A Connection Of Neo-conservative And Neo-liberal Thought

September 24, 2011

Currently developing and writing a critique of the military concept of Effects Based Operations (EBO) (one good short one by Robert Farley is here) I try to point out that it is based on a belief that complex dynamic systems, like societies, can be fully described and that their behavior can be predicted. Thus (military) "Operations" can be thought out that have the desired "Effects" on the described (enemy) system. Network Centric Warfare (NCW) and Counterinsurgency (COIN) are siblings of Effect Based Operations coming from the same (false) belief of predictability of systemic change.

The belief in mathematical predictability of complex dynamic systems is something that is underlying not only (failed) military concepts but also of two of the major ills of our time: the neo-conservative and the neo-liberal strands.

The neoconservatives developed historically from hard left Trotzkyism and have moved to the far right during the Cold War. Elitist revolutionaries, like the Jacobines, they deeply believe in the willful changeability, if needed by force, of societies.

One influential father of the neoconservatives was Albert Wohlstetter. He worked at RAND, the Air Force think-tank, on nuclear strategies and later taught at the University of Chicago. The Strategic Air Command developed and adopted, with Wohlstetter's help, Game Theory and other mathematical theories that are based on the ability to predict and change the assumed rational (system-)behavior of the enemy.

At the University Wohlstetter chaired the dissertation committees of the neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz and Zalmay Khalilzad while earlier Richard Perle dated his daughter. Under Wohlstetter theological like belief in technology marries revolutionary thought.

The University of Chicago was not only Wohlstetter's academic home but also the home of the neoliberal Chicago School and Friedrich Hayek, the godfather of neoliberal thought. Hayek asserts that within the system dynamics of economic activity efficient exchange and use of resources can be maintained only through the price mechanism in free markets. (Thus he ignores non rational human behavior and externalities.)

Looking for further relation between neo-conservatives and neo-liberals I came about a speech Albert Wohlstetter held at the American Enterprise Institute in 1992. The title RPM, or Revolutions by the Minute is already program. In the context of the "information revolution" he himself points to a sameness in his and Hayek's belief, which is also the underlying belief of the two ills, and the connection to Effect Based Operations.

Yet the less sudden continuing changes that make up the Information Revolution dwarf in significance these two spectacular leaps in nuclear technology. They transform military security, politics within and among nations, the costs and efficiency of market transactions and economic growth.
…
The F-117A attacked and hit targets in Baghdad at night that were more heavily defended and at greater range than the targets in the 1941 Offensive. That comparison suggests that the cumulative information revolution has had a greater effect on our ability to destroy a military target that we aim at than the fission and fusion revolutions combined.
…
For a democracy, however, the ability to apply military force selectively—and to hit only what one is aiming at and avoid hitting anything else—has an even larger political and strategic importance than an increase merely in destructive power. We can then preserve what we should want to preserve: Civilians that do us no harm, irreplaceable cultural monuments, and friendly forces.
…
The new technology fits well the view of economics typified by Friedrich Hayek, which sees economic activities as adjusting themselves by responses to signals sent by market clearing prices— without the need or possibility of a central plan. By improving the operation of dispersed markets, the new technologies improve the operation of the system as a whole.

Here Wohlstetter himself points out that the same belief, here in relation to the alleged "information revolution", in the predictability of the systems dynamics in a complex system which underlies the neoliberal and neoconservative thought.

That was one find of a connection of neo-liberal and neo-conservative thought. I am looking for further and possibly more direct connections. Any ideas where to look?

Posted by b on September 24, 2011 at 18:07 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Sorry, b
to believe = verb
belief = noun. pl beliefs

Posted by: billgalt | Sep 24 2011 20:03 utc | 1

Herman Kahn, Stefan Possony, and Thomas Homer-Dixon – might be helpful for your purposes.
Homer-Dixon did presentations for the Pentagon during Clinton years, talked about how to avoid war, use resources properly, teach local people how to manage. When Bush came in, Homer-Dixon’s services were no longer necessary.
Believe and belief — what Billgalt said – I saw that too; Just change every “believe” to “belief” and it will be correct.

