Hesiod on Max Boot on Neo-Cons

Hesiod discusses Max Boot discussing neo-cons (himself included).

Boot offers his characterization of neo-con-ism:

"Neoconservatives, belonging to the third school [neither foreign policy "realists" nor liberal internationalists], try to draw from the best of both worlds. They agree with the liberal internationalists that we should promote our ideals as well as protect our interests. But they don't feel that international law or international organizations are sufficient to do that. And so they agree with the realists that you need to use power and force if necessary to defend American interests in a dangerous world.

The neocons are trying to fuse power and principles. It's a hard-headed version of Wilsonianism. (Former U.S. President Woodrow Wilson was well known for promoting democracy, international law and the League of Nations, the precursor to the United Nations.)"

I think Hesiod's analysis is mostly right. In particular, he's right that, according to Boot's characterization, Bill Clinton could count as a neo-con. But Boot is, of course, casting the neo-cons in the best possible light. Only the nutty would disagree with the neo-cons so characterized. Um, but I'm not denying that there ARE lots of people who would disagree--I'm only pointing out that they're nutty. I don't think enough people realize how much influence foreign policy "Realists" have on the Right. The "Realists" really do think that the only goal of our foreign policy should be to promote the narrow national interest of the U.S. They are, that is, more-or-less indistinguishable (in the foreign policy domain, anyway) from moral nihilists or ethical egoists. It's hard for me to believe that anyone could really believe that we should never aim to promote human rights outside the U.S. (unless, that is, there is some payoff for us). Even foreign policy Realists appeal to human rights considerations from time to time, but it's hard to tell whether this is purely a rhetorical strategy, or whether they don't actually have the courage of their (sick, twisted) convictions. I expect that the humanity of the Realists does assert itself sometimes. My guess is that the people who call themselves Realists really only believe that the rights of non-Americans shouldn't weigh very heavily in our foreign policy calculations. That's bad enough, but it's better than real "Realism"--better, that is, than thinking that they shouldn't count at all.

Oh--I've heard the following people called foreign policy Realists at various times: Cheney, Rice, Powell. Anybody know the facts about this? (Who am I kidding... Nobody really reads this blog, do they? If you ARE reading, it, stop right now and go read Spinsanity, fer chrissake.)

So all sane people should acknowledge that both principles and power have a role in foreign policy, and that its best to work with international institutions and promote our principles when possible, but sometimes we'll be forced to go it alone and kick some hiney. Many hard-core realists on the right would disagree with the part about cooperating with international institutions, and disagree with the bit about acting on principle. (God, those people really are dangerous.)

But do liberals really disagree with anything Boot says? I mean, I realize that there are some on the Left who seem to think that the use of military force is never permissible, but--perhaps I'm wrong about this--it seems to me that those folks are mostly located in the leftier-than-liberal part of the spectrum. Hell, even the two pacifists I know agreed that we should attack the Taliban after 9/11. (No, I don't understand how pacifists can think that, but they're both smart and both have Ph.D.s and I trust them both not to be making some obvious error.) And only my leftiest lefty friend thinks that we shouldn't have used force in Kosovo. (And no, I don't understand her reasoning at all, but she's smart too, etc., etc. (But wrong about Kosovo.)) Anyway, all of the relatively centrist liberals I know--High Noon liberals--acknowledge the need to kick a little booty now and then, regrettable though that fact may be.

So why do we need the concept neo-con?

Some suggestions:
Neo-cons really need to distinguish themselves from the Realists on the Right more than they need to distinguish themselves from liberals. Neo-cons are substantially different from Realist conservatives in that they recognize that e.g. the promotion of democracy (not in the service of any narrow-national-interest-related ulterior motive) is a legitimate foreign policy goal. So the neo-con is a different kind of animal than the Cheney-esque (?) Realist; more like Ronald Reagan (who, for all his myriad failings, at least wasn't a foreign policy Realist).

So how in the heck are neo-cons distinguished from liberals?

I think there are some obvious ways, but I'm going to stop, get some sleep, and think about this before writing any more.


Ubiquitous and unnecessary reminder/disclaimer: all the above is pretty speculative. Undoubtedly at least some of it is wrong.