There is perhaps no political ideology that is more widely discussed and less understood than neo-conservatism. Although aspects of it have captured the imagination of high-ranking officials in the Bush administration in the post-9/11 era and have shaped its foreign policy in unprecedented ways, it continues to be employed as a smear and more often, to the less activist-minded, an utter question mark.
But neo-conservatism contains a set of core principles, like any other ideology. It is, at its essence, a school of foreign policy thought, much like realism and liberal internationalism. As a neoconservative who has performed extensive research into its principles, I can state with total certainty that there are several myths I need to dispel. Like any school of thought, of course, neo-conservatism is not a monolith, but I can accurately state that it encompasses certain premises.
Neo-conservatism starts with the premise that the United States is a special nation with a unique moral authority. This nation has a history as a trailblazer for democracy and human rights and its current adherence to the rule of law and respect of equality is unquestioned by those without a political agenda. Coupled with its singular status as a world superpower, then, the United States has both the means and moral authority to engage world threats and to challenge dictators.
Neoconservatives purport to have learned history's lessons: anti-democratic states are inherently unstable and always a threat to individual rights. Imagine if you will, if the West had toppled Saddam Hussein at the end of Gulf War. Imagine if Europe had refused to allow Hitler to annex the Sudetenland and had instead instituted a policy of regime change. Think of how history might have been altered if President Carter had refused to allow the Islamic Revolution to take hold in Iran.
We certainly cannot say that Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler or Ruhollah Khomeini were legitimate leaders and several of history's problems - the Iraq War, World War II, Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons - would have been averted if not for the West's stunning lack of foresight. Neoconservatives simply believe that kicking the ball down the road only leads to greater problems in the long-term and refuse to play the perverted game of equivalency with pseudo-intellectuals who are more morally concerned with the fact that gays can't marry in the United States than that the government of Iran hangs them.
Neo-conservatism, finally, is not defined as "whatever the Bush Administration does." While the Bush Administration has certainly implemented neoconservative elements into its foreign policy, it has toed the realist line - as Bush promised to do in his 2000 campaign for president - on several other matters. From the United States' lack of engagement with Russia's Vladimir Putin, to its decision to ignore the double-crisis of genocide and Islamo-fascist rule in Sudan, to its nonsensical belief that a Palestinian state is achievable, President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have not wholly integrated neoconservative thought into its overall foreign policy scheme.
This list, of course, is by no means exhaustive, but the more pernicious - or silly - myths adhered to by some are not worth covering in such limited space. But whenever one hears a critic of what he defines as "neo-conservatism," one must also be sure to take a second look, for there is simply no existing school of thought more misrepresented than neo-conservatism.
For more insight into current neoconservative thought, Norman Podhoretz's "World War IV," George Wiegel's "Faith, Reason, and the War Against Jihadism" and "The NeoCon Reader," edited by Irwin Stelzer, are fantastic starting points.
Alex Knepper is a freshman in the School of Public Affairs. You can reach him at edpage@theeagleonline.com.
