I was once a neocon

I shared many of the policy suggestions of the neocons, and shared an intense hate of the Left with them. The things that I believed were that

all people inherently wanted liberty
America is safer in a world of democracies
It was America's duty to bring the idea of liberty to the rest of the world
America has the right to defend itself by all means, and the responsibility to it's own citizens to protect them from all enemies
making peace with dictators is an insane mistake.

How did these ideas work when tested against reality?

The idea that all people inherently wanted liberty is a Utopian dream; this idea failed, and as a central precept of neoconservatism (see below), contributed greatly to the failure of neocon policy.
The idea that America is safer in a world of democracies is untested, and will very likely remain untested, due to human nature. It has been hard enough to maintain America as a Republic founded on the principles of Rule of Law and Liberty.
The concept that It is America's duty to bring the idea of liberty to the rest of the world is an untestable moral position, and one that many Americans DON'T want to test, Americans who have a right to decide the path of their own destiny.
America has the right to defend itself by all means, and the responsibility to it's own citizens to protect them from all enemies, foreign and domestic; this is a true position, and perhaps the strongest position of the neocons.
Making peace with dictators is an insane mistake. If "Peace for our times" didn't work against Hitler, why would the moron that used the same historically failed phrase expect better from an Iran that continuously violates the agreement that we made with them? While the concept is true, it is immaterial to the point. There is not a generic need to attack tyrants, only a specific need under the circumstances that apply to America's safety as in the last preposition.

What led me disavow the neocon perspective?

The British Army turned over control of the Iraqi city of Basra to local Shiia control in 2006. The savages immediately undertook to kill every prostitute under their control; was THIS the end goal of neoconservatism? Combine this with George Bush's contempt for the American citizen by accusing those who criticized the economic dangers of illegal immigration of being racists.

What is Neoconservatism?

Although I have not considered myself to be a neocon for more than a decade now, I never bothered to look at the ideology past recognizing it's failure. However, the insane support of Clinton by people who purported to support American ideals led me to examine the ideology and it's history.

So I'll go into the origination of the movement, a summary of it's most common themes, and ultimately, why it failed, and had to fail due to a specific component within it's inherent doctrine. Finally, I'll look at the neoconservative movement beclowning itself fully with it's support for the leftist corruptocrat Hillary Clinton

Neoconservatism is not fully defined doctrinally as an ideology. It is noted in most of the sources that I use that there is not a standard "neoconservatism", but rather several arguments with common themes: I'll identity the most common themes shortly. Neocon Max Boot (2002) snarks that "there is hardly an orthodoxy laid down by". In any case, the sources I will be using in this discussion will be from conservative sources, mainly from the neocons themselves, but also from paleocons and mainstream (such as it is) conservatism. I will also include some libertarian views. Since leftism is based upon dishonest interpretations in the pursuit of dishonest goals, I will not include the propaganda of leftists such as Chimpsky, excuse me, Chompsky.

The term "neoconservatism" was coined by socialist Michael Harrington in the 1970s (Havers & Wexler, 2001). The ideology was created by liberals who felt American ideals were betrayed by their own kind (Crosston, 2009). To be more precise, neoconservatism has been heavily influenced by both Jewish intellectualism and by ex-socialists (Troskyites).

Why did these prior leftists become "neo" conservatives?

They recognized the Soviet threat and despised what they perceived to be a growing anti-Americanism among a new Left. This is why many "first school" neoconservatives worked for the the anti-communist Democrat Senator ‘Scoop’ Jackson.
Crosston notes:

in the 1960s the Left came to commandeer and dominate the government policy on civil rights and the welfare state. In both cases neoconservatives felt that Left positions sapped strength from American power and promoted a shaming of America. This is what pushed neoconservatives and conservatives closer together throughout the 1970s

As we will discuss shortly, the Left's hatred of American ideals frightened the leftist Jews who then became neocons: they recognized the Leftist threat to a historically unprecedented safety for Jews under the shield of America's inclusvity and rule of law.

What are the common themes of the various schools?

(Fukuyama, 2006), (Crosston, 2009), (Goldman, 2013)

a concern with democracy, human rights and, more generally, the
internal politics of states
a belief that American power can be used for moral purposes
a skepticism about the ability of international law and institutions to solve serious security problems
a view that ambitious social engineering often leads to unexpected consequences and thereby undermines its own ends
Democratic transformation is key to promoting American values and such
transformation should be pursued aggressively, even through military
means
that the desire for liberty is a universal human impulse, requiring only the right institutions to reinforce it
the neoconservatives’ philosophy of governance centers around the conceit that it is possible, in the words of Kristol, for a small elite “to have an a priori knowledge of what constitutes happiness for other people.”