Posted by: Northern Night Owl | Sep 24 2011 22:23 utc | 2

UC Professor Obama (1992-2004)seems to have integrated the teachings of his masters well. Professor Obama apparently discovered how to seamlessly combine a neo-conman (Afghanistan) with a liberal interventionist con man (Libya). And his deference to Wall Street, the Pentagon, Big Oil and Big Pharma give him all the credentials of a Chicago school capitalist, including a decided preference for monetary rather than fiscal response to economic meltdowns.
How Obama reflects Hayek’s belief in the price mechanism of the markets is a puzzle–how do Wall Street bailouts, Pentagon no-bid contracts, managed oil markets, Big Pharma’s patents and exemptions from negotiated drug prices fit into a supposed free price mechanism?
Answer is: they don’t. As Thom Hartmann has pointed out, most American industries consist of six or fewer players, which is a good indication of widespread shared monopolies (oligarchy), rather than free markets.
But what would ever cause the Chicago school to notice the prevalence of shared monopolies? Apparently nothing. Which is a pretty clear indication of its subservience to the monopolists. Its intellectual independence and integrity is no more than that, say, of the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Institute.
Yet that is precisely the environment that nurtured Obama during his rise to power. Competition RIP, monopoly rules. The notion of America as a place where the free markets rules is a delusion. And so apparently are Obama’s beliefs.

Posted by: JohnH | Sep 24 2011 23:58 utc | 3

The believe in mathematical predictability of complex dynamic systems is something that is underlying not only (failed) military concepts but also of two of the major ills of our time: the neo-conservative and the neo-liberal strands.
it is also a belief which pervades the Anthropogenic Global Warming community.
Their belief in Models and the veracity of those models – even though the models are frequently, some would say constantly, proven wrong – continues, irrespective of the growing body of evidence that the models are wrong, because, even if it were possible to adequately model a complex chaotic system such as the Earth’s climate, the current models are based on an insufficient number of variables and fed with insufficient amounts of reliable data
It is similar to the belief in predictive abilities of computerised Financial-models which exists in the financial sector – again despite the models failure to predict any of the major financial events of the last 20 yrs or so.
Elitist revolutionaries, like the Jacobines, they deeply believe in the willful changeability, if needed by force, of societies.
again this is mirrored amongst the environmentalist/AGW/anti-CO2 community – many of these people don’t actually care that CO2 might not be a cause of AGW – that in fact there might not be any ‘A’ in the ‘GW’ at all.
They see industrialisation and modern technology itself as an enemy (despite their own obvious, and hypocritical, addiction to both). they consider these things to be in some way a tool of Capitalism/Globalisation and see in the AGW=CO2 theories a method by which they can possibly dismantle the current economic and social structures.
the scientific veracity of these theories means nothing or little to them – all they appear to be concerned with is how to leverage the Propaganda value of such theories to their advantage
In this instance the ‘force’ utilised is the the ability of Gov’ts to make laws compelling changes in their citizens behaviour through taxations or by the simple expedient of outright banning.
Notably absent is any real change in the bahaviour of these elites themselves.
Al Gore still jets around wherever he likes, despite pronouncing Air travel as oe of the biggest of dangers to the environment (or similar hyperbolic nonsense) – as do the vast majority of celebrities as well as many of the supposedly concerned ‘Climate Scientists’ who conjure up the mathematical/Scientific magick which under-pins all these theories of Climate Catastrophe

Posted by: Hu Bris | Sep 25 2011 0:07 utc | 4

try
http://www.wwwords.co.uk/rss/abstract.asp?j=pfie&aid=2993&doi=1
Militarizing Class Warfare: the historical foundations of the neoliberal/neoconservative nexus
DAVID GABBARD, East Carolina University, USA

Posted by: somebody | Sep 25 2011 0:17 utc | 5

With due respect, I don’t think there’s any mystery at all. The quality shared by Neo-cons and Neo-libs seems, to me, to be their willingness to distance themselves from traditional notions of ethical thought and behavior, and embrace unscrupulousness.
It pays better.
How many Left-ish spin tanks are flush with funds compared with pro-Billionaire spin tanks? I’m guessing, but I imagine none.
The Neocon’s shift from far Left to far Right epitomizes this follow-the-money agenda. In other words … find a demographic for whom too much money could never be enough then offer to generate whitewashed spin and talking points on their behalf – for a fee or annual subscription.
Why wouldn’t it work?

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 25 2011 4:52 utc | 6

On the subject of where to look, I’d suggest Third World Traveller. It lists authors and sources for all manner of theories which seem pertinent to your quest and has the advantage of leaning in the … preferred direction.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 25 2011 5:08 utc | 7

Neoconservatives come from the left?
None of this mix of very German philosophies could be described as left, whatever that is supposed to mean:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss
These people are different from the political agendas that make use of them.
None of this makes any sense in places like Iraq or Afghanistan. The people who are the ones to take the decisions do not read any of this stuff. It is a veil to hide what is going on.
This system theory /chaos theory stuff is used as a management tool by almost all western organizations nowadays. Management is told not to feel responsible for cause and effect. Workers are told just to feel responsible for their own efficiency and not to think any further (actually management works that way too), your boss changes after two years and you change after two years (or less). Just count the money and move on,

Posted by: somebody | Sep 25 2011 12:02 utc | 8

Hu Bris @ 4:
Global warming or not, seems to me, that to assume 7 billion people on the planet has no impact on the environment, is the height of naivety.

Posted by: ben | Sep 25 2011 14:32 utc | 9

Global warming or not, seems to me, that to assume 7 billion people on the planet has no impact on the environment, is the height of naivety.
but THAT is a completely different argument from “Does CO2 cause GW” – AND ‘the environment’ and ‘the climate’ are NOT interchangeable – they mean different things.
Me arguing that there may be no ‘A’ in ‘GW’ is not me advocating that we should wreck the environment we live in.
Also even if there were an ‘A’ in ‘GW’ there is little to no evidence to support the ridiculous disaster scenarios peddled by the Catastrophists. If for example we are heading into a Global cooling cycle, which some people now believe we may be, then some AGW may well be beneficial rather than detrimental.
You are mixing 2 different arguments and pretending that they are one and the same – they are not.
But all this is kinda OT.
I have no wish to argue over AGW here – I merely wanted to point out that the thinking, the delusional belief, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, in the sanctity and veracity of, obviously inadequate, Computerised attempts to model a Chaotic/Complex system, are identical.
And such belief seems to stem from the same place – unswerving self-righteousness. An cast iron belief in the rightness of one’s own views often seems to lead to a conviction that ‘the end justifies the means’ – people possessing such a mindset, when given access to the levers of power, are capable of perpetrating astounding atrocities, all in the name of ‘the greater good’
The people prepared to lie, cheat and cover up, in the Financial, Political, Military or Scientific fields, do so because they are convinced that their view, and theirs alone, is the ‘right’ one. And even if the evidence suggests that their methods/conclusions are wrong, they continue to act as they do because they believe that the [Noble] End they envisage, justifies any means they choose to employ.
And THAT is how otherwise ‘good’ people find themselves complicit in the commission of the worst of imaginable atrocities

Posted by: Hu Bris | Sep 25 2011 15:07 utc | 10

“How many Left-ish spin tanks are flush with funds compared with pro-Billionaire spin tanks? I’m guessing, but I imagine none.

I have no wish to flog an OT point to death, but if one wishes to find massive funding of ostensibly ‘Leftist’ think tanks one again needs to examine Global-Wraming-related groups.
For example, despite the propaganda of “Oil Companies funding the sceptic side – VS. -the poor underfunded brave little Climate Warriors” the reality couldn’t be further from the truth.
According to latest research on the topic the pro-AGW side has been funded to the tune of 78 BILLION dollars, versus approx 50-to-70 MILLION for the sceptic side
That speaks for it self.
thw WWF for example had a budget of half a BILLION Euros (3/4 of a BILLION US DOllars) – THAT ain’t chicken feed by any means. Yet the myth of severe underfunded Climate warriors vs Lavishly funded Sceptics persists.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/09/23/how-the-wwf-infiltrated-the-ipcc-%E2%80%93-part-1/

In 2010, the WWF’s US arm had operating revenues of $224 million – just under a quarter of a billion dollars. Yes, that’s a B.

How has the WWF managed to accrue such massive pool of yearly funds if the pro-AGW side is as marginalised and ignored as they like to claim?

