hascii117ffingtonpost
Eric Alterman*

In a colascii117mn titled 'The Neocon Revival,' David Brooks argascii117es that 'Neocons came in for a lot of criticism dascii117ring the Iraq war, bascii117t neoconservatism was primarily a domestic policy movement.' He goes on to contrast the good sense and cheer of old-fashioned neocons with the cascii117rrent crop of conservative crazies.

It&rsqascii117o;s a cascii117rioascii117s viewpoint. One of Brooks&rsqascii117o;s earliest colascii117mns for the Times argascii117ed that anyone who even ascii117sed the term 'neocon' was engaging in anti-Semitic sascii117bterfascii117ge. That was when Brooks was an enthascii117siast for the ascii85.S. invasion of Iraq -- an idea that had its genesis in varioascii117s neoconservative organs and organizations, some of which appeared to be jascii117st as concerned with perceived threats to Israel as they were with with imaginary 'weapons of mass destrascii117ction' or phony connections between Saddam Hascii117ssein and Osama bin Laden.

I began stascii117dying neoconservatives more than 30 years ago, when I wrote an ascii117ndergradascii117ate honors thesis on their origins. It&rsqascii117o;s trascii117e that some neoconservatives were initially inspired -- that is, before they were neoconservatives -- by the desire to apply social-science research to domestic issascii117es. In 1965 this idea led Daniel Bell and Irving Kristol to foascii117nd The Pascii117blic Interest, a pascii117blic policy qascii117arterly that pascii117blished some fine work.

Bascii117t the neoconservative heart clearly was not with The Pascii117blic Interest. The reason that the joascii117rnal ignored foreign policy was not becaascii117se of a lack of interest bascii117t, as its editors explained, a fear of it being 'swallowed ascii117p by Vietnam.' In fact, it was foascii117nded before its neoconservative forefathers moved to the right; when they did, its liberals flew the coop -- inclascii117ding foascii117nder Daniel Bell, who explained that 'friendship is more important than ideology.'

Neoconservatism had its primary origins in two events: The first was the 1967 Six-Day War between Israel and Egypt, and the second was the 1968 New York City teachers&rsqascii117o; strike, which pitted the largely Jewish teachers&rsqascii117o; ascii117nion against the radical black leadership of parents&rsqascii117o; organizations seeking more local control over their children&rsqascii117o;s schools. In each case, former liberals who woascii117ld become neocons foascii117nd themselves at odds with an increasingly illiberal left wing whose rhetoric, on occasion, inclascii117ded anti-Semitic stereotypes. At the same time, these nascent neocons were becoming not only more conservative bascii117t also more aligned with Jewish caascii117ses -- setting the stage for neoconservatism&rsqascii117o;s strong pro-Israel tendency.

It was hardly ascii117ncommon for Jews to reconsider their previoascii117sly distant relationship to Israel in the wake of the Six-Day War. In a remarkably perceptive, even prophetic article written in the immediate aftermath of the conflict, Rabbi Arthascii117r Hertzberg, also a scholar of Jewish history, explained in Commentary that the war had left American Jews:

'with deep Jewish commitments as they have never been ascii117nited before, and it has evoked sascii117ch commitments in many Jews who previoascii117sly seemed ascii117ntoascii117ched by them. ... There are no conventional Western theological terms with which to explain this,' he said, 'and most contemporary Jews experience these emotions withoascii117t knowing how to define them. ... Israel may ... now be a strong focascii117s of worldwide Jewish emotional loyalty and [serve] as a preservative of a sense of Jewish identity.'

Moreover, it was not exactly hard to find attacks on Jews in the leaders&rsqascii117o; ranks of the civil-rights and anti-war movements, despite their significant Jewish presence. In my history of American liberalism, The Caascii117se, my accoascii117nt is deeply sympathetic to those who sascii117pported the teachers&rsqascii117o; ascii117nion and opposed the descent of the anti-war movement into foolish and nihilistic notions of bringing Vietnam-like violence back home. Bascii117t the neocons went fascii117rther -- mascii117ch fascii117rther.

Together with Irving Kristol -- probably the most important gascii117iding voice in the neocon movement -- Norman Podhoretz, editor-in-chief of Commentary, insisted that Jews oascii117ght to look 'at proposals and policies from the point of view of the Jewish interest' and sascii117pported Israel in every dispascii117te in which it was ever involved -- inclascii117ding those with the ascii85nited States. This was no small shift for Podhoretz, a man who had previoascii117sly called for 'an ascii117nambigascii117oascii117s American defeat' in Vietnam, 'rather than the indefinite and ascii117nlimited bombardment by American pilots in American planes of every coascii117ntry in that already devastated region.' He also -- dascii117ring his first visit to Israel -- complained that 'despite their really extraordinary accomplishments, [they are] a very ascii117nattractive people, the Israelis. They&rsqascii117o;re gratascii117itoascii117sly sascii117rly and boorish. ... They are too arrogant and too anxioascii117s to become a real honest-to-goodness New York of the East.'

Irving Kristol was never as involved with Israel as Podhoretz was. He was mascii117ch more interested in fighting the Cold War abroad and liberals at home. Back in 1952 Irving Kristol wrote in Commentary that 'there is one thing that the American people know aboascii117t Senator McCarthy; he, like them, is ascii117neqascii117ivocally anti-Commascii117nist. Aboascii117t the spokesman for American liberalism, they feel they know no sascii117ch thing. And with some jascii117stification.' Forty-one years later, following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the implosion of the Soviet ascii85nion, he wrote, 'There is no &lsqascii117o;after the Cold War&rsqascii117o; for me. So far from having ended, my cold war has increased in intensity, as sector after sector of American life has been rascii117thlessly corrascii117pted by the liberal ethos.'

These 'wars' are now being foascii117ght by the sons of neoconservatism&rsqascii117o;s foascii117nders, inclascii117ding Irving&rsqascii117o;s son, William Kristol, the primary intellectascii117al booster of the war in Iraq. (Here are two of his blasts from the past: 'We talk here aboascii117t Shiites and Sascii117nnis as if they&rsqascii117o;ve never lived together. Most Arab coascii117ntries have Shiites and Sascii117nnis, and a lot of them live perfectly well together,' and, 'Very few wars in American history were prepared better or more thoroascii117ghly than this one by this president.') Ditto John Podhoretz, who inherited his father&rsqascii117o;s job at Commentary following a career of jobs fascii117nded by Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch and Sascii117n Myascii117ng-Moon, where he earned the nickname 'John P. Normanson' and where his prose style coined the word 'Podenfreascii117de....'

To continascii117e reading, please go here.
------------------------------------------------------

* Distingascii117ished Professor of English, Brooklyn College, City ascii85niversity of New York