Neo-conservatism gains most of its philosophical basis for social organization and governance from Leo Strauss. It is another 'crisis in Liberalism' doomsday style of philosophy. Several of these styles of anti-Liberalism grew in response to the Enlightenment and the establishment of the individual as the highest political form with individual liberty and scientific reason as the guide for morality and social organization.

The Straussian basis for Neo-conservatism is that liberalism, which is the basis for western liberal democracy and free market capitalism, is in crisis because of the enlightenment principles that guide it. These were enunciated by thinkers such as Kant, Locke and Smith and put into practice in the United States by Jefferson and Madison.

The main anti-Liberal philosophers were found in Germany in the early 20thC such as Nietzsche, Heidegger and Schmidt. Like Marx with capitalism, they saw Liberalism as containing the seeds for its own collapse through historicism, relativism and nihilism. Strauss built on this philosophy and rather than seeing modernity as the fault, he saw the enlightenment as the core problem. C Bradley Thompson writes;

The source of nihilism for Nietzche, Heidegger, Struass, Kristol and the neocons is Enlightenment rationalism and all that flows from it: modern science, liberal individualism, and capitalist calculation. Following Strauss's archeology of nihilism's deepest source, Kristol and the neocons believe that Enlightenment rationalism and the modern scientific method turned Western man from a super natural reality to nature and from faith to reason.

Enlightenment reason and science claimed that the cosmos was intelligable, that nly man's mind can know it, and the the only proper method of acquiring knowledge of nature is through th method of reason. Likewise, they argue, liberal capitalism turned modern man from self-sacrifice to self-interest, from duty to rights, from community to the individual, from inequality and order, to equality and freedom.

The result is that man and society have come unhinged from the natural order and from the religious faith that is necessary to sustain moral and political unity.

Strauss's solution was to replace the Enlightenment's natural rights and equality with Platonic natural right and inequality. Rather than democratic constitutionalism; Straussian and neoconservativism's form of ideal social organization is the philosopher, the statesmen and the plebians.

The philosopher is elevated above the statesman and the plebians because only they understand morality, reason and other immutable truths. The philosophers convey this to the statesman who then govern the plebians following these abject truths. However, the plebians are stupid and need guidance, so the statesman in Machiavellian pragmatism tell the plebians whatever they need to hear in order to keep them as a unified social organism that follows folklore like religious morality and nationalistic fervor such that they would be willing to give their life for the state.

The question is; who decides who the neo-conservative philosopher is? Why do statesmen put up with being told by this self-anointed philosopher what the immutable truths are; especially when historicism, relativism and nihilism have not led to Liberalism's downfall. The Machiavellian statesman are also unanchored from personal morality and are expected to act immorally in order to maintain civic virtue which I find personally distasteful. And why would the population be treated with such contempt that they would be subjected to such Machiavellian lies and untruths for the sole purpose of maintaining power and keeping the people in check?

It is a really repugnant form of social organization that is in direct conflict with liberal democracy and constitutional political rights.

Given that the structure for neoconservatism is the Philosopher, the Statesman and the Plebians (vulgar) how is it organized today and where can we see it in the current system?

The philosopher in the neoconservatism system does not take part in politics but exists to educate the statesman on natural right where the goal is the virtue and nobility of the polis. Consequently the statesman must coerce the plebians to overcome their base selfish desires and instead enable them to give themselves to the polis and state.

The problem with plebians is that they carry all sorts animistic beliefs with them, such as religion, prejudices, etc. Under Strauss the natural right is a hierarchy of wisdom where the philosophers are on top and the statesmen below, the plebians that make up the population are not only base in morals and virtue but also wisdom. Consequently the statesman must have a Machiavellian streak and maintain those animistic impulses in order to maintain social order and consequently enable civic virtue. Thompson writes:

The statesman - given the imperfect clay he has to work with - will necessarily be guided day to day by a different method and end. The platonic-straussian statesman understands just enough philosophy to know that the philosophers truths are most often in applicable - even harmful - to society: He must therefore be guided by two political (non-philosophic) virtues: moderation and prudence.

