should act multi-laterally, unilaterally or be isolationist is an issue worth discussion. But blaming one group, "the Jews", is simply anti-Semitic. All the accusations that it's "Likudniks" - the ruling party of Ariel Sharon in Israel - in the White House directing policy, ignores the fact that the Bush Administration policy toward Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking - the Roadmap process - might in fact be on a collision course with Israel; but more on that later.
The biggest area of disagreement between Paleos and Neos is on interventionism overseas. Neo-conservatives, like Ronald Reagan before them, have been willing to fight the "Evil Empire" and "Axis of Evil". Interventionism, couched in religious imagery, rights and wrongs, is a hallmark of neo-conservative thought. So it dovetails with the Christian fundamentalist element in the Republican Party and elsewhere.
"But I thought you told me earlier that Christianity withdrew from the political sphere," you might now be asking yourself.
Yes, that's true, I did. But that was primarily in Europe. The early Puritans who helped found America believed in government involvement in society. The early settlers of America were profoundly influenced by the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). Hebrew was one of the languages considered for use in early America as the "national language".
Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams and Thomas Jefferson's original design for the Great Seal of the United States showed Pharaoh and his Egyptian charioteers pursuing the Israelites across the parted Red Sea, while Moses stood on the opposite shore, bathed in a light from a blazing pillar, extending his arms upwards and beseeching the L-rd to close the waters over Pharaoh and his army. The motto they selected was "Rebellion against tyranny is obedience to G-d".
Although America was founded on the principle of opposing state support for religion, and believing in separation of church and state, a strong element of American culture has included moral involvement in politics. American exceptionalism and idealism have always been the counterbalance to American pragmatism. Protestantism in America has always had two wings - those who wanted government involvement and those who didn't. So you get the call for economic liberty, and yet, the call for banning alcohol, the temperance movement. Which leads to the Moral Majority, Christian Coalition and Christian Conservatives of today.
Since the fight against Nazism and Fascism in World War II, and the Cold War through the 1980s, America understood the necessity of engaging the world. After "winning" the Cold War, even if America thought it could go to sleep - as evidenced by Pat Buchanan-type isolationism reminiscent of the 19th century and the 1920s - September 11th woke it up. Americans now understood the world could become a very dangerous place, if they ignored it. The only question is whether the US wanted to barricade itself inside and pray, or confront the dangers that lurk outside. Neo-Con thinkers only saw the dangers a little earlier than most.
Neo-conservative thinkers want to use American power and prestige globally - while the US is the sole superpower - to make the world "safe for democracy" and free-markets; i.e., for America. There are those Neo-Cons who are part of the American idealist tradition. As escapees from the Left - repentant true believers - they have all the zest of the "born-again". But there are other Neo-Cons who are tempered by the pragmatic side of American political tradition. They also see global intervention as in America's long-term interest. Both believe in the use of state power overseas.
Liberal pluralist democracy, as in America and the West, evolved from an underpinning of Christian culture, secularization and the separation of religion and state. Although there are those willing to use state power to implement "moral values" in society, in general, there is an aversion across American society to excessive government intervention. But use of state power overseas, for the purpose of guaranteeing those freedoms at home, does seem to be a legitimate aim to most.
[Part 1 of 2]
(c) 2004/5764 Pasko
I want to start by saying I don't claim any special expertise in the minutia of the history of conservative thought. But the areas I do claim some knowledge in, I feel, are sufficient to give an educated opinion on what's really going on, in this Neo- vs. Paleo- thing in American Conservatism today, what it has to do with Jews, Israel, international affairs and the evolving "Clash of Civilizations" taking place in the 21st century.
But first, a brief look at the history of religious - i.e., cultural - and political thought, as I see it. I hope after reading this you will better understand what I'm going to say about the above.
As we all know, early Christianity broke away from Judaism. It was a protest movement. Although the Christian or New Testament criticizes the Jewish civilization of the time - especially the priests and Temple cult, some of which criticism was already being voiced by the rabbis - many historians view these as veiled critiques of the excesses of Roman pagan culture; that is, not really Judaism itself, so much as Greco-Roman culture's inroads into Roman-occupied Judea, and its people. Under severe persecution by the Roman authorities for a couple hundred years - long after any semblance of Jewish autonomy ended - Christianity stressed the imperfectability of "This World" - an idea that helped to move it further away from Judaism - promising its adherents a great life in the next world, in heaven.
Simply put, Judaism with its legal system - Torah and Halacha - for the Jewish nation, living in its own homeland, believed in ultimate perfectibility of the world under G-d's Laws. Christianity, first having rejected "The Law", later rejected this understanding of the nature of social life. Without getting any deeper into the differences between Christian and Jewish theology, one can summarize thus: Judaism's ultimate fulfillment is achieved by the group, in one's lifetime, in this world. Christianity's ultimate fulfillment is for individual believers to gain "eternal life" after death in the next world.
