Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Neocons vs. Radical Liberals

Last Thursday, in a Brainiac post about Danny Postel's excellent pamphlet on the situation in Iran, the American anti-imperial left, and the future of American liberalism, I described Habermas, Arendt, Berlin, and Popper as "the heroes of American neocons." Postel and I exchanged emails about this line, and though I meant to post an excerpt from our dialogue that same day, alas, events overtook me and I'm doing it a week later...

Postel wrote to me as follows:

Nothing could be further from the truth! Habermas in particular [and Postel should know] is anathema to the neocons! He was *adamantly* against not only the Iraq war, but famously wrote a widely-discussed statement on the future of Europe (co-signed with Derrida) which directly defines the European vision AGAINST the neocon agenda, against US unilateralism and hegemony. Habermas is NEVER cited by neocon thinkers as a hero -- go through the pages of the Weekly Standard, Commentary, and the like and you'll find the opposite: they regard him as a European socialist who champions the UN and is guilty of anti-Americanism.

I concede the point about Habermas; my mistake. I replied, however, that whether or not Arendt and Popper and Berlin are cited in neocon journals today, these liberal thinkers were influential on those New York Intellectuals who cut their teeth writing for Partisan Review and other leftist journals but later shamefacedly renounced their leftism.

Postel agreed with me that Popper was -- and remains -- an intellectual hero to the neocons. But regarding Arendt and Berlin, he refused to back down:

Arendt and Berlin were influential on the Cold War liberals around Partisan Review who had renounced their Marxism, *some* of whom eventually *became* neocons but *most* of whom simply remained Cold War liberals.... The ones who *did * become neocons tended to be louder and more visible and better funded -- and they took over the publication of Partisan Review itself (though it was moribund for decades) -- and so created the impression that they were what had become of Cold War liberalism, whereas in reality they were but one faction of what had become of it.

It's been too long since I read up on my Cold War intellectual history, but Postel sounds like he knows what he's talking about. I surrender! Drop me an email if you have a strong opinion on this.

UPDATE: Scott McLemee weighs in on all this.

Posted by Joshua Glenn at 05:11 PM

Print | E-mail to a friend | Permalink | Subscribe via rss