Neoconservatism In America

Liberals had dominated American society for most of the 1900s. The 1960s was widely known for being the age of counterculture, social reforms, and liberals. The era witnessed many advancements like racial equality such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a strong advancement in political liberalism, and a significant increase in the power and influence of government-funded social programs as a result of Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society reforms. Beginning with the election of Nixon, however, followed a gradual return to conservatism whether religiously, politically, or economically. The resurgence of conservatism in American politics and government in the years 1964-2005, was caused in

Jingoism intwined with governmental policy and “a majority…of Americans…grant[ing] spontaneous consent to foreign policy militancy” influences policies related to foreign and national security in the United States.1 European history of colonialism and imperialism impacted the development of foreign policy and national security. In Culture, National Identity, and the “Myth of America,” Walter L. Hixson leniently critiques American foreign policy, while advocating towards a more “cooperative internationalism.”2 Melvyn P. Leffler in National Security, Core Values, and Power fails to formulate an engaging argument for national security policies reflection of America core values. In reference to foreign and national security policy, both Hixson and Leffler refer to the impact of hegemony, with Leffler’s mention succinct and without specific detail. In the United States, foreign policy leans towards jingoism, while national security policy develops from general core values.

The foreign policy of the United States has changed drastically between eras. During the Gilded Age, America experienced isolationism. The US focused on expanding their borders locally and seizing control of Central America. With the first rise of global and total war, America transitioned to being somewhat interested in foreign affairs while still staying neutral to its own cause. However, that did not last long with America's hand forced and entered World War I as an associate to the Allied Powers. Twenty years after World War I, another World War started after Germany wanted revenge for their “unfair” treatment. America was once again forced into the war after Japan, Germanys ally, surprise attacked Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. After the end of World War II, American isolationism completely ended and the US found itself as a global superpower. With the end of the world wars came a Cold War solely focused between the US and the Soviet Union. The US got itself into unwinnable wars, attempts to overthrow communist regimes, a weapons race, and a technology race. Foreign policy shifts between Détente and escalation. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Cold War came to an end and America focused on allies and trade. The long peace ended with the September 11 attacks. These attacks launched America into a War on Terrorism, and they adopted the Bush Doctrine. Over the course of American history, foreign policy transitioned from isolationism into the “Empire of Liberty,”

In which ways did the Fifties and Sixties in the USA set the scene for the rise of conservatism in the Seventies and into the Reagan era? Was the rise of the right inevitable? Please explain your point of view.

The notion of American conservatism has been around roughly since the conception of The United States. Once refined in the U.S. Constitution in September of 1787, what had been left up to speculation was now set as guidelines for the flourishing country. There was always separation in beliefs between American’s, but the constitution truly outlined what America could build upon. This is where American conservatism really came into effect. Conservatism as defined by the Encyclopedia Britannica is “a political doctrine that emphasizes value of social tradition institutions and practices.” Simply meaning that this ideal represented America’s freedom - instilling that the country should always be run by ‘We The People’ as stated in the preamble to the Constitution. Once interpreted more as a preference as to how American’s could live their life, Conservatism has transformed into a distinct lifestyle at which many American’s follow today. With the notable growth of Conservatism it was only imminent that differing divisions of this practice would spark up. The differing ideologies, however, would only be separated by minimalistic technicalities. Although copious different interpretations do exist, many can be synthesized to the same ideas. Ronald P. Formisano’s The Tea Party: A Brief History underscores the significance of holding America to it’s standards set by the documents written by the Founding Fathers.

Of the 1960s time period, it was widely known for being the age of liberals, counterculture, and social reforms. Many Americans, at all socioeconomic levels, found the liberal movement to be quite disturbing. The New Left politics was more heavily focused on the idea of social turmoil, sexual revolution, and racial equality. Their advancements consisted of legalized abortion, radical feminism, gay rights, and godless school textbooks among other things. Under Reagan, his supporters believed in the righteous return to simpler, more traditional times by which priorities were different and true values prevailed. Thus, the resurgence of conservatism within American politics and government was in reaction to the liberal agenda’s domestic policies

Judging from history, the Bush administration did nothing else than to realize the dreams of the neoconservative movement. He only fulfills the agenda of neoconservative movement. I agree with the statement. I think that the United States went to war with Iraq because that is what the neocons had planned on its agenda. President Bush was the period where you've just part of the neoconservative agenda (which did not materialize when Reagan); and his way of being proactive and ideological beliefs were faithfully neoconservative

