The Neoconservative Prescription for Peace

Larry Cramblett is a retired musician. He now pursues his lifelong passion of the pen with writing freelance humor and political commentary. He lives with his wife Tich in Bellingham.

Sometime in the last few months, as I listened to and read the news, the words neocon and neoconservative kept popping up. Because I found that the news media never defined the terms, I became increasingly curious as to just what their use was trying to define. I guess I felt—probably like a lot of liberals—that such terms as neoconservative, right wing conservative and Christian conservative all tended toward being understood in the same vein: different names used to describe a rigid, moralizing and ethnocentric group that had dreams of America becoming a well Christianized theocracy.

So, my curiosity piqued, I did a little study of the real differences within the species conservative; and, in the process became aware that the term neoconservative defined a very different breed indeed from that of the run of the mill religious brood. In brief, neoconservatives have only a utilitarian link with Christian conservatives, understand the role of government in society in distinctly different ways and, to a large degree, pose a far greater threat to the survival of the liberal democratic ideals and freedoms the founders of our constitution envisioned.1

Unfortunately, these differences cannot be easily conveyed—they are not the stuff of sound bites. The media does tend to throw out the title “neocon” and leave it to its audience to understand the meaning. So it does take some degree of concentration to make sense of it all. What follows, then, is one writer’s attempt at clarification.

The neoconservative movement grew out of a group of politically disaffected and sometimes leftist intellectuals from the 1960s 2 who liked to hang their hats on the ideas of Leo Strauss (1889–1973). Strauss, a charismatic and gifted political philosophy professor from the University of Chicago, came from Germany to the United States in 1938. Strauss himself was only tangentially involved with the development of neoconservative thought.

His ideas, however—on the surface rather bizarre—do permeate their think tanks. They have redefined his ideas for more purposeful applications than those of the classroom. It is through their practical application of Strauss’ theories that neoconservatives truly define themselves. In essence they are neoStraussians far more than neoconservatives.

Strauss, a product of the Holocaust, strongly believed that what had led to the moral decay of German society and its acquiescent acceptance of Hitler’s demagoguery and Germany’s consequential fall to fascism, was a self-destructive cultural permissiveness he called nihilism.3 Strauss became fearful that America, the archetype of a free society, could unwittingly be caught off guard and succumb to a similar fate. He was convinced that the moral relativism he saw taking hold in America would eventually lead to America’s own fall if not properly checked.

Strauss was completely unconvinced that a pluralistic and truly democratic society such as the U.S. could stand against the corruption caused by the very freedoms such a society granted. Ideally, he felt something stronger should take the place of democracy.4 He wrote in his book “On Tyranny” that, “When we were brought face to face with tyranny—with a kind of tyranny that surpassed the boldest imagination of the most powerful thinkers of the past—our political science failed to recognize it.”5 Motivated by this perspective, Strauss created a theoretical model for a socio-political system that was, ironically, distinctly undemocratic.

Through his studies of certain Western philosophers (Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, Hobbes and Machiavelli, among others) Strauss developed the concept of a quasi-democratic society whose population would be comprised of three classes: a “Wise” philosopher class, lovers of truth, who would act behind the scenes of government, formulating and integrating policy for the greater societal good; a “Gentleman” class of elected officials and citizen soldiers, lovers of honor and glory who would easily embrace the moral imperatives given to it by the “Wise” they felt necessary to govern a stable society; and a “Vulgar” class, comprised of the majority of the masses, lovers of wealth and pleasure, whose nihilistic pursuits the higher two classes would temper and control through the astute use of three requisite tools: deception, religion and an aggressive nationalism.6

Deception would be necessary because the general masses could realistically only be told what they needed to know and no more. They would be incapable of understanding the complexities and moral ambiguities of such things as the preemptive use of military interventions necessary to keep fascist states in check. The ‘Noble lies” of deception, obfuscation, and disinformation would be invaluable.7

Religion would be necessary because the masses would need moral incentives to inhibit their more selfish interests. For Strauss, absolute moral truth did not exist; it needed to be created. (Strauss, himself, was an atheist.) The “absolute” truths the masses needed would be provided by the creation of a national religion. Strauss didn’t believe the establishment of a theocracy would be necessary; but certainly the promotion of a religious identity would.

