|
Neo-Conservatism (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Trancer-X |
Vesa, come baaaaaaccck!!!!!
I hope he wasn't suicided by our CIA. :eek: :( |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Vesa, come baaaaaaccck!!!!!
I hope he wasn't suicided by our CIA. :eek: :( |
+1 |
|
|
| George Smiley |
The rise of neoconservatism
Although referred to as the ‘neoconservative movement’, Irving Kristol (considered the ‘godfather’ of neoconservatism) says that it would perhaps be more accurate to refer to the ‘neoconservative persuasion’ as an ideology that “manifests itself over time, but erratically, and one whose meaning we clearly glimpse only in retrospect” (Kristol, 2003). The neoconservative ideology originated as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats during the 1970s whose focus was on confronting the Soviet Union abroad and defending New Deal liberalism at home (Lind, 2004). New Dealers, trades unionists and Trotskyists had all influenced the early neoconservatives. A number of neoconservatives such as Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Elliot Abram had been Shachtmanites in their youth. Shachtmanism was a form of Trotskyism as promoted by Max Shachtman. Through the 1930s, Shachtman followed the Trotskyist line that the Soviet Union as a state should be defended even though Stalin’s regime had to be overthrown (Heer, 2003). But following Stalin’s alliance with Hitler prior to the Second World War, Shachtman and his followers moved to a position of total opposition (known as the “third camp” position) arguing that both Western capitalism and Soviet Communism should be equally opposed (ibid). Shachtman became increasingly convinced that Soviet Communism was the greater of the two evils and became a supporter of the Vietnam war and strongly anti-Communist Democrat Senators such as Henry Jackson (ibid). When Shachtmanites began working for Henry Jackson they forged close ties with “hard-nosed Cold War liberals” who were advisers to Senator Jackson such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, both of whom had Albert Wohlstetter, a defence intellectual who had been a Shachtmanite in the 1940s, as their mentor (ibid). Wolfowitz had studied under Wohlstetter and Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago, and Strauss is credited as having a profound influence on the neoconservative movement. Many of Strauss’s students went on to teach at universities and many of the students they taught have gone into politics (Norton, 2004). These Straussians have made a conscious and deliberate effort to shape politics in the United States (ibid). Strauss believed that some people are fit to lead, while the rest are to be ruled (Drury, 1999). Those that are fit to rule are those that realise there is no morality and there is only one natural right - the right of the superior to rule over the inferior (ibid). A political order can only be made stable if there is an external threat, if no threat exists Strauss believed one would have to be manufactured by deceiving the public (ibid). This way of thinking by Straussians has led to an aggressive, belligerent foreign policy outlook. Prominent Straussians are Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Gary Schmitt, William Kristol, Robert Kagan and Abram Shulsky.
The oppression of Trotskyists by Stalinists in the USSR contributed to the neoconservatives opposition to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. However, the neoconservatives became disillusioned with the direction American society seemed to be heading and began to drift away from the socialist left. A shared sense that there was a decline in American democratic culture united the neoconservatives with the traditional conservatives and also with the religious right (Kristol, 2003). Firmly anti-Communist, they began to attract the sympathies of Republicans impressed by their determination to pursue aggressive policies against the Communists around the world. Gradually they began to fill positions of influence in the Reagan Administration and convinced themselves that it was their aggressive policy of confronting the Soviet Union (by rejecting détente and instigating the arms race) led to it’s demise.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, neoconservatives dominated foreign policy. The aim of neoconservative foreign policy is to establish an international environment where American interests will not be threatened. The means to this goal is global democracy promotion. Robert Kagan and William Kristol, two prominent neoconservatives, wrote an article titled The Present Danger which set out the principles of neoconservative foreign policy (Kagan & Kristol, 2000). According to these authors, during the Cold War, America pursued two goals: the first of which was creating a world order conductive to American interests and the second goal was defending against the immediate obstacle of achieving that world order - the Soviet Union. However, following the end of the Cold War, Kagan and Kristol claim many Americans only recalled defending against the USSR, which of course they did not have to worry about any more. They compare the situation following the end of the Cold War to the situation following the end of the First World War. US governments, both after the First World War and following the Cold War, desired a “return to normalcy”. This desire for normalcy, according to Kagan and Kristol, played a part in the out break of the Second World War and they quote Franklin Roosevelt saying “[w]e will not accept a world, like the postwar world of the 1920s, in which the seeds of Hitlerism can again be planted and allowed to grow.”
