From the early 2000s, particularly in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, neoconservatism emerged as a dominant force in shaping United States foreign policy. The neoconservative agenda, most notably realized in the Iraq War, has been a subject of intense debate and scrutiny. Understanding what neoconservatism is, its core tenets, and its lasting impact is crucial for anyone seeking to grasp the trajectory of American foreign policy and its global implications.
This article delves into the definition of a neocon, exploring the ideology’s origins, key principles, and the reasons behind its persistent influence despite significant policy failures. By examining the factors that contribute to neoconservatism’s enduring presence in American political discourse, we can gain a clearer picture of this significant, yet often misunderstood, political movement.
Defining Neoconservatism: Core Principles and Ideology
At its heart, neoconservatism is a political ideology that advocates for an assertive and interventionist US foreign policy. While often associated with the Republican party, its roots and evolution are more nuanced, drawing from various intellectual and political traditions. To truly understand “What Is A Neocon,” we need to explore its origins and the core beliefs that define this ideology.
Origins and Evolution of Neoconservatism
The term “neoconservative” emerged in the United States in the 1960s. Initially, it described a group of intellectuals, many of whom were former liberals or socialists, who became disillusioned with the perceived excesses of the New Left and aspects of liberal domestic policy. Figures like Irving Kristol, often dubbed the “godfather of neoconservatism,” and Norman Podhoretz, played key roles in shaping this intellectual movement.
These early neoconservatives were concerned with what they saw as the decline of traditional values, the rise of anti-American sentiment, and the perceived weakness of liberal foreign policy during the Cold War. They advocated for a strong national defense, a robust stance against communism, and a belief in American exceptionalism – the idea that the United States has a unique role and responsibility to lead in world affairs.
Over time, neoconservatism evolved and solidified its focus on foreign policy. By the end of the Cold War, and particularly in the 1990s, a new generation of neoconservatives, including figures like Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, and William Kristol (son of Irving Kristol), began to articulate a more ambitious vision for American global leadership. This vision advocated for proactive American engagement to promote democracy and human rights around the world, often through military intervention if necessary.
Key Tenets of Neoconservative Thought
Several core principles underpin neoconservative ideology and help define “what is a neocon”:
- Assertive Foreign Policy and Military Strength: Neoconservatives believe in a powerful military and the willingness to use it to project American power and influence globally. They advocate for a strong national defense and are less hesitant about military intervention than traditional conservatives or liberals.
- Democracy Promotion: A central tenet of neoconservatism is the belief that the United States has a responsibility to promote democracy around the world. This is not just seen as a moral imperative but also as a way to enhance American security, as democracies are considered more peaceful and reliable partners.
- American Exceptionalism: Neoconservatives strongly believe in American exceptionalism, viewing the United States as a unique nation with a special role to play in world history. This exceptionalism justifies a more assertive and leading role in international affairs.
- Skepticism of International Institutions: While not entirely opposed to international cooperation, neoconservatives are often skeptical of international institutions like the United Nations, viewing them as constraints on American power and freedom of action. They prioritize unilateral action when necessary.
- Moral Clarity and Confrontation with Evil: Neoconservatives often see the world in terms of good versus evil and are comfortable identifying and confronting what they perceive as threats to American interests and values. This often translates to a more hawkish stance towards perceived adversaries.
The Rise and Fall (and Rise?) of Neoconservative Influence
Neoconservatism reached its zenith of influence in the George W. Bush administration, particularly after the 9/11 attacks. Key neoconservatives held senior positions in the administration and played a significant role in advocating for the invasion of Iraq and the broader “War on Terror.”
Neoconservatism in the Post-Cold War Era
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, some neoconservatives argued for the United States to embrace its position as the sole superpower and actively shape the international order. They saw opportunities to promote democracy and American values in a world no longer constrained by bipolar competition. Think tanks like the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), co-founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, became prominent voices advocating for a more assertive US foreign policy.
The Iraq War and its Aftermath: A Neoconservative Experiment?
