* Originally Published in revista 22 collection ' Fuzionismul: an experiment in doctrinaire of modern discourse '.
"… your wisdom is consummed in confidence" (Shakespeare)
American Neoconservatorismul, the most influential recent Alliance between liberalism and conservatism, is in crisis. Even Irving Kristol, one of the "parents" you declare neoconservatism indisputable masters, not so long ago that it is a generational phenomenon and that, therefore, the term should be abandoned. It is indeed a circumstantial or neoconservatorismul will continue to influence American policy?
More than four decades of political activism and thinking of neoconservator cannot be easily summarized. Neoconservatorismul began to crystallize in the 60s ´ within a group of intellectuals like Irving Kristol, Himmelfarb, Gertrude (wife of William Kristol), Daniel Bell, Nathan Glazer, Norman Podhoretz or. A good portion of these debutasera in the 30th as ´ trotkisti, but under the impact of the disaster the stalinist totalitarianism, and they soon abandoned Communist sympathies. After Irving Kristol, neoconservatorismul was born in the "erosion" of liberal belief of a small group of intellectuals, and rallying around a "acetuia positions more conservative." In fact, neoconservatorul was the famous ins forms his Kristol an "liberal besieged by reality".
The siege was double, from the outside and from the inside, and was referring to the threat of Soviet Communism during the cold war, the danger of so-called decadent American counterculture and permisivismul caused by the left since the new ´ 60. Neoconservatorii have become critics of social engineering with the acerbi you utopian Communist, and slips you free and market you American religious tradition. Even State democratic european asistential was seen as a threat to the freedom of the individual and the "intermediate bodies" of the individual and the State.
It should be noted that this alliance between liberalism and conservatism was characterized by a period of instability and tension between capitalism and religious tradition, logic and interest. This tension has made and makes impossible a merger between liberalism and conservatism. A good portion of neoconservatorii which gave priority to the "free market" and "minimal State" have always seen suspiciously attraction towards the idea of neoconservatism "perfectionist" intended to play an active role in moral education of citizens, religious as well as the preservation and revitalization of american patriotism. Of course, an alliance between conservatism and liberalism can have reason in that "private interest" in the contract do not emerge spontaneously in a socio-political vacuum, but you must sand rooted in a culture and tradition of rights and the common good. But the failure of the merger (but not the Alliance) neoconservative resulted from that liberal instinct manifested always against the idea of positive liberty conservative supported by the State.
Reaction towards the stalinist communism and the new left led on neoconservatori to raise ranks and join the Republican party. They have contributed to the modernization of its in the 70 and 80s ´ and at his conversion, with the support of Reagan, in an organization without nostalgia, confessed that he saw "the future with optimism" (Kristol).
With the end of the cold war and opposition to the Clinton administration, was a new generation of neoconservatori. Victoria unexpectedly brilliant on communism resulted in ´ in the early 90 's a contagious wave of upbeat, typical of the intellectual product of this period being the triumphant progress of mankind history written by Francis Fukuyama. The new climate has resulted in a stream of American foreign policy based on the ideal of the global mission of the United States. In this period, William Kristol and Robert Kagan have created "project for a new American century, a think tank whose purpose was to spur a foreign policy of" neo-reageniana "this conception of foreign policy underwent a radicalization and was formalized through the Bush doctrine", "what should be understood in the context of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. "The Bush doctrine" was based on the idea of legitimacy and preventive war of unilateral military action in order to exportarii democracy and security at the global scale.
The difference between neoconservatori and American democracy does not refer to purposes that are roughly the same, but the means. Neoconservatorismul of wilsonian idealism combined with one of the goals of Realpolitik methods. "Democratic Militarism" neoconservator was founded, in good measure, on faith in the military and economic superiority of the United States, as well as on the belief that international structures were unable to support the democratization of authoritarian regimes. It's proved a second point of tension inherent in the Alliance between liberalism and conservatorsm with respect to foreign policy: idealism is Cranberry tradition and not liberal-conservative universaliste concentration. The tradition of conservative support generally a substantial role of State internally, but rejects in principle the opportunity and dezirabilitatea exportarii by a visionary state of liberal democracy at the global scale.
