Is Neoconservatism a form of centrism or conservatism?

Fiddytree said:

The recent iteration believes that the United States is the only possible superpower currently who can greatly influence affairs in the world, and because of that and its character of goodness, the United States should do it before a greater foe appears that can shape world events in harmful ways.

Click to expand...

Would this be a case of pre-emptive Imperialism? Create an empire from the ruins of the Cold War before Russia can recover and the BRIC nations find their strength? I understand the concept of the US's "character of goodness" plays well to the domestic audience (I read the Daniel Boorstin article btw; it was very illuminating, going much further into mythologising the American experience than I expected) but that exceptionalist tendency is exactly the facet of the project that will ensure its failure. It is an attitude that the forces within US allies and target nations most likely to support the neo-con ideas and policies will be unable to do so. As a non-American conservative or nationalist, you cannot uphold the notion of American exceptionalism and expect a generally right-of-centre domestic electorate to support you in it. Even amongst the US's current strongest allies Canada, the UK, France you will not find any adherents to ideas of American exceptionalism or Wilson's iteration of manifest destiny, even amongst the most neo-con-friendly rightists and ex-Trotskyites like Hitchen's friends in the UK Aaronovitch, Cohen, and the RCP coterie.

They thus believe in defense and advocation of democratic principles throughout the world. Some believe in using force more frequently than others, however.

Click to expand...

It is not the advocacy of democratic principles that defines the neo-con project, however. I can't think of a Western political tendency that argues against democracy, even though definitions of democracy might vary considerably. The distinctive features of the neo-con project is surely that it advocates the forceful export of these democratic principles, the coercive installation of those principles in suitable, if unreceptive, states.

The tempered disdain they have toward United Nations because it typically has been an ineffectual arm of international relations and has been a platform for countries to spread either anti-American attitudes or anti-Israeli attitudes that were seen by Moynihan and Kirkpatrick as outrageous... Most do not argue removal of the United States from the United Nations, but rather see it as a flawed system and if a better alternative were to be provided, it might be useful to do so.

Click to expand...

I think it's much more fundamental a disregard for the UN than disdain at the inefficacy of its diplomacy. It's about the fact that it is one body that the US cannot control ideologically. Like all those other international bodies and initiatives the US did not instigate or did not lead a controlling bloc (I'm thinking of Kyoto, the ICC) the US will withdraw from the UN at some point in the future.

As for spreading anti-American and anti-Israeli attitudes, well that's free speech, something the neo-cons are meant to be in favour of.

all the while we provide the majority of support for the organization.

Click to expand...

This is a part of the myth. The US owes the UN over $1.3 billion. Were the US to pay its arrears, then it could be said to be a major supporter, but even then, so far short of being its 'majority' supporter as to make the term meaningless. In what mathematics does 22% equate to a majority?

Like Liberals, Neocons are big government statists with their main toy being foreign policy. With the Soviet Union dead and buried, Neocons needed a new boogieman to justify government thuggery, after 9/11 Muslim Green replaced Communist Red. It wasn't too long ago that they pulled a page out of Al Sharpton's book and called anyone who used the term Neocon an anti-semtie.

Fiddytree said:

Shadia Drury,Anne Norton, Adam Curtis are on the list or inspired sources of information in said sources, I presume? Much of the secondary literature even bothering to compare the two are rubbish, and the internet sources running with those secondary sources are even worse.

Click to expand...

"Yes, we did produce a near-perfect Republic. But will they keep it, or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction.” - Thomas Jefferson


“The more there are riots, the more repressive action will take place, and the more we face the danger of a right-wing takeover and eventually a fascist society.” - Martin Luther King Jr.


"Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." - Dwight D. Eisenhower