One of these goals is for the plebian to associate his ego with the polis or state such that his self-love becomes the states' self-love. Nationalism is the modern goal by which this achieved. Entwining religion with nationalism is even better. Consequently neoconservatism encourages a Machiavellian approach to the statesman managing the plebians through coercion and if necessary lies to achieve the positive outcome of civic virtue.

We can see these patterns in appear in modern media and government around the neoconservatives who have been a growing force in conservative politics and governance for the last thirty years or so. Thompson writes:

Politically and rhetorically, the application of Strauss's general theory works in the following way. Neoconservative intellectuals serve as surrogate philosophers who act as intermediaries between the philosopher (Strauss) and a new class of American politicians or bureaucrats (ie Machiavellian statesman). ... the task of mediating between the philosopher and the city is assigned to rhetoricians.

The rhetoricians are the neoconservative intellectuals that are constantly in the media, writing op-eds in the New York Times (David Brooks) on Fox News (William Kristol) etc. We saw the Machiavellian class of statesmen in spades during the Bush era. The run up to the Iraq War was full of them; Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, etc.

The philosopher surrogates to the Machiavellian statesman?

"At her best Palin can be folksy and pungent. But she needs outside help to give her voice its national range. For messaging strategy, Palin relies on William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, and Fred Malek, who was an aide to Presidents Richard Nixon and George H. W. Bush."

Is it that simple under Straussian organization? It seems to reflect pretty directly.

Machiavelli's 'The Prince' is a break from the utopian forms of classical forms of social and political organization and focuses on how a new prince can achieve, maintain, expand and perpetuate power. Written in the time of tumult in city-state Italy it draws on the historical lessons from the present and the classical past to put forward a pragmatic and non-sentimental view of achieving political power.

From the modern eye it is pretty unremarkable read. The book is short, its empirical examples drawn from history fit the scientific worldview of literature that is expected, and its cynical tone and pragmatic voice is consistent with modern sensibilities. Given how many leaders from the classical era and medieval times were horrible despots capable if inhumane brutality I am not sure I understand why this text was such a break with the past. Maybe because intellectuals of the pre-renaissance era only published idealized politics and ignored the messiness of reality around them.

The book has some very famous passages. One of the question of whether the ruler should be loved or feared:

Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with.

Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you.

And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.

One of his recommendations stemming from this study of human nature and political power is; if the leader is going to act amorally, do it quickly and only act amorally against a few people or against a minority. Those that are unaffected will forget this transgression quickly due to inherit selfishness (it happened to someone else) and the leader will even be remembered for his liberality in limiting his arbitrary and amorality to a few and saving the many from those behaviors.

Another famous part of The Prince is the chapter on the temporality (fortune) of politics and how someone with a fixed, or rigid ideology may end up being ousted from political power quickly as their ideology is not the one required for ruling or governance.

It is not unknown to me how many men have had, and still have, the opinion that the affairs of the world are in such wise governed by fortune and by God that men with their wisdom cannot direct them and that no one can even help them; and because of this they would have us believe that it is not necessary to labour much in affairs, but to let chance govern them.

This opinion has been more credited in our times because of the great changes in affairs which have been seen, and may still be seen, every day, beyond all human conjecture. Sometimes pondering over this, I am in some degree inclined to their opinion.

Nevertheless, not to extinguish our free will, I hold it to be true that Fortune is the arbiter of one-half of our actions, but that she still leaves us to direct the other half, or perhaps a little less.

Because he thinks nearly half of human affairs are based on chance, Machiavelli argues against a fixed ideology of governance and politics, instead requiring that at each and every moment the prince make pragmatic decisions based on the circumstances. This is an argument for an amoral form of governance and why Machiavellan politics comes into conflict with Liberalism that is founded on the morality of individual freedom and natural (universal) rights.

