Benevolent Global Hegemony

Much has been made of the influence of the neoconservatives over the last several years. Many books have been written, much notoriety bestowed. What fascinates me is the consistent theme among all of them of the importance of ideas - specifically that ideas are important not only for politics but for transforming the world. This is even consistent with the now imfamous "Reality Based Community" comment from last fall's Presidential election. I have recently discovered an issue of the online journal Logos dedicated to the neoconservatives. In one of the essays, Gary Dorrien lays out a recent ideological history of the movement and focuses on William Kristol (son of Irving Kristol, the so called god father of neoconservatism). William Kristol is one of those smug talking heads that appears on Fox every Sunday, is the editor of the Rupert Murdoch financed Weekly Standard, and has a Phd in Political Science from Harvard. In addittion to being one of the most condescending and pedantic human beings alive, he seems to have had a significant influence on American foreign policy.

I think the following is particularly worthy of attention:

When Kristol founded the Weekly Standard and the PNAC, his causes were on the fringe of the Republican party. The neo-cons made them respectable, and then politically powerful, in remarkably little time.  Just as Irving Kristol’s generation of neo-cons believed they could do great things if they advocated the right ideas, and the New York intellectuals of the 1930s believed it before them, Bill Kristol exuded the neo-con belief in the power of ideas, backed by the Right’s mighty Wurlitzer of foundations, think tanks, magazines, and media networks.

Much has been made about the right wing echo chamber that dominates the air waves and newspapers.  And even though I find the policies advocated repulsive, I wonder if people like Kristol believe their own schtick?  Could it be possible that the commitment they have is not simply motivated by power and class - that they take the ideas of "benevolent global hegemony" and "Islamofascism" seriously? 

Of course, whether a fascist believes what they are doing is just or not is irrelavent. What is more significant is that a relatively small group of crack pots have taken neoliberal/imperialistic nonsense and trasformed it into a  "legitimate" foreign policy.  I  wonder if anyone on the left thinks that a group of progressive thinkers could have a similar influence? Is this even something that should be a goal?  I don't know but as someone who takes ideas seriously, I am amazed (and horrified) that in the mainstream it is conservatives who talk about "ideas" and "liberals" talk about "solving problems."   

Neocon triumphalism is apparent at every turn.  Witness Mr. Kristol's modest review of all they have accomplished:

Kristol took pride that his ideas about global supremacy, regime change, preemptive war, democratic globalism, and weapons of mass destruction became the causes of a popular Republican administration. “We at the Weekly Standard and the Project for the New American Century—and many other people, Wolfowitz way back in 1992—had articulated chunks and parts of what later became the Bush Doctrine,” he observed. “Certainly there was a lot out there that could be stitched together into the Bush Doctrine. But certainly, even people like me were kind of amazed by the speed and decisiveness with which the Bush administration, post-9/11, moved to pull these different arguments together.”

He loved Bush’s line from his September 20, 2001, address to Congress, that “in our anger and in our grief, we have found our mission and our moment.”  That was exactly right, Kristol believed; Bush spoke for America and himself in claiming the war on terrorism as the cause of the present age. Bush was not as militant on China, North Korea, and the Middle East as his neo-con allies, but to a remarkable extent he championed the neo-con vision of global Americanism.  And every Monday Cheney sent a currier to pick up thirty copies of the Weekly Standard.

Comments

[Jodi]

Thanks for the post, Alain. What is striking is that the supposedly anti-intellectual Right takes the power of ideas much more seriously than the much derided pointy headed Left. The Right has been working seriously and conscientiously to develop a body of idea. What was formerly preposterous is now mainstream. This is what the left has to do--and, I think in a way where left academics stop trashing each other but work more seriously with the nuggests of insight that can be found in an article here or a book there. It will be a long process. It took conservatives around 30 years to get where they are. Now it's time for the left to do the painstaking work of either imagining socialism in a global era or imagining something else.

