NEOCON UPDATE :

An alert reader informs us that David Horowitz touches on neoconservatism, which he declares dead, in an essay today : American Conservatism: an Argument with the Racial Right (David Horowitz, FrontPageMagazine.com, August 27, 2002)

The two most prominent theoreticians of neo-conservatism announced its death some time ago, because it had always defined the defection of a group of New York liberals from liberalism over its failure to stay the course in fighting the anti-Communist battle during the Cold War. Since the end of the Cold War, neo-conservatism--at least in the view of its founders--has become indistinguishable from conservatism itself.

I have never identified myself as a "neo-conservative" because belonging to a younger political generation I did not share some of the social attitudes of the neo-conservative founders. Since attitude is fundamental to some conservative perspectives, I have preferred to define my own. To be a conservative in America, from my perspective, then, is to defend where possible and restore where necessary, the framework of values and philosophical understandings enshrined in the American Founding. This should not be taken to mean a strict constructionist attitude towards every clause of the documents that constitute the Founding. If the framers of the Constitution had presumed to see the future, or had wanted to rigidly
preserve the past, they would not have included an amendment process in their document.

My brand of conservatism is based on a belief in the fundamental truth in the idea of individualism; in the idea of rights that are derived from "Nature's God" and therefore inalienable; in the conservative view of human nature and the philosophy of limited government that flows therefrom; and in the recognition that property rights are the proven foundation of all human liberties.

As is not seldom the case, Mr. Horowitz appears to be both wrong and self-absorbed. It's hard to see what the "National Greatness" types are if not neocons and, contrary to Mr. Horowitz's assertion, conservatives don't get to "define their own" attitudes. The phrase "my brand of conservatism" is in and of itself an oxymoron. His elevation of the Constitution to a level of primacy, for example, reveals him to be still too enamored of government, and his "nature's God", though (or because) derived from Jefferson's Declaration, is too ambiguous too know what God he's talking about. Here he makes a rather fundamental error, assuming the Constitution and the Rights it enshrines to be the end that conservatism seeks. In fact they are mere means through which conservatives seek the freedom to create decent lives, relatively free of government interference, lives that accord with Judeo-Christian principles. Posted by Orrin Judd at August 27, 2002 2:29 PM