Changes in estate also issue from this, for if, to one who governs himself with caution and patience, times and affairs converge in such a way that his administration is successful, his fortune is made; but if times and affairs change, he is ruined if he does not change his course of action.

But a man is not often found sufficiently circumspect to know how to accommodate himself to the change, both because he cannot deviate from what nature inclines him to, and also because, having always prospered by acting in one way, he cannot be persuaded that it is well to leave it; and, therefore, the cautious man, when it is time to turn adventurous, does not know how to do it, hence he is ruined; but had he changed his conduct with the times fortune would not have changed.

...

I conclude therefore that, fortune being changeful and mankind steadfast in their ways, so long as the two are in agreement men are successful, but unsuccessful when they fall out. For my part I consider that it is better to be adventurous than cautious ...

You could argue that Machiavelli's The Prince does have a fixed ideology; that of the advance pursuit and maintenance of political power. That there is not a universal guiding morality behind of human affairs or social organization such as Liberalism has.

More recently C. Bradley Thompson has identified Neoconservatism as being based on Straussian principles for social organization, and Machiavellian principles for political organization and governance. He argues that one of the reasons the guiding principles behind neo-conservatism is so difficult to determine is because they conduct their affairs in gaining political power through Machiavelli's views on fortune, chance and temporality.

As a consequence neo-conservatism political principles are changing constantly and range from the moral to the absurd without any reflection on hypocriticality. This may be why we see public figures such as Newt Gingrich, who has shown to be amoral in the conduct of his private affairs, argue in public forums for 'family values'. Thompson writes;

Strauss, Kristol and the neoconservatives very much believe that ordinary men and women desperately need a common, authoritative moral code by to live, but the particulars of which they are not so fussy. In fact, with regard to the man on the street, the neocons public ethics is formally contentless.

Morality for the neocons - the morality for this world and for ordinary men - is a social construction, one that will be different for each and every society. In this way, despite all their public rhetoric about 'timeless values' and ' permanent truths' the neoconservatives are moral and cultural relativists.

Under Straussian social organization the moral codes that the vulgar, or the people have, including animistic ones like religion are useful as the means for maintaining control and political strength. They have no intrinsic value outside of that. Which would upset a lot of very religious people. For neoconservatives in the United States, reacting pragmatically to a politically motivated evangelical demographic is a means to achieve power.

Thompson also writes that, for neoconservatism, this political pragmatism to react to events as they occur without a guiding political ideology such as Liberalism enables the Machiavellian Statesman to act in an amoral nature as long as it is for nationalism and perpetuation of national power which is another form of ensuring political and control and strength from the vulgar (majority).

According to Kristol's Straussian reading of Machiavelli, the Florentine philosopher puts this teaching in the service of a new kind of patriotism that serves the ... nation. According to Kristol, if the new statesman that he is promoting, 'cares dearly for his country, it does not matter what else he cares for.' In other words, love of the nation, and the need to defend it in any and all ways necessary trumps all other moral considerations.

This is why Kristol advocates injecting 'a strong dose of Machiavellian shrewdness' into conservative politics, and is also why he endorses the Machiavellian principle that 'it is right for political knowledge to be divorced from moral knowledge.'

You can see where some of the policies of the Bush/Cheney administration have come from after reading that paragraph. Under Liberalism, "America does not torture" because it is constrained by the morality of universal political rights. Under Straussian/Machiavellian noeconservatism America does torture because political action follows fortune and chance and is not tempered by any moral code or political constraint - not even legal or constitutional ones.

As an Australian Republican and Liberal that last sentence horrifies me as I believe there are universals in the human condition that are lines that cannot be crossed by government or the state if it is to remain legitimate.

But, that is what Machiavelli wrote as the means for maintaining political power as a monarchic despot in the 1500s. The world has changed since then, it is a shame that neoconservatism has resurrected that style of political governance as part of its doomsday anti-liberal philosophy of social and political organization.