[Alain]

Thanks Jodi. I had read somewhere that back in the late 1960's or early 70's a committee of concerned conservatives had Lewis Powell (who eventually become a supreme court Justice)draft a plan to help big business regain the upperhand in public policy debates. I do not remember the details but it was striking how pain stakingly systematic it was, how they envisioned the undertaking as generational and radically transformative. And how important winning the "war of ideas" in the media was to them. Though this approach is very "top down," it has been enormously successful. As you rightfully point out, the problem I see is that progressives inherently resist such global approaches and tend to attack one another. But my hope is that we can overcome these conflicts; even neocons disagree from time to time.

[isakofsky]

Dare I say there's a bit of philosophical idealism going on here. The 'success' of neocon ideas can't be detached from the phase that American capital has reached. It's not that these ideas are better/better expressed/more cogent. Surely, they express this phase eg the conversion of the right to 'democracy'; the 'need' for American capital to assert its right over the rest of the world in the face of dwindling fossil fuels and competition from growing economies. I'm trying hard not to be determinist here and say simply that the ideas 'correspond' to the moment but let's not get carried away and imagine that the ideas are more cogent than they are, or that they have the power to succeed when opposed by action. I think we're seeing some serious cracks in the unity of those who run America which suddenly makes the all-powerful nature of the ideas seem less powerful. And the main reason for this cracking is the Iraqi resistance.

[Alain]

Isakofsky

I can see that I was unclear in my post. I certainly wouldn't argue that neocon ideas are more cogent or persuassive and that is why they are in power. What I am trying to point out is that they seem to take ideas (even pernicious ones) more seriously than those on the left. And that this has been part of an overall strategy that has been very successful in resting controll from more moderate imperialists (Clinton, Gore, Kerry, et al.)

Regarding your point on global capital and dwindling energy resources, I am largely in agreement. I would never suggest one could separate the effectiveness of an idea from its historical context. Clearly the neocon project is an essential element in America maintaining its position of pre-emminence. But I would argue that they have taken the unipolarity of American power and radicalized it. Their ability to do this is ofcourse afforded by economic and geopolitical realities - but they also have a clear vision of what they want to achieve. I am not sure that progressives have such a vision.

[Jon]

I agree with isakofsky. Though the point is less your (Alain's) idealism, than the idealism of the neo-cons themselves. I just wrote something up about this here: http://posthegemony.blogspot.com/2005/08/ideas.html

[alphonsevanworden]

Terrific post as usual!

Part of the thing is the neocon repetoire of notions, it's 'act', is/are not 'ideas' but the images of a very well designed and executed marketing and ad campaign. For reasons which can never be overcome, left analysis and discourse cannot be accomodated to this form - this form of discourse in itself in inimical to truth, explanation or debate.

One sees this with MoveOn, which is the marketing campaign of that section of wall street unhappy with the bush regime masquerading as a liberal 'political movement' in the tradition of the MacRevolutions. They have adopted the advertising form to present their 'ideas,' which are a clutch of images and symbols, pretty successfully insofar as they may succeed in creating vast public support for their more cautious, traditional policy. But its not a left agenda, but the more traditional agenda of DWS regime they are seeking support for.

Obviously this kind of mesmerizing simplified trained reaction to abstractions is just incompatible with participatory democracy. The whole notion of the 'left' countering the neocons with a counterpart stratgey reveals an antidemocracti fantasy of mesmerizing and leading the same nullified herd in a less barbaric direction. That's not a plausible alternative - the right is better at this, the whole endeavour structurally tilts right - nor is it what's needed.

[Alain]

Alphonse

I tend to agree with you. MoveOn is funded by George Soros and company, and they have tried to play at the same game (rather unsuccessfully). Clearly this sort of stratagey is incompatible with participatory democracy, but I wonder if we are on the brink of a situation where a "less barbaric direction" may be necessary.

