New Podhoretz Reader Puts His Famed Volte-Face in Perspective By Hillel Halkin. http://www.forward.com/main/article.php?ref=halkin200402251017 Original Source URL.
Halkin describes the conservatism of Podhoretz, who was the editor for many years of Commentary, thus:
"Even now — perhaps especially now, in the fourth year of the Bush administration — it is no small heresy in American intellectual life to defend such propositions as that the war in Vietnam was morally justified; that "middle-class values" are generally superior to those of their critics; that the counterculture of the 1960s was a national disaster; that feminism, multiculturalism and the gay rights movement have done as much harm as good; that a society without deep religious beliefs is a society that has lost its moral moorings; that American-style capitalism remains socially and economically the most promising system on earth; that an aggressive American military posture abroad is the world's best hope; and that strong support for Israel is a litmus test of one's grasp of international realities. Back in the days of the Nixon administration, positions like these placed you beyond the intellectual — i.e., liberal and leftward — pale. They made you a "neoconservative," and it was as embattled voices for neoconservatism slowly began to gain ground and respectability that Podhoretz and Commentary emerged as significant factors in American life. I don't know whether Ronald Reagan really read Commentary every month while in office, as legend had it, but the very rumor says something about the magazine's influence during the 1980s, a decade in which its circulation peaked at nearly 60,000 subscribers — including not a few high figures in government.
. . .
"There is in this young Brownsville roughneck a close sense of social observation, a keen awareness of the subtle degrees of mannerism, speech and class that determine social hierarchies and make them inevitable; a determination to rise in the world coupled with an understanding of the fact that this means working hard and meeting standards; and at the same time, a deep sense of loyalty to his Jewish and immigrant roots that will permit him to ascend the social ladder without snobbishness, deracination or the confusion of worth with birth. Mrs. K., the teacher, comically brahmin yet admirably dedicated to the principle of individual merit, is Podhoretz's introduction to an American society that, while socially stratified like any other, is unique in its openness and social mobility.
"There was a time, about 1990, as the Soviet empire came crashing down, in part because of American policies recommended for years by a magazine like Commentary, when neoconservatism seemed to have won the field; to this period dates an essay of Podhoretz's, entitled "Neoconservatism: A Eulogy," in which he speaks of the movement's losing its distinctiveness and vanishing because, as happened with the counterculture of the 1960s, its basic values had become widely accepted. I am not so sure he would still agree with this. A year after the overthrow of one of the most hideous totalitarian regimes in history, the intellectual mockery of America's striving for victory in the Cold War is back again in the form of intellectual mockery of the American intervention in Iraq, the fashionable notion among the cultivated being once again that tyranny and evil are best fought by not fighting them too hard. These things are cyclical. The Norman Podhoretzes will never cease to be needed.
Discussion Questions
What does Halkin claim as the conservative position on war?
Consider: Vietnam war justified. War justified to enforce our version of "good and just." Think of "moral justification.
By contrast the left is opposed to war, finding it hard to justify the killing of so many people over ideology, which tends to change. (jeanne's words and conclusions)
What does Halkin claim that conservatives feel about middle class values?
Consider that when we limit our perspective, even in the name of the "good and just," we are giving privilege to some values over others. Halkin claims that conservatives give privilege to middle class values.
How does that fit in with Marx' concept of the bourgeoisie? Consider that in Marx' time only the very wealthy had privilege. The revolution in France was theoretically led by the "bourgeoisie" from whom all the aristocracy took the real power.
What does Halkin claim that the conservatives thought of the 60s hippie culture?
Consider that it was during this period we began to speak of a "counterculture," a culture that opposed the normative "givens" of good manners, appropriate public behavior, not drawing attention to oneself, etc.
How does Halkin claim the conservatives responded to gay liberation?
Consider that the very term "gay" was too exuberant for public display, that our parents cared less what we did than what the neighbors saw or guessed of what we did, and that such rapid change is often responsible for instability in the social context.
How does Halkin claim the conservatives responded to a loosening of the bond of formal religion?
Consider that ritual and custom and tradition are the stuff of which social control are made of. And the counterculture years threw off much of the social control of the tradtional institutions of school, love, and obedience to the federal and state authorities, which brought us right to the door of CRIME. Ritual, custom, and tradition rarely question the exxclusivity of their perspectives. Add to this that "free love" floated all through the society (not with just the very young), and appeared to challenge the morality of sex and sexuality. Thus, loosening formal religious demands appeared to be correlated with a loosening of morality, and we seem to have limited our perspectives to sexual morality. That's how come Enron and company are so shocking now. We had forgottent that morality extends across the social context.
What does Halkin claim conservatives think of capitalism?
Consider capitalism, American Style, is reified as the economic system of choice for the glorified future of the world.
What does Halkin claim is the conservative position on Israel?
Consider that Israel supports American style capitalism and is supported by it. Consider also that it is a toe-hold in the Middle East with which Americans have some prestige and privilege.
What does Halkin claiam the conservative position on an aggressive military is?
Consider that if you're sure you're right and everyone else is wrong, then an aggressive military is only protecting the good and the just and they'll understand when the fighting's all over. Sound like George W. Bush? Guess what? He's a conservative.
Why does Halkin say that Podhoretz regretted the loss of conservatism?
Consider that Podhoretz believed "the [conservative] movement's losing its distinctiveness and vanishing because, as happened with the counterculture of the 1960s, its basic values had become widely accepted." Consider that although conservatives fear rapid social change that might interfere with social stability, they recognize that society must remain dynamic, challenging, and innovative. There must be "movement." Having a conservative movement solved that problem. But if we all accept the same ideas, no more movement. Rapid and radical change, the dragon, might rear its ugly head at the gates. So neoconservatism doesn't make the conservative happy if that means that there is no conservative excitement left.
A Justice Site
jeannecurran@habermas.org
Defining Conservatism