Neoconservatism: Vanished from America First, Yet Flourishing in the Democrat-Controlled Uniparty

In the current geopolitical landscape, the term “neoconservatism” often evokes contentious debates about its influence on U.S. foreign policy, especially when comparing the approaches of yesterday’s conservatives to those of today. The discussion surrounding neoconservatism reflects broader shifts within the conservative movement and the complex interplay of ideologies shaping America’s role on the world stage.

Modern conservatives display a spectrum of foreign policy positions that echo the diversity of thought characteristic of earlier eras, yet with distinct contemporary challenges and perspectives. The principle that once guided neoconservative thought—using American power to promote democracy abroad, notably through military intervention—has been critically reassessed in light of recent history, particularly the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Today, there’s an increased emphasis among conservatives on the limits of military intervention and the unintended consequences of nation-building efforts. This shift is partly a response to the public’s wariness of prolonged foreign conflicts and the desire to focus on domestic issues. Moreover, the rise of “America First” ideologies underlines a skepticism towards multilateralism and international commitments, contrasting with the neoconservative view of America as a global police force for democracy.

Nonetheless, the neoconservative legacy persists in certain quarters, advocating for a robust foreign policy that counters authoritarian regimes and supports democratic movements. However, this stance is now more likely to be tempered by a pragmatic understanding of geopolitical complexities and the costs associated with foreign interventions.

 

The sensibilities that defined neoconservatism, such as the importance of promoting democracy and the belief in America’s role in fostering global stability, continue to influence contemporary conservative thought. Yet, there’s a more pronounced caution and debate over the means to achieve these ends. The experiences of the early 21st century have imbued today’s conservatives with a keener awareness of the limitations of American power and the intricacies of international relations.

The evolution of U.S. foreign policy perspectives, particularly among conservatives, reflects a nuanced shift that includes the changing stance of the Democratic Party towards globalism and military intervention. Historically, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party has been characterized by a skepticism towards globalism and a strong anti-war sentiment, particularly evident during the Vietnam War era and the early 21st century conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. This skepticism was rooted in a belief in diplomacy and international cooperation over unilateral military action, and a preference for addressing domestic issues over engaging in foreign entanglements.

However, the political landscape has evolved, and with it, the positions of both major parties on globalism and foreign intervention have become more complex. In recent years, parts of the Democratic Party have adopted a more favorable view towards globalism, seeing it as a framework for addressing global challenges such as climate change, international trade, and collective security through multilateral institutions and agreements. This shift reflects a broader recognition of the interconnectedness of global issues and the need for cooperative solutions.

Conversely, within the conservative movement, particularly with the rise of the “America First” initiative, there has been a notable pivot towards skepticism of globalism and a cautious approach to military intervention. This marks a significant departure from the neoconservative enthusiasm for using American power to promote democracy abroad through military means. The “America First” ideology prioritizes national interests, economic nationalism, and skepticism towards international institutions and agreements, perceived as constraining America’s sovereignty and economic prosperity.

This divergence represents a broader realignment in American politics, where traditional party positions on globalism and foreign intervention have been reevaluated. Modern conservatives, influenced by the lessons of past conflicts and the rise of populism, now often emphasize a foreign policy that is wary of entangling alliances and skeptical of the liberal international order traditionally supported by both neoconservatives and liberal internationalists.

 

The shift among conservatives towards this more isolationist stance has created an intriguing dichotomy with the liberal Democrats, who, while still harboring anti-war factions, are increasingly seen as the proponents of globalism and multilateralism. This realignment challenges the conventional political narratives and underscores the fluid nature of party ideologies, particularly in the realm of foreign policy.

This evolution reflects a broader trend within conservatism towards reconciling the ideals of freedom and democracy promotion with the realities of a multipolar world. While the strategic approach may differ from the past, the underlying values and debates that shaped neoconservatism remain relevant, informing how conservatives navigate today’s global challenges.

In essence, the transition from yesterday’s to today’s conservatism in foreign policy signifies a reevaluation of strategies rather than a wholesale abandonment of neoconservative principles. It highlights a movement grappling with its past to forge a foreign policy that is both principled and pragmatic, recognizing the complexity of global affairs and the need for a nuanced approach to international engagement.