Any religion having a suitable moral dimension would do. If one religion was already generally recognized, so much the better. Obviously, a more conservative, moralistic belief system would be preferable. He felt that any society entertaining religious diversity was entertaining too much diversity. Such freedom of expression would increase moral ambiguity rather than limit it. It follows therefore, for Strauss, that agreement between church and state, not their separation, is by far the preferable standard.8

But even religion would not be enough to secure a society from potential moral collapse. A zealous and aggressive nationalism would also be necessary. Such a nationalistic zeal would bring focus and unity through its atmosphere of service and sacrifice. And the patriotism it fostered would best be made constant through struggling with an enemy.

If an enemy was not available, Strauss felt that man’s natural flirtations with power and politics would eventually produce one. He, like the philosopher Thomas Hobbes, believed human nature to be naturally aggressive; consequently, enemies would be easy to come by. The point was to take advantage of a nation’s enemies when circumstances permitted.

Perpetual conflict and war were just necessary evils. Such things were easily justified by their use in buttressing a nation’s strength and identity. Strauss went so far as to advocate manufacturing an enemy if necessary. He would most certainly have been disillusioned in learning the cold war with Russia has ended.9

So the use of deception to keep the masses quiescent, the creation of a national religious identity for establishing moral clarity, and the manufacturing of an aggressive zealous nationalism preoccupied with conflict and war were ingredients Strauss hypothesized for holding a society’s otherwise licentious and destructive needs in check.

One might seriously wonder here if somehow Strauss was not himself flirting with fascism—creating the form for some kind of pseudo-democratic fascist state ruled by a group of philosopher dictators. But Strauss was first and foremost a philosophy professor. And, although deeply distressed by the horrors of the Third Reich and obviously interested in using political science to explore hypothetical systems that could thwart fascism, he was never actively engaged in their realistic development. His world was that of his classroom.

As for the real world, he felt that, “to make the world safe for the Western democracies, one must make the whole globe democratic, each country in itself as well as the society of nations.” 10 So given that America was a democratic nation and unlikely to change, the best way to secure it from tyranny was to democratize the remainder of the planet. This was perhaps as unrealistic as developing his model of a hypothetical society; but it certainly did not involve what many would think of as the active subversion of the United States democracy. Strauss agreed with Churchill that, “Democracy is the worst system devised by the wit of man, except for all the others.” 11

Strauss would never have taken himself quite as seriously as some of his students have. He would probably find it incredible that his ideas would later become the centerpiece for a neoconservative political movement.12 This being said, he did inspire his students. And he hoped that some would become active in establishing policy and proper direction for their government. At the University of Chicago where he taught from 1949–1969, a cult of sorts developed around him.13 It was from this group that certain students would later come to describe themselves as neoconservatives. Some of them would eventually hold high positions in several Republican administrations.

With occasional nods to Strauss, these would be “new” conservative patriots, through their various tracks of influence, have been able to spread a political platform that includes three key goals:

•establishing world peace through the “noble” cause of world domination (this recently was capitalized on by deceiving the public and the Bush administration into endorsing a war with Iraq by taking full advantage of our nations preoccupation with the September 11 event).14

•marketing a one-dimensional religious conservativism for the “noble” cause of maintaining societal stability and moral unity (done primarily through its influence over the Christian right).15

•limiting cultural and social diversity by manipulating the public’s consciousness through utilizing culturally conservative media messages spread throughout news, sitcoms and dramatic series (e.g., through Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News and Entertainment Corporation).16

One of the stranger achievements of George W. Bush has been his unfortunate marrying of the Christian right and the neoconservative right through selecting members of each group to fill several key administration positions.17 Just why this was done—through intelligent design or lack thereof—is not for this discussion.

