Initially a staunch liberal, Podhoretz moved
Commentary to the left editorially when he took over the magazine. However, he became increasingly critical of the
New Left and gradually moved rightward as the 1960s wore on. By the 1970s, he was a leading member of
the neoconservative movement. Iraq War In the lead-up to the
2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, Podhoretz argued strongly for military intervention, claiming that
Saddam Hussein posed a direct threat to the United States. After the
9/11 attack and more than a year before the start of the War in Iraq, Podhoretz wrote in February 2002 that "There is no doubt that Saddam already possesses large stores of chemical and biological weapons, and may ... be 'on the precipice of nuclear power.' ... Some urge that we ... concentrate on easier targets first. Others contend that the longer we wait, the more dangerous Saddam will grow. Yet whether or not Iraq becomes the second front in the war against terrorism, one thing is certain: there can be no victory in this war if it ends with Saddam Hussein still in power."
Iranian nuclear program In 2007, Podhoretz argued that the United States should attack
Iranian nuclear facilities. According to
The Sunday Times, Podhoretz believed that "Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are merely different fronts of the same long war." Podhoretz described diplomatic efforts with Iran as similar to appeasement of
Nazi Germany prior to
World War II. He also contended that the
war on terror is a war against
Islamofascism, and constitutes World War IV (
World War III having been the
Cold War), and advocated the bombing of Iran to preempt Iranian acquisition of
nuclear weapons. His book on that subject, entitled
World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism, was published by
Doubleday on September 11, 2007. In a 2007 column, Podhoretz explicitly stated his view that Iran should be attacked: "In short, the plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of military force—any more than there was an alternative to force if
Hitler was to be stopped in 1938."
Vietnam War In an editorial to
The Wall Street Journal on the sixth anniversary of the
September 11 attacks, Podhoretz contended that the retreat from
Iraq should not be similar to the retreat from
South Vietnam. He argued that when the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam, it sacrificed its national honor. In 1982,
James Fallows wrote a review of Podhoretz's book,
Why We Were in Vietnam, for
The New York Times, in which he accused Podhoretz of "changing his views" and "self-righteousness" on the subject of Vietnam, noting that in 1971 Podhoretz wrote that he would "prefer just such an American defeat to a '
Vietnamization' of the war." The longer passage from which the 1971 quote comes is as follows: Later he would express anger with President
Ronald Reagan for "not establishing sufficiently strong policies toward the Soviets."
George W. Bush administration Podhoretz praised Bush, calling him "a man who knows
evil when he sees it and who has demonstrated an unfailingly courageous willingness to endure vilification and contumely in setting his face against it." He called Bush the president who was "battered more mercilessly and with less justification than any other in living memory."
Donald Trump presidency Podhoretz, who initially supported
Marco Rubio in the
2016 Republican primaries,
Gay-rights movement In his 1996
Commentary magazine piece "How the Gay-Rights Movement Won", Podhoretz views homosexuality as a "self-evident" "perversion", asserting that it is politics and not science that keeps homosexuality off the
American Psychiatric Association's list of mental disorders. Podhoretz stated that "my heart goes out to all [gay men]... because the life they live is not as good as the life available to men who make their beds with women." He went on to declare, "I for one will go on withholding my assent from this triumphant march" of the gay rights movement.
John Podhoretz, Norman's son and successor as
Commentary editor, announced in 2012 that he, himself, is no longer an opponent of
gay marriage.
Immigration Podhoretz said that he had formerly been unthinkingly pro-immigration "because I'm the child of immigrants. And I thought it was unseemly of me to oppose what not only had saved my life, but had given me the best life I think I could possibly have had." However, his views later changed: "In 1924, immigration virtually stopped and the rationale for the new policy was to give newcomers a chance to assimilate—which may or may not have been the main reason—but it probably worked. What has changed my mind about immigration now—even legal immigration—is that our culture has weakened to the point where it's no longer attractive enough for people to want to assimilate to, and we don't insist that they do assimilate. ... That was the culture of the prewar period. You certainly wanted your children to be Americans—real Americans." ==Books==