反シオニズム：wikipedia

【出展リンク】：

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/反シオニズム


反シオニズム

反シオニズム（はんシオニズム）は政治的、宗教的にシオニズムに反対する幾つかの異なる観点を述べるのに使われる概念である。反シオニズムはシオニズムに対して共通の形式で現れる場合もあるが、それらの背景や思想には大きな開きがあり、1つの現象と看做すことはできない。ここでは歴史的なものと現在のシオニズムへの反対について述べる。

シオニズムの定義として幾つか挙げられる。

• ユダヤ人は自己定義に依ればイスラエルの地に端を発し数千年にわたりユダヤ国家を維持していたと信じるユダヤ人の民族解放運動
• ユダヤ人国家としてのイスラエルの存在を支持する政治運動
• イスラエル国家による開発と防衛、そこへのユダヤ人の入植奨励を支持する運動
• 人種差別の一形態。国連総会決議4686は以前の「シオニズムは人種主義と人種差別の一形態である」とした国連総会決議3379を覆した。（Zionism and racism参照）

反シオニズムはこれらの目的あるいは行為への反対として現れる。反シオニズムも人種差別として非難される場合がある。

目次  [非表示] 1 反シオニズムの諸類型 1.1 ユダヤ人の反シオニズム 1.1.1 アーリヤーを巡って 1.1.2 超正統派 1.1.3 世俗的ユダヤ人 1.1.4 第二次世界大戦とイスラエル建国 1.2 ユダヤ人共同体外における反シオニズム 1.2.1 世俗的アラブ人 1.2.2 ムスリム 1.2.3 カトリック教会と反シオニズム 2 脚注

反シオニズムの諸類型 [編集]

ユダヤ人の反シオニズム [編集]

アーリヤーを巡って [編集]

ワシントンD.C.で行われたアメリカ・イスラエル公共問題委員会会場にてユダヤ人国家の平和的解体を訴えるナートーレー・カルター（2005年5月）

ヘブライ語で「上昇」を意味するアリーヤーという語は、ユダヤ人によるイスラエルへの帰還を表す言葉として古代より用いられてきた。中世に入ると、ナフマニデスやアイザック・ルリア、ヨセフ・カロら多くの有名なラビがイスラエルの地へ戻った。この他世界各地で離散を余儀なくされているユダヤ人も、メシアの時代に果たされるであろう帰還を祈り^[1]、その願いは数世代にわたって受け継がれていった。

しかしユダヤ啓蒙主義時代には、改革派がアリーヤーを含め伝統的な信条を時代に合わないものと見なし破棄した。その後、イスラエルへのユダヤ人入植者が増加すると、従来の宗教上の信条と並行してイデオロギー的政治的配慮から、アリーヤーが再び脚光を浴びるようになる。

ただ、敢えて離散状態を選択するユダヤ人も少なからず存在することから、アリーヤーへの支持が常に厚いわけでなく、現代のシオニズム運動もそれ程一般的ではない。とは言え、正統派や保守派、近年では改革派に至るまで、シオニズムは一定の支持を得ているのが現状である^[2][3][4]。

超正統派 [編集]

シオニズムが始まった当初、ヒレル・ツァイトリンやジョエル・テイテルバウムなど多くの宗教的ユダヤ人は、ユダヤ人か否かに関わらず、世俗的なイデオロギーであるナショナリズムには反対の立場を採り、シオニズムに対する闘争を展開した^[5]。

世俗的ユダヤ人 [編集]

ユダヤ人共同体は一枚岩ではなく、集団内外でも様々な反応が見られる。こうしたことから、世俗的ユダヤ人と宗教的ユダヤ人との間に原理的な相違が見られる以上、世俗的ユダヤ人がシオニズム運動に反対する理由は、宗教的ユダヤ人のものとは大きく異なる。

第二次世界大戦以前、多くのユダヤ人はシオニズムを浮世離れした非現実的な運動と見なしていた^[6]。啓蒙主義時代のヨーロッパにおいて多くの自由主義者は、ユダヤ人が国民国家に忠誠を誓い、現地の文化に同化した上で完全な平等を享受すべきと説いた。一方、統合なり同化なりを受け入れたユダヤ人には、シオニズムがユダヤ人の市民権獲得の上で脅威に映った^[7]。

ヨーロッパでは、多くのユダヤ人が左派或いは国際主義的な信念からシオニズムに反対したし、エジプトでは共産主義の影響を受けたユダヤ人反シオニズム同盟が結成された。またイスラエルにおいてもマツペンやハダシュといった政党を中心に、反シオニズムを標榜する組織や政治家が存在する。

第二次世界大戦とイスラエル建国 [編集]

