I just read this piece at the Weekly Standard. It looks like a good book.
As A proud Neo-Con, I am always looking for the opportunity to share my political philosophy with anyone interested and it sounds like the author of this new book has pretty much nailed it. His book is now being added to the top of my “Must Read” list.
Here is a quote from Peter Berkowitz’s article,
“Douglas Murray, a young Oxford-educated writer, has chosen the more direct approach. Avid and unabashed, he takes on neoconservatism’s harshest critics and does not yield an inch. Indeed, contrary to the many critics who have announced that the neoconservative moment has passed, Murray contends that neoconservatism is just getting started. And the future beckons brightly.
In the opening pages, Murray declares his “belief that the solution to many, if not all, of our problems lies in neoconservatism–not just because it provides an optimistic and emboldened conservatism, but because neoconservatism provides a conservatism that is specifically attuned, and attractive, to people today.”
Murrays book is titled:
Neoconservatism
Why We Need It by Douglas Murray
Encounter, 200 pp., $25.95
And another quote:
“Neoconservatives, Murray shows, differ from both traditional conservatives–and, to use a term that more accurately than “liberal” describes the left in America today, progressives. In contrast to traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are more comfortable with capitalism, always accepted the moral and political necessity of the welfare state, and consistently sought a prominent role for America in creating a stable and just international order.
In contrast to progressives, neoconservatives are more concerned about the costs of modernity’s disruptive ways to the family and traditional morality, strongly doubt the ability of the federal government to improve America through higher taxes and more aggressive social policies, and are skeptical of the integrity and efficacy of the United Nations, while maintaining confidence in the ability of the American armed forces, when diplomacy is exhausted, to advance American interests and ideals.
Although the label neoconservative was originated on the left as a term of reproach, it captures an important truth. In post-1960s America, neoconservatism elaborated a new kind of conservatism, one that made conserving and revitalizing the material and moral preconditions of a free society the top political priority.”
I would agree with all of this except for the premise that Neo-Cons “always accepted the moral and political necessity of the welfare state”.
I believe the welfare state should be completely privatized, from Social Security to Medicare benefits, I would like to see the Government get out of the charity business altogether.
I believe private charities, religion, and on the ground citizens – meaning those in the “neighborhood” do a much better job of helping families in trouble than government ever could hope to do.
I don’t remember ever reading about neocons being tied to the welfare state in any way, shape, or form, so this would be one area where I would diverge from Mr. Murrays analysis of the political movement I have tied myself to. And I am very excited about reading his book.
Jenny Hatch