So, despite what the Wikipedia page claims, I wouldn’t say that the origins of neoconservatism has to do with foreign policy, nor would I characterize interventionism abroad or engagement as “neoconservatism.” Neoconservatism got associated with foreign intervention due to the Bush administration. Irving Kristol founded the Public Interest before National Interest, which indicates to me that the movement was originally about crime and social policy, not realist foreign policy. After anti-communism, we needed a new term to describe conservative hawkishness and neocon became it I guess.
I’m not a neocon. But I am a foreign policy hawk and a believer in peace through strength. (I used to work for DOD.) Otherwise, I’m closer to libertarian on most metrics. So what I mean is that I agree with your overall stance on foreign policy if not your use of “neocon.”
Also a lot of libertarians are “globalists,” and there’s a massive divide between paleos and libertarians on trade and onshoring or reshoring supply chains. I’m a free trade guy and the isolationists want to bring all production back inside our borders.
Also, as much as I admire Jefferson (he founded my alma mater), he was wrong about the French Revolution. It’s a good thing we didn’t get involved. I doubt we could have prevented the Reign of Terror. Also, he doesn’t map neatly onto today’s political debates and in many ways was a mix of liberal/leftist, conservative, and agrarian populist. I’m more of a Madisonian even if that’s not a school of foreign policy.
“ The globalist/nationalist debate is largely abstract and divorced from reality. The world is smaller than it used to be. ”
Exactly. The whole debate is a bit pointless. As much as the “end foreign wars” crowd claims they’re “realists,” and as much as you use the language of idealism to defend foreign engagement, I think it simply isn’t realistic to argue for isolationism in the 21st century. The realists are the ones who know we need to 1. Set a good example and be a good neighbor and 2. Have the most powerful military in the world. I don’t see an alternative on offer that presents a more enticing future, so until that time if we want to be realistic about American security and American interests, we better keep doing 1 and 2.
A certain level of generalizing is always needed in most commentary in order to make the issues accessible to the politically non-engaged, but you may be right that I overgeneralized here. Any term that originates as a pejorative is going to have inconsistencies in how its used, applied, and embraced.
On the note of the French Revolution, I used to hold your position but I'm not so sure anymore. For a long time, I embraced Washington's position both that the new nation could not afford any foreign entanglements and that the French Revolution was a doomed venture that would have soiled our budding national identity. But as I've learned about Hamilton's scheming and the extent to which Washington was unwittingly guided by Hamilton towards his own ends, I've grown less confident in a) the belief that America had to remain disconnected from European affairs in order to thrive and b) the extent to which it actually remained unentangled. Washington, for example, refused to respect America's treaties with France after the monarchy fell, a choice that, far from remaining neutral, made a clear choice in favor of British commerce, a decision pushed by Hamilton and one that outraged Jefferson (the Jay Treaty reinforces this reality, America was officially neutral but clearly aligned with British interests under both Washington and Adams). As well, Adams engaged in the Quasi-war with France, Jefferson invaded Africa in the Barbary Wars, and Madison ended up courting the War of 1812 with the British. Washington's desire for America to be an isolated and neutral nation really never reflected reality. It seems to be more wishful thinking on Washington's part, and was encouraged by Hamilton at certain key moments only to undermine his political opponents (Adams and Jefferson). In fact, had not Adams stood up to Hamilton and banished his Hamiltonian cabinet members, America would likely have gone to all-out war with both France and Spain and sided with the British (Hamilton, for example, had designs to conquer Spanish Florida and French Louisiana, and was chastened by Adams for "dreaming of empire").
As for the French Revolution, I think there's an argument to be made that direct American involvement could have empowered and legitimated more moderate figures such as our ally Lafayette, who could have guided a less bloody and radical transition from absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy or aristocracy in the pattern of Great Britain. To the charge that the French Revolution was doomed to fail, I think Jefferson would answer that the absence of temperate American leadership gave a path for intemperate voices to dominate and descend a hopeful liberation into terror, anarchy, and back into tyranny. Many historians correctly observe that the French Revolution lacked the military leadership of a Washington-like figure and the political leadership of figures akin to Adams, Madison, and Jefferson. What they miss is that there were such figures in France (and Lafayette arguably channels them all) but that these voices weren't heard over the melee of a country swinging from absolute monarchy into a period of anarchy. These voice could have been lifted up and given the position of leadership necessary for better outcomes had America been more involved and dealt with these moderate voices as the legitimate leaders of the movement.
Fair points. I haven’t studied the history of the French Revolution in enough detail myself to really make an argument. However to some extent we can’t know because it’s a counterfactual (what if America had gotten involved?).
I’m still skeptical though. America wasn’t particularly strong in the 1790s. Could America today get involved in such a conflict and successfully prevent the Terror? Yes. But, I’m not sure we could have then.
“ What they miss is that there were such figures in France (and Lafayette arguably channels them all) but that these voices weren't heard over the melee of a country swinging from absolute monarchy into a period of anarchy.”
The French Revolution went bad pretty quickly. Unless we intervened early, I’m not sure we could have really headed off the anarchy. They were executing people just for being related to someone who married a noble. Or for speaking out against the violence.
