Skip to main content

View Diary: This is Simple (159 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I guess it depends on how you define the term (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    As is so often the case in...well, anything.

    If you use the term "neoconservative" as a moniker applying to the members of the Bush administration and the policies of Bush, then I would certainly agree that "neoconservatives" are no longer true to their civil libertarian-leaning roots.

    I guess I associate the term more with the intellectual movement led by Jeane Kirkpatrick and other prominent members of the Reagan administration foreign policy establishment.  The key belief of those founders of neoconservatism was facilitating the universalization of democracy, sometimes (and oxymoronically) through the support of dictatorial regimes.  The idea then, as now, was that the greatest threat to universal democracy was not specific regimes, but rather specific political ideologies - Communism then and Islamic fundamentalism today.  They generally butted their heads out of economic policy (except free trade), and were pretty much completely silent on social policy.

    In my view, the Bush administration is not a "neoconservative" administration.  Rather, it is an administration which has generally adhered to neoconservative doctrine on foreign policy.  Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle were probably the only true neoconservatives in the Bush administration.  In my view, George Bush himself is certainly NOT a neoconservative, and I think most of the founders of the intellectual movement would agree.

    Again, it all comes back to how you define the term.  I tend to associate it more with the intellectual movement, and not with the Bush administration.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site