Posted on 30 July 2011
Americans who are familiar with the two-party system labor erroneously under the delusion that the Democratic party represents “liberalism,” and the Republican party represents “conservatism.” From within the ranks of each party, its respective members both claim that the other is inherently flawed in their ideology or policy.
This is where the divergence ends, however: both sides claim to be the heirs of the philosophy of the American founders, which in turn was influenced by the philosophy and culture of high antiquity, especially Greek liberalism. In this sense, both American parties are two sides of the same coin, and the same thinking might be applied to various European parties as well.
They certainly cannot be considered to be traditional or classical conservatives in the same tradition of Burke, for in fact, their ideology is totally opposed to it. Nor can they, with their tendency towards humanism, materialism, and secularism, be considered to be culturally conservative. But neither do they conform to the idea of classical liberalism, with their opposition to limited government, free markets, and property rights.
Here, a need for new terminology becomes important. Neo-conservatism has been used to describe the new brand of politician who either call themselves conservative or attempt to subvert true social conservatism, derive their thinking from ultimately Trotskyism, and are proponents of ”a globalist, interventionist, open borders ideology.”
Neo-conservatism then, is a corrupt political viewpoint, being based on the aggregate mixture of both bourgeoisie liberalism and Marxism. It is a viewpoint which is inherently flawed because it denies the existence of a “physical” nation composed of its citizens, and instead makes it an ideological one, as Irving Kristol so brazenly admitted in 2003:
…And large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns. Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal.
The history of neoconservatism is worth mentioning. Most neoconservatives had been on the left in the 1930s and 1940s, then moved right in reaction to Stalinism and supported the Cold War. Many were Jewish immigrants from Russia1, and emerged from intellectual milieu of the mid-20th century New York City.Researcher Kevin MacDonald gives this brief summary of neo-conservatism on vdare:
Neoconservatism’s key founders trace their intellectual ancestry to the “New York Intellectuals,” a group that originated as followers of Trotskyite theoretician Max Schactman in the 1930s and centered around influential journals like Partisan Review and Commentary (which is in fact published by the American Jewish Committee). In the case of neoconservatives, their early identity as radical leftist disciples shifted as there began to be evidence of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. Key figures in leading them out of the political left were philosopher Sidney Hook and Elliot Cohen, editor of Commentary. Such men as Hook, Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Nathan Glazer and Seymour Martin Lipset, were deeply concerned about anti-Semitism and other Jewish issues. Many of them worked closely with Jewish activist organizations.
This brings us to the nature of modern neo-conservatism, which has evolved into a more sophisticated creature than it has historically been. This sort of sophistication may be called a faux-conservatism, in that they combine some truth into a large matrix of falsehoods, hoping that individuals will swallow the lies along with the truth.
A prime example such sophisticated deception comes in the person of former radical Communist David Horowitz, who penned a book called “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts about the 60′s.” While Horowitz criticizes some superficialities of liberalism, claims that he is a supporter of “free speech,” and seemingly supports many “conservative” ideas, he remains unflinchingly supportive, and on the side of the media elites and liberal bourgeoisie in others.
In a sense, he fits the mold of controlled opposition as a voice who attempts to throw a smokescreen over the faces of passers-by; he attempts to appease a certain segment of the population, but in reality seeks support for his own cause – and the cause of the media elites.
The works of David Horowitz, really do nothing to absolve his work from the charge of subterfuge — in this case on behalf of Israel and the wider war on Islam (keeping in mind that most Muslims, socially speaking, have very conservative values themselves). His book “Indoctrination U.: The Left’s War Against Academic Freedom”, for instance, appears sincere in some parts in its attack on the Left.
But for anyone wishing to look carefully, it is obvious that the main point is to attack critics of Israel, who happen to be leftists. Of course, other pseudo-conservatives will stop at nothing to criticize non-neo-conservatives such as Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul. This is essentially a technique which has been borrowed from the left2.
Of course, it is no hidden fact that a number of faux-conservatives, are also socially liberal. In the Netherlands, the radical homosexual and forerm Marxist Pim Fortuyn fits into this category quite well. Geert Wilders, also from the Netherlands, similarly hold a number of left-wing views, except when it comes to protecting his culture from Islamic immigrants.
Of course, there are also countless more examples in the political sphere. Notably, many of the architects of the Iraq War were self-confessed neo-conservatives: Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, I. Lewis Libby, Elliott Abrams, David Wurmser, and Abram Shulsky. Of course, there are other faux-conservatives as well: they range from people who occupy influential places in academia, like Daniel Pipes, to a whole army of influential bloggers and to clergy.
The problem with neo-conservatism is that it is a faux-conservatism. In other words, it is claiming to be something that it is not. Its proponents claim that it protects the conservative values of the people, while in reality faux-conservatism only exists to forcibly enforce an artificial ideology which contains all the trappings of modernism.
Moreover, they say that they have the antidote to liberalism, while, in reality they are the other side of the same liberal coin. An authentic, spiritual conservatism which is aligned both with Traditional values and with the concept of identities, calls for a reform current society in a conservative-revolutionary direction. This entails the rejection of most, if not all, of the so-called values espoused by today’s neo-conservatives.
In repudiating faux-conservatism, a revolutionary spirit is needed which places emphasis on the state as an organic concept. As Evola states:
“A State is organic when it has a centre, and this centre is an idea that shapes the various domains of life in an efficacious way; it is organic when it ignores the division and the autonomisation of the particular and when, by virtue of a system of hierarchical participation, every part within its relative autonomy performs its own function and enjoys an intimate connection with the whole.”
In order for this to happen, there must be a complete revolution that repudiates both cultural Marxism, and its ideological cousins such as liberalism and neo-conservatism.
1. Alexander Bloom, Prodigal sons: the New York intellectuals and their world (1986) p. 372
2. Jack Kerwick, Neoconservatives vs. Conservatives: Who Are the Real “Extremists”?, The New American. 12 July 2011.