Neoconservatism: unprincipled or fascist?
Political ·Monday May 23, 2011 @ 21:15 EDT (link)
Conservatism (where it differs from Goldwater's vision, or libertarianism) is not a political philosophy. ItÂs not really equipped (with principles) to play there. This isnÂt even a shortcoming (a brick makes a poor automobile, but a fine building component). Keep it as a personal worldview and philosophy, a corner where it can shine. Hayek tells us:
The conservatives have already accepted a large part of the collectivist creed—a creed that has governed policy for so long that many of its institutions have come to be accepted as a matter of course and have become a source of pride to "conservative" parties who created them. Here the believer in freedom cannot but conflict with the conservative and take an essentially radical position, directed against popular prejudices, entrenched positions, and firmly established privileges. Follies and abuses are no better for having long been established principles of folly.
In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes.
So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal.
When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them.
If people are harming themselves—and even others indirectly by that—there is no right to use force to stop them. You can encourage them verbally to seek help; you can even voluntarily provide or pay for such help (but not force it on them or force others to pay for it). Adults have a right to do things that may or even certainly will harm them. And if you oppose people harming others, guess what, you support the Non-Aggression Principle.
However, even opposition to people harming other people—which libertarians share—does not justify a state. It justifies self-defense and defense of others (the right to life necessarily includes a right to protect your own life and others that want the help). It justifies explicitly delegating that right to others, such as a private protection agency. But nowhere do you get the right to enforce a monopoly on such protection, or to coerce others to pay for it, or to Âprotect people from non-harm, or coerce them in any other way. Such a right simply doesnÂt exist, so cannot be delegated; to enforce one is mere collectivist thuggery.
In seeming opposition to that analysis, however, Bradley Thompson's inspired piece Neconservatism Unmasked argues instead that neoconservatism is a sound (as in consistent) political philosophy,
but don't whoop just yet, neocons: it's one very much like fascism, with these "principles" at the core:
- the collective "common good" is more important than the individual, and the "common good" is whatever those in power say it is (i.e., the usual collectivist thuggery we'd expect from socialists);
- it's fine for the "philosophers" (think Plato's ruling class) to deceive and control the "common man" with myth, jingoism, prejudice, and faith, and ultimately by force;
- as there are different truths for different people, there are different moral standards for different classes too; morality is redefined as sacrificing one's self for the "common good"—as dictated by the rulers, of course;
- politically, the elites know what is best for the "common people", while they do not, so it is appropriate for the elite to use government force to guide people to "true happiness".
Well; there you have it; principles, perhaps, but none any self-respecting or moral individual would want to admit to supporting. As the analysis goes further in the article, they are the "principles" of the fascist; the principles of, as I have often pointed out, individuals that want to rule by mere force and not right, and do not mind who they destroy to do it.
Thus a self-proclaimed conservative is thus stuck between two choices: a consistent political philosophy that would make Mussolini proud, or, rejecting this immoral unclothed neoconservativism, withdrawing back to a moral conservatism that is personal but can never be political, that is, be morally imposed by force on anyone else.
