Neoconservatism

Neoconservatism was born when a group of liberal and radical New York intellectuals became disenchanted with the political left in the late 1960s. From the perspective of the left, which they attacked, they were conservative and were accused of so being, but because they retained an attachment to many of the liberal goals that had long attracted them and because they were rarely Christian, from the South, or inclined to romanticize the past, they were not traditional conservatives. They were inclined, for example, to praise FDR, but never Barry Goldwater or Russell Kirk. These neoconservatives (also referred to as neocons) agreed with the left that it was critical to end racially based injustice and the chronically disadvantaged position of the poor, but they broke with their leftist comrades over the way to achieve these goals. In general, they argued that in its impassioned pursuit of equality, the left had become blind to other worthy goals, such as a deference to democratic procedures, the liberty of the individual, and the complex social and educational requirements of stable government. In foreign policy, they charged liberals with having forgotten the need to remain strong against the Soviet threat. Neocons charged the liberals of the late 1960s and later with having forgotten the prudent legacy of their own past, so that they might more appropriately be called “paleolibs.”

The early neocons agreed with liberals that poverty and racism were massive problems in the United States, for example. But they attacked the left for advancing state-supported affirmative action as a way of promoting these rights, for it would swell the state, limit liberty, and create resentment; similar concerns led them to oppose massive, state-run welfare programs. They agreed with libertarians that government enforcement of a more strict equality threatened individual liberty, and they agreed with fiscal conservatives that the Great Society welfare programs would place huge financial burdens on the economy. More than either of these groups, however, the neocons focused their writing on the indirect social and educational consequences of liberal approaches to solving the problems of racism and poverty. They stressed that it is a problem to encourage dependency on the state, rather than self-reliance, and they held that antipoverty programs sometimes weakened the family, an institution they considered important for society in general and especially important for the educational and economic progress of African Americans.

Early neoconservatives broke with their erstwhile liberal friends and allies over the radical assaults on the universities in the late 1960s as well. They denounced the students and professors who saw fit to protest racism and the war in Vietnam by disrupting classes and radicalizing the curricula. Education, the neocons argued, required a patient exploration of all serious alternatives and would suffer—or cease—if it [Page 1497]came to be seen primarily as a means to advance the goals of a disadvantaged group. Hence neocons found themselves in quarrels with those favoring educational reform to advance the rights of women, AfroAmericans, and gays. They considered the “traditional” curricula to be intellectually liberating rather than the politically correct agenda that challenged it.

...