シオニズムに対する態度は、第二次世界大戦を境に変貌を遂げた。ホロコーストの全容が明らかになる前の1942年5月、ビルトモア会議はパレスチナにユダヤ人共同体を設立すべきという、伝統的なシオニズム政策の放棄を宣言した^[8]。 これを受け、一部シオニストの間に、パレスチナにおけるアラブ・ユダヤ連合国家樹立を支持する政党を立ち上げるなどの動きが見られた^[9] 。

だがホロコーストの実態が知られると、社会主義者で終生無神論を貫いたイギリス人ジャーナリストのアイザック・ドイッチャーを含め、1948年以前はシオニズムを批判していた者でさえ見解を改めるようになった。第二次大戦以前、ドイッチャーは国際社会主義運動に害を与えるとしてシオニズムに反対していたが、ホロコースト以後は戦前の見解を悔い改め、生き残ったユダヤ人に避難所を与えるのは「歴史的必然」との立場から、イスラエルの建国を支持した。

ユダヤ人共同体外における反シオニズム [編集]

世俗的アラブ人 [編集]

イギリスの支配下にあった頃のパレスチナ及びトランスヨルダンの地図

ヨーロッパ列強による植民地支配を受けてきた、アラブ諸国の反植民地主義者や反帝国主義主義者は、ある国が特定の国を支配するには先ず、自国の人間を移民として送り込むべきとの見解を強調していた。この見解によると、対シオニズム闘争はパレスチナ人自身が革命を起こし、ユダヤ人入植者を排除することにあるとした。また1960年代のナセル時代の汎アラブ主義者は、パレスチナをアラブ世界の一部と捉え、アラブ諸国が団結してイスラエルに軍事介入すべきと説いた。

ムスリム [編集]

イスラム教を奉じる反シオニズム主義者は一般的に、イスラエルをイスラム世界への介入者と見なし、イスラム世界はムスリムによってのみ合法的永続的に支配されるのが理想と考える^[10][11][12]。

また、イラン政府（但し1979年の革命以降）のみならずパレスチナ人らは、イスラエルが非合法である以上、イスラエルという国家そのものを指す場合、「イスラエル」ではなく「シオニスト政体」という語を用いることが多い。例えば2006年12月にタイム誌が行ったインタビューでも、アフマディネジャドは「皆さんご存じの通り、シオニスト政体は英米両政府の傀儡政権に過ぎない」と発言した^[13]。

カトリック教会と反シオニズム [編集]

ピウス10世やベネディクト15世、ピウス12世をはじめ現代の歴代教皇は、シオニズム批判を大々的に行ってきた^[14]。これは、ユダヤ人がキリストの神性を認めない以上、彼らが進めるシオニズム運動を支持するわけにはいかないためである^[15]。教皇庁もこうした問題により、1993年までイスラエルと関係が断絶していた。

脚注 [編集]

1. ^ Taylor, A.R., 1971, 'Vision and intent in Zionist Thought', p. 10,11
2. ^ [1] Rachael Gelfman, Religious Zionists believe that the Jewish return to Israel hastens the Messiah
3. ^ [2] Ehud Bandel - President, the Masorti Movement, Zionism
4. ^ http://ccarnet.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=42&pge_prg_id=4687&pge_id=1656
5. ^ Shaul Magid, “In Search of a Critical Voice in the Jewish Diaspora: Homelessness and Home in Edward Said and Shalom Noah Barzofsky’s Netivot Shalom,” Jewish Social Studies: History, Culture, Society n.s. 12, no. 3 (Spring/Summer 2006), p.196
6. ^ Walter Laqueur, A History of Zionism, (Schocken Books, New York 1978, ISBN 0805205230), pp385-6.
7. ^ Walter Laqueur, A History of Zionism, p399.
8. ^ American Jewish Year Book Vol. 45 (1943-1944) Pro-Palestine and Zionist Activities, pp 206-214
9. ^ American Jewish Year Book Vol. 45 (1943-1944), Pro-Palestine and Zionist Activities, pp 206-214
10. ^ Neusner, Jacob (1999年). Comparing Religions Through Law: Judaism and Islam. Routledge. ISBN 0415194873.  p. 201
11. ^ Merkley, Paul Charles (2001年). Christian Attitudes Towards the State of Israel. McGill-Queen's Press. ISBN 0773521887.  p.122
12. ^ Akbarzadeh, Shahram (2005年). Islam And the West: Reflections from Australia. UNSW Press. ISBN 0868406791.  p. 4
13. ^ http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1570714,00.html
14. ^ La condamnation de l'idéologie sioniste par l’Église catholique
15. ^ Catholicism, France and Zionism: 1895-1904

「反シオニズム」は、ユダヤ教に関連した書きかけ項目です。この記事を加筆・訂正などしてくださる協力者を求めています（プロジェクト／ポータル）。

カテゴリ: 宗教の歴史 | 政治思想 | シオニズム | 反シオニズム

• 最終更新 2010年6月18日 (金) 16:47 （日時は個人設定で未設定ならばUTC）。
• テキストはクリエイティブ・コモンズ 表示-継承ライセンスの下で利用可能です。追加の条件が適用される場合があります。詳細は利用規約を参照してください。

• プライバシー・ポリシー
• ウィキペディアについて
• 免責事項

• 
• 

【Wikipedia】：【Neoconservatism：English】・【新保守主義：日本語】

【出展リンク１】：
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Neoconservatism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Neocon" redirects here. For the National Exposition of Contract Furnishings (NeoCon), see Merchandise Mart#Trade Fairs.