So, despite what the Wikipedia page claims, I wouldn’t say that the origins of neoconservatism has to do with foreign policy, nor would I characterize interventionism abroad or engagement as “neoconservatism.” Neoconservatism got associated with foreign intervention due to the Bush administration. Irving Kristol founded the Public Interest before National Interest, which indicates to me that the movement was originally about crime and social policy, not realist foreign policy. After anti-communism, we needed a new term to describe conservative hawkishness and neocon became it I guess.
I’m not a neocon. But I am a foreign policy hawk and a believer in peace through strength. (I used to work for DOD.) Otherwise, I’m closer to libertarian on most metrics. So what I mean is that I agree with your overall stance on foreign policy if not your use of “neocon.”
Also a lot of libertarians are “globalists,” and there’s a massive divide between paleos and libertarians on trade and onshoring or reshoring supply chains. I’m a free trade guy and the isolationists want to bring all production back inside our borders.
Also, as much as I admire Jefferson (he founded my alma mater), he was wrong about the French Revolution. It’s a good thing we didn’t get involved. I doubt we could have prevented the Reign of Terror. Also, he doesn’t map neatly onto today’s political debates and in many ways was a mix of liberal/leftist, conservative, and agrarian populist. I’m more of a Madisonian even if that’s not a school of foreign policy.
“ The globalist/nationalist debate is largely abstract and divorced from reality. The world is smaller than it used to be. ”
Exactly. The whole debate is a bit pointless. As much as the “end foreign wars” crowd claims they’re “realists,” and as much as you use the language of idealism to defend foreign engagement, I think it simply isn’t realistic to argue for isolationism in the 21st century. The realists are the ones who know we need to 1. Set a good example and be a good neighbor and 2. Have the most powerful military in the world. I don’t see an alternative on offer that presents a more enticing future, so until that time if we want to be realistic about American security and American interests, we better keep doing 1 and 2.
A certain level of generalizing is always needed in most commentary in order to make the issues accessible to the politically non-engaged, but you may be right that I overgeneralized here. Any term that originates as a pejorative is going to have inconsistencies in how its used, applied, and embraced.
On the note of the French Revolution, I used to hold your position but I'm not so sure anymore. For a long time, I embraced Washington's position both that the new nation could not afford any foreign entanglements and that the French Revolution was a doomed venture that would have soiled our budding national identity. But as I've learned about Hamilton's scheming and the extent to which Washington was unwittingly guided by Hamilton towards his own ends, I've grown less confident in a) the belief that America had to remain disconnected from European affairs in order to thrive and b) the extent to which it actually remained unentangled. Washington, for example, refused to respect America's treaties with France after the monarchy fell, a choice that, far from remaining neutral, made a clear choice in favor of British commerce, a decision pushed by Hamilton and one that outraged Jefferson (the Jay Treaty reinforces this reality, America was officially neutral but clearly aligned with British interests under both Washington and Adams). As well, Adams engaged in the Quasi-war with France, Jefferson invaded Africa in the Barbary Wars, and Madison ended up courting the War of 1812 with the British. Washington's desire for America to be an isolated and neutral nation really never reflected reality. It seems to be more wishful thinking on Washington's part, and was encouraged by Hamilton at certain key moments only to undermine his political opponents (Adams and Jefferson). In fact, had not Adams stood up to Hamilton and banished his Hamiltonian cabinet members, America would likely have gone to all-out war with both France and Spain and sided with the British (Hamilton, for example, had designs to conquer Spanish Florida and French Louisiana, and was chastened by Adams for "dreaming of empire").
As for the French Revolution, I think there's an argument to be made that direct American involvement could have empowered and legitimated more moderate figures such as our ally Lafayette, who could have guided a less bloody and radical transition from absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy or aristocracy in the pattern of Great Britain. To the charge that the French Revolution was doomed to fail, I think Jefferson would answer that the absence of temperate American leadership gave a path for intemperate voices to dominate and descend a hopeful liberation into terror, anarchy, and back into tyranny. Many historians correctly observe that the French Revolution lacked the military leadership of a Washington-like figure and the political leadership of figures akin to Adams, Madison, and Jefferson. What they miss is that there were such figures in France (and Lafayette arguably channels them all) but that these voices weren't heard over the melee of a country swinging from absolute monarchy into a period of anarchy. These voice could have been lifted up and given the position of leadership necessary for better outcomes had America been more involved and dealt with these moderate voices as the legitimate leaders of the movement.
Fair points. I haven’t studied the history of the French Revolution in enough detail myself to really make an argument. However to some extent we can’t know because it’s a counterfactual (what if America had gotten involved?).
I’m still skeptical though. America wasn’t particularly strong in the 1790s. Could America today get involved in such a conflict and successfully prevent the Terror? Yes. But, I’m not sure we could have then.
“ What they miss is that there were such figures in France (and Lafayette arguably channels them all) but that these voices weren't heard over the melee of a country swinging from absolute monarchy into a period of anarchy.”
The French Revolution went bad pretty quickly. Unless we intervened early, I’m not sure we could have really headed off the anarchy. They were executing people just for being related to someone who married a noble. Or for speaking out against the violence.