Ideology and Tradition: An Epistemological View of Neoconservatism

Abstract

AbstractThe paper aims to give an account of the emergence of American neoconservatism, approaching its subject from a theoretical point of view. Its main thesis is that the defining difference between neoconservatism and older, more traditional kinds of conservatism can be found in their relation to political knowledge. While traditional conservatism completely rejects a rationalist-ideological approach to political knowledge, accepting only tradition as a guide to political action, neoconservatism holds that among the circumstances of modern politics, especially in the US, relying on abstract ideas and general principles in the form of an ideology is a prerequisite of effective political performance. Neoconservatives use the classical liberal tradition of American political thought to forge a modern ideology that can be employed in contemporary political battles. The first part of the paper gives an outline of the theoretical framework regarding the roles of tradition and ideology as rival forms of political knowledge, using the works of Michael Oakeshott and Friedrich Hayek as representatives of two related, but opposing positions. The second part sketches the basic character of neoconservatism through the writings of primarily Irving Kristol, focusing on his drawing a distinction between a tradition-minded British conservatism and a more ideological American neoconservatism. In this part, we briefly mention the influence of Leo Strauss on the development of neoconservative political thought in the US Finally, the paper proceeds to show the duality of idealism and realism (loosely corresponding to ideology and tradition) in American neoconservative foreign policy thought in the 1970s and 1980s through the writings of Jeane Kirkpatrick.