The term “Neocon” has been thrown about recently, almost always pejoratively. It usually refers to a non-descript, secretive group, usually without names, who influence American foreign policy in general and the Bush Administration, in particular.

Take, for example, an August 2003 comment by Liberal Democrat, Howard Dean: “(Bush is) an engaging person, but I think for some reason he’s been captured by the neoconservatives around him.” (U.S. News and World Report: Aug.11, 2003)

Bush is “captured” as if prey. Is it not possible that this philosophy (Neoconservatism) was his own? And Dean mentions no names. Who are these Neocons? If by “Neocon, one means the preemptive use of force by a super power to support democracy and fight murderous regimes, then one would have to say that Rumsfeld, Cheney and Gen.Richard Meyers are Neocons. And what Republicans would not qualify? The isolationist Republicans like Pat Buchanan. (It is not at all clear that these isolationists would have supported the war on Hitler.) And all but one of the members of Congress voted to attack the Taliban in Afghanistan. This action was consistent with Neoconservatism.

What is the origin of Neoconservatism? It emerged from the ranks of liberal Democrats who became disillusioned with the politics of liberalism, the welfare state and the deterioration of American culture. Some have suggested that the “godfather” of Neoconservatism is Irving Kristol, a New York intellectual. He said that a Neocon is a liberal who was “mugged by reality.”

Let’s listen to the words of Kristol himself from The Neoconservative Persuasion; The Weekly Standard, Aug.25, 2003:

“But it is only to a degree that neocons are comfortable in modern America. The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives—though not with those libertarian conservatives who are conservative in economics but unmindful of the culture. The upshot is a quite unexpected alliance between neocons, who include a fair portion of secular intellectuals, and religious traditionalists. They are united on issues concerning the quality of education, the relations of church and state, the regulation of pornography, and the like, all of which they regard as proper candidates for the government’s attention. And since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power. Because religious conservatism is so feeble in Europe, the neoconservative potential there is correspondingly weak.”

So you begin to see the thoughtfulness and subtlety of the Neocon philosophy. Hardly something which qualifies as conspiratorial. It is a cheap shot for commentators or talk show hosts to toss out terms like “a cabal of Neocons” or suggest an unhealthy manipulation by Neocons. It says volumes that “Neocon” is used so much—almost always pejoratively—and its complex and reasoned philosophy is never in my own experience, discussed openly and in depth.

(Those interested in its philosophy can google “Irving Kristol” or visit the Weekly Standard website www.weeklystandard.com. )

If you look carefully, you will find a reasonable philosophy which stresses strong defense, personal responsibility, leaner, more effective government, free market, support of democracy throughout the world and the notion that a superpower has a responsibility to use that power for good when it can.