Solving the riddle of the Neocons

So-called "neoconservatives," a loosely applied term that includes Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, and the Weekly Standard, are notorious for pushing the idea that America should promote democracy in other countries, by force if necessary. Yet the Weekly Standard and other "neocon" figures have, paradoxically, been the most ardent detractors of press freedom in our own country, this week calling again for the prosecution of the New York Times for publishing leaked information about government surveillance programs. How can we rationalize this seeming contradiction between neoconservative support for democracy elsewhere and disdain for it in their home country?

Common explanations include:
A) Neocons are stupid, simply failing to realize that their positions on foreign and domestic democracy are fundamentally contradictory.
B) Neocons are liars, and they don't give a damn about democracy anywhere; it's just cynical rhetoric designed to push a fundamentally nationalist agenda.
C) Neocons don't view freedom of the press as an essential element of democracy, focusing narrowly on elections as the benchmark.

I reject (A) out of hand, because no one stupid enough not to realize their own inconsistencies could have achieved the power and prominence to which the neocon mini-movement has risen. And (C) seems rather weak, in light of the fact that neocons have been generally supportive of the idea of permanent Republican dominance (therefore reducing the electoral process to a mere formality).

That leaves (B). Is "democracy promotion" just a convenient cover for imperialism? It wouldn't be the first time. But I have a sneaking suspicion that neocons have promoted democracy-imposition just a little too consistently for it to be merely hot air. I have a hunch that they really believe, deep down, that it would be a good thing for countries like Iran to go democratic.

But why?

Matt Yglesias at TPMCafe is on the right track. In this post, he identifies current right-wing sentiment as viewing democratic institutions as inherently weak:

Speaking of blogofascism, people actually concerned about the expression of extremist anti-democratic political views on the internet might want to take a look at the repeatedly expressed opinion of conservative pundits -- on the radio, on the op-ed pages, in magazines, and, yes, on blogs -- that a free press is a luxury the nation can ill-afford in the 21st century threat environment...The right, I think, just doesn't get this. Lacks a fundamental faith that our basic institutions and customs are both very strong and highly adaptable to new kinds of problems.

Basically, he fingers neocons (or, as we now call them, "any conservatives who talk about foreign policy") as being part of a far older and less mysterious group: fascists.

Fascists believe that democracy is a fundamentally weak form of government, that the bickering and quibbling and openness for which democracies are known impedes the government from pursuing the national interest. Fascists believe that democracies lose wars, or lack the backbone to even engage in them. They believe that a dictator's rapid response time, unity of purpose, and immunity to dissent are sources of national strength.

So fascists would naturally want their nation's enemies to all become democracies, while keeping their own nation "safely" authoritarian.

This, in a nutshell, is the answer to the riddle of the neocons. And realizing that neocons are basically fascist gives us liberals an effective method of fighting back against them. First of all, it allows us to slap them with the very unpopular adjective of "fascist." But more fundamentally, it allows us to add a talking point: Namely, that neocons believe democracy is weak. Thumping that point should strip neocons of their ability to label themselves as "Wilsonian."

Fascism vs. democracy is an eternal struggle. There's no guarantee that democracy will win, and even when it does, fascism always seems to spring back up when you least expect it. But it's here again, it's back, and it writes for The Weekly Standard. Once more unto the breach.