A bit of cultural theory
I think our best shot at active citizenship—that is, at not being the unaware victims of rich and powerful people—is to cultivate a good understanding of how social order is constructed and how language serves as the indispensable building blocks of social order.
I hate to be a downer (believe me, I know what a depressing pain-in-the-ass it is to keep track of stuff like this) but ignorance in civil matters guarantees our inability to defend our own interests. Such cultural illiteracy makes us sitting ducks. Likewise and just as seriously, a lack of societal knowledge effectively negates our ability to work for the greater good (that is, if you’re interested in that sort of thing).
What we all need (and deserve, in my humble opinion) is the ability to arrive at our own informed political, economic, and cultural points of view based on accurate context, sound reasoning, and robust evidence. What we often do instead, I fear, is arrive at our social points of view based on whoopla, conditioning, diversion, enticement, threat, and bullshit (to name just a few top strategies that go into the making of sitting ducks).
In hopes of amplifying a bit our social awareness, over the next few posts I offer a close (and, I trust, informed) look at The Regime. That is, I’ll set out what I see as two predominant and damaging ideologies at work in current-day American society—and around the globe—that need to be understood and acted (to include ranting) against. For this explicatory and civic-minded undertaking, I’ve consulted a number of specialists and thinkers in sociological fields for basic information as well as their many opinions about the current circumstances of our world—both where we stand and how we got here.
What I present in this overview, however, is more than just an explanation of political-economic theories and historical events. It is my own take on what I judge to be currently most dangerous to our happy existence—namely, a combination of neoliberalism and neoconservatism.
As I argue in a recent book, I see the world currently under the grave threat of a combined neoliberal and neoconservative ascendancy. This threat has been building for roughly four decades, since the Reagan era. While neither ideology—neoliberalism nor neoconservatism—is by any means a monolithic belief system, and while these two orientations towards reality are by no means necessarily tied to one another, I nonetheless see the two working significantly enough in conjunction to characterize them as The Regime—that is, the hegemonic forces and discourses of the day that, to a great degree, dictate our cultural moment. In outlining their development and tenets, I assert the following proposition.
Neoliberalism, as an economic theory and practice, generates—indeed, requires—what amounts to dystopia. Neoconservatism, as a political viewpoint and exercise, wages war against that result.
Again, over the next several posts, I inspect each ideology separately and then discuss how they mesh. I’ll warn you now, it’s not a pretty picture.
Applying this bit of cultural theory
Neoconservatism
Although I consider neoliberalism to be the principal culprit of The Regime, we’ll begin with neoconservatism. This ideology will not take nearly as long to explain. The name itself has an early meaning of a former liberal espousing political conservatism—that is, someone newly coming to more conservative political viewpoints. As the movement evolved, the term “neoconservative” has come to denote, generally, someone who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and U.S. national interest in international affairs, particularly through military means.
Historically, neoconservatism is an American Jewish movement starting in the 1960s with a group of New York public intellectuals and liberals who turned rightwing when it came to the defense of Israel. During the 1970s, neoconservatism had something of a second wave as these Jewish intellectuals reacted negatively to George McGovern as the Democratic candidate for president. Not only did they disapprove of his domestic policies involving what they considered to be government overreach, but his foreign policy stances of withdrawal from Vietnam and cuts to defense spending worried them as well. Nor did these neoconservatives like anything about the New Left of the era, that is, student anti-war protest, the counterculture movement, black nationalism, feminism, environmentalism, and the like. Although still considering themselves liberals, “they stressed the limits of social engineering (through transfers of wealth or affirmative action programs) and pointed out the dangers that the boundless egalitarian dreams of the New Left had created for stability, meritocracy and democracy” (Vaïsse, “Why Neoconservatism” 1). Fundamentally, these early neoconservatives wanted to steer the Democratic Party back toward the center, meaning toward reasonable progressive policies at home and muscular anti-communism abroad.
In the mid-1990s, a third wave of neoconservatism came together. At this point, the movement had migrated fully over to the Republican party and included a younger generation of adherents who had never been liberals or centrist Democrats. With the Soviet Union gone and the United States standing as the lone superpower in the world, as well as the most powerful economy, the focus of these latter-day neocons shifted as well. No longer having to battle the worldwide threat of Soviet communism, they decided it an opportune moment, instead, to project American might around the globe. Whereas earlier neoconservatives had urged the U.S. to defend democracy and human rights in the world, third-wave neocons actively looked to shape the world politically and economically into one safer for and more in line with American interests and values. This shaping involved the bold use of military action where needed.