[Jodi]

Alain,

I didn't read your post as anti-materialist but appreciate nonetheless the exchange you have above with isakovsky. What seems to me important to keep in mind (and this actually may be something said once at commonplace book or in some other bloggy debate) is that there are facts but they don't speak for themselves. So, what languages are available for people to articulate their grievances? What images are available for understanding or organizing people's fears and hopes? Unfortunately, the religious fundamentalists of all sorts have been extraordinarily successful in finding these words and images. There have been times, and there still are some places, where the left has been able to offer powerful images and ideas, where left themes of social welfare and solidarity, of equality and justice played larger roles in so-called public debate. These days, even people who might be drawn to progressive causes, find themselves stuck in vocabularies habituated to right wing causes--say vocabularies of free choice, zero tolerance, and no government intrusion.

Stuart Hall's account of the role of neoliberal institutions in setting the stage for Thatcherism is unsurpassed as a detailed example of the kind of conservative work you mention in your post.

[Alain]

Jodi

Thanks for the reference. Is Hall's work in the form of essays or a book? I would like to check it out.

In response to your comment, I definitely am not advocating a Platonist view of the relation between theory and Praxis. The neocons are part of a larger project on the right to inform public discussion and create the rhetoric necessary to obtain and hold on to power.

[Christoph]

Great post, great discussion.

I think it is fair to make a case for the current American right (which is a bizarre and complex socio-historical phenomenon worthy of a historical chair at some good uni) as being a self-perpetuating product of what Enzensberger called the "consciousness industry".

That, I suspect, being the underlying assumption when Alain asks that most pertinent question: Do these Neocons actually believe this stuff? (Or, as I think isakofsky asks: Is their habitus really framing them/determining them this way?)

The answer, I'd argue, is "neither" - as long as it so obviously is not just anti-democratic, as Alphonse points out, but also not "reality based", i.e. a deranged perversion of radical subjectivism: The deluded notion that you can "make the world what you want it to be".

In other words, a Kristol can "believe" what he says because he does not need to question whether it is "true" (reality-based) now: Reality is a suspension into the future. What is true about the world is what he wants it to be and what he can actively "construct" (thereby perversly inverting epistemic constructivism, too -- indeed, one could make a case for Neocon ideology being an irrational reaction to the constructivist paradigm).

From that view, the "Bush Doctrine" (hrmpf) is not just aggressive capitalism gone apeshit. This Neo-Conservatism (hello? contradiction in terms!), or, for want of a better word, "American Right" (unlike the European Right and the very different tradition of real conservatism) is a totalitarian ideology, i.e. an ideology whose epistemic foundations are in lala-land, that beautiful place where the present is always in the future, and all patently morbid pseudo-constructivist fantasies reside - including National Socialism (hello? contradiction in terms!), Stalinism, and, fundamentalist religion.

So how do you tackle that?

You don't fight that with more loony tunes about reality now or tomorrow, but by showing people that the emperor is naked - and the ideas are a dangerous fantasy. But as Jodi points out, that might not be easy when the consciousness industry is bleaching the public into "NASCAR Dads".

However, I feel there is a deeper problem for the left's paralysis: The dead-end street of (cheap) postmodernism, where the problem of time is exactly the other way around: There is only a present of multiple possibilities, and thus no futures.

That closes the door on "making things better" and creates the sort of confusion a lot of the debates on the left are having.

In other words, the left needs to rethink its epistemic paradigms in a way that includes itself as a problem. That goes beyond Marx, and maybe beyond Derrida....in my personal view, to systems-theoretical approaches like that of Luhmann.

(Whew, sorry for the rant, I needed to get that off my chest). Alain, you keep pushing these buttons!

[Jodi]

Christoph (I figured this must be you, what with Luhman and all)--I agree that 'multiple futures' is a problem, that is this kind of open-endedness is really a kind of stagnation, in a way of lack of seriousness, a refusal to deal with the way that there are not really multiple futures or points of few at all. It's been over a decade since I've read any Luhman. Is it possible to give a quick hint of what a systems-theoretic alternative approach might look like?

