Russia, liberalism and neoconservatism

 As a general rule, when you hear someone stick the prefix, "neo-," in front of a noun, that person is full of shit.  Old wine, new bottles, nothing to see here folks, move along past my annoying cliches and don't bother with neo-.  I shall not rant today about that nonsense word, "neoliberal," except to remind you that anyone who uses the word has disqualified himself from intelligent conversation.  Neoconservatism, on the other hand, is a real thing.  Why?  It is truly distinct from old fashioned conservatism.  So let's talk ideology and foreign policy.  Or rather, I shall write, and you shall read.  "You" being purely hypothetical, this being a blog that nobody reads.  It is merely that I poured myself some coffee, and what else am I gonna do?

Anyway, there is a simple observation about war.  Wars don't happen between two democracies.  Think back through the history of war, and you'll find that at least one of the countries involved was some version of an autocracy, be it a military dictatorship, a monarchy, a fascist state, a communist state, or something like that.  Two democracies?  Um... not so much.  Why?  That's a good question, and I do not have a good answer, but this observation is the basis of a controversial proposition in political science called "the democratic peace hypothesis."  Democracies don't fight each other, so where there are democracies, there is peace.

Interesting.

So what if your goal is to reduce or ideally even eliminate war in the long run, which is the run in which we are all dead anyway?  Spread democracy.  Through what means?  Would you accept some war, if it spread democracy?  We can put this in philosophical terms and discuss consequentialism and deontology again, but I don't feel like it.  We can ask whether or not it will work, and that's a valid question too.  However, this is more of a lesson in the history of ideology.

What is "neoconservatism?"  Unlike neoliberalism, it is a real thing, and should be discussed as a distinct ideology with a distinct history, rather than just a signifier that the speaker is a bloviating idiot.  The origins of neoconservatism can be found among disaffected liberals.  Among the most important was Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, and we'll get to him.

Those who just think of the word, "neoconservatism" as some kind of satanic invocation, while buying into the left's new fondness for antisemitism may tilt their heads at the connection, but most of the founders of neoconservatism were left-leaning jews, like Kristol.  What happened?  Kristol, Norman Podhoretz and their compatriots bristled at the left's unwillingness to confront the Soviet Union.  They saw the Soviet Union as an expansionist threat to peace in the long run, and classical liberal values, to the degree that one found a through-line from classical to modern liberalism.  So, they left the left, so to speak, and aligned with the right to confront communism.

But why the "neo-?"

This returns us to the democratic peace hypothesis.  The neoconservatives, in Kristol's orbit, wanted a much more activist foreign policy, and were open to war, with the idea that war in the short term would prevent bigger wars in the long term.  This put them at odds with what was then a large faction within the Republican Party.  Pat Buchanan eventually dubbed them the paleo-conservatives, but they would have just been called conservative, at one point.  They were the more isolationist wing, going back to the faction of the Republican Party that resisted getting involved even in WWII until we did not have a choice.  The neo- prefix actually did some work.

What, then?  9/11.  The paleos go the way of the dinosaurs, and to be a conservative was to be a neoconservative.  Is the prefix doing any work anymore?  Arguably not, and people lose sight of the history, but a few political scientists remember.  I was teaching about the history of ideology, explaining the democratic peace hypothesis, telling students who Irving Kristol was, and so forth.

And then Donald Trump came along and everything got thrown up in the air.  Like he was tossing our salads.  Um... maybe I should rethink that line.

Moving on.

Vladimir Putin wants to rebuild the Soviet Union, not for the sake of economic theory, but for the sake of empire.  Once upon a time, like the Greeks of old, the Republican Party worshipped Ronald Reagan as Hyperion, the Sun.  Nothing lasts forever, and in the wackadoodle religion of Republicanism, Reagan has been cast down, and replaced by the ever-vengeful swan-rapist.  While Reagan had two goals-- tax cuts and bringing down the USSR-- what does the vulture-rapist think of Putin?  Yeah, let's go "vulture."

The vulture-rapist worships Putin as his god.  He will do anything Putin says.  When Putin invaded Ukraine, the vulture-rapist couldn't stop crowing about how brilliant Putin was.  Why?  Have you been paying attention?

What happens to the Republican Party?  Irving's son, Bill, keeps the faith.  He was one of the actual never-Trumpers.  A true neoconservative, Bill Kristol sees the vulture-rapist for what he is, Putin for what he is, and while a lefty may or may not agree with Kristol's foreign policy, he remains consistent as what happens when the left turns away based on a combination of the democratic peace hypothesis and seeing countries run the wrong way.

And in the Democratic Party?  We see Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez being heckled in town halls for voting to fund Ukraine.  If you watch those videos, they include conspiratorial bullshit about Ukraine being run by nazis, which... no.  Nevertheless, we must note what has happened to the ideological dynamic.  Neoconservatism is nearly gone, with only a few stalwarts left-- like Irving's son, and Dick's daughter.  The GOP is too much of a Trump cult for any real difference of opinion, when the greater need is proxy worship of Putin.

And on the left, the pseudo-hippies are being confronted in town halls for funding an escalating land war in Asia with at least a non-zero risk of nukes.

It is difficult to listen to anyone here without a cynical chuckle, if you have a long enough political memory, but the greater lesson here is the simple reminder that ideology is not a static thing.  Conservatism is not a static thing.  Liberalism is not a static thing.  Politicians change in response to pressures around them, their own lack of coherent thinking, and sometimes just a belief that "this is a different circumstance."  And over a long enough haul, the lines get shifted.

Like lines on a map.

Sean Watkins, "Neo's Song," from Let It Fall.