Fukuyama on Neoconservatism
Sunday's NYT magazine offers us an idea of what to expect from Francis Fukuyama's forthcoming book,America at the Crossroads. In an essay entitled After Neoconservatism, Fukuyama does an excellent job of making sense. He draws our attention to an inherent contradiction in the philosophy that held sway until recently in the Bush admin.:
"[A] view that ambitious social engineering often leads to unexpected consequences and thereby undermines its own ends" caused Neocons to reject domestic policies such as affirmative action and welfare. Yet "the belief in the potential moral uses of American power ... implied that American activism could reshape the structure of global politics."
Continuing with the theme of consequences, Fukuyama makes this obvious point:
"The reaction against a flawed policy can be as damaging as the policy itself, and such a reaction is an indulgence we cannot afford, given the critical moment we have arrived at in global politics."
But by consequences, he isn't just referring to further radicalization in the Arab world:
"More than any other group, it was the neoconservatives both inside and outside the Bush administration who pushed for democratizing Iraq and the broader Middle East. They are widely credited (or blamed) for being the decisive voices promoting regime change in Iraq, and yet it is their idealistic agenda that in the coming months and years will be the most directly threatened. Were the United States to retreat from the world stage, following a drawdown in Iraq, it would in my view be a huge tragedy, because American power and influence have been critical to the maintenance of an open and increasingly democratic order around the world."
"[A] view that ambitious social engineering often leads to unexpected consequences and thereby undermines its own ends" caused Neocons to reject domestic policies such as affirmative action and welfare. Yet "the belief in the potential moral uses of American power ... implied that American activism could reshape the structure of global politics."
Continuing with the theme of consequences, Fukuyama makes this obvious point:
"The reaction against a flawed policy can be as damaging as the policy itself, and such a reaction is an indulgence we cannot afford, given the critical moment we have arrived at in global politics."
But by consequences, he isn't just referring to further radicalization in the Arab world:
"More than any other group, it was the neoconservatives both inside and outside the Bush administration who pushed for democratizing Iraq and the broader Middle East. They are widely credited (or blamed) for being the decisive voices promoting regime change in Iraq, and yet it is their idealistic agenda that in the coming months and years will be the most directly threatened. Were the United States to retreat from the world stage, following a drawdown in Iraq, it would in my view be a huge tragedy, because American power and influence have been critical to the maintenance of an open and increasingly democratic order around the world."
posted by purefunction at 1:53 AM
3 Comments:
"[A] view that ambitious social engineering often leads to unexpected consequences and thereby undermines its own ends" caused Neocons to reject domestic policies such as affirmative action and welfare. Yet "the belief in the potential moral uses of American power ... implied that American activism could reshape the structure of global politics."
I think this is to fundamentally misunderstand who exactly the neo-cons are. Neo-conservatism was born out of liberal, ex-Democrats who believed and believe in using American power to spread democracy and American 'values'. They don't usually tend to be anti-government thinkers, too. However, I'm being far too brief. I'll comment again later on, but for now - back to school.
I suggest you ignore my puff-piece and go straight to Fukuyama's essay. He traces the origins and development of neoconservatism within that group you've just mentioned. One can only assume this will be done in much further detail in the book. Yes, neoconservatism as we understand it today is all about foreign policy. But in light of the overreach seen in Iraq one is obliged to question its tenets and its foundations, scrutinizing its origins.
I don't think you have to be anti-government to be sceptical about affirmative action and welfare, anyway, and I think it's absolutely reckless of you to be casually surfing the net while at school. Get back to your books!
I'll give the whole thing a read in a moment. First I should clarify that I was at home when I left the original comment, but had to leave within a matter of minutes in order to return to school after a week long midterm break.
Secondly, as far as my anti-government comment goes, I accept that I'm being far too general. However, the American Right can be divided (generally) into three groups: social conservatives, anti-government conservatives and neo-conservatives. The fight against affirmative action naturally falls within the anti-government section of the Right. That said, there's bound to be a lot of overlapping going on. Even myself, I class myself as a quasi-neo-conservative, as well as a quasi-libertarian. As such, I'm probably an inherent contradiction. On that matter, I'll have to have a bit of a think in the future. I don't approach that think with great urgency, it's simply not on the top of my list of important concerns at the moment. I should probably, therefore, stay out of the conversation. Jesus, I've rambled.
Anyway, the essay!
Post a Comment
<< Home