To see how these themes are integrated in neocon policy, we will look at the words of two major necons. Kristol and Kagan state in Present Dangers:

To many the idea of America using its power to promote changes of regime in nations ruled by dictators rings of utopianism. But in fact, it is eminently realistic. There is something perverse in declaring the impossibility of promoting democratic change abroad in light of the record of the past three decades

Note their recognition that their ideas could be considered as Utopian. The idea that "a view that ambitious social engineering often leads to unexpected consequences and thereby undermines its own ends" is self-contradictory with the primary neocon argument that government can "fix" other people's problems.

Neocon arguments partially based on Jewish thought

One would think that after their experience with the National Socialists of Germany and the Communists of Russia, that sane Jews would stay the hell away from any form of leftism.

Jews were an integral part of American society – who by virtue of its democratic political culture had offered Jews previously inexperienced safety and integration – and therefore it was of vital importance to defend American values and traditions from the “onslaught” of social and political movements that potentially sought to undermine the very foundations of American society
(Janssen, 2010)

It is important to note that Jewish political though, in particular, the political thought of American Jewry is neither a monolithic support of neoconservatism or of leftism.

A word about the Jewish tendency towards leftism: Paul Johnson, in a "History of the Jews" highlights a tradition of communal support within Jewish communities that begins after the Diaspora. I don't recall whether this is an argument he specifically makes or if it is just my synthesis. Another read of this excellent book never hurts! In addition, there is a religious component that applies, Tzedakah.

Of course, the father of modern Leftism, Marx, was a self-hating Jew that found writing hate-filled polemics against the middle class more profitable than did solely anti-semitic rants.

What made neoconservatism fail?

Fukuyama (2006) asks" How did the neoconservatives end up overreaching to such an extent that they risk undermining their own goals? "

This is an easy answer: purist ideology combined with a single point of ideological failure; a Utopian faith in government.

Return to the theme that "that the desire for liberty is a universal human impulse, requiring only the right institutions to reinforce it". Did the Iraqis fight for their own liberty as a result of our invasion? No, they chose to murder prostitutes in the name of Islam.

Crosston asserts that ideology took precedence over on the ground facts.

The invasion of Iraq failed to create a democracy there, and the Arab Spring failed. You cannot "fix" cultures or people by government intervention.

2nd Tank Bn, USMC, in Iraq, via Wikimedia Commons

The central component of the failure:

Faith in government to solve problems

While the assumption that ALL people want liberty is not true, it is the faith in government that remains the main problem.

The problem is not intervention, but use of intervention to solve other peoples problems, at a cost Americans were not willing to pay, then ignoring honest criticism (the neocons also failed to deal with the active treason of the Left, but that is something for another day ). In any case, confronting the lies of the Democrats would not have made the invasion of Iraq a success as the first step in "democratizing" the Middle East.

Rightwing Utopia is no more likely to succeed than is leftwing Utopia. See my article, Utopia ALWAYS leads to Dystopia for further discussion.

The complete failure of neoconservatism

30 percent of American Jews voted for Trump, the highest Jewish vote for a Republican since 1988. The constant whining by neocons about Trump had zero effect on them.

That the neocons chose a corrupt leftist in Clinton highlights the focus they put on government interference...at any cost. When push came to shove, the neocons chose government power over democracy and rule of law.

That leaves Kristol, Podhoretz, Krauthammer and the neoconservatives in the worst of all possible political worlds. They switched sides during the election and cheered for a Democratic victory. After their election defeat, they threw a collective tantrum, burning bridges to the winning side
Goldman 2016

The neocons blatantly lied regarding Trump adviser Steve Bannon, calling him an anti-Semite without a single shred of evidence (Goldman, 2016). The neocons NEVER fell out of the thought mode that they knew better than the country as a whole and HAD TO make our decisions for us via government, even when lying.

Trump says, "My grandkids are Jewish, you neocon corruptocrats! DRAIN THE SWAMP! DRAIN THE SWAMP!"...or at least I hope he says all that!

