The Myth of Neocon Anti-Nationalism

“However, it seems unlikely that this is because neoconservatism inherently favors open borders, as some critics have suggested. A more probable reason is neoconservatism’s penchant for compromise, pragmatism, and moderation.”

There is a persistent myth that neoconservatism is ideologically committed to allowing large-scale immigration. A case in point is this piece by Samuel Francis, which misunderstands just about every aspect of neoconservatism. Francis draws on Pat Buchanan, who also attributes an “agenda” of “open borders” to neoconservatives. Historian Paul Gottfried has been an equally assiduous promoter of such notions. “Insofar as Gottfried is concerned,” summarizes Joseph Cotto, “neocon ideology is repackaged lefty dogma,” as evidenced by its supposed “emphasis on open borders…and at times open support of multiculturalism,” among other issues.

Whether one is for or against mass immigration, the fact remains that the Buchanan-Francis-Gottfried view is a distortion. Although neoconservatives are a highly heterogeneous bunch, as a whole they seem no more liberal on immigration than regular, unprefixed conservatives. The examples below should attest to this reality.

“Neoconservatism” is a famously imprecise term. Still, a useful idea of what it means is found in Irving Kristol’s essay “The Neoconservative Persuasion.” For Kristol, neoconservatism puts much stock in economic growth but is less anti-government than most American conservatism. It deems state involvement in cultural matters legitimate. On foreign policy, it believes in “patriotism” and opposes “world government.” It believes that “statesmen should, above all, have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies.” It construes major powers’ national interests as extending beyond their borders and as including, in some cases, “ideological interests.” It holds that the preponderance of American power is grounds for leveraging said power abroad.