In 1997 a group of prominent neoconservatives established a foreign policy lobby group called the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). The statement of principles of the PNAC outlined four aims for the United States with regards to foreign policy, security and defence. The PNAC stated that the United States needs to: increase defence spending significantly if America is to carry out it’s global
responsibilities and modernize it’s armed forces for the future; strengthen it’s ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to US interests and values; promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; and accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to America security, prosperity and principles (Project for a New American Century, 1997). Signatories of the PNAC’s statement of principles included Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot Cohen, Francis Fukuyama, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. William Kristol is the chairman of the PNAC and Robert Kagan serves as a director. In 2000, the PNAC published a report titled Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century in which the group go into detail about their aims and how to achieve them (Project for a New American Century, 2000). The report identifies four main missions for the US military forces: defend the American homeland; fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous theatre wars; perform the ‘constabulary’ duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions; and transform US forces to exploit the ‘revolution in military affairs’. To achieve these aims, the report goes on, America must maintain nuclear strategic superiority, increase the active duty strength from 1.4 million to 1.6 million personnel and shift permanently-based forces to South East Europe and South East Asia. Defence spending should be increased to between 3.5% and 3.8% of GDP (adding $15 billion to $20 billion to defence spending annually). Ballistic missile defences should be developed and deployed due to the threat of ‘rogue states’ and their desire to acquire ballistic missile technology and weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The report then goes on to explain the strategic differences between the Cold War world and the post-Cold War world. During the Cold War the strategic goal was to contain the Soviet Union, today the goal is to “preserve Pax Americana”. Whereas the main military mission during the Cold War was to “deter Soviet expansionism,” the mission today should be to secure and expand zones of democratic peace, deter the rise of a new great-power competitor, to defend key regions and to exploit the transformation of war. The main military threat in the Cold War world was a potential global war across many theatres, whereas today the main military threat is potential theatre wars spread across the globe. Most significantly of all in the report was the admission that the process of implementing the measures the PNAC recommend will be “a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.” This statement shows how the neoconservatives would use the September 11th attacks to implement their foreign policy and security objectives. September 11th would be the “new Pearle Harbor.”
The aim of the US today, stress Kagan and Kristol, should not be to wait around until the next threat emerges, but to create an international order in which that threat would not appear in the first place. They state that in “[t]he post-Cold War era, the maintenance of a decent and hospitable international order requires continued American leadership in resisting, and where possible undermining, rising dictators and hostile ideologies; in supporting American interests and liberal democratic principles; and in providing assistance to those struggling against the more extreme manifestations of human evil. Americans must shape this order, for if we refrain from doing so, we can be sure that others will shape it in ways that reflect neither our interests nor our values.” It is this view that leads on to the more controversial neoconservative principle of regime change. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
...that's what some *ahem* genius had to say on the matter!
:o |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spin Doctor
Does some kind soul fancy explaining to me why the American right is referred to as neo-conservatism as of late? |
Neoconservatives are quite different to 'normal' conservatives, they are idealists. They believe in ideology (democracy) and they believe it is in America's best interests to live in a world of their ideology (like most ideologists do) Normal conservatives dont really give a about the rest of the world - they would be the isolationists - unless some change in the world threatened American interests. Neoconservatives are to the left of normal conservatives (indeed I recall reading that Richard Pearle refers to himself as a Democrat) but are aggressive in their pursuit of policy (regime change etc) |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
^^^^
You know you're replying to someone over 2 YEARS later?
Yea....YEARS lol! :p ;) |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
^^^^
You know you're replying to someone over 2 YEARS later?
Yea....YEARS lol! :p ;) |
Obviously not!! |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
^^^^
You know you're replying to someone over 2 YEARS later?
Yea....YEARS lol! :p ;) |
Who cares? I sure don't! It's a good topic, anyway!
And hey, at least he contributes positively to this board ;) |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| :wtf: Why do you keep bumping age old threads? |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sunsnail
:wtf: Why do you keep bumping age old threads? |
Because I was once told by a mod to use the "search" feature instead of starting a new thread on a similar topic.
Is that okay with you, mommy? :wtf: |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| Atleast it's an interesting and relevant thread that got bumped, not some meanigless partisan politics BS thread. Keep bumping them threads Trancer. I prefer interesting older threads as opposed to crapy newer ones. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sunsnail
:wtf: Why do you keep bumping age old threads? |
That's how you build cognitive images of "history".
The past doesn't exist anymore, and memories are unstable; there's nothing better than some material to help reconstruct the idea of what was felt and thought during a certain period. |
|
|
|
|
