Hardcore neocon Mark Humphrys has an excellent [*] exposition of neocon beliefs as part of his Open Letter To Richard Dawkins.
He breaks down neoconservative doctrine into 13 simple points. All of these take broadly true empirical statements (eg ‘Democracies tend not to go to war with each other’; ‘An individual Christian or Jew is more likely to be tolerant of gays than an individual Muslim’; ‘bad leaders criticise things by which they feel threatened’), and turn them into false generalisations (eg ‘all war is caused by non-democracy’; ‘Christianity and Judaism allow freedom of religion and sexuality while Islam does not’; ‘the most criticised societies are the best ones [**]’).
Reading Mr Humphrys’ points is a great way of understanding both what neocons believe, and how they’ve managed to end up believing it. It seems that – not for the first time – ignorant nonsense has taken hold in the realms of the powerful because of powerful people’s inability to comprehend basic logic.
And of course, the fact that this list is meant as an attempt to persuade a prominent scientist and rationalist to abandon his liberal beliefs and move over to the neocon side adds a particularly delightful irony to the proceedings…
[*] But, as Mr Hutton rightly points out, very tedious.
[**] Presumably this means that the EU and the BBC are both pretty groovy, while the Nazis and Al-Qaeda are absolutely awesome.
"all wars are caused by non-democracy…"
World War One?
Well, WW1 actually started as a spat between the Hapsburg and Romanov empires, both of which had something of a democratic deficit. Which is not to say that humphrys is making any kind of sense, because he isn’t.
I think Humphreys is grossly misusing the word "prove", but everyone does that. I think it’s pretty clear that what he means by "prove" is "back up with evidence" — just as everyone else who uses the word does. But the core point of his letter isn’t to prove any of his beliefs; it is, rather, to point out to Dawkins that he is arguing, not with genuine Neocon beliefs, but with what anti-war left-wingers say the Neocon’s beliefs are. I think that central point is correct. For example, the point you make — that he has used false logic to get from broadly true empirical statements to false generalisations — is not the sort of point Dawkins makes in his anti-Neocon arguments. You’re reading what a Neocon has written and pointing out the flaws in it. I’ve yet to see Dawkins do that.
I don’t think most Neocons believe what Humphreys does, either. I think most would say that the list should be broadly general rules rather than the iron-clad laws he presents.
The letter is bloody dull, though, yes.
"Well, WW1 actually started as a spat between the Hapsburg and Romanov empires"
I think the assassination of a certain archduke was the proximate cause. The point is that most of the combatants were democratic and it made absolutely no difference as to whether and how they fought.
I don’t think most Neocons believe what Humphreys does, either. I think most would say that the list should be broadly general rules rather than the iron-clad laws he presents.
I think it could be described as a green-ink version of neoconservatism.
‘the most criticised societies are the best ones’
I knew Mark Humphrys in college, and he is old enough to remember apartheid South Africa. It’s sad to see someone who I know is a very intelligent guy producing this tripe.
When did all the right wing fascists start calling themselves libertarians?