Conclusions

The main component of neoconservatism, the impulse to use government to "fix" people, will always fail.
Neoconservatism is partially a result of American Jewish political thought, but is not representative of American Jewish political thought as a whole. American Jewry is diverse in political thought, and while many American Jews are still infected with leftist utopian dreams, so are many other Americans. This raises another point...
The danger of subversion by hostile ideologies such as leftism and Islam needs to be considered as a threat to our security and liberty, but this is a subject for another day.
While the central premise of neoconservatism is based upon utopian fallacy, there are themes that are relevant to America's security
America is responsible for our own safety and liberty: whatever interventions (including preemptive war) are necessary to do this are justified, but long-term interventions with the intent to change foreign cultures will always fail, and should no longer be considered in our defensive options. Whatever happens to foreign nations is the result of their own choice for tribal and statist policy, and none of our concern until they threaten us.

References and suggested reading:

Boot, M. (2002, December 30). What the Heck Is a “Neocon”? Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad. Opinion Journal. Retrieved from http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002840

Crosston, M. (2009). Neoconservative democratization in theory and practice: Developing democrats or raising radical Islamists? International Politics, 46(2–3), 298–326. https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2008.39

DIGGINS, J. P. (2003, December 1). The -Ism That Failed. The American Prospect. Retrieved from http://prospect.org/article/ism-failed

Dore, K. M. (2011, March). Establishing the neoconservative footprint (Thesis). Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School. Retrieved from https://calhoun.nps.edu/handle/10945/5726

Durchin, S. (2016). Utopia ALWAYS leads to Dystopia. Retrived December 22, 2016 from @stevescoins/utopia-always-leads-to-dystopia

Friedman, M. (2005). The neoconservative revolution: Jewish intellectuals and the shaping of public policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818721

Fukuyama, F. (2006, February 19). After Neoconservatism. The New York Times.

Goldman, D. (2013.). How Neocons and Obama Liberals Made the Same Mistakes About the Middle East. Retrieved December 19, 2016, from http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/132459/dumb-and-dumber

Goldman, D. (2016, December 14). Bye-Bye, Neocons The Jewish conservatives and “nation builders” who led us into Iraq and Afghanistan bet the farm against Donald Trump, and lost. What now? Retrieved December 18, 2016, from http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/220055/bye-bye-neo-cons

Goldman, S. (2016, March 8). Neoconservatism Died So Trump Could Live. Retrieved December 18, 2016, from http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/neoconservatism-died-so-trump-could-live/

Havers, G., & Wexler, M. (2001). Is U.S. neoconservatism dead? The Quarterly Journal of Ideology, 24(No 3 & 4). Retrieved from http://www.lsus.edu/Documents/Offices%20and%20Services/CommunityOutreach/JournalOfIdeology/IS%20U.S%20Neoconservatism%20Dead%20Haves%20and%20Wexler.pdf

Janssen, N. A. (2010). “Is it good for the Jews?”: Jewish intellectuals and the formative years of neoconservatism, 1945-1980. University of Sussex. Retrieved from http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/2357/

Johnson, P. (1988). A History of the Jews (1st US edition). New York: Harper Perennial.

Khuroshvili, G. (2012). NEO-CONSERVATISM IN THE USA FROM LEO STRAUSS TO IRVING KRISTOL. European Scientific Journal, 8(2).
King, B. (2004, March 22). Neoconservatives and Trotskyism. Retrieved May 3, 2016, from http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0304/0304neocontrotp1.htm

Kristol, W. and Kagan, R. (2000), "National Interest and Global Responsibility". Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy. San Francisco: Encounter Books

Podhoretz, N. (1996, March 1). Neoconservatism–a eulogy. Commentary Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.aei.org/publication/neoconservatism-a-eulogy/print/

Thompson, C. B. (2011, Summer). Neoconservatism Unmasked. Cato’s Letter, 9(3). Retrieved from https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/catosletterv9n3.pdf

The Dark World of Iraqi Prostitutes. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://waarmedia.com/english/the-dark-world-of-iraqi-prostitutes/

Vaïsse, J. (2010). Why neoconservatism still matters. Lowy Institute for International Policy. Retrieved from http://kms1.isn.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/115876/ipublicationdocument_singledocument/8b3f6e14-41bb-49ae-b2c5-0be4759e5756/en/2010_04_Neoconservatism.pdf

I was once a neocon - why neoconservatism failed, and why it will ALWAYS fail