Judaism desires the establishment of a "Messianic Nation-State" in the Land of Israel - run according to the Torah, Jewish Law - to lead the Jewish people onto individual and group, spiritual and social perfection. Judaism's goal is to establish a "Model State" and society, whose purpose is to influence mankind, in proper individual practice and social organization to worship G-d; i.e., national and universal redemption. Christianity, having rejected the group concept of a "Chosen Nation", substituted individual salvation for national and universal redemption. Christianity sees the world as ultimately not perfectible, which led to a separation of religion and politics best expressed by the Christian Testament statement, "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto G-d what is G-d's" - a clear call for the separation of religion and state. Judaism sees state power as a necessary requirement - not evil - along the way to messianic redemption.
One further point, Judaism's primary goals are meant first and foremost for the Jewish people - nation of Israel - and then as a byproduct of completion, to influence the whole world toward Godliness without any thought of converting people. Christianity is individualistic and otherworldly, but missionary - i.e., it tries to gain as many followers as possible.
Now to complete the triangle, to better understand the "Clash of Civilizations" taking place in the 21st Century, one needs to know where Islam fits in. Islam can be summarized as more group-oriented than individualistic, law-based (they have Sharia law), universalistic, missionary and this-world oriented. Therefore, whereas Judaism is for the Jews - i.e., nation of Israel - Islam, like Christianity, aspires to convert all mankind. Whereas Judaism aspires to political control over only one territory on earth, the Land of Israel - i.e., the Promised Land - Christianity's kingdom is of the spirit, and Islam aspires to control the whole world under Allah's rule. Both Judaism and Islam have legal traditions capable of governance, Christianity does not. And finally, whereas Christianity puts an inordinate emphasis on the individual, and Islam makes him subservient to the group and state, Judaism holds the two values in balance.
Although its true that after Roman Emperor Constantine's conversion to Christianity in 335 CE, the Roman empire's adoption of Christianity as "State Religion", Christianity had a thousand-year fling with state power in parts of Europe, but that's just it, it was a fling. The revolt of princes and kings against the Catholic Church, the renaissance and reformation that led to the rise of secular state power and modern life in the West, returned European culture and society to the pristine vision of earlier Christian thought, separation of society and politics from religion. With that separation, and the later attack on the "divine rights" of kings, modern democracy arose with its emphasis on individual rights and liberties, pragmatism - as opposed to ideological consistency - and consent of the governed. One can now begin to understand how pluralist democracy developed in the Christian Western world, and why it has not developed in the Islamic East.
Terminology has been evolving over the centuries...
And to complicate matters, there are several spheres of discourse - economic organization, social-political policy and inter-state relations, or foreign policy. Classical Liberalism is not the same as the term Liberal today. Classical Liberalism, a term most related to the economic organization of society - i.e., the belief in the efficacy of free-markets and free trade - found expression in the 17th to 19th Century revolt against mercantilism, or state-supported trade. Today, liberalism stands for big government and its involvement in the economy - i.e., the welfare state - social leniency and the PC or politically correct movement, which includes government involvement to enforce social leniency, and, as the war in Iraq taught us, a non-interventionist foreign policy. Quite a distance from Classical Liberalism, isn't it?
So too, the meaning of conservatism has also changed over time. Originally, supporters of the monarchist order in Europe, conservatives have adapted to democracy, and incorporated free-markets just as liberalism metamorphosed to New Deal policies of big government and big spending. But, whereas conservatives believe in free markets and free trade and small government in the economic realm, they tend to stand for "traditional family values" in the social realm and are not adverse to big government in social policy. Those truly "Classically Liberal" (i.e., small government or no involvement) in all three spheres, economic, social-political and foreign relations, are the Libertarians - not the party per se, but the movement.
Which brings us back to the discussion I alluded to in the first paragraph.
What is all this talk about Neos and Paleos? Paleo-conservatives, or traditional conservatives, or old-style conservatives, claim that they represent "true" conservatism. They say that the neo-conservatives are, for the most part, escapees from the New-Old Left of the New Deal or the 1960s. Paleos say that Neos are interventionist in foreign affairs, whereas traditional conservatism is more isolationist. Paleos claim that Neos are not adverse to big government to achieve their goals of extending American power and influence overseas. Paleos accuse Neos of lack of interest in domestic economic issues and are more socially lenient than traditional conservatives. In that regard, for the most part, Pat Buchanan and the other Paleos are somewhat correct.
