Some believe that the neoconservative perspective on foreign policy is, if nothing else, animated by important moral principles - even if neoconservatives are wrong, at least their motives are good. But is this true? Perhaps moral principles are a mask being used to disguise simple, pragmatic desires that animate most of politics.

In America Right Or Wrong: An Anatomy Of American Nationalism, Anatol Lieven offers this quote:

“It is the fundamental fallacy of American foreign policy to believe, in the face of all the evidence, that all peoples, everywhere, are immediately “entitled” to a liberal constitutional government — and a thoroughly democratic one at that. ...

As a matter of fact, it is only since World War I — a war fought under the slogans of “self-determination for all nations” and “make the world safe for democracy” — that American foreign policy began to disregard the obvious for the sake of the quixotic pursuit of impossible ideals. Before World War I, intelligent men [sic] took it for granted that not all peoples, everywhere, at all times, could be expected to replicate a Western constitutional democracy.”

This was written by none other than Irving Kristol, back in 1980 “attacking President Jimmy Carter’s attempts at consistency in the treatment of U.S. allies and rivals concerning their human rights abuses and lack of democracy.” Irving Kristol is the father of Weekly Standard editor William Kristol and leading figure of the neoconservative movement.

Thus, we can see that 20 years ago, a founder of neoconservatism rejected the “moral principle” that America must spread democracy and liberty (at least through force of arms). Today, this is what neoconservatives push for the hardest. What gives? Perhaps if Kristol had explained at some point that he was wrong before and that his views had evolved over time, this would all make sense. After all, every intelligent person goes thorough at least some evolution of their beliefs over the course of so much time.

I’m not aware of any such admission, however. I haven’t seen any neoconservatives explain that there was a time when neoconservatism rejected the principle that all peoples are “entitled” to liberal democratic governments, but has changed over time and now rejects that pervious position. In the absence of such an explanation, doesn’t it seem that neoconservatives aren’t as principled as they appear and are, instead, simply relying on whatever rationalization works best for whatever goals they have in mind at any given time? In other words, that neoconservatism is as (un)principled as every other political perspective?

 

Read More Book Notes from the Book Reviews on this site.