----------
I am not sure where to start. Basically what distinguishes the neocons are their accomplishments to date. These achievements are categorically beyond liberal tradition of law and government, period.
The list of anti-liberal changes at the federal level includes the suspension of haebus corpus, a system of secret courts in the executive branch beyond judicial branch review, executive branch surveillance of domestic commmunications also beyond judicial review, a whole network of prisons and detention centers beyond judicial or legislative review, all packaged as necessary powers in time of war, when the executive branch itself declared war and proceeded to produce a war, basically out of whole cloth.
The main reason these policies are not merely the latest twist in capitalist politics is they don't effect capital in the slightest. They neither liberate nor regulate business to engage in business or the business of exploitation.
While there is no clear theory as such or definable program, there certainly are a collection of policies and activities that extend executive power beyond its formally constituted bounds. In effect the executive branch has become a power unto itself.
On the other hand there definitely are theories of state and political philosophies that can be used to justify these policies and pretend they have historical precedents. What is alarming to me, since I've tried to wade through some of these philosophies is that they are all arguments and theories that are at base a reactionary asssault on various Enlightenment ideas that where brought together to form the US constitution, bill of rights and basic theories of state for the founding of the United States. In other words, our political foundations are under attack.
In order to illustrate how this is so, I can turn neoconservative ideas of state power inside out---only from the left, instead of the right.
Let's start with Locke's equivalence between property and liberity. Locke considered liberities to be held, something on the model of holding property. Just as there were limits imposed on the King's will to confiscate property, there were limits to the King's will to detain his subjects and deny them liberities.
Let suppose I am president and I decide that the energy sector of the economy constituted as corporations present a theat to security of the US. Corporations are people too, aren't they? Since they are persons, they can be detained in protective custodity until such time as they are no longer a threat.
I send off my army of lawyers and marshalls to seize these `persons', strip them of their liberities to do business and nationalize their wealth, facilities, and assets. Their employees are now on the federal payroll, their top management and boards are disbanned. Their names disappear from the stock exchanges because they no longer exist.
I declare them a threat, have a secret court in my basement sign off on the decree, but refuse to show anyone this paper, since it is a state secret. I no longer have to answer to Congress, since it is my executive privilage not to. And, I chose not to.
See, I don't think the neoconservative legal beagles have though through the implications of their own actions and policies, or considered the possibility that their ideas can also be turned inside out.
CG