Parafrazandu-Marx, neoconservatorii and were digging the grave alone. The current crisis of neoconservatism was not caused by the instability characteristic of the Alliance between liberalism and conservatism. She was in good measure generated by the fact that neoconservatorismul has gradually abandoned the principle of moderatiei-a characteristic common of the conservative-liberal tradition and, in internal and external politics. In internal politics, an important part of the neoconservative movement he supported politicizing "american religious fundamentalism", using moves such as "Moral Majority." Against the spirit of anti-ideological conservatism, tradition was transformed by politicization and juridizare into an ideological weapon. Rationalitatii practical complexities condensed in the tradition of existence have been reduced to yelling fight in so-called "cultural wars" (Hunter). But Burke and Tocqueville prevenisera against instrumentalizarii religious enthusiasm in public space. For Burke, the politicisation of religious passions are located at moderatiei and signifies the spirit of compromise free and characteristic of civil society. For Tocqueville, while religion is the main institution of America's policy, strict separation between religion and politics is one of the keys to success of American democracy.
Not by chance, neoconservator idealism in foreign policy had a religious affiliation. But the combination of "democratic Gospel" and Realpolitik was utopian and paguboasa. Optimism about the possibility of changing overnight to an authoritarian regime into a democratic proved neintemeiat. It was based in good measure on the extrapolation of the case of Eastern Europe and ignorarii the local context, as demonstrated by the absence of a thorough strategy post-Saddam in Iraq.
Ironically, remarkable Fukuyama, neoconservatorii Bush administration supporters have given one of the initial concerns of oblivion of neoconservatism, criticises the attempt to deploy rapidly, by the exercise of will and strength, noble projects on a large scale. In this regard, american history, speaks with a Jowitt sarcasm entitled, "leninismul neocon." Preferring to sacrifice individual rights in favor of safety (e.g.. Guantanamo), moderation in favor of self-sufficient and moralizarii politics of fear (e.g. Axis of evil rhetoric), neoconservatorismul dropped TypiCAL sensitivity both liberal face of the tendency of the State to abuse its power, and conservative girl precautia perverse consequences of noble intentions being implemented by force of the army.
The future of neoconservatism still remains open. The defeat of the Republicans and the failure of Bush's foreign policy i have made many to announce, rushed, obituary neoconservatism. But the "Bush doctrine" is not the essence of this complex constellations that is neoconservatorismul, as Irving Kristol is not Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld has changed its policy capacity necessary to identify enemies (Kristol) with remarkable talent to produce and multiply. But bankruptcy, "Bush doctrine" should not make us forget that alliances between liberalism and neoconservatism type conservatism have a solid foundation in the American political and religious culture, as has been analyzed from Tocqueville until Bellah Lipset times.
Based on the historical tradition, that of economic freedom and the individual responsibilitatii American culture knew how to combine two elements apparently placed in a relationship: individualism and comunalismul, private interest and the common good. Although it is possible that the term "neoconservatorism" to fall into desuetitudine, this type of Alliance is deep sand rooted in the tradition of American policy, and will continue to influence U.s. policy. It is worth noting that, in spite of his caricaturizarii Obama as a socialist, he tries a new synthesis between individualism and comunalism by putting different accents in dealing with the wide range of possibilities of American cultural matrix. To illustrate, Obama put together a vision based on the principles of solidarity, hope, and charity, the Christian ethosul with a more liberal position regarding genetic research, immigration, homosexuality, women's and minority rights. Obama is not situated in the vicinity of Marx, but in that of his egalitarian liberalism of Dworkin or Rawls which we combine with a religious attitude, not traditionalist.
While some neoconservatori have distantat of ethosul Bush administration since early on, others have changed after optimism ´ 89 triumfalist with a prapastioasa rhetoric. The enemy some of neoconservatorii most influential has acquired a new name: Islam. Norman Podhoretz, for instance, announces the fourth ritos world war between the West and Islam (or, more accurately, the islamofascism), why leaving discernment in favor of a monotone maniheiste ideologies. Modernization of Islam is a thorny and difficult process, but also it's a dubious scientific rhetoric and political paguboasa. Recent unilateralismului destiny bellicose suggests that it preferred a policy of wilsonian idealism but what keeps resorting to diplomatic means, economic and military Suceava and therefore more realistic. The conditions for the formation of a multi-polar, a new and dezirabila combination of idealism and realism of the policy integrates the ability identify the enemy with this dialogue and recognize, for example in the process of strengthening the position of the moderate Muslim majority. This world already looks different from multipolara "new american century" imagined and planned neoconservatori.