[Jodi]

Alain,
the Hall book is called The Hard Road to Renewal: Thatcherism and the Crisis of the Left. (I have a brief summary of it in an article I posted on i cite a couple of weeks ago. I think the post was called political theory and cultural studies. let me know if you want me just to email it to you--but really, it's much, much better to look at the book if you have time)

[alphonsevanworden]

Alain, yes definitely, less barbaric and less extreme with the corruption this instant is a desperate need. I think in general the activist left in the US is showing itself very willing to join forces with the dissident section of the ruling class, MoveOn, hoping the democratic party and conservative republicans will feel themselves supported enough publicly to make a move to put the breaks on the direction of foreign policy and executive power grab. That Soros and company are even bothering with this kind of broad marketing and popular mobilizing is a sign that they are intimidated even about the usual rivalising and only massive popular backing will make sitting congresspeople not fear getting run off the road one dark night.

If I was working for Soros on this MacMovement, I'd advise the adoption of the revolutionary "Don't Tread On Me" serpent flag as the antiwar antibush emblem to rival the stars and stripes, and give tshirts and baseball caps away for free. What do you think?

[Christoph]

Argh! Sorry for double-posting that monster comment. Won't happen again, no need for any testicular lockboxes. Promise.

[Christoph]

Jodi

I won't do the theory any justice of course, but I would argue that the advantage of a systems-theoretical approach is that it overcomes the subject/object problem by replacing it with the distinction between system and environment.

That opens the way for on the one hand removing the "futurelessness" of postmodernity, and on the other hand not falling into the old traps of subjectivism/objectivism and related problems. Or so Luhmann argues in his brief text "Observations on Modernity".

The question of time, like all ontological categories/questions, is no longer pertinent "as such" in systems theory, because it elegantly (and persuasively, at least to me) is rethought. It's not just Luhmann who taught us that we need to turn all the old "what" questions into "how" questions. Which creates interesting problems, of course, especially to those among us defiantly humanist.

Anywho, we end up with observations of observations of observations, but not in a solipsistic or (infinitely) regressive way. Observations are operations that can not observe the distinction they themselves make, and observing that recursively generates meaning within a system, but that is just one of many systems. That's all.

I will try and post something on this here on LS soon, using the question of paradoxa.

If anyone's curious about Luhmann, I'd probably recommend reading the "Observations on Modernity", or to go straight for "Social Systems", Luhmann's primer, or maybe "Love as Passion: The Codification of Intimacy", because it is less abstract and very charming indeed.

[Alain]

Christoph

I hope I am not pressing the wrong buttons! Seriously, I appreciate your response. But I am at a loss when it comes to Luhmann but I am very intrigued by the system/environment distinction. Are any of the essays you mention on line? Or collected in a book?

And we will find other uses for the testicular lockbox - hmmmm?

Jodi, thanks for the referrence. I will track it down.

[Alain]

Alphonse

I like the marketing ideas. Perhaps "DeBush your Garden" with the appropriate fawna and flora on the t-shirts? Or (my signicant other's idea)- a comic strip that would depict a titanic struggle to the death between Bono and Paul Wolfowitz, fighting for the Presidency of the World Bank? One more in the name of Love?

Seriously folks, I think you are right that Soros and his ilk are involved in "grass roots" organizing because they have no real way to stop these people.

[Jon]

For Hall on Thatcherism, easier and quicker (and, I'd say, better) to read his essay "The Toad in the Garden" in Grossberg et al's Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture.

I can's say, however, that I recognize the argument Jodi's making in Hall.

[Alain]

Thank you Jon.

[Christoph]

Alain,

you keep pushing the right buttons!

There are some texts by Luhmann online here:
http://www.libfl.ru/Luhmann/index.html