The Rise of the Neoconservatism in U.S. Foreign Policy post 9/11
Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that has acquired high importance is the United States during the second Half of the 20th century. This philosophy is made out of a set of doctrines, values, and principles that provide legitimacy to the decision-making process of the American government in both, domestic and external affairs (Parraguez, 2007, p. 226). An example of these three pillars of the neoconservative thought is Manifest Destiny, western liberal democracy, individualism, Bush doctrine (preemptive-war), and neo-liberalism. The very birth of Neoconservatism is traced back to a group of American intellectuals known as “New York Intellectuals”. Most of them are descendants of Eastern European Jewish families like Daniel Bell, Nathan Glazer, Irving Howe and Irving Kristol (Parraguez, 2007, p. 236). This group of elite scholars find that the best path for American domestic and international policies are deregulation, spreading of free markets, tax cutting, and more individual freedom (Parraguez, 2008, p. 96). Another common element of these academics is that most of them, at least in the first generation, were Trotskyites during the 1970’s, this is partly because Trotskyism was opposed to Stalinism and therefore the Soviet Union (Kristol, 2003, p. 1). Nevertheless, even though most of the first generation neoconservative members had a leftist background, they changed their positions to a more fundamentalist right-wing orientation because, as it is often used to describe this change, they were “mugged by reality”. This means that most of the left-wing policies were no longer suitable for American “interests”, such as the welfare state, strong governmental intrusion, and collective consciousness (Kristol, 2003 p. 35). The first neoconservative, or at least the most oriented to this ideology, was Ronald Reagan. He believed that a strong military would guarantee the U.S. the essential superiority needed during the Cold War, in order to maintain economic influence on the globe (Parraguez, 2008, p. 95).
This strong and broad heritage from the first crew of neoconservatives gave birth to two more generations of neoconservative individuals. The most recent generation is “on the making” and has been shaped strongly by the 9/11 events. After the downfall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. had to find another major threat in order to legitimize its unilateral actions for the sake of steady economic growth, this new threat was terrorism. As William Kristol and Robert Kagan state “the task for America… [is] preserving and reinforcing America’s benevolent global hegemony” (Kristol & Kagan, 2004, p. 55). As it is known most of Bush 2000 cabinet was linked, directly or indirectly, to neoconservative people that thought the best road for America to follow was military unilateralism. Some of this people involved were Norman Podhoretz, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer, and David Horowitz (Parraguez, 2007, pp. 241-244). The central element for U.S. foreign policy was to “prevent” major threats, and “rouge States” from opposing liberal and democratic values on the globe. This meant that the U.S. as the sole hegemon had the right to protect herself, and it allies by intervening militarily on every dangerous non-democratic nations (with high amounts of oil and gas) as Iraq and Afhganistan, as well as North Korea, recently eliminated from the “Axis of evil”, and Iran (Boot, 2004, p.49). In this sense, neoconservatives differ from conservatives regarding the use of force. For the neoconservatives, military action must take place on every case, while as for the conservatives; military intervention should be selective (Parraguez, 2007, p.237). As previously shown, neoconservative thought has been dominant for U.S. foreign policy after 9/11 events, and was based upon false legitimacy, that is, based on the permanent fear of the American inhabitants and the world to be target of a terrorist attack. This has consolidated, at least in the short run, the neoconservative position and relevance within the dominant political sphere. Thus, if they are to preserve this privileged position, they must run fundamental reforms.
Challenges to the 21st Century for the U.S. Foreign Policy
There are two basic challenges that, from the neoconservative perspective, are to be overcome. These two elements are a) the need for better and stronger legitimacy and b) the conciliation of elemental contradictions of neoconservative policies with democracy. These elements are of high priority for the neoconservative thought, for it must adapt to the new world circumstances produced after the financial crisis of 2008. After the worst financial turmoil in more than 79 years, the U.S. had to change its completely neo-liberal approach to a more socialist-like one, by which government plays a central role in preserving the basic financial institutions from bankruptcy. In this new era, big firms will play a smaller role, and government will have to pose a stronger regulatory apparatus on the financial sector. This will represent a huge threat on credibility and legitimacy of the neoconservative approach that may be surmounted if actions are taken in the following areas.
a) Legitimacy for neoconservatives has not only emerged out of the principles, values and doctrines mentioned above, but also from power and intelligence (think tanks). As C. W. Mills writes, there are three types of power used by the decision-making ruling elite. These three sources of power are physical, authority, and manipulation (Parraguez, 2007, p. 232). Neoconservatives have used these elements of power as artificial means of legitimacy. It is clear that all of these sources have been used by neoconservatives, but it is of particular interest the second and the third one. The second establishes a hierarchical structure of obedience, which breaks the very fundamental contract in a democracy, which is representation. One might argue that representation does take place in American soil, since the president, who takes the most important decisions, is democratically elected. However, this is partly true. How democratic is a country in which representation takes place by media manipulation, and fear? How democratic is country that only represents the military-industrial complex interests by dogma and rhetoric? The answer is that this country lives in an illusionary democracy, ruled by lies and Conspiracy. The most crucial contradiction is that individual liberty is gained by the suspension of civil liberties (Patriot Act of 2001) (Parraguez, 2007, p. 96). Therefore, this means that individualism is truly enterprise individualism.[1]
b) Contradictions not only take place on legitimacy, but also on credibility and trust on the international arena. After Afghanistan, Iraq, and the financial crisis of 2008, the U.S. began to lose trust among most of its allies. The neoconservative “way” of politics resulted too idealistic, too fantastic, too hard, and too ambitious. The world realized that democratic principles are not necessarily linked to free markets and brutal deregulation. The binary vision of people like Irving Kristol that reduced the world to enemies and friends turned to be too primitive. If the neoconservative leaders are willing to preserve their position, they must begin with serious insights of what is wrong about their vision of the world, perhaps they will notice that a fundamental change is needed. The need for more sophisticated policies that conciliate private and public interests concern not only neoconservatives, but every school of political thought. This is the truly essence of political harmony and economic development. This is where true consensus and legitimacy are founded. The financial crisis experienced in the past months is a red light, a warning. Hopefully, this time, neoconservatives will in fact be mugged by reality.
Bibliography
Boot, M. (2004). Myths About Neoconservatism. In I. Stelzer, Neocon Reader. New York: Grove Press.
Fukuyama, F. (2004). The Neoconservative Moment. The National Interest , 57-68.
Is this the End of U.S. Capitalism? (2008, September). Al-Jazeera Online .
Kristol, I. (2004). The Neoconservative Persuassion. In I. Steltzer, Neocon Reader. New York: Grove Press.
Kristol, W. (2004). Postscript - June 2004: Neoconservatism Remains the Bedrock of U.S. Foreign Policy. In I. Stelzer, Neocon Reader. New York: Grove Press.
Kristol, W., & Kagan, R. (2004). National Interest and Global Responsibility. In I. Stelzer, Neocon Reader. New York: Grove Press.
Parraguez Kobek, M. L. (2007). El Vuelo de los Halcones: La Globalización Neoconservadora Estadounidense. In J. L. Orozco, ¿Hacia una Globalización Totalitaria? (pp. 225-246). Mexico City: Fontamara.
Parraguez Kobek, M. L. (2008). Freedon is not Free: Estados Unidos, Libertad y Seguridad Post 11/9. Enfoques , 87-111.
[1] There are other elements of relevance to this analysis of legitimacy that were not written due space restrictions, such as patriotism, technological development, and economic preeminence that must be taken into account.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario