I described neo-cons to Matt the other day as "the Zulu when you're playing Civilization III. Give me some wine ... or I'll kill you!" It's a funny statement with some truth, like my insistence that Ayn Rand hates babies and poor people. In seriousness, though, what the heck is a neo-con?

Irving Kristol, a self-described "'godfather' of all those neocons," offers an explanation of what neoconservatives believe.

Tax cuts

Neoconservatives, says Kristol, believe in tax cuts "in order to stimulate steady economic growth. [...] It is a basic assumption of neoconservatism that, as a consequence of the spread of affluence among all classes, a property-owning and tax-paying population will, in time, become less vulnerable to egalitarian illusions and demagogic appeals and more sensible about the fundamentals of economic reckoning." In other words, we're not going to have a socialist utopia, so suck it up and live with what you've got. Neoconservatives have no illusions about attempting to level any playing field; that's far too idealistic.

The role of the state

Like Libertarians, neocons aren't too keen about a large and bulbous state ... that is to say, a large welfare state. The growth of the state, says Kristol, is "natural, indeed inevitable." Neocons like strong government, but not intrusive government. This is where they depart from Libertarians, who would suggest that, at its maximum, the government should protect people from harming other people.

Culture

Neocons, unlike Libertarians, place a stake in what they call "culture." Whereas true Libertarians don't care a whit about what individuals do or say, neocons care a good deal. Neocons are traditionalists who are concerned with "the quality of education, the relations of church and state, the regulation of pornography, and the like, all of which they regard as proper candidates for the government's attention." An unintrusive government ... for other people.

Foreign policy

My comments about the Zulu come from this portion of the neocon belief system. Here's what Kristol has to say about foreign policy, because it's better than my paraphrasing:

First, patriotism is a natural and healthy sentiment and should be encouraged by both private and public institutions. [...] Second, world government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny. International institutions that point to an ultimate world government should be regarded with the deepest suspicion. Third, statesmen should, above all, have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies. This is not as easy as it sounds, as the history of the Cold War revealed. The number of intelligent men who could not count the Soviet Union as an enemy, even though this was its own self-definition, was absolutely astonishing.

Neocons are fiercely patriotic, and a world government is a thrat to that patriotism. The third item there, that statesmen should have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies, points to the sometimes simplistic nature of neocon arguments, best summed up in his September 20, 2001 speech when George W. Bush declared to the world, "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists." The creation of a strictly bipolar world makes knowing who your enemy is very easy: obviously, if he's not with you, he's necessarily against you. This worldview works well in kindergarten, perhaps, but definitely not multilateral policymaking.

The issue of "when do we attack our enemies?" is made quite clear: "[T]he United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal. That is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II. That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened." Democracy under attack anywhere in the world automatically involves the United States, as the world's largest and most powerful democratic nation. No word from Donald Rumsfeld on when we'll be attacking China, or why we didn't attack them already.

In the end, neoconservatives are also ultra-conservatives. They are a new and more powerful breed of conservative, just like the genetically-enhanced vampires of Blade 2. Unlike the Libertarians, they are socially conservative as well as economically conservative. At the same time, though, they are willing to spend billions of dollars not only for the common defense, but also for the advancement of their social agenda. Neoconservatism will be the watch-word for the next four years, so get used to it until the Democratic party thinks up something that can take it down in 2008.