The article in today’s New York Times Magazine, After Neoconservatism by Francis Fukuyama, reaches the level of a must read. Doctor Fukuyama is at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. He occupies an unusual position in the Neoconservative history. He was a prominent member of the Project for the New American Century and signed their 1998 letter to President Clinton urging regime change in Iraq; however, he opposed the Bush Administration’s invasion plans, did not support the war, and has distanced himself from the "Neocons." In a New York Times oped, Invasion of the Isolationists last summer, he made the point that the Bush Administration’s support base, people from the heartland, and their policy base, neoconservatives from think tanks, were separate, almost mutually exclusive groups. His criticism, however, has not previously been of the Neoconservative position itself, but of the Administration’s use of it. In this article, however, he says, "Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support."
Today’s six page article is first and foremost, the most cohesive version of what Neoconservativism is and how it came into being that I’ve read. He describes what the ideas were, how the Neoconservatives came to be fixated on Iraq, and takes a pretty good shot at trying to talk about what went wrong with the ideas and how the Bush Administration’s policies backfired. His main point is that the reaction to this mammoth policy failure may lead to an isolationism that will be as detrimental as what we’re getting over. Another important thread in this piece is his clarification of his position in his book, The End of History and the Last Man [not something to be summarized in a blog]. To the point, Bush et al assumed that Democracy is a default position. Depose Hussein and the Iraqi will embrace Democracy. Not! Democracy is at the end of an evolutionary process. What comes first is a war among factions for power – Yugoslavia, Iraq, etc. [very predictable to anyone who is a slight student of human nature].
His analogy to the failure of Communism is apt. Trotsky, a strong Communist theoretician, realized that Stalin’s version was simply a dictatorship, not the glorious Communism of Marx. He paid for this observation with his life. The larger point is that when the political theories of the intellectual and philosophical community are put into action by real-time politicians, the results can be disasterous [I want to say, "Duh!"] It’s hard to decide if he thinks the whole Neoconservative ideology is faulty, or if he blames Bush’s amateurish and naive effecting of these policies for their abysmal failure. But one thing he says for sure, the Neoconservative idea of America’s Benevolent Hegemony is a finished, kaput.
I think he is way too generous in evaluating his notion of the Neoconservative ideals. It seems completely predictable to me that the idea of America as the good-guy, special superpower that would run around the world pre-emptively keeping the bad-guy States in check while spreading Democracy and human rights would be a total flop. First, the world doesn’t want such a thing. Who would? Second, the notion that we would always wear a white hat is incredibly naive, the Bush Administration being a great example [lies, torture, corruption, imprisonment, imperialism].
I would recommend actually reading this long article by a deep thinker with a ton of information. Were he my professor, I’m sure I would revere him. On the other hand, revered professors don’t make the best in-the-world politicians. Fukuyama still talks like we are going to have a say in the direction of world politics [like anyone gives a Baker’s Damn about what America thinks]. Bush has so tarnished us in the eyes of the world that we’re hardly going to be a welcome guest at the table. We are the problem right now, not the solution. Our job is to get our own act together. Bush has so scrambled things here at home, that we’ve already got our hands full.
The Neoconservative foreign policy of George Bush has been as big a failure as the debacle of World Communism. As smart as Fukuyama is, there’s little possibility that the suggestions of a Neoconservative, even one who is born again, will fall on receptive ears. If he wants to help, maybe he can help us figure out how to get rid of these clowns his former colleagues sooner rather than later.
My version would be that Neoconservatism was a naive notion in the first place. That it was complicated by being put into action by a bunch of inept dilitantes who didn’t even understand the ideas behind it and turned them into John Wayne-isms. And that they did it with lies in a sneaky and underhanded way.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong…
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.