Author explores the problematic world of the right side of politics

The word “neoconservative” is like the word “porn”—people know what it is and argue for or against it, but few really know how to define it. Most students at this liberal university, though, would agree that sloppy thinking, imprecise language, and willful ignorance are hallmarks of the movement. Not understanding neoconservatism means they have fallen into the same trap themselves.

They Knew They Were Right, a new book by Jacob Heilbrunn, aims to demystify all things neoconservative. “It’s the first full-scale effort in some time,” Heilbrunn said, and it covers everything from the movement’s genesis in 1930s Trotskyism to its possible future. It is thorough without being wordy, learned without being too academic, and comprehensive without being needlessly exhaustive.

The title is taken from Anthony Trollope, though it also resonates with a recent New Yorker profile of neocon Christopher Hitchens. Its lame pun points to what has vexed the neocons’ opponents over the last few years: a lack of curiosity, and what Heilbrunn calls an “opportunistic” quality.

But the book is not an attack—it is passionate without losing objective authority. Heilbrunn is no friend of the neocons, but he realizes it is best to let them implicate themselves. What he reveals is a movement that is narrow and sometimes egotistic in its interests. He quotes Norman Podhoretz (“I think that Jews must once again begin to look at proposals and policies from the point of view of Jewish interest”), David Gelernter (“I don’t claim that Saddam [Hussein] resembles Hitler; I do claim that the world’s indifference to Saddam resembles its indifference to Hitler”), and Irving Kristol (“Sector after sector of American life has been ruthlessly corrupted by the liberal ethos”).

The last quotation foregrounds another facet of the neocons’ creed: it is made in opposition to its adversaries and is necessarily opposed to liberalism. In fact, Heilbrunn argues, the first neocons grew out of liberalism. Under President Lyndon Johnson, affirmative action was supported and federal spending was spiraling: “It began as a movement to try and reform liberalism from within.”

But it grew into something far different. Heilbrunn views the movement as a series of wars: the fiscal-policy war against the “War on Poverty,” shifting into the domestic-policy and culture wars, shifting into the foreign-policy Iraq War. Heilbrunn sees a degeneration. “This is why I was scandalized by the Iraq War: it was counterproductive; we ended up becoming our own worst enemy!”

Neoconservatism often presents itself as an answer to everything. Heilbrunn has an answer for all things neoconservative. He explains that neoconservatives are “much more ideological than the traditional conservatives like [Robert] Gates or [John] McCain,” and described the movement in numerous ways: “American nationalism and crusading Wilsonianism,” “As a family, with the squabblings and disagreements,” and “Genghis Khan and Woodrow Wilson walking hand in hand.”
“There’s a vast corpus of writings on neoconservatism that informed me,” Heilbrunn said. But what differentiates They Knew They Were Right from other books on the subject? “I hope it’s more up-to-date. I focus very much on ethnic and tribal aspects of neoconservatism,” he said.

Heilbrunn does restrain himself, objecting to the word “cult” as simply “too harsh.” But overall, They Knew They Were Right takes a grim view of the neoconservative movement’s effects and direction: “Neoconservatism degenerated from a rather serious intellectual movement into something opportunistic.” The fallout? Liberalism will have an iron grip over Washington for the next two decades, he claims.

It may seem like a bleak future for the neoconservatives, but they’ve always thrived on marginalization, real or perceived–which is why their movement, and Heilbrunn’s book, are extremely relevant.