The signature organization for this undertaking was the Project for the New American Century (1997-2006), and its members held high positions in and crucially fashioned the policies of the George W. Bush administration (2001-2009). Two other major neocon advocacy projects forming at this time (and still operational) were the think tank The American Enterprise Institute and the publication The Weekly Standard. Despite the intervening Obama presidency, and despite the strangeness of the Trump presidency and, currently, the radical nature of his presidential candidacy (discussed further in the So What? section below), this third-wave manifestation of neoconservatism persists and works in conjunction with neoliberalism.
With regard to the basic tenets of neoconservatism, analysts of the movement are quick to point out that there is no single leader or core group exerting tight control over its ideas. While neocons often coordinate their messaging to create effective echo chambers, there are substantial differences of opinions and tactics among them, too. Notes Justin Vaïsse, “No two neoconservatives think the same on all issues, and many object to being called neoconservatives in the first place” (“Why Neoconservatism” 3).
Similarly, while this worldview began as an American Jewish concern for the security of Israel, from the outset many neocons have been (and currently are) non-Jewish. Jim Lobe stresses as well “that the very large majority of Jews in this country are neither neoconservative nor Republican—a source of considerable frustration to Jewish Republicans over the last 30 years” (2). What this means is that neoconservatism is not, and never has been, a popular movement of any kind; instead, it is an elite school of thought practiced by political insiders sharing certain intellectual tendencies and outlooks. Vaïsse asserts, “Neoconservatism has no religious, regional or economic base. It is in no way an organized force with a central authority” (“Why Neoconservatism” 3).
Third-wave neocons, then, tend to be Washington D.C. movers-and-shakers or prominent national journalists/pundits or, in effect, think tank lobbyists who share an agenda of influencing American foreign policy in certain directions. Although amorphous as a group, however, neocons push for policies that can be articulated with clarity. Summarizing a wealth of neoconservative statements since 1995, Vaïsse offers what he calls “The Five Pillars of Neoconservatism” embraced by those who keep to this ideology (see “Why Neoconservatism” 3-7). These mainstay beliefs are as follows.
1) Internationalism. The most basic tenet of neoconservatism is the firm conviction that America must be active in world affairs, that is, “to preserve and extend an international order that is in accord with both our material interests and our principles” (4). Isolationist tendencies of any kind, therefore, upset neocons. Above all else, America should never do too little in the world, and it would be difficult for neocons to imagine America doing too much internationally.
2) Primacy. According to neocons, America is “the indispensable nation,” “the benevolent empire,” and represents “the unipolar moment” when an all-good superpower dominates the planet. No rival superpower, then, should be allowed to rise because “American primacy in the international system is a stroke of good fortune for the rest of the world, since America does not seek to conquer and oppress, but rather to liberate and democratize, and offers public goods to all” (4). Such beliefs obviously stem from a creed of American exceptionalism as well as a self-righteous Manichean view that morally pure America represents Good on earth, and thus acts as the deterrent to all Evil.
3) Unilateralism. Unsurprisingly, neocons also maintain that only America can provide peace and security to the world. No other nation—and particularly not the multinational United Nations—is up to this sacred task. Even NATO, which neocons certainly recognized as an extremely useful alliance for thwarting the ambitions of first the Soviet Union and then Russia, was to have no real policy influence on American geopolitical actions and goals. “The United States, therefore, should not be restrained in its capacity to act, neither by multilateral institutions nor by treaties” (5). Being the first among no-equals, America must have unconditional free rein around the globe.
4) Militarism. In order to sustain its worldwide preeminence and ability to act singly, America must retain massive military capabilities as well as the political will to use them. Such readiness compels sustained high levels of defense spending, and indeed “no year passes by without neoconservatives calling for a major increase of the Pentagon budget and the number of U.S. troops.” Neocons tend to engage in a use-it-or-lose-it alarmism, too, when it comes to the military. Remarks Vaïsse: “This love affair with the American military machine has another aspect to it: the tendency to inflate threats to national security, either out of genuine concern or as a way to mobilize public opinion” (5). In other words, to justify all this military spending, neocons believe it best that our forces be put to use.
5) Democracy. For neocons (and many Americans) the United States and democracy are one and the same thing. Our national identity is wholly tied to the democratic ideal, so much so that America must aggressively spread it around the world. Only then will we (and, by extension, the rest of the world) be safe. Dealing with non-democratic states, then, is not something neocons like to do. To their way of thinking, tyrannical regimes are the source of most conflicts on the world stage. Therefore, “it is utterly unrealistic, in the long term, to accommodate autocracies rather than try to achieve regime change—whether in the USSR, Iraq, Iran or North Korea” (6). Neocons have a missionary zeal for democracy, believing it a universal good that must be imposed on all nations.
