Here is a speculation. There is no author more despised by the right in general, and by the neo-cons in particular, than Karl Marx. Given this, it is probably safe to assume that if Marx was for something, then the neo-cons will be against it.
At the end of the fiery second chapter of their Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels give a surprisingly modest top-10 list of progressive steps that would be "generally applicable" to "most advanced countries" of their day. The list includes such radical ideas as a progressive income tax and free public education for kids. In fact, most of the steps they proposed no longer strike modern readers as particularly radical, having long ago passed into the realm of political common sense. That is, until now.
Recently the far right has attacked, successfully in most cases, almost every item on this 19th century wish list for progressive politics.
Here is the 10-point list proposed by Marx and Engels:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
Let's take a look at each of these items in turn.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
This first item never got much traction. The private ownership of land has not disappeared. However, a great deal of land has become publicly owned. If one thinks about the fate of national forests or ANWR under the Bush administration, it is not far-fetched to construe these as attempts to remove land from "public purposes" and surrender them to private economic interests.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Mission accomplished. From flat-tax schemes to the current round of tax cuts on capital gains and dividends, the attack on a progressive tax system is all but complete.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
The recent repeal of the so-called death tax has secured all rights of inheritance and made certain that no wealth will be redistributed in this progressive fashion.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Four and five may be the exceptions that prove the rule, but if so, the neo-con implementation of number four is particularly brutal. Currently, one of the provisions of the USA PATRIOT act allows the government to confiscate the property of those the President identifies as terrorists. Perhaps this goal of confiscation of property also lies behind the recent calls to deport 12 million illegal immigrants. Number five may have become too central to the workings of modern nation states for even the neo-cons to want to touch it, but perhaps the enormous national debt is simply a ploy aimed at doing even this.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
The state is in full retreat here, and in fact recent FCC rulings are allowing the centralization of the media in the hands of corporations.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
Seven through nine also never gained much traction and so the right hasn't needed to undo anything here.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
It is this last point that started these speculations for me. After all, who in their right mind would be opposed to free public education? Evidently, the current administration. Both voucher programs for private schools, and the continually escalating test scores required by No Child Left Behind in order for public schools to continue receiving Federal funds seem aimed at decimating our free public school system. Why do this? Perhaps the answer is as simple as: because Marx was for it.
Perhaps someone with more intestinal fortitude than myself can unearth some neo-con writings that might confirm or refute this speculation that undoing Marx and rolling back progressive politics to pre-nineteenth century days is, in fact, one of their goals.