Posted by: Hu Bris | Sep 25 2011 15:24 utc | 11

@billgalt – thanks, corrected

Posted by: b | Sep 25 2011 16:38 utc | 12

@ 11.
Well, I did say I was guessing, although I must admit I was thinking more along social equity / wealth-flow / union-bashing / bleeding heart lines than GW when I referred to Left-ish spin tanks. But if you’re quite sure GW is a bleeding heart leftie issue then it would seem that my conclusion was flawed.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 25 2011 16:58 utc | 13

other connections:
1) “shock and awe” doctrine
2) permanent war / revolution
3) “ideological” state of mind, that is, unaffected by reality; escalation is always the answer for these ideologues, “failure” isn’t contemplated (well, this could be traced back to their Jacobinism)
4) enemies of democratic states; well, Cia, Pentagon and Wall street “own” the Us political system; and strive to unhinge any other political entity that doesn’t submit
are these the kind of connections you are looking for? I’d love to elaborate on this; the differences and analogies between neocons and neolibs (so different, yet so similar) have fascinated me some time ago, thinking about the current dominating ideology, and about the strange synergies among those two apparently different political subjects
Naomi Klein’s book on Iraq contains good insights; Iraq is the geat example of neocons’ and neolibs’ modus operandi in a situation where they thought they could have it their way and get away with anything they did; it was supposed to be the great occasion to “teach a lesson” to all the non believers

Posted by: claudio | Sep 25 2011 23:13 utc | 14

Neo-lib-neo-con.
It is more a question, I feel, of divergent roots being washed away.
Taking lib as, broadly speaking, progressive, Democrat (US), socialist, socio-democrat (Europe), with roots in communism, unionism, ‘liberation’, ‘egalitarian’ movements, emancipation, neo-liberalism seems to involve getting rid of the vestiges of these mainsprings, principles or aspirations to concentrate on ‘ethnic’, ‘community’ issues, identity, cultural, ‘moral’ questions (abortion, burkas..), which is a clever trick.
Even in France, young ppl are saying that the Socialist Party does not represent them, not because the SP is corrupt, idiotic, are ‘free-marketeers’, but that they don’t support, or at least acknowledge and discuss, their individual position or pet issue, such as male prostitution, being a mother of 7 children, sanitary workers aggressed by toxins, housing unavailable, etc. (Ok the last one is a class issue.)
Neo-cons also gave up the trappings of paleo-conservatism, perhaps more understandably so. They have become statists at heart – to keep up the power of the old aristocracy, the new bourgeoisie, i.e. the elites of today, a strong State Apparatus is necessary. Sarkozy (right) and Blair (Labour) are peas in a pod. Marginal upstarts with no gifts who can join the uber-rich only through politics, servants, not of the State, or the people, but of the Overlords.
Letting the rabble in for a while worked OK – workers needed, economic expansion, etc. Taken over in part by the Finance, and invested in it, as a means of control, domination, and profit, neo-cons jettison libertarian aspects, fiscal prudence, their version of freedom and the meritocracy, in favor of authoritarianism. As the elite is largely ‘corporate’ (Wall ST., Big Cos, etc.) – no longer the Robber Barons of yesteryore but the Kings of today – they themselves become part of that class or paid to be fall guys on the fringe (e.g Obama.)
So, particularly in the US, the only difference between the two strands is the definition of the groups they pander to to obtain votes, all mixed in a grand slice-n-dice jamboree, none of it dealing with the common good, proper governance, societal projects, education, the long term, international relations, energy, etc.
Neo-whatevers fully accept, adhere to:
1) The ‘free market’ – that is economic exchanges that are regulated or determined by the PTB (incl Gvmt.), i.e. monopolies, private banking, offshore industry. Obtaining money is a goal unto itself, the networks or systemic aspects, the consequences, are not considered, as long as ‘they’ get ‘theirs’. No planning is permitted.
2) Security apparatus, repression – ppl are irresponsible, stupid / evil, criminal, and must have a leader, be controlled and punished. Both exploit populist revenge not just for votes but for money and other reasons (prison industry, army intake, lower unemployment, civic adherence, control of lower class labor, etc.) and seek more financial/status rewards as individuals, and more power, as members of some group. Both award the media a huge amount of clout – to distract, inculcate, tout propaganda, tell lies.
3) War. The rationale seems to be nationalistic hubris, over-reach, wild fantasies (neo-cons) – the political doctrine influence for a large part by the payers – with competition by the ‘libs’ – who stumble along having ‘their’ wars, e.g. Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Yemen, justified by a more social version of ‘beacon on the hill’ …though Obama no longer bothers.
4) Israel. …. 5) other
The only difference is a mild, insincere appeal for more redistribution from the libs by the State (e.g. tax the rich, do Keynesian stimulus..) A more moral, pro-white, traditionalist stance from the cons: abortion, gays, Christmas, root values. They both agree on everything except for the frills, and keep ersatz controversies going to benefit them both.
the academic **PDF** paper linked is about education (that is my field in part), one of the important on-the-ground issues, treats neo-cons and neo-libs as one.
Creating Difference: Neo-Liberalism, Neo-Conservatism and the Politics of Educational Reform – M. Apple
http://www.jcu.edu/education/ed500/Apple_Curric_Intl.pdf