When the hype is peeled away, one can see that neoconservatism is at heart a narcissistic and belligerent approach to the world. The “peace” it seeks to install is a global Pax Americana. Its doctrine of “peace through strength” means, really, constant unilateral intervention abroad—to include pre-emptive military strikes and engagements. Stemming from its Jewish origins comes the belief that Israel, like the U.S., is also a morally exceptional nation, and therefore not bound by international norms or agreements. Thus neocons fixate on the security of Israel.
Neocons are convinced as well that the primary lesson we need to learn from history is never to allow another Hitler to rise to power. That is to say, had Hitler been met with strength right from the start, as opposed to appeasement, World War II and the Nazi Holocaust could have been avoided. Lobe points out, then, how the importance of maintaining and using overwhelming military power “cannot be overstated” as a neoconservative imperative. Neocons engage in a consistent pattern of threat-inflation and fear-mongering because “a new Hitler is always just around the corner, and we must be in a permanent state of mobilization against him” (3).
For the first two waves of the neoconservative movement, communism served as that external threat. For the neocon third-wave, Islam has been designated the nemesis of Good. A vague, never-ending, threats-from-all-sides “War on Terror” is an ideal contrivance for the neoconservative agenda. All indications are that China now is being groomed as the next archenemy of the United States. Nor is the neoconservative commitment to Democracy—a problematic floating signifier—wholly noble. Former National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, observed that when neoconservatives talk about “democratization,” they usually mean destabilization (Lobe 4). Upsetting the inner workings of rival nations is a higher priority than planting saplings of democracy around the world.
Moreover, historically neocons have always had a soft spot for “friendly authoritarians,” that is, dictators and strongmen who support U.S. political, military, and economic objectives. Lobe notes that the neoconservative “record over the past 40 years suggests that their devotion to democracy depends entirely on the circumstances” (5). Neocons never advocate for the civil and human rights of Palestinians, for example. And if a democratically held election brings to power a party that is seen as too Marxist or too Islamist, that nation remains earmarked for regime change.
Thus you have neoconservatism in a nutshell: a militarily aggressive, religiously self-righteous, unapologetically brash strain of America First projected onto the global stage.
So what?
Three points stand out to me regarding neoconservatism as a chief component of The Regime.
Point #1: The Bush 2 regime, as noted above, was thoroughly steeped in neocon ideology and practice. Nowhere did this worldview come more ruinously into play than with the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. As a pretense to go to war, Bush lied to the American people and to the world about Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction (the infamous WMDs that Iraq did not have). Then the war was perpetrated with greed and zeal by such arch-neocons as former Vice President Dick Cheney and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.
I think it no stretch to say that the disastrous, neocon-inspired Iraq War and its chaotic aftermath has everything to do with our currently turbulent and unstable state of geopolitical world affairs.
Bush’s “War on Terror” produced only more terror in the region and around the globe. It sparked a surge of refugee migration toward Europe that has resulted in a sharp rise in rightwing nationalist and racist movements in European countries—which in turn gave wings to authoritarian and fascist political figures such as Jean-Marie Le Pen and Marine Le Pen in France or Viktor Orbán in Hungary. Likewise, in a Middle East already beset by deadly conflicts, Bush’s criminal war only served to further discord and exacerbate violence in that region. The current Israel-Hamas War is the latest offspring and manifestation of this bloody turmoil.
In sum, Bush’s neocon Big Lie about WMDs in Iraq is the worst Big Lie ever told by an American president—until Trump came along with his Big Lie about the 2020 presidential election.
If it weren’t for Trump, Bush might well be regarded as the worst recent American president. As things stand now, Bush’s calamitous neocon malpractice has been largely forgotten by the American public, eclipsed by the sheer insanity of Trump (see Point #3 below).
Point #2: I think this decades-long neoconservative tradition of supporting, defending, and vindicating Israel at all costs explains in good part the paralysis we’re seeing in so many American politicians—both Republican and Democrat—who stop short of condemning outright, let alone taking tangible policy steps to prevent, the brutal actions of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in his destruction of Gaza and mass killing of Palestinian civilians. Coming to the aid of Israel is an exceptionally long-standing U.S. political priority and, thus, policy habit of mind for members of both political parties. As outlined above, Republicans since the 1990s have embraced the neocon devotion to Israel. For just as long, Democrats have supported Israel because doing so, traditionally, has been quite popular with many Democratic voters.
However, the murderous combat now being waged by Netanyahu’s war cabinet and far-right ministers has thrown the proverbial monkey wrench into the business-as-usual policy machinery of Republicans and Democrats alike when it comes to Israel. What is the nature of that monkey wrench, exactly? The authoritarian extremism of Netanyahu and his zealous rightwing followers. This militant faction of Israeli society looks to be working violently to expel Palestinians from Israel, to be undermining basic democracy in that nation, and to be pursuing an ultra-orthodox theocratic agenda of Israel First.
