The Neo-Conservative emphasis on the need for order -and for the clear demarcation of the 'enemy'- is the only realistic option for liberal societies in the era of fundamentalism'. Discuss.

Résumé du document

It is time to step out and stop the terrorists overseas. We have to play the role of the global policeman and have to shape global environment. I think we have to shape the world better in our own image, and be more aggressive. Boot (2002) refers here to Americans, or America as a nation. As a neoconservative intellectual, the author advocates through his writings and speeches a pro-American foreign policy with the idea of promoting American values through the world. Already, and without even the need to analyze neo-conservatism as a concept, some of its main features are put forward by Boot's assertion. Its close link with America is suggested. For many scholars, the history of neo-conservatism is rooted in the Cold War era. The first neoconservatives were known as strong anticommunist socialists. Some also associate the 1930s and 1940s with the birth of neoconservatives, with major figures like Irving Kristol, linked to left-wing parties (liberal Democrats or even Trotskyites).

Extraits

[...] The neo-conservative has often been assimilated to intolerance, especially when it comes to foreign policy, an area where the diversity of nations, people and thoughts is at stake. As William E. Connolly asserts, states aren't neutral and their policy reflects dominant values within society. With the support of such an assertion, one is allowed to believe that American neo-conservatism is willing to impose its own values in other culturally different environments -other states and particularly the enemies ones-. The means used to achieve this goal (American dominance over the international community) tend to confirm the idea that American active interventionism is in fact an imperialist interventionism. [...]

[...] The democratic potential of the neo-conservatism is also questionable in the field of law. Martin Jacques, in his article about the ‘Neocon Revolution' (2005), brought the attention on ‘neocons' lack of respect for the rule of law. He criticizes their choice to ‘ignore' international treaties such as the well-known Kyoto Protocol on the reducing of Greenhouse gases but also Geneva Conventions, about standards for international law on humanitarian concerns. Ignoring these international norms constitutes an easy mean to maintain American power unrestricted (Jacques, 2005). [...]

[...] The first neoconservatives were known as strong anticommunist socialists. Some also associate the 1930s/1940s with the birth of neoconservatives, with major figures like Irving Kristol, linked to left-wing parties (liberal Democrats or even Trotskyites). The birth of the word itself showed its belonging to the American politico-philosophical culture, since it was first used by Michael Harrington who saw in neoconservatives the hope for a conscience constituency in American politics'. Indeed, they were associated with the American domestic political system and its changes. [...]

[...] (1980), The Meaning of Conservatism, London: Macmillan. [...]

[...] Indeed, neo-conservatives underline the need of a strong state, with centralized institutions and huge means, especially military ones, in order to ensure the security of the citizens. The legal Schmittian concept of ‘state of emergency' represents this empowerment of the state as completely sovereign whereas citizens are under its control. Liberals consider the state much more as an instrument or a tool in service of citizens. As a consequence, power is not in the hands of the state but is in the law. [...]