David Gordon has a review of Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea, on Mises Daily:

C. Bradley Thompson [the book’s author, a Randian Objectivist] … argues that neoconservatism stands in fundamental opposition to individual rights and a free economy.

Although neoconservatives have indeed challenged certain aspects of the welfare state, they have no quarrel with it in principle.

. . . . [then] why do the neoconservatives criticize the welfare state at all? Aside from the technical deficiencies of particular programs, what concerns them is the way that some welfare programs encourage unvirtuous behavior. Welfare that rewards giving birth out of wedlock, e.g., arouses their protests.

This sort of criticism reveals a key fact about the neoconservatives. They have a very definite sense of the proper conduct that the state, or as they are likely to term it, the regime, ought to promote. Not for them is the libertarian view that each person, so long as he does not initiate force against others, is free to lead his life as he wishes. To the contrary, the leaders of the state have as one of their prime duties the development of the citizens’ characters. Accordingly, freedom of speech most decidedly does not extend to pornography. Further, the government must inculcate patriotic sentiment among the people.

More generally, neoconservatives do not believe in individual rights at all . . .

All of which in part may explain the massive expansion of government since Reagan left office.

Moreover:

On a deeper level, the problem with the [American] Founders’ liberalism, according to [the neocons] is that it begins with the individual, and a philosophy that begins with the “self” must necessarily promote selfishness, choice, and the pursuit of personal happiness. … A free society grounded on the protection of individual rights leads inexorably to an amiable philistinism, an easygoing nihilism, and, ultimately, to “infinite emptiness.” [From the book]

Thompson mordantly remarks, “Thus the great political lesson that the neocons have successfully taught other conservatives … is to stop worrying and love the State.”

This would be the selfsame State that strip-searches Granny at the airport while allowing hundreds of thousands of undocumented illegal aliens unhindered passage across America’s borders.

Fuzzy thinking seems to characterize not only Liberal Progressivism but also neoconservatism:

. . . neoconservatives oppose fixed principles of politics.

. . . . Those who are willing to call themselves neoconservatives (and not all are) typically describe neoconservatism as an “impulse,” a “style of thought,” or a “mode of thinking.” Its proponents have described neoconservatism as a way of seeing the world, as a state of mind and not as a systematic political philosophy. [From the book]

. . . . For all their supposed concern for ideas and philosophy, there is something profoundly antiphilosophical about the neoconservatives. They eschew moral first principles in favor of a technique or a mode of thinking, and they scorn absolute, certain moral principles for what “works.” [Also from the book]

In its own way, neoconservatism is as elitist as Liberal Progressivism. Early on, the neocons . . .

. . . absorbed the message that philosophers needed to conceal their dangerous doctrines from the masses. Philosophy undermines religious belief and shows also that morality lacks a rational foundation. But without religion and an accepted morality, the social order would be overthrown.

Further, if the masses were to become aware of what the philosophers really taught, would they not suppress these dangerous thinkers? Philosophers form an intellectual elite, and they rank far superior to those lacking their wisdom.

Such ideas sometimes reach fruition in areas like foreign policy. For example, it would explain . . .

. . . the neocons’ support for the Iraq War. The neocons aimed not only to spread democracy as they conceived it to the benighted Iraqis: even more important, they saw the war as a means to discipline and educate the American people.

Thus, once again the determination of self-appointed elitists — this time from the so-called “Right” — with “the best of intentions” results in massive waste and even unnecessary death.

You can read David Gordon’s full review here. You can buy C. Bradley Thompson’s book, Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea, here.