It is important to note however that, at least to this author’s mind, Bush had no insidious, covert, grand conspiracy motivating him. He may have been just providing opportunities for the two extreme sides of his party. Unfortunately, sometimes just through inadvertent happenstance, a perfect political climate is created for potentially terrible results: the combination of these two political forces inexorably working toward a complete control of our political system could provide a strength of action that may eventually be disastrous for the integrity of the U.S. Constitution. Their campaign of mutually supported constitutional renovation, given enough time, might very well be achieved.18

The Christian right should be appalled at having to share space with what they should perceive as an ideologically threatening and irreligious bunch of hypocritical neoconservative opportunists. The downside for them is that if their neocon brothers are persuasive enough, the original foundational ideals of freedom from state interference and tyranny—the ones the Christian right should have been zealously guarding—may soon be on the cutting room floor. (That is, if that next available slot on the Supreme Court is filled to the neocon’s satisfaction).

A state-controlled religion is not the same thing as a legitimate theo-cracy where a particular religion controls a state. The former is predicated upon the opportunistic use and manipulation of the religion by and for the state: the neoconservative game plan. And, regardless of any Christian hopes to the contrary, history does not show that “God, in his infinite wisdom, would never let this happen.”

The heartfelt and prayerful concern for the saved soul and changed mind of the sinner in the next committee room is not a given to be planned on—which is one good reason why religion and politics should never mix their constituents’ hopes and dreams too much. Christian conservatives would be wise to count on miracles in the political arena the same way they like to count their money: only as a sure thing.

Unfortunately for the Christian right, their neoStraussian/neoconservative brothers have their hopes set on far more pragmatic and intellectually sophisticated desires than to fall prey to the soul-saving exercises of their would be colleagues. And they have been gradually and effectively interweaving those desires into the machinations of the Bush administration’s otherwise well-tempered Christian mindset for four years.

They ingratiate themselves into easy acceptance by glad-handing and applauding each item on the right’s platform from the pro-life issue to creationism to Israel; and they certainly join hands with them on any issues that promote a singularly conservative religious identity for the nation. They are intellectuals and fanatics immersed in the hidden wisdom of an erudite philosophical school, who believe that their particular world of ideas has provided them, as shown through the guiding light of Leo Strauss, the only clear and lasting formula for achieving world peace.

“What rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches toward Bethlehem to be born.” 19

This election really is about keeping the Constitution as we know it, or gradually becoming a theocratic dominion governed by the mentality of an elite philosopher oligarchy who will convey its will through the application of power, privilege and the useful concept of an absolutist God. And however preposterous this may seem on the surface, history has shown that what has played itself out in the past has often been just this bizarre and unfathomable. §

•Atlas, J. (4 May 2003) “Leo-Cons; A Classicist’s Legacy: New Empire Builders.” The New York Times.

•Drury, S.B. 1999. “Leo Strauss and the American Right.” St. Martin’s Press, New York, New York.

•Ehrman, J. 1996. “The Rise of Neoconservatism: Intellectual and Foreign Affairs 1945–1996.” Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn.

•Frachon, A. and Vernet, D. (2 June 2003). “The Strategist and the Philosopher: Leo Strauss and Albert Wohlstetter.” http://www.counterpunch.org/frachon06022003.html [2004, July 31].

•Hersh, S.M. (12 May 2003) “Selective Intelligence: Donald Rumsfeld has his own special sources.” http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030512a_fact [2004, July 31].

•Kagan, R. 2003. “Of Paradise And Power: America and Europe in the New World Order.” Alfred A. Knopf, New York, New York.

•Postel, D. (10 Oct. 2003) “Noble lies and perpetual war: Leo Strauss, the neo-cons, and Iraq.” http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-3-77-1542.jsp [2004, July 31].

•Scheer, C. 2003. “The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq.” The Independent Media Institute, St. Paul, MN.

•Strauss, L. 1963. “On Tyranny.” Cornell University Press. Ithaca, N.Y.