by gradinski chai
Mon Feb 20th, 2006 at 08:48:21 AM EST
I just saw this by chance and recommend reading Francis Fukuyama's recent piece in the NYT titled, After Neoconservatism. I had not seen a diary on this and think that it needs to get out.
Fukuyama is a rather conservative American political thinker who is best known for his post-Cold War "end of history argument" in which liberal democracy was seen to be the endpoint of historical, social development.
I won't comment on this piece other than to say that he goes a little easy on the Bush administration despite arguing that: "Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support."
Coming from someone like Fukuyama, this signals a real breakup of the philosophical alliance that the neoconservatives were able to put (sometimes force) together. It is too early to talk about an end to neoconservatism as long as its architects remain in the administration. They have too much personally invested in this to let it go easily. If, however, we are seeing the breakup of this alliance, then Fukuyama's question about what replaces it is a very appropriate one. He argues that we are likely to see something of a realpolitik foreign policy built upon a renewed isolationism among the American public. If this is the case, it will indeed (as he argues) be dangerous.
So, shall we have a conversation about what comes After 'After Neoconservatism'?