Moreover, the transformative impact of the neocons has always been exaggerated. Yes, it's true that the neocons contributed new blood and new ideas to conservatism, but their chief contribution, as William F. Buckley has argued, derived from their ability to incorporate the language and methods of the social sciences into the conservative cause. It was not so much that the neocons had dramatically new opinions about the evils of the Soviet Union or the rise of secular humanism or — to a lesser extent — the threat of an overweening welfare state, it was that they employed new arguments using the still-respected language of social science which remained the lingua franca of the liberal Left. For example, "The law of unintended consequences" so widely hailed as an incandescently brilliant neocon formulation is really just a fancy restatement of fundamental Burkean conservatism. But when nice Jewish intellectuals and respected academics are simply repeating what other conservatives had said before them, the elite liberal media tends to pay attention.-"
The Neoconservative Invention" by Jonah Goldberg
Well, Goldberg is more or less on the money in this case. A lot of his article is off the mark-it rife the "there is no such thing as neoconservatism" thinking-but it is not without worthwhile observations, this being one of them. The neoconservatives have not radically altered the substance of American conservatism (support for tax cuts, an aggressive foreign policy and a hostility towards government programs that help poor people...er...horrific family destroying, money wasting debacles planned and run by self-righteous hollywood comsymps), but have changed its style a bit. Though at first blow this might not seem all that important, I think it has made a difference. The neocons created the intellectual basis for Reaganism, just as the original
National Review crowd created the foundations of the Goldwater campaign-movment. The ideas behind Reagan, while sharing a good deal with Goldwater's brand of conservatism, was more optimistic and irresponsible (think supply side economics vs. a willingness to really reduce the size of the federal government by cutting spending
and taxes). Needless to say, Reaganism was far more appealing than the earlier brand of castor oil conservatism and the neocons played an important part in putting the new and improved ideology of the Republican party together. Withought the neoconservatives, particularly Irving Kristol, its possible supply side theory, an essential component of Reaganism, might never have taken hold and without that things might have turned out differently.