From the Late 1950’s through the 1960’s a movement started to reclaim the idea of freedom. Until the 1960’s, American Politics was dominated by liberalism. Many presidents defined themselves as being liberal, and the presidents who didn’t during their presidency may be called centrist or left leaning in today’s political climate. The idea to reclaim the idea of freedom gave birth to the Conservative movement. Conservatism was not extinct prior to the 1964 presidential election, it was diminished and liberalisms was thought as “…not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition.” (Foner 308) During the late 1950’s a group of politicians mapped out in private what it actually meant to reclaim freedom. They felt that the “left” or liberals had forcefully changed the definition of freedom through policy implementations. The new conservative definition of freedom was “Freedom, in this view, meant decentralized political powers, limited government, and free market economy.” (Foner 308), the definition criticized the New Deal Coalition and questioned whether the morals and values of freedom had deteriorated. The New Deal was implemented in the 1930’s in response to the economic and social crisis. Many people, especially liberals, looked to blame Conservatism as a whole for the Great Depression and the rise of Fascism abroad. The looming Cold War and a steadily increasing government size gave a spark and attracted many different

Republicanism is a term that has been viewed differently during the development and early days of the United States of America, as well as into present day (1). However, the portion of republicanism that was widely agreed upon is that it is in opposition to a monarchy (the form of government used by Great Britain) and the country is instead ruled by the people. Having once been a part of Great Britain, the Founding Fathers (i.e. Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and many others) agreed that they were opposed to having a monarch ruling over America, and instead wanted the people to rule. The Founders, in the beginning were skeptical of a direct democracy due to the fear of a majority taking over, nonetheless, they still wanted

Throughout the semester Joseph Nye’s signature concepts of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ power have been analyzed amongst the backdrop of U.S. foreign relations. ‘Hard power’ is the use of “coercion i.e. military and economic means to influence the behavior of other political bodies” (Hudson). This contrasts to ‘Soft power’ which is the use of “attraction to produce desired foreign policy results [by focusing] on three key resources: culture, political values, and foreign policies” (Hudson). Through the wielding and usage of the tools of ‘soft power’ ideas about U.S. values and culture have been able to attract partners and support to Washington without the use of force and/or threat of further war and atrocity. Due to this fact it appears ‘soft power’ is more integral to influencing foreign relations, especially when considering the effects of actions such as President Woodrow Wilson’s establishment of a Committee on Public Information, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms Speech, and President Harry Truman’s support for the Marshall Plan.

In the popular sense, neoconservatism can be summarised as the belief that America has a duty to make the world a better place through military intervention where necessary. Most neoconservatives believe that the U.S. has a responsibility to act as a “benevolent global hegemon” and that its military might should be employed around the world to promote both American interests and values. Neoconservatives believe that the threats facing the US can no longer be contained and therefore must be prevented. Any regime that is hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively. it is in the interests of the United States, they argue, to promote the development of democratic regimes abroad, as much as democracies do not wage

With the emergence of neoconservatism, and its mixture of concern with society and distrust for the government, a new perspective was taken (Ball and Dagger, 2014).3 A traditional approach on conservatism has a huge emphasis on society. While on the other hand, the individualist twist on conservatism has a prominent distrust for government. Neoconservatism makes its debut somewhere between the two. On the same note, throughout human history, it has been well established that radicalism is not well accepted regardless of the situation. Examples of this date back to the violent response to opposing ideas of the democratic ideal, made by Socrates in Ancient Athens (Gee, 2017)8. Neoconservatism proves to be a middle ground that has been adopted by politicians and scholars alike. This perspective was well established and argued by Robert H. Bork (Ball and Dagger, 2011). I believe neoconservatism is already an important ideology because it can save societies around the world from their ultimate demise.

Watching the extraordinary rise of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and subsequent capture of the Republican Party nomination in 2016, both observers and the official chattering classes have pondered what this means for the future foreign policy of the United States. Trump’s strident opposition to free trade, disdain for NATO and the US-Japan alliance, and willingness to ban all Muslims from entering the US do represent a stark break from 64 years of Republican national security orthodoxy. With every Republican nominee from Dwight Eisenhower to Mitt Romney, the Republican Party gave strong support to the large international role the United States played on the world stage and the web of alliances and treaties that underscored it. While there have been Republican voices in the post-Cold War era who have challenged this internationalist foundation, none of them were able to seize the glittering tiara of the presidential nomination. The Trump victory in the primaries overturns decades of GOP positions on foreign policies. Yet is this the triumph of a single candidate or a fundamental shift in opinion within the party grassroots? And if this is a new direction, how much of this change can be attributed to the Iraq War and its disastrous consequences? While Donald Trump’s foreign policy statements may come off as spontaneous and incoherent at times, what about their longevity? Unless Donald Trump wins a sizable victory in November, it’s likely that it’s a short lived

The philosophical basis of the neoconservative theory of the United States has two main sources, one in the twentieth century

Bush sought to reveal his administrations’ ambitions for the creation of a new world order dominated by a global union of liberal democratic states with open market economies in a golden era of perpetual world peace, prosperity, and freedom. Thus the US, in its attempt to accomplish this vision, is willing to work collaboratively with other friendly nations in a multilateral basis through the use of independent institutions. Moreover, this administration is prepared to act unilaterally with the use of force if necessary, to counter and contain threats to the American sovereignty and that of its allies. As the scholar Tony Smith describes, “there would be American Hegemony over the international system, with progressive imperialism against those who thwarted America’s grand