The Rise and Fall of Neoconservatism

by Damon Linker, C. Bradley Thompson, Patrick J. Deneen

Neoconservatism is perhaps the slipperiest of current intellectual trends. Its adherents downplay the term itself, calling neoconservatism variously a "persuasion," a "mode of thinking," or even a "mood." Our lead essayist this month begs to differ. Drawing on his recent book An Obituary for an Idea, C. Bradley Thompson claims that the thinking of two individuals illuminates nearly all of what we know today as neoconservatism. Those individuals are Irving Kristol and Leo Strauss, featured prominently on this month's banner art.Here to discuss this month are political theorist Patrick Deneen of Georgetown University, philosopher Douglas Rasmussen of St. John's University, and journalist and author Damon Linker of Newsweek/The Daily Beast, noted for his keen eye on the American right.

Genres: Politics

74 pages, Kindle Edition

First published March 7, 2011

About the author

Damon Linker is a contributing editor for the New Republic and is a Senior Writing Fellow in the Center for Critical Writing at the University of Pennsylvania. He lives in suburban Philadelphia with his wife and two children.

Reviews

[Christopher (Donut) · Rating 2 out of 5]

This mini-seminar reaches a low point with C. Bradley Thompson's unhinged attack on Patrick Deneen, who has done nothing more heinous than question Thompson's characterization of "the neo-cons" as, wait for it, un-American and proto-fascist.

In sum, it seems that Thompson seeks to create a socialist straw man to soften his audience into a willingness to accept his eventual accusations of neoconservative fascistic nationalism. The pity is, it is when it comes to neoconservative foreign policy—and its attendant tendencies toward forms of cultural, political, and even military imperialism—that Thompson has the opportunity to score some real criticisms, but instead has already so widely wandered in his attacks that his accusations of fascism are fired from the wrong field at the wrong target. In fact, it is my suspicion and conclusion that he seeks to create this fictive enemy in order to obscure what are the true wellsprings of the imperialistic impulse of the neoconservatives—neither fascism nor socialism, but the very philosophy of the European and American Enlightenment.

Thankfully, Daneen (quoted above), does not take the bait, and his counter-response is civil, and cogent. Even Thompson makes remarks elsewhere in this pamphlet which prove he is not as idiotic as he appears with his back up.

Daneen again:

Let me make one point that is altogether missing in Thompson's analysis: Strauss is neither simply a proponent of the ancient city nor the enemy of modern liberalism. Thompson engages in a simplistic and reductionist reading of Strauss, attributing to him a preference for the ancient city and seeking to transfer its features to the modern nation-state. This is a caricature about as accurate as attributing to me a pining for the KKK. Strauss understands "ancient natural right" to be a teaching about the limits of politics, especially the limits of ideology. Strauss's admiration of the ancients is especially directed at the ancient philosophy, not especially the ancient city.

So, basically, "one cheer" for this.