Sound familiar?
Point #3: Although neoconservatism has been a staple of Republican politics since the end of the last century, most of its tenets are now being undermined by the MAGA movement of Trump, his sycophants, and his brain-locked followers. While Militarism and Unilateralism are (and likely always will be) alive and well in the American political playbook, the other three hallmarks of the neocon approach to the world—Internationalism, Primacy, and Democracy—are fading or already absent in the Trumpian authoritarian worldview.
In his bizarrely petulant and juvenile way, Trump as president was perfectly happy to nuclear saber-rattle then conduct a bromance with Kim Jong Un or abruptly abandon Kurdish fighters in Syria or order the drone assassination of an Iranian major general near Baghdad or refer to the U.S. military leadership as “my generals.” But these were conceited, go-it-alone acts of random and disconnected martial belligerence. In no way was Trump pursuing the neocon agenda of reshaping the international order into nation states submissive to and reflective of our own irreproachable and heaven-sent selves. In fact, far from trying to impose American-style democracy abroad, Trump was doing everything he could to eradicate it at home. Now his entire election campaign is predicated on the promise of installing himself as Wrathful Dictator.
The point most in need of making, though, is that with regard to political convictions, all Trump is in favor of—that is, really for—is TRUMP. He only avidly supports himself and seems convinced that everyone else should be equally dedicated to that noble cause. His core ideology is HIM.
As a result of the MAGA takeover of the Republican party, neoconservative thinking is fading and neocon-style politicians—such as John McCain, Karl Rove, Mitt Romney, and (when it suits him) Mitch McConnell—are an endangered species in the GOP. Taking their place are QAnon twits like Marjorie Taylor Greene, slimeballs like Matt Gaetz, and imbeciles like Tommy Tuberville. White Christian Nationalism now is being paraded openly as well by Republican politicians such as current (for now) House Speaker Mike Johnson. All of these MAGA minions are in the thralldom of Trump.
Therefore, it seems to me that replacing neoconservatism as the driving political ideology of the Republican Party is something that appears to be—weirdly—a worldwide authoritarian plutocracy.
This new global ascendancy is a boys club of super-rich, nuclear-tipped, warlord oligarchs around the world. Vladimir Putin imagines himself first among this new breed of mega-dictator. But Xi Jinping of China, Kim Jong Un of North Korea, and Bibi Netanyahu of Israel certainly fit this profile. So do any number of non-nuclear-capable wannabes such as Viktor Orbán or the ousted Jair Bolsonaro.
All indications are that Trump desperately wants to join this exclusive club and be part of the fascistic fun.
The Regime, then, is shifting—as Regimes are wont to do. The dominating orthodoxies and governing mechanisms of neoconservatism are morphing easily and readily into the even harsher, more oppressive regimen of totalitarian rule. In the next few posts, we’ll investigate both what neoliberalism is and how that economic model figures into this troubling transition from a terrible Regime to a truly terrifying Regime.
Works Cited and Consulted
(For brief accounts of the early history of neoconservatism, see Lobe 2; Vaïsse, “Why Neoconservatism” 1-2. For a detailed portrayal of the origins of the movement, see Vaïsse, Neoconservatism “Introduction” and chapters 1-3. For accounts of third-wave neoconservatism, see Vaïsse, “Why Neoconservatism” 3 as well as his Neoconservatism chapter 7. For other book-length studies of neoconservatism, see Dorrien; Fukuyama; Heilbrunn; Thompson. For the Five Pillars of Neoconservatism, see also Vaïsse, Neoconservatism 232-239.)
Dorrien, Gary. The Neoconservative Mind: Politics, Culture, and the War of Ideology. Temple UP, 1993.
Fukuyama, Francis. America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy. Yale UP, 2006.
Heilbrunn, Jacob. They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocon. Doubleday, 2008.
Lobe, Jim. “Neoconservatism in a Nutshell.” LobeLog, 24 March 2016.
Thompson, C. Bradley. Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea. Paradigm, 2010.
Vaïsse, Justin. Neoconservatism: The Biography of a Movement. Harvard UP, 2010.
Vaïsse, Justin. “Why Neoconservatism Still Matters.” Foreign Policy at Brookings, Policy Paper Number 20, May 2010, pp. 1-11.
COMING IN TWO WEEKS: Neoliberalism under the microscope...
AND DON’T FORGET...
Read some provocative fiction. Check out and subscribe to my other Substack newsletter, 2084 Quartet at:
While you’re at it, read some provocative social commentary. Check out and subscribe to this absolute Substack gem as well: