The Breakdown of the American Polity: Part II, Neocon Sorcerers and the Collapse of the Republican Party
by Bob Cheeks | View comments |
Print This Post
Statist Republicans, thanks in large measure to the failures of the neocon ideology, are facing an anticipated backlash at the polls this November.
A notable example of the breakdown of the American polity was the capture of the Republican Party by the so-called neoconservatives or neocons. These “new conservatives” are the intellectual offspring of a talented group of socialists and communists who frequented certain coffeehouses in New York City during the 1930’s and became disaffected with Stalin and Communism as a result of the Soviet purges.
By the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan a significant number of neocons joined the administration and immediately set about to purge their nemesis, the remnant of the “old right,” the paleoconservatives. They succeeded brilliantly and with their opposition exiled to the American hinterlands, the neocons were free to implement their policies, which came to fruition in the second Bush administration with the invasion of Iraq, whose stated objective was not to destroy an enemy (Islam) responsible for the massacre of 3,000 Americans but rather “to bring democracy to the Middle East.”
The Republican Party, from its inception, prior to and during the Lincoln Administration, was a “statist” political organization that sought to utilize the power of the legislative and executive branches of the central government in meeting its obligations to its constituents in banking, manufacturing, and agriculture. The Republican Party captured control of the central government during the War Between the States and began instituting changes that would result in a foundational shift in government from a constitutional republic to a social democracy.
Generally speaking, the Republican Party is comprised of two distinct elements: first, the constitutional republicans who embrace the ideas of limited government, low taxes, and a foreign policy that mirrored the founder’s desire to “trade with all but treaty with none;” and second, the statist Republicans who directly benefit from the relationship between corporations and government and seek a globalized “New World Order” predicated on democratic capitalism.
In the current Bush Administration there are no conservative republicans in any significant leadership position; the administration functions, from the Oval Office down, as a vehicle for the statist/neocon Republican agenda.
How then, do the neocons act to “deculture” American society? First, a definition of “deculturation;” it is the “. . . loss or decline of culture, when culture is interpreted as a process in which soul and character are formed through experiences of transcendence and of the virtues (such as faith, love, hope, reason) essential to ‘open existence.’”
The neocon world-view is established on a second reality that eschews the transcendent and exists only in the immanent. Man, then, is an economic creature whose existential being is completed by the accumulation of wealth, within a “democratic society.” Any social entity that does not acknowledge this fundamental tenet is seen as tribal, backward, or primitive and lives not only in poverty but a profound ignorance as well. Having been blessed with the “true knowledge,” and this is surely a Gnostic component of the neocon ideology, it is their duty to “bring democracy to ____” (you may fill in the blank) whereby the local tribalists or clansmen can properly enter the true family of Capitalist man.
The inherent dysfunction of the neocon ideology is that it is a form of megalomania, a messianic desire to become the overlord, revealing a “psycopathological insecurity and anxiety,” subsumed within the libido dominandi. It is a distortion of the first order, reminding us of the various ideologies of the twentieth century that reached denouement in mass slaughter; a distortion grounded in its rejection of the first reality that places the “true self as a man under God.”
Neocon ideology is an example of the Hegelian “imaginative construction” where the reality of existence as a life lived under God is superceded by “a Second Reality of the imaginative project.” And, this “imaginative project” is identified as the institution of a worldwide, free-market capitalism functioning under a democratic regime, aligned under the aegis of the United States, achieved by any means necessary.
It acts to eclipse “the mystery of meaning in history expressed by the Christian symbolism of eschatological events.” And, all that remains to ice the proverbial cake is for the neocons to announce that their ideological endeavors are not “a mere love of wisdom,” but rather the “final possession of knowledge . . . enhanced by the new symbol ‘science.’” At its core then, it is the Hegelian desire to capture sophia (God’s knowledge) in order to “end the world process” and alleviate “suffering and conflict,” while promising peace, brotherhood, and wealth; in other words, Utopia.
The statist Republicans, thanks in large measure to the failures of the neocon ideology, are facing an anticipated backlash at the polls this November. A significant number of conservative republicans understand that they have been disenfranchised and are either leaving the party, joining the Ron Paul uprising, or refuse to participate in the electoral process, signaling the breakdown of the Republican Party coalition.
robertcheeks@core.com
Read more articles by Bob Cheeks
So the short version, then, would be "Neocons are communist-sympathizing Utopians"… who want to establish a global totalitarian free-market state (totalitarian free-marketism - now there's an interesting combination of terms).
I'm not sure the goals there really match the ideology, but you're correct in saying that the Republican party is becoming increasingly statist. Blaming the party for the social decline of American may be a bit over-zealous though. It could be argued that 1930's New Deal socialism, the brainchild of Democrats, made a much more bold usurpation of power and push toward centralization and statism than 1860's Civil War Republicans did.
Republicans don't really seem to have learned anything from last November, if the lesson was that the party's liberalism is costing it at the polls. If they had, then eventually the party should reorient itself towards the ideas that its constituents support, or the party will eventually disappear. Unfortunately, the primary results this election seem to indicate the exact opposite - the conservative candidates are all out of the race, and the most liberal among the group is leading at the moment.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | January 31, 2008
This whole "I hate neo-cons" tirade that several IC contributors have been on for some time is starting to really get annoying. I echo Patrick's comments about blaming the neo-con segment of the party for what is absolutely a problem of the Republican electorate. It is hardly the fault of neo-cons that nincompoops out there in Republicanland voted for McCain, Romney, and Paul over the likes of Hunter, Tancredo, and Thompson. I also ditto Patrick in his questioning of your pronouncements condemning the 1850's Republican party as "Statist". The reason the party was for imposing its will through force (the Civil War) and through legislation (the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments) was because the issue of slavery had been left the the states. You cannot have two definitions of right and wrong. The Republicans rightly used the powers of the central government to expunge and purge that evil from our shores! And let me tell you, if I were King of America, I too would use whatever force was necessary and employ whatever technique of government I could to make abortion a capital offense in every square inch of the United States. If that makes me a "statist" then I gladly wear that epithet. You cannot have two definitions of right and wrong. Its either wrong to own slaves and legitimize abortion or its not. Besides, I do not concede that what the Republicans did in the 1850s, 60s and 70s constituted "statist" behavior. They were reacting to war brought about by a moral crisis, not establishing the central government to some illegitimate role. Wilson and FDR are the culprits, not Abe Lincoln.
Likewise, I think that the attitude of many conservatives that we can somehow disengage from the world stage is ludicrous. It was the failure to engage that led directly to 11SEP01. Similarly, several contributors and pundits here at IC seem to equate interventionism to criminality and New World Order-dom. That is total garbage. I considerate it idiocy that borders on criminal to suggest that we can and should avoid military confrontations with groups and nations whose corruption, criminal acts, and militant anti-Americanism represent a clear and obvious threat to our security if left unchecked.
There are NUMEROUS examples in recent years where U.S. intervention saved not only the target nation, but prevented a protracted war for the United States. But, I'll offer just one. Colombia. Colombia is not out of the woods by any means, but if one were to track the intervention into Colombia by the United States from the early 1980's til now, you would come the the inescapable conclusion that Colombia and the United States were saved from disaster. Colombia was right on the brink of degenerating into another protracted regional conflict that would have unavoidably included the United States. But by intervening, we prevented it. Now, Colombia has a brilliant right-leaning President, a national get-tough peace plan that is working and is the third largest (and growing rapidly) economy in Latin America. Stick that in your "we-must-disengage" pipe and smoke it.
I'm not for nation building. I'm for Ann Coulter's strategy of killing all the bad guys and converting the rest to Christianity, but you cannot do the latter by waving a magic wand from a distance. You must intervene and you must marshal the resources of the central government to do it.
The days of "trading with all, but treaty with none" are long gone. When that notion prevailed that world was much smaller and localities infinitely more isolated and Europe kept a lid on the cesspools of the world through Colonialism. Latin America was captive to Spain, Portugal, France, and Britain. Africa and the Middle East were remote and again captive until the 1960s. If Conservatives of old had had 197 independent nations to cope with, all armed to the teeth and hatefully jealous, does anyone suppose that statement would read the same?
Regards.
Comment by Julian Cate | February 2, 2008