The 2003 invasion of Iraq is widely seen as the most significant manifestation of neoconservative foreign policy in action. Proponents of the war, many of whom were neoconservatives, argued that removing Saddam Hussein was necessary for regional stability, democracy promotion, and combating terrorism. They believed that a swift and decisive military intervention would transform Iraq into a democratic beacon in the Middle East, inspiring similar changes across the region.
However, the Iraq War proved to be far more complex and costly than anticipated. The prolonged conflict, the rise of sectarian violence, and the destabilization of the region significantly damaged America’s reputation and resources. The disastrous consequences of the Iraq War led many to question the wisdom and effectiveness of neoconservative foreign policy.
Why Neoconservatism Persists: Factors Contributing to Continued Influence
Despite the widely acknowledged failures of the Iraq War and the criticisms leveled against neoconservatism, the ideology has shown a remarkable resilience. As highlighted in the original article, several factors contribute to its continued, if sometimes diminished, influence:
- Shamelessness and Ideological Conviction: As the original article points out, neoconservatives are often characterized by a lack of accountability and a refusal to admit error. This ideological conviction, even in the face of contrary evidence, allows them to continue advocating for their policies with unwavering zeal. They tend to deflect blame and reframe narratives to maintain their position.
- Financial Support from Think Tanks and Institutions: Neoconservative ideas are sustained by a network of well-funded think tanks, media outlets, and academic institutions. These organizations provide platforms for neoconservative intellectuals and policymakers to develop and disseminate their ideas, ensuring a continued presence in policy debates. Organizations like the American Enterprise Institute, the Weekly Standard (formerly), and the Foreign Policy Initiative have played significant roles in promoting neoconservative perspectives.
- Receptive Media Outlets: Despite criticisms, neoconservative voices continue to find platforms in mainstream media outlets. Whether due to a perceived need for “balance” or genuine sympathy for neoconservative viewpoints within the media itself, prominent neoconservatives are still invited to comment on foreign policy issues, write op-eds, and participate in news programs. This media presence helps to legitimize and amplify their ideas.
- Alliances with Liberal Interventionists: Neoconservatives often find common ground with liberal interventionists, who also advocate for proactive US engagement in world affairs, particularly in promoting democracy and human rights. This alliance, though sometimes uneasy, provides neoconservatism with broader support within the political spectrum and helps to normalize interventionist foreign policy approaches. The shared belief in the responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine, for example, bridges some gaps between these groups.
Criticisms and Controversies Surrounding Neoconservatism
Neoconservatism has faced consistent criticism from across the political spectrum. Critics argue that neoconservative policies are based on flawed assumptions, lead to unintended negative consequences, and ultimately undermine American interests. Common criticisms include:
- Overreliance on Military Force: Critics argue that neoconservatives are too quick to resort to military force and underestimate the complexities and long-term costs of military interventions. The Iraq War is often cited as a prime example of this overreliance on military solutions.
- Unrealistic Expectations of Democracy Promotion: Skeptics question the neoconservative belief in the ease and effectiveness of imposing democracy on other countries, particularly in regions with different cultural and historical contexts. They argue that democracy promotion efforts can be counterproductive and destabilizing.
- Disregard for Diplomacy and International Law: Critics contend that neoconservatives prioritize unilateral action and downplay the importance of diplomacy, international law, and international cooperation. This approach, they argue, alienates allies and undermines the international order.
- Blowback and Unintended Consequences: Neoconservative policies, particularly military interventions, are often criticized for leading to unintended negative consequences, such as the rise of anti-Americanism, regional instability, and the empowerment of extremist groups.
Conclusion
“What is a neocon?” In essence, a neocon is an advocate for a hawkish and interventionist US foreign policy rooted in the belief of American exceptionalism and the necessity of promoting democracy globally, often through assertive means, including military force. While neoconservatism’s influence has fluctuated, particularly in the aftermath of the Iraq War, its core tenets and the factors that sustain it continue to make it a relevant force in American political and foreign policy debates. Understanding neoconservatism is essential for navigating the complexities of US foreign policy and its ongoing impact on the world stage.
