Thoughts Re: Neoconservatism

I really respect my friend whose email I posted earlier for his recognition of the need to use our power to promote democracy and human rights abroad. This is something that presidents of both parties have done (the Clinton years are littered with examples). The looming question mark of course is how we use our power to achieve those ends, and that's where the divisions begin - even within the neoconservative community.

In a subsequent email my friend talks about his dislike of the word "neoconservative" and "neocon". I think he is right to point this out. The word "neoconservative" and its derivative "neocon" are both shrouded in a pejorative and ominous cloud, forever branded as evil and ruthless imperialism (and with Bush as a spokesman). It doesn't help that it shares a prefix with "neo-nazi" as we all know how damning word associations can be. But let's not forget that Bush was by no means a neocon upon taking the oath of office. His transformation began during the early years of his first term, most dramatically after the horrific events of 9/11. In fact, Bush had run in 2000 on a platform that harshly criticized the Clinton administration for their use of the military in conflicts such as Somalia where there was no clear threat to the US, essentially an anti-neocon position (and one that targeted soldiers and their families for votes because of the relative unpopularity of these conflicts within the armed forces community).

I know there are people out there who believe strongly that the United States spends far too much money overseas in its engagements both in war and otherwise. These people would prefer the United States to look inward as opposed to outward, and to return to 19th century isolationism. Ron Paul is a perfect example of a national figure with these beliefs who has garnered a significant amount popularity. Rep. Paul in fact just cast the only "no" vote against a House resolution condemning the Iranian regime for its role in the post-election violence. He is an example of someone devoid of any neoconservative tendencies (in fact he often talks about how these positions are causing the downfall of the United States). Rep. Paul's views are outmoded. The 21st century is not the time for the USA to crawl into a dark cave and cease to engage the world. If we did that, we could be sure that terrible things would happen. Our power checks the entire world and keeps in relative balance a fantastic array of states, leaders, egos, trade agreements and so forth. This balance is often referred to as the Pax Americana, a relative peace achieved by the stabilizing nature of American power. Of course there are minor violent flare-ups, threats and other terrible things that happen. But the theory holds that things would be worse without the constant outward-looking posture of the United States.

This is the nature of neoconservatism: the notion that the USA should do what it can, within appropriate norms of international relations, to promote democratization, human rights and the destruction (through the utility of American power - both diplomatic pressure and, if necessary, military might) of oppressive regimes that stifle human freedom and liberty. Behind this position is the acceptance of the notion that a world with more true democracies is one that is a safer place for everyone. How uncontroversial...