The Neocons eye Alberta

In this Calgary CTV article (I hope the tinyurl works) [URL=http://tinyurl.com/yb6cuc] MLA Alanna DeLong talks about Morton:

"...She believes it would be extremely difficult for Morton to win an election because he couldn't garner support from his fellow caucus members.

Delong has been working with Ted Morton in caucus for the past two years.

She says he is obsessed with federal issues like same sex marriage and opting out of the Canada Pension Plan.

She says her experience watching Morton deal with caucus makes her wary of his ability to win elections..."

What is it with these University profs who think they can descend from their ivory tower and tell people how to live? First Ignatieff and now Morton? I thought Albertans were smarter than that!

Actually, the word on the ground is that a lot of Alberta Liberals are buying memberships and supporting Ted Morton for exactly this reason--it will be hard for his party to win an election with him at the helm.

All I have to say to that is that if he wins, it had better be true.

Unfortunately, IP, while having Morton at the helm will make it harder for the Conservatives to win, they will still win. I think those Alberta Liberals are playing with fire.

I enjoyed the Tyee article. Maybe you can clear up a few problems for me.

Just one example: Strauss' real contribution to political science is methodological. He argued that philosopical approaches were more important than empirical aproaches. People that actually read Strauss' works, rather than just left wing newspaper articles on him, know this.

So, what about the "Straussians" Morton and Knopff. Well, as an example: a few years ago Morton published an article using a game theoretic approach to investigate why the Alberta PC Party didn't challenge the Vriend ruling (Tom Flanagan, undoubtedly another "Straussian" to the author of this article, is Canada's leading authority on rational choice approaches in political science).

So the question is: what kind of Straussian uses game theoretic approaches and formal theory in his scholarship? If you can't answer that, then a) stop discussing issues that you know nothing about, b) look up Clifford Orwin, a genuine Canadian Staussian who is, unfortunately, not running for office and who you have little reason to slime on the basis of spurious academic claims, and c) don't take lessons on political philosophy from a sessional in COMMUNICATIONS STUDIES, bitch.

Strauss's major contribution to political thought is murky, because throughout his career he was often obscure about the exact meanings of his teachings.

Because of the challenging nature of his scholarship, it is possible to pull a number of meanings out of his teachings, and one group who has assembled their own set of beliefs around what they perceive are Strauss's teachings are group we commonly refer to today as neoconservatives. It would be unfair to label Strauss a creature of the political right, but his school of thought speaks most deeply to that set of political beliefs. There are also many other Straussians, each picking and choosing from Strauss' writings as their situation requires.

From "Reading Leo Strauss" by Stephen B. Smith:

There are many different kinds of Straussians with many and varied interests and perspectives. Some Straussians have devoted themselves entirely to ancient philosophers, while others work on postmodernism; some are deeply religious, while others are proudly secular; some think about politics and policy-making, while others delve into the deepest problems of Being. This diversity reflects, to some degree, the variety of Strauss’s own interests. Strauss’s writings range from studies of the ancient political philosophy of Thucydides, Plato, Xenophon, and Aristotle, to the Judeo-Arabic writers of the Middle Ages, to such early modern political thinkers as Machiavelli, Hobbes, Spinoza, and Locke, to late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century figures like Nietzsche, Weber, and Heidegger, to issues regarding the philosophy of history, hermeneutics, and the nature of the social sciences. In each of these areas Strauss made notable and lasting contributions that are still widely discussed today.

Neocons have built their philosophy around the teaching of Strauss, and it is therefore perfectly fair to call them "Straussian", whether or not they slavishly follow every precept or methodological approach he espoused. Aaron would know that if he a) was intellectually honest, and b) not a complete asshole.

What kind of Straussian? Presumably one who's in the process of telling a lie.
Much of the so-called "scholarship" of the neo-cons, whether one takes them as specifically Straussian or not (although quite a few do seem to consciously consider themselves Straussian), boils down to using (or more typically misusing) whatever framework they think will sound most impressive to their chosen audience for the purpose of conning said audience. I expect Morton's no exception. And Flanagan strikes me as likely to be no exception just on the basis of being "Canada's leading authority on rational choice approaches in political science", since what I've seen of so-called "rational choice approaches" strike me as bogus. People, including neocons, aren't rational (or at least not by the definitions rational choice theorists use, whether economic, political or other), and neither are their choices. A number of studies have made this clear. Typical of major neocons to be leading experts in the study of counterfactuals.

"While American neoconservatives suffer a crisis of faith and credibility as signature project - the War in Iraq - unravels ...." -- Tim

Who promised you democracy would be easy?

Let's try to follow Tim's reasoning. Strauss' teachings were murky, so therefore anyone who draws on anything they think Stauss taught in their beliefs is a Straussian. Tim suspects that neoconservatives have built their own views from what they think Strauss taught. Therefore: Morton, despite that his own scholarship directly contradicts the core teachings of Strauss, is a Straussian because Tim thinks he's a neoconservative. Fascinating.

Purple Library Guy: Thanks for that brainfart.

Most welcome, old bean. I realize you're not worthy of it, but noblesse oblige and all--I'm sure you'll strive to attain such worthiness.

Let's try to follow Aaron's reasoning. Morton does not exactly follow Strauss's core tenets as Aaron defines them - there is significant disagreement as to what "core" tenets might be - so he cannot be a Straussian. The fact that he espouses a set of political philosophy widely acknowledged as having its roots in Strauss's teachings does not bear on the matter at all.

The sad part is that this is actually an interesting discussion, which Aaron could have kicked off with some respectable disagreement. That opportunity is lost now, thanks to that unfortunate asshole thing I mentioned in my previous comment.

Frankly, I'm giving up on the whole Staussian thing (it'll all come out eventually). To know Strauss would entail reading him and, judging from his fans (vide Aaron Unruh), I'd pretty much have to undergo a personality by-pass and a soul-a-rectomy to even consider such a thing.

The lies speak for themselves. And no amount of ill-tempered baffle-gab from silly little neocons is going to change that.

Marxists don't follow what Marx wrote either, aside from a few broad generalities. Maybe it's not fair to political thinkers like MArx and Strauss, but once people start using their name to justify their borderline pathological behaviour, it gets co-opted. That may suck for those who really understand the actual original theories, and don't like the labels, but that's what happens.

Hell, read the bible lately? Christian or "Christian"?

>A ruling elite of political philosophers must make those decisions because it is the only group smart enough.

You're describing the Liberal and NDP power base and philosopher-princes, not Harper. Try to see the world as it is.

Correction: you're quoting words which describe...not that it matters. "Neocon" is just a word you're using as an epithet without any real meaning.

Yes, IrC, except for the meaning that everyone in the world except you and Aaron assign to it. If you are going to argue that words don't have meanings, you can leave now. If you have some actual point, I am prepared to listen.

You're describing the Liberal and NDP power base and philosopher-princes.

Name them.

Maybe we should define neo-con, just so Aaron and IrC can either understand what we are talking about, or have a stroke. Either one is fine, and I suspect will incure both.

to be neo-conservative is strive for the reduction of government, both in terms of the public sector services and in regulation of the private sector. Neo-conservative ideology is based on two premises
1) Anything the public sector can do, the private sector can do cheaper and better.
2) The "invisible hand" of the free market system can and will fix any societal/economic/enviromental problems.

Both of these premises are patently false. One phrase that demonstrate the core of neocon is this (I wish I could remember who I'm quoteing)
"I want to reduce government to the point were I can drown it in a bath tub."

The Bush Doctrine of pre-emtive invasion is not classical neo-con, but the heavy reliance on private companies for securtiy, re-construction, and military support is (and is partially responsible for how bad things have gotten, and how much the whole misadventure costs).

this is my understanding of neo-conservativism, If I am in error, I hope I will be corrected in a polite manner.

The major problem with Morton is not just that he is a neo-con, but that he is also a isolationist, and quite possibly, an Albertan seperatist.

Oh and a special thanks to IrC for refering to the NDP powerbase as a "ruling elite of philsopher-princes." Man was that good for a laugh or what!

That's Grover Norquist of the Club for Growth you are quoting, Yeti. They funded a bunch of extreme right wingers in the U.S. midterms, but had surprisingly little success.

Darrell Dexter is many things, but I doubt anyone's ever called him part of the "ruling elite" much less a "philosopher-prince." Then again, he hasn't been in government as of yet. I suppose Calvert and Doer will have to do.

IrC, are you sure you're not some sort of intentional parody? Because these sorts of comments can't be genuine.

You don't even know what a freakin' neocon is! There are fewer than 50 real neo-cons in the US.

Ted Morton and Stephen Harper aren't neo-cons.
Real neo-cons have no interest shrinking the size of government. They're former Democrats!

Neo-con is just your name for any conservative you don't like.

Its too bad you can't find a term that carries both the stigma and accuracy that "neo-con" does.

Sorry, its too bad you can't find a term that carries the stigma and accuracy you'd like "neo-con" to have.

Sorry, here again.

I think neo-con can be defined pretty simply because it is an elitist movemnet. As such, since there are very few of them they easier to analyze. As I said maybe 50 individuals

To be a neo-con one simply has to have been part of of historical group of individuals that moved from the democrats to the republicans because of foreign policy disillusionment.

One can't be a neo-con through shared ideology.

When it comes to ideology however even the historical link between persons comes into play because most "Straussians" have at least two educational degrees of separation from Strauss himself.

Neo-cons have no interest in shrinking government. Indeed, the size of the Bush government has ballooned rather than shrunk. Real neo-cons don't neccesarily oppose the shrinking of government but its not who they are.

OK, I won't be an asshole.

First: What is a neo-conservative. I have no clue and, furthermore, I don't think it's possible any longer to have a clue. If pushed, I would state that neo-cons had to be Jewish ex-Troskyite New Yorkers who became hawkish on foreign policy matters. But that definition won't make much sense to people who do things like call their local mayoral candidate a neo-con, now will it?

What I do know is that "neo-con" is a mainstream pejorative that stupid left-wingers hurl at those on the right and stupid right-wingers accept. On that basis, why would any intelligent person wish to discuss, let alone use, the term?

Second: What is a Straussian? If I had to think about it, I'd say that Strauss' writing have three very broad themes: a) The greatness of the ancient philosophers in contrast to the "vulgar moderns", b) a rejection of empirical approaches in political science and an embrace of philosophy, and c) a rejection of historicism, by which Strauss meant that the ideas of virtue and honour championed by the ancients were still useful, in sharp contrast to the views of the nihilistic moderns and the "value-free" social scientists.

Tracing a lineage from George W. Bush through Paul Wolfowich through Iriving Kristol through to Strauss himself doesn't satisfy the requirements of saying that Strauss' thinking has played an influence on American foreign policy. Of all these brilliant articles written by "experts" on Strauss and Straussianism, none of the authors appear to have actually cracked open anything that Strauss actually wrote. It doesn't have to be this way. Some people actually read Strauss and then comment on his impact on contemporary politics, either well (Werner Dannhauser (sp?)) or badly (Shadia Drury). If Strauss is too dense, then read the works of students. There are lots of them.

You seem to think that Strauss' ideas are unknowable. Is it too much to ask that you read his own works before accepting this conclusion from a.....sessional in communications studies?

Third: Is Ted Morton a Straussian? He is not. Morton started off as a political philosopher and even knew Allan Bloom. He was a Tocqueville scholar before he was a constitutional scholar. He employs a wide range of methodologies in his work, methodologies that Strauss would have scoffed at.

Does Morton respect Strauss' mind and many of his ideas? Probably. But I think that this is where you have problems. There is a difference between respecting or evening admiring Strauss and being a Straussian. Morton doesn't cross that line. Clifford Orwin does. Harvey Mansfield, Harry Jaffa, Wilmoore Kendall all do. If you want Canadian content, look up Thomas Pangle, Leon Craig, or even Barry Cooper. There is an enormous gap between the scholarship of these men and that of Morton.

Finally: Is Morton a neoconservative? Because the term has no meaning other than as a pejorative, the question makes no sense. So I'd ask: What would make Morton a neo-conservatism? His social conservatism? His decentralist tendencies? His rejection of the prosperity rebate cheques? If all those qualities are encompassed by what you call neo-conservatism, then I'd suggest that you are using an incomprehensible and useless term.

Would a neoconservative be supportive of the state of Israel? You'd think so. In private, Morton has expressed concerns over the actions of Israel in the contested territories, even going so far as to say that the activities of Israeli soldiers make it hard for sensible people to stand up for Israel against critics on the left. A mild admission, to be sure, but is it one that you are likely to hear from the champions of what you call neoconservatism?

Much better. Welcome to POGGE, Aaron.

I think we could both have a bit of a point here. I think you are attempting to supplant the popular notion of neoconservatism (which, you may be correct, is far removed from Strauss) with a textbook version. You are crying foul because I am using pejoratively a definition you don't even recognize as valid.

But many people do consider it neoconservatism, which is a political philosophy built around the scholarship of Leo Strauss. The roots are clear: the belief in the need for a political elite, the requirement that these elites lie to those beneath them to accomplish societal goals. All of these are clearly Straussian and clearly elements of neoconservatism.

Has Strauss' work been unfairly appropriated by a group of right wing people? Perhaps: you can certainly see the attraction between Strauss' beliefs and the corporatist state, which is already inclined to believe in a ruling elite. Strauss himself was rather non-committal on the left-right mode of thinking about politics, and, as you noted, much more concerned with the break between ancient and modern philosophy. This manifested itself in his belief in the "relativism" of modern liberalism, something which has become a modern hallmark of neoconservative thinking. Hence the tendency toward black and white morality among neocons; toward an almost naive belief in the existence of good buys and bad guys. In this you can clearly see the connection between Strauss and the people I refer to as neocons.

Essentially, it is my belief (and the belief of many scholars who study Strauss)is that there is a broad range of neoconservative thinking, and Morton's beliefs - and those of the Calgary School which he helped found - firmly fit within that school of thought. (Link: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Calgary_School)

You prefer a more strict definition with crystal clear linkages to the teachings of Strauss, Aaron. That's fair enough, but it does not invalidate my use of the term.

Yeah, I remember that ex-Trot, ex-Dem thing about "neo-conservatives."

Personally, I've always thought of "neo-conservatives" to be people with old-fashioned (reactionary) social values, as well as being supporters of militarism and an expensive police-prison complex, and finally holding incoherent views about the need for "small government."

The "neo" for me was always about the resurgence of much of this nonsense with the election of Ronald Reagan, after the "excesses" of the 1960s and 1970s.

"Neo-liberals" I've always thought of as devotees of the "free market," generally coherent advocates of small government, and who are open-minded about social values and most civil-liberties.

aaron, regarding Strauss, I'll concede that I haven't read him. Strauss was the subject of a cover story in "Harpers Magazine" a little while back, and I read a bit of it, ... about the whole "Noble Lie" thing. Are his views being misinterpreted there? If so, is this being done by leftist critics of his supposed disciples, or are the disciples themselves at fault?

Regarding Morton, in response to this thread I did some googling, and found stuff, including:

Nor would they know that in the field of public law are to be found a great many professors and scholars who can trace formative influences to one or another Strauss-trained professor. Murray Dry, for instance of Middlebury (himself a student of Herbert Storing, Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey), was an important influence on Suzanna Sherry of Vanderbilt Law School. Leo Weinstein of Smith College is cited as a formative influence by Catherine MacKinnon in both the first and the most recent of her books (1979, xi, and 2001,vii). Walter Berns was an important teacher for me, but also for Gary Jacobsohn (University of Texas), for Tom Church (SUNY Albany), for Dean Alfange (emeritus, University of Massachusetts), and for F.L. (Ted) Morton (University of Calgary). Herbert Storing was an important influence not just on Ralph Rossum, who did play a role in conservative politics (p.15) but also on [*992] G.Alan Tarr (Rutgers-Camden), and Judith Baer (Texas A & M). And Morton Frisch and Gary Glenn at Northern Illinois were important professors for Susan Burgess (Ohio University). Because Leo Strauss neither wrote nor taught on public law, it does not make sense to use the term “Straussian” for scholarship produced in this field. And there is certainly no orthodoxy unifying the group I have listed. Their approaches range from feminist theory (MacKinnon and Baer) to queer theory (Burgess), to pragmatism (Sherry), to comparative constitutionalism (Jacobsohn), to federalism and comparative state constitutions (Tarr), to judicial power and democratic theory (myself, Morton), to traditional doctrinal analysis (Alfange), to law and society (Church). But the influence of Strauss-trained professors warrants acknowledgment in our field, too, as does the diversity of this group.

Like Tim says, I'd be interested in a civil discussion of these issues. I've been known to use cuss words and insults, I won't deny it. But if someone actually presents a thesis that is based on something approaching facts and arguments, my first response is dialogue.

ooops. i meant to put the last line of my block quote in bold as well.

There's also this:

http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/printVersion/print_article.asp?articleID=18988

... slanted article.

I take special issue with this quote though:

In the end, you may be disappointed (or pleased) to learn, there is no monolithic Straussian cabal poised to unite Canada and the U.S. in a North American theocracy, real or pretended. There is, however, a very smart and interesting group of Canadian public intellectuals who enjoy one another’s company and enjoy arguing with one another, as well as with their more typically liberal and leftist Canadian colleagues. They seem to have the ear of the Prime Minister, but they don’t speak with one voice. Canadian political discourse, long dominated by Liberals from Ontario and Quebec, will be diversified, and hence less ossified and sclerotic.

To tell you the honest truth, I think very little of the abilities of Stephen Harper. He is a mildly-talented corporate shill. His life-long opposition to public health care marks him as either thoroughly ignorant of his immediate surroundings or a con-man. I think Tom Flanagan's writings about aboriginal policy are a very shallow cover for a very deep racism.
I think any political culture to attract someone like Stockwell Day really needs to re-examine its first principles. And I think that opponents of GLBT rights are all pathetic closet-cases or just individuals twisted by irrational hatred in some form or other.

Excellent quotes, Thwap. I am actually glad Aaron brought this up, since it does give us a chance to talk about Strauss outside of the confines of neoconservatism as a political movement.

He was a fascinating guy, and even if he rejected the term "philosophy" for his body of work (perferring the more prosaic term "scholarship"), there is no doubt in my mind he did indeed create new ways of looking at philosophical thought. Does it represent a new philosophy, or merely a refinement of already identified precepts? I dunno, but it's interesting shit. Not particularly attractive to me, but interesting as all get out.

Yeti, I sort of agree with your approach.
The thing is, to a certain extent the "small government" thing is just another lie. To my mind, neocons are committed to free market claims and small-government claims, but in fact are strongly in favour of certain kinds of big government activities and interferences in the market.
Neo-cons are basically a particularly strident kind of class warrior, and the class they back is the one which heads up and/or invests heavily in large corporations. To that end, they publicly back the notion of "small government", "free markets", and "deregulation", but what they really mean is far less broad. Government should be small when it comes to helping the public, but large when it comes to corporate subsidies or fat corporate contracts; generally this seems to include favouring a large military/security state for pro-corporate foreign interventions and keeping the people in line at home. Markets should be free where they might get in the way of large corporations, but not free anywhere freeing them might cause corporate lobbies problems. Regulation should be minimal where it might hamper large corporations' ability to make profits from externalities, but savage on matters such as individual bankruptcies, "intellectual property" and so forth where regulation is devoted to furthering corporate interests at the expense of citizens.

They are extreme in the sense that given a choice between favouring growth or increasing control, they will always go for the control. Some factions in the upper class in the past have tended to believe that it may be worth reducing stratification somewhat and relaxing the ideology of benefitting the private sector only somewhat if that will get growth--so for instance there have been elites, even classically conservative elites, who actually favour public education or public building of infrastructure. Neocons would never do that, no matter the consequences for growth; they're much more interested in how much of the pie their elite controls than in how big the pie is. They camouflage this, no doubt to themselves as well, by constant talk of the productivity of the private sector, but when push comes to shove their choice is pretty clear. Katrina is an excellent example--it was possible to choose real economic growth through solid reconstruction, or it was possible to choose siphoning more wealth to the wealthiest (at the expense of economic shrinkage) by handing out fat contracts with no oversight, and making sure control stayed with the right group of fat cats. The neocons made a resounding choice for the latter. It was a typical if particularly egregious case, and note taht it wasn't a case of small government as such--they spent plenty of money, just not for what we would normally envision as government's functions in such a situation.

>If you are going to argue that words don't have meanings, you can leave now.

Neo-con does have a meaning; it's just not the meaning you're trying to give it. "Neo-con" has become, like "racist", "fascist" or "Nazi", a shortcut for someone who can't articulate clearly the position of someone with whom there is disagreement. Some people misuse "neo-con" in particular as a branding exercise to relate Harper to Bush. It stems from intellectual laziness or inability; it's no different in principle than dismissing a swath of people as "leftists".

>to be neo-conservative is strive for the reduction of government

That's libertarianism and classical liberalism.

>Neo-conservative ideology is based on two premises
1) Anything the public sector can do, the private sector can do cheaper and better.
2) The "invisible hand" of the free market system can and will fix any societal/economic/enviromental problems.

Neo-conservatism is primarily a position born of attitudes toward foreign policy, not markets. A classical fiscal liberal might believe (1) but is unlikely to believe (2) (or that any such problem is necessarily soluble by any means); (2) is just a straw man.

>The Bush Doctrine of pre-emtive invasion is not classical neo-con

Actually, it is. What is at the heart of neo-conservativism is that everyone under the thumb of a dictator is just waiting to become a voter in a democratic plurality and that it's the duty of neo-cons to deliver people everywhere from oppression.

>Oh and a special thanks to IrC for refering to the NDP powerbase as a "ruling elite of philsopher-princes." Man was that good for a laugh or what!

Trudeau, Rae, Ignatieff. It isn't conservatives, or classical liberals, who believe "A ruling elite of political philosophers must make those decisions because it is the only group smart enough." The belief that there are elite classes of leaders and bureaucrats who must make and execute decisions on behalf of the ignorant masses is found infrequently on the right half of the political spectrum. Harper is the guy who said "no" to national childcare and put a token sum in the hands of parents; Harper is the guy being criticized for being a "provincialist". Devolution of powers is not the hallmark of a ruling elite.

Devolution of powers is not the hallmark of a ruling elite.

Actually, it is exactly a hallmark of a ruling elite, but that elite is corporate, not government. Governments still have to be answerable to the people. Elites don't like that aspect of democracy. The way to empower these elites is exactly the way Harper is dong it, by reducing government, and by turning as many public functions as possible over to the private sector.

oh please.....anyone but morton!!!!!!! the flanagan gang is rallying to his cause , let's hope theres still enough 'real' conservatives left in alberta.

Well, again, I'd say that "deliver people from oppression" thing is also basically just for public consumption.

As to connecting Harper and Bush--there are strong connections between Harper and Bush, and for that matter Thatcher, the hard-right makeover artists in New Zealand, and right wing forces in Australia. Strauss or not, agreement on terminology or not, connections are strong. You might call them the "think tank right". That is, the Republicans, the Conservatives (and before them the Alliance and Reform, but not so much the old PCs), and various other right wing groups in the English speaking first world, all go to conferences hosted by the same (mostly American, though not entirely) think tanks, which in turn are heavily corporate-funded to come up with persuasive ideologies that will be useful to corporate interests. They also all read the same core group of publications (e.g. Forbes, the Economist) which reflect the same set of interests and indeed tend to publish articles put out by people associated with those same think tanks, and tend to be owned by people who are (a) themselves members of that corporate class and (b) themselves associated with those same think tanks. At the same time, the links between these think tanks and some of the core large PR firms also patronized by corporations and right-wing establishment figures are so close that it can be hard to be sure where one ends and the other begins. So we have corporations creating a setting in which those creating and articulating the pro-corporate ideology largely gain their information from other people doing the same thing, consuming each other's PR and persuasive rhetoric. Universities, carefully picked and promoted intellectuals, endowed chairs and so on have a role to play in all this, which I suppose is where the various admirers of Strauss come in.
A certain groupthink "enthusiasm" (in the eighteenth-century sense) has set in among these people, due to this intensifying echo-chamber effect; it is this which to my mind has led to the distinctive, extreme ideology of the modern far right, which some call "neo-con", an ideology whose triumphalism and refusal to compromise seems actually to be causing longer term problems for the corporate agenda it's meant to further. This groupthink is not just national in character. After the initial high-speed right turn in New Zealand back in the eighties, the people involved did international tours in the US, Canada, England and so on describing their objectives and their tactics to eager audiences. Movers and shakers in the Alliance and BC's Campbell Liberals both frequently take part in seminars hosted by US corporate thinktanks. It's an extensive network.

To me, a "neoliberal" is just someone who believes in a certain spurious economic hypothesis involving the efficiencies of free markets, free trade and private provision of services. To be a neocon, someone must, at least publicly, hold the tenets of neoliberalism. But they must also have that triumphalism, black-and-white viewpoint, willingness to enforce their notions of how things should be done with force, and the characteristic that public objectives such as neoliberalism or democracy are smokescreens for a deep commitment to elite control at all costs. And their thinking must emerge from the warren of think tanks, PR firms and elite-backed media and intellectuals that brought us the "Washington consensus". This is the general group or type of people I've generally seen the term "neocon" used to refer to. The religious thing doesn't seem to be essential--some are, some aren't, and some pretend so they can use the religious ones.

By that definition, Harper is a neocon, and the Bush administration is generally neocon (although it's hard to say whether Bush himself has a sufficiently developed ideology or policy stance to call him personally a neocon).

Side note: one can talk about what the definition of "neocon" SHOULD be all day, but everyone should please remember that in English it's generally accepted that the meanings of words are determined by usage. If the vast majority of people use a word to mean one kind of thing, telling them that because of some academic authority they are wrong is in turn wrong. Anyone who doesn't like it may wish to consider switching to French and basking in the safe authority of the Academie Francaise.

>Actually, it is exactly a hallmark of a ruling elite

The ruling elite in question is the political one. If you wish to start a discussion about business elites then do so, but don't try to conflate them.

>there are strong connections between Harper and Bush, and for that matter Thatcher, the hard-right makeover artists in New Zealand, and right wing forces in Australia.

Well, duh. They all favour free markets. Fiscal and economic liberalism are a point of common ground for conservatives of all flavours. One would expect them to share connections and ideas. Nice statements of the obvious, albeit tediously long.

>To be a neocon, someone must, at least publicly, hold the tenets of neoliberalism.

You seem to have entirely missed the facts about the roots of neo-conservativism in the US. Hint: they weren't small-government members of the Republican party or small-r republicans (provincialists). You don't need to keep making up new words to describe ideas that have been around for a couple of hundred years.

>By that definition, Harper is a neocon

You can prove anything when you just make up your own definitions. Fun, but pointless.

>one can talk about what the definition of "neocon" SHOULD be all day, but everyone should please remember that in English it's generally accepted that the meanings of words are determined by usage.

If you're going to discuss something it's easiest to stick with established meanings and descriptors that are not so broad as to be irretrievably useless. You might as well denounce Harper for being like Bush because they are both men. If you want the entire right side of the traditional political spectrum to be "neocon" then feel free, but don't expect to anything you say or write to mean anything to educated and informed people. The ongoing quest to identify-an-attribute/use-it-pejoratively/smear-it-broadly wastes a lot of time.

It is true that some terms have very precise definitions. IrC claims to believe that, although at one strategic spot way up above, he denies it.

I am in awe of the restraint that Purple Library Guy has shown in analysing the aggressive corporatism of the neo-cons -- grounded in a non-rational moral stance that liberals do not take, even when their economic views coincide -- without ever using the more obvious historical term.

The tendency to moralizing mystification also obviously characterizes so-called neo-con foreign policy. When I was young and the empire in question was British, we used to call that moralizing mystification the white man's burden. I must say: I can't see much difference in neo-con attitudes towards the rest of the world, which they clearly consider pathetic and in desperate need of their questionable charms, except that the Americans are notoriously undertrained and underprepared for any foreign assignment at all.

How cute. You read somewhere that a major component of proper fascism is corporatism, so you want to call the neo-cons "fascists" because you affiliate neo-cons with corporate (as in business) interests. You should first learn the proper meaning of "corporatism". The Wheat Board and the CRTC are examples of corporatism. The promotion of corporatism isn't high on the conservative - neo- or otherwise - menu in the US and Canada. If you're looking for countries which favour corporatism, start with France.

lrc,

You're pretty articulate. I wonder if you could look up the word "pedant" for me.

And then you could share your opinion about something substantial maybe?

Like, f'r instance, d'you think there's something to the connection of Strauss's elitist "noble lie" idea, and the delusions of his descendents about their own unpopular policies, ... including the unpopular policies of the (perhaps tangentially influenced) Calgary School?

IrC's criticisms seem rather empty. He calls my associations between the various neocon types vague to the point that I "might as well denounce Harper for being like Bush because they are both men."

That's silly. I drew the connections fairly directly and pragmatically. Clearly they're far more closely connected than, say, Al Quaeda and Hezbollah.
It seems that if I were to characterize John Gotti and Vito Genovese as having in common that they were both Mafiosi, and that this implied some similarities of outlook, ethics, methods and so forth, IrC would say nonsense, the two never met, had quite different personalities, backgrounds, personal styles--I might as well be denouncing them for both being men. All the while carefully avoiding my actual point. Colour me unimpressed.

PLG - IrC criticisms are entirely empty. Every time we shoot down his sneering theory on one thing, he switches tacks. He has chosen one small definition of corporatism and decided that is the only one.

This incredibly tiresome. I don't mind you being wrong, IrC, but the contempt you bring to the conversation is simply unpalatable. Good bye.

I don't think Morton would cost the PCs any significant number of seats in Alberta on a net basis.

Provincewide, in 2004 the PCs picked up 50%, the Liberals 30%, the NDP 10% and the Alberta Alliance 10%. Under Morton, one could imagine up to a fifth of the PC vote being driven to the Libs and NDP. But the Alberta Alliance would be completely squeezed out, with the overwhelming majority of those right wing votes going to the Morton PCs. Lest there be any doubt about that, consider the fact that the current Alberta Alliance leader, Paul Hinman (MLA for Cardston-Taber-Warner), has endorsed Morton despite the obvious fact Morton as premier would severely limit any raison d'etre for Hinman's party. Alliance supporters, in other words, seem perfectly willing to sacrifice their party if they can realize their agenda with the PC party.

Consider the closely fought Edmonton-Ellersie riding 2004 results:
LIB 3444
PC 3245
NDP 2257
Alberta Alliance 1005
Social Credit 238

Suppose 15 or 16% of the PC electorate or 500 PC votes in this swing riding went proportionately (that is, 60 - 40) to the Liberals and NDP, thereby pushing them up to 3750 and 2450 while the PC vote is trimmed to a base of 2750. Of the 1200 votes for the Alberta Alliance and Social Credit, however, it would not be unreasonable to expect close to 85% or 1050 votes to move to the PCs, that launches them up to 3800 and flips what is currently a Liberal seat to the Morton PCs!

I don't mind you being wrong, IrC, but the contempt you bring to the conversation is simply unpalatable.

I'm going to embroider that on a throw-pillow and send it to IrC as a "Holiday" gift.

There is something utterly and profoundly contemptuous when an obviously intelligent person uses every means at his or her disposal to obscure, not enlighten. Being thoroughly humourless in the process doesn't help, either.

If, on the other hand, Morton loses tomorrow, the exodus of PC voters to the Alliance that had already reached attention-grabbing numbers in 2004 would go to the next level, as those right leaning voters who stayed with the PCs because they were holding out for change from within post-Klein see that any significant change in direction has been indefinitely postponed. Given that at least a third of PC voters will be voting for Morton this weekend, it is not unreasonable to expect that up to a quarter or 800 PC votes in this example riding will join the Alliance. Together with fringey (e.g. Social Credit) voters who see the Alliance as now a very serious player and get on board a potential winner, the breakdown would be on the order of
3200 LIB
2600 PC
2250 NDP
2000 Alberta Alliance

Note that this assumes the PC would gain all of 150 Liberal votes and negligible NDP votes as their reward for rejecting Morton. I see no reason for a more significant pickup in PC votes from 2004 given the continuity in PC policy. As one can see, the margin of victory for the Liberal candidate under this Morton loss scenario may be expected to widen, e.g. from 200 votes to 600, and the simple explanation for that is that the right wing vote is split.

Everybody thought that when Harper was voted in to head the new CPC party it would marginalize the party and cost it votes, but in fact it put Harper in power because it totally cleared out the right side of the spectrum.

I think IrC's criticisms are quite apt, Tim. He correctly points out your (in the plural sense of the word) ill-defined terminology. With regard to “neoconservative,” your analysis is fairly humorous, in the sense that this word has become a pejorative for any conservative whose foreign policy the Left does not like. The funny part, of course, is your emphasis on Leo Strauss, who had really very little to say about foreign policy.

The best definition, I think, of neoconservative is simply a conservative who used to be a Leftist (often communist). To say that Bush is a Straussian (or even Paul Wolfowitz, who actually said that he was NOT a Straussian) is absurd. Why, even to say that Bush is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative is a stretch, as many of his domestic policies are hardly based on conservative dogma. These are the Left’s main complaints against Bush: He is an unapologetic evangelical Christian. He supports a robust US foreign policy. That, for the most part, is it. All of the Left’s various complaints against him flow from these two characteristics. But tell me: How are these characteristic in any way Straussian or neoconservative (under any definition of the word)?

So, Bush is not a neocon. Is Rumsfeld, the man who, in the late 1970’s or early 1980’s, was to be found in Iraq shaking the hand of Saddam Hussein? Boy, that seemed pretty realpolitik of him – positively Kissingerian . So Rumsfeld isn’t a neocon.

My point in discussing these people is this: If Harper is or is not a neoconservative or a Strausian is one question, but to say that this is therefore a bad thing because “American neoconservatives [are] suffer[ing] a crisis of faith and credibility as signature project - the War in Iraq – unravels” is, at best, comparing apples to oranges. Why do I say this? Because it is not just the neoconservatives who support US foreign policy, Tim. Most conservatives support it -- and have for at least the last sixty years or so. And so do some liberals.

The fatal flaw in your argument is that you seem to think that having a robust foreign policy makes you a neoconservative. That just simply is not true … under any definition of the term. The converse may be true: being a neoconservative means you support a robust foreign policy (but I don’t see how one can say that a student of Leo Strauss would necessarily support a robust foreign policy, much less the war in Iraq). So, you see, your logic is flawed.

Furthermore, your connection of Harper to Straussians at the University of Calgary does indeed show us that he studied under them, but doesn’t show us any Straussian tendencies of Mr. Harper. When I was at college, more than one of my professors was a hippie communist. But that didn’t make me a commie too. Is it possible that Harper emerged from Calgary untainted and went on to become a run-of-the-mill boring Conservative?

(And I also agree that you people also do not know what corporatism is. But who wants to read my thoughts on that?)

Finally, why can all of you be so contemptuous (don’t make me point out each and every example of it contained in this thread, starting with the very first sentence of the post) but, IrC cannot find your arguments contemptible?

Oh for Chrissakes.

Evidently in Strauss, there's some elitist notion of "the noble lie" that some devotees of Strauss have taken to cover their own deceptions about their own policies.

The "noble lie" is supposed to convince the ordinary stupid masses to go along with policies that would otherwise be unpopular with them.

These unpopular policies (invading Iraq to keep the dollar as the currency of int'l oil/privatizing social security/privatizing Canada's health care/etc.) are thought to be unpopular NOT because people know when something is contrary to their own best interests, but because (according to the alleged Straussians) because people are stupid, and don't know that they MUST destabilize the Middle East and make their own health care unaffordable.

Hence the resort to "noble" lies.

Now, ... THAT is the thesis advanced by the Tyee, ... and if any of you learned gentlemen can address this not entirely stupid argument on its merits, and argue against it with rational mustering of facts, ... and leave off with your tiresome pedantry, ... THAT would be appreciated.

I'm familiar with the ex-Trot neo-cons. I've advanced a different use of the term, ... I'm aware of what "corporatism" means, ... Bill Clinton had a corporatism guru as a policy advisor.

So, thanks, but no thanks. Now, how about the discussion at hand???????

Everybody thought that when Harper was voted in to head the new CPC party it would marginalize the party and cost it votes, but in fact it put Harper in power because it totally cleared out the right side of the spectrum.

The inherent flaw with that argument is that Harper had also cleared out the right side of spectrum in 2004 - and still lost. I think, regardless of the leadership race's outcome, we're likely to see a split in the Alberta PC Party, hopefully shaking up the province's altogether monotonous and stifling politics, one way or the other.

"... invading Iraq to keep the dollar as the currency of int'l oil ..."

I sure this makes sense to someone ... but not to anyone who can think.

What an unbelievably expensive way to keep oil denominated in dollars. Who did the cost-benefit analysis here, thwap? George Bush himself?

Paranoia: Suffer from it, thwap?

No hard evidence has been presented to allow us to conclude that Harper (or the warmonger Bush) is a neoconservative, a Straussian, a neoconservative Straussian, a follower of Leo Strauss, an erstwhile Trotskyite, a former Commie turned conservative, or anything else other than a squishy "big C" Conservative (or slightly right-of-center Republican).

But here's an idea: Why don't you ask him?

This is idiotic. So one poster from the right, maybe two, has defined a "neocon" as "a conservative who used to be a leftist". Problem is, I've been reading political commentary referring to neoconservatives for a decade or two now, and I've never seen the term used that way.
It's interesting--the rightwingers here want to concentrate on semantics, and in their semantic dispute they want at one and the same time to insist that "neocon" is a pejorative term used by the left, and to insist that it doesn't mean what the left thinks it means. Yes, it's a pejorative term used by the left. The right rarely use the term, and to the extent they do it's usually to engage with left wing use of the term. Therefore, the right don't get to tell us what it means. It's a term mainly used by the left, the left get to define what they mean by it. Once we've done so, you can talk all you want about whether the set of characteristics we describe exists in the real world or is applicable to X, Y or Z person, but you don't get to define it, it's not your word. And you certainly don't get to have it both ways.

Now. I defined the term a certain way. I defined a "neoconservative" as being, basically, one of the *new* (neo) conservatives that came out of the "think tanks" and foundations and so forth set up by corporations starting in the sixties to advance and articulate their agenda and basically roll back liberalism and the new deal. Given my definition, which nobody has disputed in a nonlaughable way, Harper, lest we forget the ex-president of the National Citizens' Coalition which is precisely such a "think tank" and corporate lobby group, definitely counts as a neoconservative.

My definition is strongly relevant to world politics in the late twentieth and early twenty first century, it describes a relatively definable and very influential group, both in terms of institutional connections and in terms of ideology, that has distinct cleavages from older conservative groups. It describes a far more relevant and important phenomenon with a far stronger and more coherent political impact than notions of "conservatives who used to be leftists". And it's one that the leftists on the board seem to generally not have a beef with, which is important given that, again, this is generally a leftist term.

So do any of you have the guts to start a sentence with "given your definition of neoconservatives (which I don't accept)" and then dispute any of our actual conclusions about who is one of those, whether the think tanks, speaker circuits, PR firms and publications they draw their ideology from are internationally connected, and so on?

Because bitching over the semantics of a word we use and you don't is just pathetic.

On a separate note--my understanding is that while Strauss didn't have much to say about foreign policy *as* foreign policy, he did have something to say about foreign policy as domestic policy (which is how the US tends to do foreign policy anyway). I seem to recall something about war being one potential component of the "noble lie". The point was that in order to build a great civilization you needed great unifying myths to stop people from getting all disorderly and questioning their betters. Ultranationalism, fanned by warfare, was one usually important component of the mythology needed. Religion was another. So warfare for Strauss wasn't about foreign policy, it was about creation of nationalist mythology and popular compliance. So of course you'd probably need to lie to get people to buy the mythology, but that was OK as long as it got them all pointed in the same direction, like a sort of idealized Roman empire that never was. That's what made the lie noble--it would help bind the people together into a strong whole, like a bundle of individually weak small sticks (or fasces) . . .

Say, anyone else ever notice how assholes always seem to want to make the next Roman empire?

Paranoia: Suffer from it, thwap?

Oh, God. Can someone tell that thing Novena to fuck off already?

Well said, PLG.

Josh, that split in the Alberta PC party is a very old one, as you probably know. One way or another, sometimes appearing within a dominant party and at other times producing two or more parties, it keeps resurfacing.

My dad (born in Lacombe in 1907) was an Alberta Tory of a kind that must still exist, but I wouldn't know where to look for an example these days -- not Joe Clark, for sure, and even Peter Lougheed was a little, ah, modern for my Dad. I grew up listening to Tories railing against Social Credit (at about the same time that Preston Manning was growing up Social Credit). That was our political universe back then -- Liberals were sort of foreigners. ;-)

The SoCreds themselves had split in the 1940s, partly because the die-hard Douglasites had become scandalous (anti-semitic and otherwise just plain loopy) and partly because of Leduc No 1 -- Ernest Manning was no ideological fool.

Obviously, Morton (and Harper) aren't themselves populists, but they play politics by exploiting that right-populist subculture out west, never far from the surface and not only in Alberta. To me, they and Flanagan and crew are all carpet-baggers and con men -- much as is George Bush, I figure (an "unapologetic evangelical Christian" ... yeah, sure he is). It distresses me to see them conning my people -- it really does. I can never make fun of the people of Alberta, but I wish so much that they could recognize how they are being mocked and used.

Nomen, Actually invading Iraq was quite profitable for George Bush, it justs cost the United States a lot of money. He got a second term, and saved a lot on tax breaks, and quite a lot of people got fabulously rich. These would be the "ruling elite" that have been talked about, while the rest of america drowns in their attics.
I would like to add that if Neo-conservative means a former leftist turned conservative, then I have never-ever heard the term used correctly. Claiming this here is like standing up and claiming that the "sky-blue" label on a crayola crayon is wrong, because the sky is really orange, and in fact, was at one time a yellowy-green sort of colour.
Current American foregn policy not actually best described as robust, but "aggressive", or even "imperialist". One can be very robust without being either of those things.

Well, you can google "neo-conservative" and it does apply to a group of former-Trotskyites and other leftists who turned away from the USSR during the 30s or 40s, and joined the Democratic Party, because the Dems were the internationalists, and the Republicans were too isolationist and otherwise stodgy.

When the Dems got weary of their acitivst imperialism after Vietnam, and the Republicans started to look like the go-getters, the "neo-cons" swung over to them.

But I notice that Dictionary Boy is unable to process the argument that Iraq was about oil.

He's either being stupid or duplicitous. Not someone to take seriously.

morton salt corporation is a subscriber to the tom flanagan school of thought. this is reprehensible to native indians.

ANYONE can run alberta....it's wealth dictates that. the question is does alberta want to see a bigot in power? peter lougheed at least had intelligence and has proven to be one of alberta's greats.

NOTE: neocon is used in the vernacular amongst those of of who use it. colloquialisms are just that and shoud not be confused with the origins of the word.

“I would like to add that if Neo-conservative means a former leftist turned conservative, then I have never-ever heard the term used correctly.” – Yeti

Yes, that would seem to be the case.

“[M]y understanding is that while Strauss didn't have much to say about foreign policy *as* foreign policy, he did have something to say about foreign policy as domestic policy (which is how the US tends to do foreign policy anyway).” – PLG

Foreign policy “as domestic policy”! What on earth is that supposed to mean? I know: Anything you want it to. What country doesn’t run its foreign policy with an eye to its electorate; viz., conduct foreign policy in its national interest? Oh … wait … I know! Places like Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela, whose governments many of you so greatly admire. It’s so much better done Castro’s way: Carry out your foreign affairs for you own personal ends and enrichment, and let your countrymen starve.

“Foreign policy as domestic policy,” indeed, PLG. I guess we’re all neocons now.

Stop making me laugh, guys; it hurts too much.

"On a separate note--my understanding is that while Strauss didn't have much to say about foreign policy *as* foreign policy, he did have something to say about foreign policy as domestic policy (which is how the US tends to do foreign policy anyway). I seem to recall something about war being one potential component of the "noble lie". The point was that in order to build a great civilization you needed great unifying myths to stop people from getting all disorderly and questioning their betters. Ultranationalism, fanned by warfare, was one usually important component of the mythology needed. Religion was another. So warfare for Strauss wasn't about foreign policy, it was about creation of nationalist mythology and popular compliance. So of course you'd probably need to lie to get people to buy the mythology, but that was OK as long as it got them all pointed in the same direction, like a sort of idealized Roman empire that never was. That's what made the lie noble--it would help bind the people together into a strong whole, like a bundle of individually weak small sticks (or fasces) . . .

Say, anyone else ever notice how assholes always seem to want to make the next Roman empire?"
Posted by: Purple Library Guy at December 2, 2006 03:07 AM

While I agree with the entirety of PLG's post referenced above the quoted section of it is something I consider to be incredibly important. The use of the noble lie is what most offends me about the neoconservative movement in both countries and is what I am most worried about with the Harper CPC. Consider the noble lie they made on income trusts for the sake of gaining power despite the trend of corporations converting to ICs being clear when this promise was made and therefore is not a valid reason for breaking the promise unless one also wants to argue the Harper/CPC election campaign was too economically ignorant and incompetent to know any better.

I find followers of Leo Strauss and Straussian influenced politicians to be most worrisome after watching their dominance in the GWB Administration thanks to Cheney bringing in his fellow neoconservatives to run the foreign policy and some of the domestic policy shops within the Bush WH from the moment it was determined Bush was the "winner" in 2000. I see far too many similarities in the thinking and operations/mythmaking of both the American neoconservatives and the top level of the CPC with Harper and Flanagan (who is anything but a moderate in Canadian terms) leading that pack. This is why I oppose them so much. I see Harper's noble lies being to appear moderate so as to gain majority and then with majority enact his more traditional consistently held beliefs on radical devolution of powers from the federal to Provincial levels significantly and permanently altering the balance of powers within the nation without any clear mandate for such alterations ever being asked for in the election. I found the last election campaign remarkable given the radical transformation of Harper's principle beliefs from the last 2 decades of his public statements to what he was saying in the last election, and I was angry at the media for not doing a better job of pointing these contradictions/changes out and asking what caused Harper to make such significant shifts of principles and how it happened. I mean a politician can change their beliefs, but if they do not explain how and why they changed their beliefs it looks too much like expediency and dishonesty for the sake of power.

Harper is far too close to the neoconservative mold for me, and for many others, and we can point to exactly why we say so and have done so here and elsewhere. All the Harper/CPC defenders can appear to do is try to play semantics games to try and confuse the issue and get us caught up in competing definitions instead of further exploring the real issue, the influence of strong American conservative political thought in a Canadian political party and leader who is currently the PM with a very weak minority government.

"So warfare for Strauss wasn't about foreign policy, it was about creation of nationalist mythology and popular compliance. So of course you'd probably need to lie to get people to buy the mythology, but that was OK as long as it got them all pointed in the same direction, like a sort of idealized Roman empire that never was." -- PLG

Please provide some evidence that Strauss ever said anything like this. Strauss was never actively involved in politics and he never supported imperialism. If you want to tar Strauss for his “noble lies,” then perhaps you may also want to bring your complaints up with Plato, too.

It’s clear you believe that all pro-war on terror conservatives are neocons and all neocons are Strassians and all Straussians are fascists*. The problem, though the evidence against your bete noir is quite scant. And your logic is backwards.

Strauss was a political philosopher; he did not believe in the usefulness of this philosophy to the practice of politics. Strauss, however, did portray himself as a “friend of liberal democracy.” He wrote that “moderation will protect us from the twin dangers of visionary expectations from politics and unmanly contempt for politics.”

_______

* Yes, I got your sly reference to fascism, “That's what made the lie noble--it would help bind the people together into a strong whole, like a bundle of individually weak small sticks (or fasces).”

"[N]eocon is used in the vernacular amongst those of of [sic] who use it. colloquialisms are just that and shou[l]d not be confused with the origins of the word." -- Scout

If that's the case, then don't blame poor Leo Strauss. He never used the term. It's been hoisted on him by others. Try the former communists and Leftists, such as Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz. These were the people who described themselves as "neoconservatives." They rebelled against the Left's increasingly anti-anti-communist proclivities. Strauss has nothing to do with it.

Jeez, people: What's so hard to understand? It was the former leftists during the Cold War years of the 1970's who coined this phrase to describe themselves. Why are you so reluctant to give them credit for it and to accept it? Because the Soviet Union is no more? Because Islamism is your new Marxism, your hoped-for anti-Western dragon slayer?

Scout, on rereading your headache-inducing prose, I see that you are simply saying that you should be entitled to define "neocon" in any way you damn please. Well, why don't you do that with every word in the English dictionary?

Now, I see the reason for your execrable writing.

your headache-inducing prose
Now, I see the reason for your execrable writing.

Banned. When you start trying to bully people into silence for any reason you can think of, you don't get to play here any more. Have a nice life.

Thank you, Pogge. You saved me the trouble.

Well, my thanks is because dictionary boy and the sidekick kid were too clueless to see that their concerns had already been acknowledged.

And important questions to them were being avoided.

In short, they're pretty bright chaps, but nowhere NEAR where they think they should be, and nowhere near important enough to take seriously.

>Problem is, I've been reading political commentary referring to neoconservatives for a decade or two now, and I've never seen the term used that way.

Sure, but that's just echo-chamber propagation of ignorance - volumes of people repeating what they hear and read without ever questioning proper meaning in the first place. People repeatedly misuse a word and soon the misuse is popular, albeit wrong. Consider "irregardless". Consider "the left". How broad is that?

>It's a term mainly used by the left, the left get to define what they mean by it.

It's the new "gay", is it? Unfortunately, anyone else is at a loss to identify exactly which school of political thought you mean, much as if they were all "persons of colour". But of course the point isn't actually to identify members of the neocon school; the point is to draw a line connecting any arbitrary politician to George W. Bush.

>then dispute any of our actual conclusions about who is one of those, whether the think tanks, speaker circuits, PR firms and publications they draw their ideology from are internationally connected, and so on?

Why bother? To you, they're all "neocons" irrespective of their differences. We get the point - to you, they're "the others".

>But I notice that Dictionary Boy is unable to process the argument that Iraq was about oil.

Go on. Explain how Iraq was about oil.

>Consider the noble lie they made on income trusts for the sake of gaining power

Here we have an example of someone trying to kick-start a change of name, this time for the meaning of "noble lie".

Anyways. Tim has written that "neocons" are trying to gain footholds in Canada, but by "neocon" he doesn't mean neo-conservative (a person who by definition tends to support the sort of social democracy Tim worries is under attack, which directly negates the contention that the Canadian conservatives accused are neo-conservatives); he means some broader grouping of conservatives, ideally one that can be linked heart and soul to the Bush administration because that will help people to understand that these Canadian conservatives are "bad people". The evidence? Connections through academic and policy circles, as if by virtue of ever taking a class from an actual neo-conservative or attending the same think tanks, you must be one. But this is of course just an association fallacy, which leaves the point unproven.

I thought the point of this thread was to discuss the current leadership race in Alberta. We don't seem to have final figures yet, but it seems pretty clear that Morton will be dropping out -- the Star gives Dinning 38 per cent, Stelmach 34 per cent, and Morton 28 per cent. The guessing seems to be that many Morton supporters will go to Stelmach, an old Klein loyalist, on the next ballot.

Of Stelmach, the CBC reports:

Stelmach wants to expand colleges, deliver aid to farmers while the bio-industry is established, pursue a policy of no government interference in the oilsands development, and establish a registry for lobbyists.

"The evidence? Connections through academic and policy circles, as if by virtue of ever taking a class from an actual neo-conservative or attending the same think tanks, you must be one. But this is of course just an association fallacy, which leaves the point unproven."

Dude. Short of the Amazing Mindreading Device (tm) you can't ever actually prove that two people share the same ideology. And of course if the person you're arguing with is determined to find twigs to trip over and molehills to fail to climb because of their towering stature and fearsome escarpments, you could take two people whose public statements had been nearly identical for decades, who had voted for all the same political measures for the same stated reasons and who claimed publicly to hold the same views as one another, and that person (we'll call the person "IrC" to avoid confusion) would point to readings on the Amazing Mindreading Device that showed subtle, unacknowledged differences in their worldviews as indicating that giving their ideas the same name would be foolish.

What's an "association fallacy", exactly? Presumably it's intended to indicate that if two people belong to the same bowling club, it's stupid to assume they have the same politics. Fine. On the other extreme, if two people belong to the Communist party and profess to agree with its policy positions, it's fairly safe to assume they're Communists. Sure, one might be a CSIS mole or something, but barring unexpected information like that you can be fairly safe. All right, now let's talk think tanks, lobby groups, Chicago Schools, Calgary Schools, and networks of lecturers recommended by the thinktanks and so on. These are not politically neutral institutions; they are not bowling clubs. You don't get involved in them for the canapes. So, for instance, Greenpeace. If someone told me person X belongs to Greenpeace and frequently makes public statements that take a firm Greenpeace line, I think I can fairly confidently call that person an "environmentalist", although these days I might want to reserve judgment on whether he is instead a "sneaky beltway lobbyist weasel *pretending* to be an environmentalist". If I hear that he's, on the quiet, connected with ELF, then I would feel quite confident calling him a "radical environmentalist". These organizations have ideological implications.
OK, so if someone is a right wing politician, and their connection with right wing politics is closely connected with the Fraser Institute, the NCC, the group of right-wing academics known as the "Calgary School", goes to talks by scholars from similar institutions, and does not have anything critical to say about the ideas that come out of this world, that implies something about this person's ideology, and indeed implies something beyond simply "right wing" or "conservative". Calling it an "association fallacy" is stupid, especially given your other arguments. On what basis are you defining *your* version of "neocon"? You define a group that was once *ASSOCIATED* with "the left" and was once *ASSOCIATED* with the US Democrats; both groups are vaguer than the network I'm describing. Oh, but that's NOT too vague--THEY have a definable ideology and impact on politics. Why? Apparently because it's you saying it.

Meanwhile, it certainly does not imply all conservative or right wing politicians. Lots of conservatives do *not* come out of this group of associations or hold their ideas, and this group have certainly changed the policy approach of the right as they acquired more power. You saying it's an empty or all-embracing description doesn't make it one. Belinda Stronach, for instance, was a Conservative because it fit her class interest--she's filthy rich--and probably because she was brought up in a household that took certain basic rightish ideas for granted. Her background does not involve think tanks et cetera, she did not promote their distinctive constellation of views or attitudes. When she was in the Conservative party, nobody would have called her a "neocon".

It's bizarre you know--talking to people on the right, even the far right, they always seem to think ideology is something only other people have.

You've identified people who are likely conservative, not necessarily neo-conservative. The search terms for neo-conservative are more precise.

>On what basis are you defining *your* version of "neocon"?

On the history of the neo-conservative movement. Should there be some other version?

>THEY have a definable ideology and impact on politics.

"The left"? How laughable. People use that label to describe themselves when it suits them; as soon as the label is associated with something bad (eg. stalinism) they roll out their own semantic differentiation to distance themselves. But that's as it should be; there are huge gulfs between - for example - democratic socialists, stalinists, fascists, and nazis, despite the fact they all fall under "the left". As for Democrats, one gains that label by registration.

Sure, we all follow ideas. What some fail to do is recognize that some of the ideas of different schools of political thought overlap. Then we end up with people sloppily branding people without any real understanding of the brand.

... democratic socialists, stalinists, fascists, and nazis, despite the fact they all fall under "the left"

Alarm bells now going off.

thwap, just to stay on the philosophical straight and narrow, Plato attributed to Socrates what you describe as "Strauss's elitist "noble lie" idea". Get out your Republic and flip to the allegory of the metals.

The general position of Strauss and the various people who followed him, most notably Alan Bloom, was that the issues Plato raises in the Republic are worthy of consideration. They make the same argument for Aristotle, Machiavelli, Rousseau and Montesquieu. This is not the same as endorsing any of those philosophers in all of their wildly divergent particulars. (Plato and Rousseau are a volatile mix.)

It is very possible to be a Strauss fan and not a neo-con, it is equally possible to be a neo-con without having the slightest interest in Strauss. And, happily, it is possible to be of the right without being either a neo-con or a Straussian. (Just try squeezing Thatcher into that box....and when you are done figure out what to make of Reagan.)

Just to give an example: take a look at the often perplexing Andrew Sullivan who is essentially Oakeshottian in outlook. Or, for a living conservative thinker try John Gray.

Within a Canadian context, compare and contrast the political thought of George Grant, Charles Taylor and Marshall McLuhan and see which you consider to be the conservative.

The problem the right (to use a loose generalization) faces is that there is not "One True Cross". Rather there are splinters and shards, often contradictory, often existentially incompatible. Put a libertarian and a socon in the same room and they will likely have next to nothing in common. (KMG and I do this regularly to our mutual benefit and edification - though I am certain that not a synapse in either of our minds has changed in a year of such conversation.)

For those who may not understand the KMG reference above, I believe Jay's referring to Kevin Michael Grace, author of The Ambler among other things.

Edited to add the link because I'm an idiot and forgot it the first time.

Jay Currie,

Thanks for the informative post. As I'd admitted earlier, I haven't read Strauss. Just skimmed some stuff linking members of bush II's regime to his ideas. A post such as yours, that informs and corrects some misconceptions adds to understanding.

I am not extensively studied in either political science or philosophy, my background is computer science and business school. However having attended a Jesuit university (USF) one can't completely avoid the subjects.

As I understand the lable, a neo-conservative is really, primarily a neo-liberal. It is just that in our modern political spectrum, "conservatives" occupy the right and "liberals" the left, so the far right must then be "neo-conservative" rather than "neo-liberal".

The neocons however, very pragmatically coopt any philosophy that suits their purpose, Leo Strauss, Edmond Burke, Milton Freidman etc. cherry picking the "tasty bits" that support a powerful ruling elite, corporatism, supply side economics, social conservativism, some Nietzschean individualism a bit or Rand a bit of Kant (if that's possible) mixed in, and stir. How else do reconcile PNAC style grand nation building plans with Burke's liberal conservatism and Jefferson's small government unless you wrap it all up in Strauss's "noble lie".

It is also interesting that the proponents of small government never seem to include the military in that calculation.