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 26 2011 15:26 utc | 15

@Hu bris –
I do believe that complex dynamic systems can be used to describe, explain, simulate and predict physical behavior like global warming (of which I and others have good reason to believe that it is caused by the explosive growth of the number of humans.)
Still one should have in mind that every model is just that and look for possible errors or influences one might have missed.
I do NOT believe that complex dynamic systems can be used to describe, explain, simulate and predict SOCIAL behavior like financial markets or total societies. There are inherently too many unpredictable variables in social systems to make any model valid.
@all – thanks for your ideas – it is helping here.
What I am actually looking for is a common root of both neo-idiocities. Does anyone knwo of a person or a group that married the ideas? Do they spring from a common root at all?

Posted by: b | Sep 26 2011 16:38 utc | 16

Finding access to Farley’s EBO article blocked by a subscription barrier/invitation, Googling Net-Centric Warfare turned up this critique by a skeptic with a taste for grim irony. Considering the condition America is in today, he could have called it “How to Fiddle While Rome Burns” but it’s actually called:
Is Net-Centric Warfare (Finally) Dead? Only Partly
http://www.seanlawson.net/?p=772
It covers the changes in political and military doctrine from the pre-9/11 era to the present and helps to explain why the USA seems, so often, to be little more than an aspirational legend in its own mind.
For those with a clear perception of the difference between Neo-cons and Neo-libs, the references to the geo-political aims of militarised US foreign policy may help identify, and thereby separate, the contribution made by each school of thought/claptrap.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 26 2011 17:10 utc | 17

Noirette,
I have been thinking that the decline of the socialdemocratic parties has a lot to do with them accepting the neoliberal doctrine of necessary unemployment (enforced by “independent” central banks) to keep down salary increases (inflation if you ask the central bankers) thus giving up the class war. The parties has been prodding along from inertia, but after 20-30 years of this it is no wonder that people give up on them.

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Sep 26 2011 18:58 utc | 18

b
if you have not seen the secret of the tribe by the brazilian film maker padhilla – it is still available for view on arte – there is also quite a bit of material based on a book darkness in el dorado, really a solid attack on social biology & the kinf of anthropology that u s imperialism has weaponised

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Sep 26 2011 22:21 utc | 19

@ a swedish kind of death, no. 18.
Absolutely. And that is the reason the far right in Continental Europe (e.g. Marine le Pen, Wilders.. not the BNP) is set to grow and be more and more successful.
They at present have the luxury of being in the opposition so they can sound off about anything. If you look beyond “Eurabia” and “burkas” or “minarets” and that kind of thing, the far right in Europe is attacking European elites (thru the nationalist card), globalization, the world of finance, and war. Of course they are not united, it is very confused – some are Isr. supporters, others not, some are very ‘left’ others not at all.
The demonizing by the entrenched mostly so-called Socialist parties, demonizing National Fronts and the like as racist, authoritarian, fascist is a very weak defense, people see right thru that.
The main rejection of mainstream parties rests on
1) economics, economic inequality
2) the rule of law, absent or variously applied (see b’s post)
Injustice! Ppl will eat lentils and bread and share huts if they are considered to be ppl who have the same rights, the same voice, fairness for all, no ‘pass go’ for a certain class.
I can’t stress this point enough.
That said, the far right does not want to kick out the present PTB, only to replace it. With their boyos.

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 27 2011 15:34 utc | 20

Back to Main