And we all thought the term Neo-Con meant Neo-Conservative. As it turns out, maybe Neo-Contradictionist is more appropriate. That last term is coined by me. But the message is from Francis Fukuyama’s new book.
(Please talk to me here in my role as The Philosopher Princess, not my new {in test} status of Moderator. We will let another Moderator step in if any calls need to be made here. This thread is going to be a test to see if people who used to not be scared to tackle my spicey issues, now treat them differently. You can assume I am not speaking officially, but only as myself, unless I say otherwise. Thanks!
)
You can click to listen to an interesting interview lasting just under 5 minutes on this subject at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5239049. Under Fukuyama’s picture is:
NPR’s interview introduction is below, along with selected parts of the book mentioned. Much more is at the link.
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
~~~~~~~~~~
A fundamental principle of the neo-conservatives (one that is valid, in my opinion) is their belief that government cannot solve social problems. Unlike the liberals, the neo-cons do not believe that throwing more money at government will solve (domestic) problems, but only makes matters worse.
However, the neo-cons contradict themselves when it comes to foreign policy. They ignore their non-interventionist principle when it comes to foreign affairs. They (invalidly) believe that they can solve social/political problems all over the world by use of force and foreign aid bribery. And on that, the liberals get the non-interventionism correct.
Just as the liberals’ interventionist social domestic programs are doomed to fail (e.g., socialized healthcare, affirmative action), the neo-cons’ interventionist social foreign programs (e.g., invading and occupying other countries) are doomed to fail. Too bad neither group will apply non-interventionism across the board.
~~~~~~~~~~
Does anyone here admit to being a conservative, or a neo-conservative? (If you like Bush, we all know you fit. ) How do you feel learning that one of your own has left your ranks so dramatically and thoughtfully?
Who else has comments supporting or opposing what I say here? Who here feels comfortable not being a liberal nor a (neo-)conservative? How did you come to that belief?
(Please talk to me here in my role as The Philosopher Princess, not my new {in test} status of Moderator. We will let another Moderator step in if any calls need to be made here. This thread is going to be a test to see if people who used to not be scared to tackle my spicey issues, now treat them differently. You can assume I am not speaking officially, but only as myself, unless I say otherwise. Thanks!
)
You can click to listen to an interesting interview lasting just under 5 minutes on this subject at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5239049. Under Fukuyama’s picture is:
| NPR wrote: |
| Francis Fukuyama once labeled himself a neo-con. No more. |
NPR’s interview introduction is below, along with selected parts of the book mentioned. Much more is at the link.
| NPR wrote: |
| INTERVIEWS
Francis Fukuyama on Neo-Cons, Foreign Policy Morning Edition, March 1, 2006 · Political philosopher Francis Fukuyama, whose past books include The End of History, tries to explain in a new book what he thinks went wrong in the Bush administration. He says in America at the Crossroads that in places such as Iraq, neo-conservatives overlooked a contradiction in their own ideas -- one of those ideas was a skepticism about how much government can change the world. Excerpt: 'America at the Crossroads' 1. Principles and Prudence During the first term of George W. Bush's presidency, the United States was attacked on its own soil by the radical Islamist group al-Qaida, in the single most destructive terrorist act in history. The Bush administration responded to this unprecedented event with dramatic and sweeping new policies. First, it created an entirely new federal agency, the Department of Homeland Security, and pushed through Congress the Patriot Act, designed to give domestic law enforcement greater powers to act against would-be terrorists. Second, it invaded Afghanistan, a land-locked country on the other side of the world, and deposed the Taliban regime there that had sheltered al-Qaida. Third, it announced a new strategic doctrine of preemptive action -- actually, a doctrine of preventive war -- that would take the fight to the enemy, rather than relying on deterrence and containment that were the staples of Cold War policy. And fourth, it invaded and deposed the regime of Saddam Hussein on the grounds that he had or was planning to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD). |
| NPR wrote: |
| The second two initiatives, however -- announcement of a broad preemptive doctrine and the invasion of Iraq -- were not obvious responses to September 11. Both policies could be justified on a number of grounds. What made them especially controversial, however, was the almost obsessive emphasis that the Bush administration placed on regime change in Iraq and the implicit assertion of American exceptionalism that gave Washington not just the right but the duty to take care of this problem. Various administration officials, beginning with the president himself, made clear that the United States would proceed against Saddam regardless of the views of its allies. |
| NPR wrote: |
| Neoconservative intellectuals, in their years out of power before the 2000 election, had proposed a foreign policy agenda involving concepts like regime change, benevolent hegemony, unipolarity, preemption, and American exceptionalism that came to be hallmarks of the Bush administration's foreign policy. Many neoconservatives were strong public advocates of the war and defended the shift in focus from al-Qaida to Iraq. |
| NPR wrote: |
| But while there is reason for associating neoconservatism with Bush's first-term policies, a central theme of this book will be that the connection is often overstated and glosses over a much more complex reality. |
| NPR wrote: |
| Four common principles or threads ran through much of this thought up through the end of the Cold War: a concern with democracy, human rights, and more generally the internal politics of states; a belief that U.S. power can be used for moral purposes; a skepticism about the ability of international law and institutions to solve serious security problems; and finally, a view that ambitious social engineering often leads to unexpected consequences and often undermines its own ends.
When they are stated in this abstract fashion, most Americans would find little to object to in these principles: |
| NPR wrote: |
| There were three main areas of what we might call biased judgment that led to mistakes on the part of the Bush administration in its stewardship of U.S. foreign policy in its first term. |
| NPR wrote: |
| Neoconservatism is one of four different approaches to American foreign policy today. |
| NPR wrote: |
| This book suggests a different way for America to relate to the world, one that is neither neoconservative nor realist, Jacksonian nor liberal internationalist. It attempts to define a more realistic way for the United States to promote political and economic development other than through preemptive war, and opens up an agenda of multiple multilateralisms appropriate to the real, existing world of globalization. |
~~~~~~~~~~
A fundamental principle of the neo-conservatives (one that is valid, in my opinion) is their belief that government cannot solve social problems. Unlike the liberals, the neo-cons do not believe that throwing more money at government will solve (domestic) problems, but only makes matters worse.
However, the neo-cons contradict themselves when it comes to foreign policy. They ignore their non-interventionist principle when it comes to foreign affairs. They (invalidly) believe that they can solve social/political problems all over the world by use of force and foreign aid bribery. And on that, the liberals get the non-interventionism correct.
Just as the liberals’ interventionist social domestic programs are doomed to fail (e.g., socialized healthcare, affirmative action), the neo-cons’ interventionist social foreign programs (e.g., invading and occupying other countries) are doomed to fail. Too bad neither group will apply non-interventionism across the board.
~~~~~~~~~~
Does anyone here admit to being a conservative, or a neo-conservative? (If you like Bush, we all know you fit.
) How do you feel learning that one of your own has left your ranks so dramatically and thoughtfully?
Who else has comments supporting or opposing what I say here? Who here feels comfortable not being a liberal nor a (neo-)conservative? How did you come to that belief?
