In the combination of the readings
and lecture this week I found the topic of Neo-conservatism to be of particular
interest. I had originally never heard of Neo-conservatism before this week’s
readings and lectures. As I began to read and hear more on this way of thinking
that I started to become appalled at some of the key points that this ideology
holds, and fearful of what this new way of thinking may mean for the United
States and its image around the world.
The first key point that shocked me
in the neo-conservatism view was the idea that the United States is Benevolent.
The United States has many organizations that look to help those around the
world, and push for the well-being of others, but I believe that the United
States is far from Benevolent. The United States does not perform any action
that does not further its own agenda; whether that means appearing to be a hero
to a certain part of the world or to increase its own power and revenue flow. The United States is just like any other world
power; going so far as to call it benevolent
The second point is the idea that what
is good for U.S is good for world. The idea that what is good for the United
States is good for the world is in my opinion a very flawed ideology. We often
saying that what may be good for one person is not always good for another;
this should also apply to the rest of the world. The different countries of the
world have different religions, traditions, and social norms that are unlike
those found in the United States. To think that just because something works in
the United States that its going to work in other country is simply
unrealistic.
The third point is that the United
States should not continue to trade or cease trade with a regime in which it
does not like, it should instead attempt to change the regime. Those that
decide to fight against us and become our enemies should be taken care of because
they are the immoral ones. This point frightens me the most of all of the
points, because it seems to be an open idea to invading another countries sovereignty.
When a group decides to take down the United States regime because it does not
like us we call them terrorist, but when we do it were are supposed to assume
that those we are fighting are the immoral ones. The assumption that everyone
that challenges the united states should be taken care of because they are
immoral is a flawed idea in and of itself.
We cannot simply label everyone that challenges the United State or its
ideals as immoral; in doing so we become close minded.
Neo-conservatism disturbs me deeply
because it holds these three key points and places an emphasis the end justifies
the means. By attempting to change the world while believing that one is benevolent
and always right, is the kind of thinking that leads to atrocities around the
world. Neo-conservatism is a view that concerns me deeply, though I look
forward to learning more about it in the further. It is something that I will
have to take into account in the next presidential election.
I understand your concern with the neo conservatism ideals. But I think some of those ideals prevail in liberal internationalism too, just not in such an explicit way. I think the liberal need to engage in humanitarian intervention can be cited as trying to 'appear as a hero', like you said neo conservatism does.
ReplyDeleteWe already talked about the morality of a state, whether a state’s behavior neither may nor often be considered ethical. Certain behaviors to secure country’s economic or political interest such as the one you mentioned may not be seen as ethical but it doesn’t matter as in this situation, the end justifies the means. The idea of morality and ethical consciousness does not apply to states as they are sovereign and according to Hobbes and Machiavelli, a Prince’s behavior is justifiable in the fact that it is done solely for the nation’s interest. That the United States would choose to call attacking country as a terrorist and then do the same is by these two theorists ethical and justifiable. The attack is clearly to send a message of warning that its borders are secure. The other message is perhaps to send a warning about the strength of its militia and the fierceness of the state’s leader.
ReplyDeleteAs William mentioned, the concerns you make about neo conservatism are true. The first point you bring up is a of great concern. The United States tends to intervene in situations where they can gain something out of it, which has been true in recent wars. The second and third point you bring up however, I don't think are solely neo-conservatism ideals. Liberal Internationalism and Realism tend to have similar beliefs that the United States has the responsibility to spread democracy and spread the United States ideals to other nations. While this responsibility and belief that the United States is an exception may be unethical, as Nusirat stated these ideals may be justifiable for the protection of the United States' interest. If the United States doesn't spread their ideals, would other undesirable ideals and powers take over the role of the U.S. as a power in the international realm?
ReplyDeleteI am not sure that I would say this about realism...
Delete