Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
45 of 51 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Puncturing the ignorant, illiterate and downright stupid, 26 Sep 2007
This book is a must read for anyone who wants to understand the challenges for conservatism today, the current war on terror or the controversial ideological debates surrounding it. Douglas Murray clearly and concisely explains the history of the neoconservative `persuasion' over the last 40 years, and elucidates for the reader the philosophical and intellectual roots of neoconservatism.
Many of the problems Murray outlines in his book are evident on this review page. The misunderstandings, misrepresentations and egregious fabrications are the product of what Paul Wolfowitz once called `fevered minds'. This is thanks to a campaign of falsehoods and outright lies by people like Shadia Drury, Alex Callinicos and Anne Norton. Taking select quotations from Thucydides, Leo Strauss and the classics, and portraying them as neocon axioms, with no reference to the writers intention or the original text, is the favoured practice of these critics (and some reviewers).
The `noble lie' charge is the classic case. This is not some `elitist' attempt to brainwash the public with propaganda by having intellectuals as the `guardians' of truth for an uneducated and docile public. Nothing could be further from the truth, if you actually read Leo Strauss properly, which his critics always fail to do. The `noble lie', which is referred to in Books III and IV of Plato's Republic, is not a weapon of mass stupefaction but a means of educating the soldier class in Plato's imagined utopia. These "Guardians" ought to be encouraged not only to act selflessly and courageously but to believe that the philosopher's ideal state is the best and most natural form of society for men. Plato also thinks that this perfect soldier would have many qualities unwelcome in the rest of his ideal society. Therefore, one result of educating the Guardians with suitable myths is that the rest of this hypothetical society does not have to be taught in the same way. It is the exact opposite from which neoconservative critics claim. But the idea that a prime component of neoconservative thought is this `noble lie' remains an enduring myth, especially after it was explored and exaggerated by the ridiculous 2004 BBC series, The Power Of Nightmares.
As for the charge that neocons are in bed with Likudniks, this again is baseless. The Jewish community in the US supports the Democrats, not Republicans or neocons, and the Democrats are always more hawkish on Israel. Bill Clinton ran to the right of George Bush Snr in 1992 on Israel (and Cuba too). Whether two `Likudnik sympathizers' were indicted on charges of espionage or not, is irrelevant. There have been spying charges against Israeli, Chinese, Russian and Saudi spies too - this in itself proves nothing. The neoconservatives support Israel, not because they are Jewish (most are not), because they are Likudniks (not true either) or because they have `dual loyalty'. They support Israel for the simple and justifiable reason that it is the only pluralist, tolerant, liberal democracy in the region and is surrounded by aggressive totalitarian dictatorships and their terrorist proxies. There is no conspiracy, cabal or all powerful `Jew lobby', as critics, and a recent disgusting book by Mersheimer and Walt, claim.
Murray is quite right to assert that the neoconservative influence on Bush is always overstated and little understood. Richard Perle and a few low-level officials are not enough to influence or `hijack' US foreign policy. And Paul Wolfowitz was the only neocon with any real power. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Bush and Tenet are not, and never have been, neoconservatives. It must be some pervasive influence to change a policy in which they have no control over! The fact is, Bush adopted some neoconservative ideas for his Bush Doctrine and disregarded others. The events of 9-11 changed his isolationist worldview, not his `Likudnik neocon puppetmasters'.
As Irwin Stelzer and Douglas Murray have both written, the neoconservative intellectuals have been publishing, arguing and debating their ideas and policies for decades in print and in public. There is nothing sinister or wrong with writing in newspapers, magazines or speaking on TV (even Fox), in a liberal democracy. Apparently, if you argue for a pro-war position in public, then that is somehow not allowed, wrong or evil. Conservative realists, liberals and anti-war commentators were given a public platform on TV and in magazines and newspapers too. Is that evil, wrong or propagandistic? Or is it just neocons who are not entitled to speak publicly in a free society?
Far from bringing `nothing to the table' or `damaging a democratic system', this book, and others like it, clearly demonstrate that neoconservatism has been a powerful and beneficial force in American politics and world leadership in the last 30 years. Only a blind leftist ideologue could claim otherwise, by rejecting the neoconservative record of democracy promotion in Asia, Latin America, the USSR and the Middle East. Not to forget the principled stand against genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo.
I hope curious shoppers do read this book for themselves, and also read Strauss, Thucydides, Plato and the other classics too. Only by reading with an open mind, cross referencing and going to source material will they be able to understand the history, ideology, philosophy and relevance of the neoconseravtive tendency, and not have to rely on caricatures, distortions and ahistorical polemics of 'social justice' activists like Shadia Drury, conspiracy nutbags like Lyndon LaRouche and the illiterate Noam Chomsky fan club.
|
|
|
104 of 125 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Read this book, 3 May 2006
If, like me, everything you know about neoconservative politics, and politics in general, comes from the popular press, you need to read this book. Douglas Murray's work is a breath of fresh air. It's well-informed, engaging, easy to read and, crucially, short; you can get through it in a matter of days. Compared with other political ideals in history, and in light of the experience of Britain in particular, I also found the neoconservatism he championed both reasonable and convincing. 'Neoconservatism: why we need it' is a brilliant discourse on where Britain is at as a Western society, and where it's heading. But while it makes for some disturbing reading at times, my intellect and spirits were ultimately uplifted when I read this book. Finally there's someone out there who calls a spade a spade and doesn't worry about hurting the spade's feelings.
|
|
|
4 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The Hayek or Friedman of our generation, 24 May 2008
It is rare, today, in the age of the media, for a single work to have the power to define and shape the agenda. This book could, and certainly ought to, become 'The Road to Serfdom' or 'Capitalism and Freedom' of our generation. Just as those books, and more widely their authors, inspired the political titans of our parents' era, so Murray and this work should lead the way forward into the new century, defining it as one in which, following the victory over Nazism and Communism, the West advanced democracy, liberty, and gave voice to those who had known previously only generations of silence and slavery.
Most peoples' knowledge of Neo-conservatism is that it is used as an invective, hurled against anyone who dares suggest that George Bush or American foreign policy is something less than Fascist. Unsurprisingly, this allegation is baseless, and peddled only by those who at best are the misguided victims of the culture of moral equivalence, or at worst who seek to prosecute an agenda opposed to the spread of the culture of justice, democracy and freedom.
This work attacks as its central thesis the culture of moral relativism that has weakened our society to the point we find it in today, where we are unable, and unwilling, to defend our own values, and culture of liberty and freedom, content to moralise rather than be, and act, moral, and afford our enemies the very 'rights' which they seek to deny us.
|
|
|
|
by Alan Dershowitz
by Samuel P. Huntington
by Nick Cohen
by Patrick West
![Londonistan [UPDATED EDITION WITH NEW FOREWORD]: How Britain Has Created a Terror State Within: How Britain Is Creating a Terror State Within](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51zRt1ZnPDL._SL75_SS50_.jpg)