On the other hand... So what?
As I said earlier, terminology is evolving. 21st Century terminology - what's a conservative - might not be the same as 20th Century terminology; just as the term Liberal has changed its meaning over time.
In America today, there are economic interventionists and those who are for freedom from control; there are social-political interventionists and those who are for freedom from control; and there are foreign policy interventionists and isolationists. The only relevant issue is where a person, group, party or policy stands on this triad. The current terminology blurs distinctions and labels help to muddle thinking.
Pat Buchanan, Rep. Jim Moran, Louis Farrakhan, David Duke and others, all blamed the Neo-Cons - read: Jews - and Israel for the war in Iraq. More recently, Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings and retired general Anthony Zinni have also done so. So did elements on the far-left in America, the PC people and the Islamists. It's true that many neo-conservative thinkers are Jewish, and the war - in theory - benefited Israel (who doesn't like to see their sworn enemy defanged?), but many other neo-conservatives aren't Jewish, and the war also benefited the entire Western democratic world. Pointing out that many Neo-Cons are Jewish is the equivalent of pointing out that many Nazis or Ku Klux Klan members are white Christians. So what?
Blaming all Christians for the Klan or Nazis, just as blaming "the Jews", well I think you get the point...
The war in Iraq simply was America's attempt to suppress rogue state behavior, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, terror-supporting regimes and reshape the Middle East, whether others understood it, agreed with them, or not. Whether America should act multi-laterally, unilaterally or be isolationist is an issue worth discussion. But blaming one group, "the Jews", is simply anti-Semitic. All the accusations that it's "Likudniks" - the ruling party of Ariel Sharon in Israel - in the White House directing policy, ignores the fact that the Bush Administration policy toward Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking - the Roadmap process - might in fact be on a collision course with Israel; but more on that later.
The biggest area of disagreement between Paleos and Neos is on interventionism overseas. Neo-conservatives, like Ronald Reagan before them, have been willing to fight the "Evil Empire" and "Axis of Evil". Interventionism, couched in religious imagery, rights and wrongs, is a hallmark of neo-conservative thought. So it dovetails with the Christian fundamentalist element in the Republican Party and elsewhere.
"But I thought you told me earlier that Christianity withdrew from the political sphere," you might now be asking yourself.
Yes, that's true, I did. But that was primarily in Europe. The early Puritans who helped found America believed in government involvement in society. The early settlers of America were profoundly influenced by the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). Hebrew was one of the languages considered for use in early America as the "national language".
Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams and Thomas Jefferson's original design for the Great Seal of the United States showed Pharaoh and his Egyptian charioteers pursuing the Israelites across the parted Red Sea, while Moses stood on the opposite shore, bathed in a light from a blazing pillar, extending his arms upwards and beseeching the L-rd to close the waters over Pharaoh and his army. The motto they selected was "Rebellion against tyranny is obedience to G-d".
Although America was founded on the principle of opposing state support for religion, and believing in separation of church and state, a strong element of American culture has included moral involvement in politics. American exceptionalism and idealism have always been the counterbalance to American pragmatism. Protestantism in America has always had two wings - those who wanted government involvement and those who didn't. So you get the call for economic liberty, and yet, the call for banning alcohol, the temperance movement. Which leads to the Moral Majority, Christian Coalition and Christian Conservatives of today.
Since the fight against Nazism and Fascism in World War II, and the Cold War through the 1980s, America understood the necessity of engaging the world. After "winning" the Cold War, even if America thought it could go to sleep - as evidenced by Pat Buchanan-type isolationism reminiscent of the 19th century and the 1920s - September 11th woke it up. Americans now understood the world could become a very dangerous place, if they ignored it. The only question is whether the US wanted to barricade itself inside and pray, or confront the dangers that lurk outside. Neo-Con thinkers only saw the dangers a little earlier than most.
Neo-conservative thinkers want to use American power and prestige globally - while the US is the sole superpower - to make the world "safe for democracy" and free-markets; i.e., for America. There are those Neo-Cons who are part of the American idealist tradition. As escapees from the Left - repentant true believers - they have all the zest of the "born-again". But there are other Neo-Cons who are tempered by the pragmatic side of American political tradition. They also see global intervention as in America's long-term interest. Both believe in the use of state power overseas.
Liberal pluralist democracy, as in America and the West, evolved from an underpinning of Christian culture, secularization and the separation of religion and state. Although there are those willing to use state power to implement "moral values" in society, in general, there is an aversion across American society to excessive government intervention. But use of state power overseas, for the purpose of guaranteeing those freedoms at home, does seem to be a legitimate aim to most.
[Part 1 of 2]
(c) 2004/5764 Pasko