{"id":2667,"date":"2006-02-23T17:01:50","date_gmt":"2006-02-24T00:01:50","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2006-02-23T17:01:50","modified_gmt":"2006-02-24T00:01:50","slug":"neocon-to-neolib","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2006\/02\/23\/neocon-to-neolib\/","title":{"rendered":"Neocon to Neolib"},"content":{"rendered":"

I read Francis Fukuyama’s renunciation of neoconservatism with amusement, as I realized that he did not so much object to its goals (American empire, global “democrayc”) nor even its means (warfare, propaganda) but to its manner<\/i> – i.e. unilateral, callous, arrogant. Jim Lobe’s excellent piece<\/a>, highlighting the key points in Fukuyama’s apostasy, confirmed my initial assessment: Fukuyama abandoned neocons, only to join the “neolibs.”<\/a> <\/p>\n

Instead of denouncing the whole concept of American Imperium, with an omnipotent, aggressive state both at home and abroad, Fukuyama is peddling “realistic Wilsonianism” and multilateral interventionism. It’s lipstick on a pig; perhaps, had G.W. Bush never happened, the world could still blithely accept Clintonian justifications for imperial aggression, but now that they’ve had the taste of the iron fist sans<\/i> the velvet glove, will they ever be so gullible about Washington again? <\/p>\n

Fukuyama’s supposedly radical break isn’t radical at all; he’s still an imperialist, only in slightly different colors. But his vision of the Imperium smells as rank as what we have today. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I read Francis Fukuyama’s renunciation of neoconservatism with amusement, as I realized that he did not so much object to its goals (American empire, global “democrayc”) nor even its means (warfare, propaganda) but to its manner – i.e. unilateral, callous, arrogant. Jim Lobe’s excellent piece, highlighting the key points in Fukuyama’s apostasy, confirmed my initial […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[676],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-2667","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","tag-antiwar-movement"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2667","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2667"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2667\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2667"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2667"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2667"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=2667"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}