[Volokh] David Bernstein: Muravchik on the Future of Neoconservatism:

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by David Bernstein:
Muravchik on the Future of Neoconservatism:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_10_14-2007_10_20.shtml#1192486498


   Here's [1]an interesting article by neoconservative Joshua Muravchik
   on the future of neonconservatism. As always with Muravchik, it is
   well-written and provocative. Unfortunately, the article also suggests
   that Muravchik, and perhaps his editors at Commentary, have learned
   nothing from the Iraq War.

   Muravchik states and tries to refute several critiques of
   neoconservative ideology, but does not even manage to acknowledge the
   existence of what I think is the most persuasive critique: that the
   U.S. government, like all governments, tends to be short-sighted,
   incompetent, and corrupt. Therefore, charging it with Herculean tasks
   like spreading democracy to countries with no democratic tradition,
   and with little in common culturally, linguistically, or otherwise
   with Americans, is presumptively a foolish idea. The best that can be
   said for the neoconservative ideology is that as foolish as this idea
   seems, the alternative provided by its critics amounts to sitting
   around and waiting for a rogue state or terrorist group to destroy
   Manhattan with an atom bomb. But Muravchik, and other neocons, don't
   make a "least-bad-alternative" argument, they seem to believe that if
   the American government just devotes sufficient economic and military
   resources to democratization, it will somehow inherently use those
   resources wisely and efficiently, and if democracy fails to bloom, we
   should just try harder. If that still doesn't work, it means that the
   U.S. has encountered insurmountable local barriers to democratization,
   not that there is something questionable about the whole project to
   begin with.

   The irony is that the other, domestic policy wing of neoconservatism,
   the wing that focused on the failures of the Great Society, got its
   reputation and influence by explaining that good intentions (as in
   failed Great Society programs) aren't enough, and that throwing
   government resources at problems not only isn't enough, but is often
   counter-productive. Idealism is one thing, but as non-neoconservative
   P.J. O'Rourke puts it, giving the government money and power is like
   giving car keys and whiskey to a teenage boy. Foreign policy neocons
   like Muravchik sound just like the domestic liberals their domestic
   neocon brethren delighted in attacking in the 70s and 80s: "it wasn't
   our policy that failed, much less our ideology, we just need to
   redouble our efforts, maintain our idealism, and give the government
   more money and power."

References

   1. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm?id=10935&page=all