This article is about neoconservatism in the United States. For neoconservatism in other regions, see Neoconservatism (disambiguation).

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page. It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since April 2009. It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since April 2009. Its neutrality or factuality may be compromised by weasel words. Tagged since March 2009. It may need copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. Tagged since April 2009.

Part of a series on
Conservatism
Schools[show]
Concepts[show]
People[show]
Organizations[show]
Religious[show]
National variants[show]
Related topics[show]
Politics Portal
v • d • e

Neoconservatism is a right-wing political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries.^[1][2][3] Consequently the term is chiefly applicable to certain Americans and their strong supporters. In economics, unlike paleoconservatives and libertarians, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a welfare state; and, while rhetorically supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.^[4]

The term neoconservative was used at one time as a criticism against proponents of American modern liberalism who had "moved to the right".^[5][6] Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist, coined the current sense of the term neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy.^[7] According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent neoconservatives were driven by "the notion that liberalism" had failed and "no longer knew what it was talking about."^[8] The term "neoconservative" was the subject of increased media coverage during the presidency of George W. Bush.^[9][10] with particular focus on a perceived neoconservative influence on American foreign policy, as part of the Bush Doctrine.^[11] The term neocon is often used as pejorative in this context.

The first major neoconservative to embrace the term, Irving Kristol, was considered a founder of the neoconservative movement. Kristol wrote of his neoconservative views in the 1979 article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.'"^[5] His ideas have been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine.^[12] Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentarymagazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled "The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy".^[13][14] Kristol's son, William Kristol, founded the neoconservative Project for the New American Century.

Contents  [hide] 1 History and origins 1.1 Great Depression and World War II 1.2 Drift away from New Left and Great Society 1.3 1980s 1.4 1990s 1.5 2000s 1.5.1 Administration of George W. Bush 1.5.1.1 Bush Doctrine 1.5.2 2008 Presidential election and aftermath 2 Evolution of views 2.1 Usage and general views 2.1.1 Usage outside the United States 2.2 Views on foreign policy 2.3 Views on Economics 2.4 Distinctions from other conservatives 2.5 Criticism of terminology 2.5.1 Antisemitism 3 Criticism 3.1 Foreign interventionism 3.2 Imperialism and secrecy 3.3 Friction with paleoconservatism 4 Related publications and institutions 4.1 Institutions 4.2 Publications 5 See also 6 Notes 7 References 8 Further reading 8.1 History 8.2 Identity 8.3 Explanations of ideas 8.4 Critiques 8.5 Conservative criticism 8.6 Leo Strauss and Trotskyism 8.7 American Jews 9 External links

[edit]History and origins

[edit]Great Depression and World War II

"New" conservatives initially approached this view from the political left. The forerunners of neoconservatism were most often socialists or sometimes liberals who strongly supported the Allied cause in World War II, and who were influenced by the Great Depression-era ideas of theNew Deal, trade unionism, and Trotskyism, particularly those who followed the political ideas of Max Shachtman.^{[citation needed]} A number of future neoconservatives, such as Jeane Kirkpatrick,^{[citation needed]} were Shachtmanites in their youth; some were later involved with Social Democrats USA.

Some members of the mid-20th century literary group, The New York Intellectuals were forebears of neoconservatism^[15]. The most notable was literary critic Lionel Trilling, who wrote, "In the United States at this time liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition." It was this liberal vital center, a term coined by the historian and liberal theorist Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., that the neoconservatives would see as threatened by New Left extremism. But the majority of vital center liberals remained affiliated with the Democratic Party,^{[citation needed]} retained left-of-center viewpoints, and opposed Republican politicians such as Richard Nixon, who first attracted neoconservative support.^{[citation needed]}

Initially, the neoconservatives were less concerned with foreign policy than with domestic policy. Irving Kristol's journal, The Public Interest, focused on ways that government planning in the liberal state had produced unintended harmful consequences. Norman Podhoretz's magazineCommentary, formerly a journal of the liberal left, had more of a cultural focus, criticizing excesses in the movements for black equality and women's rights, and in the academic left.^{[citation needed]} Through the 1950s and early 1960s the future neoconservatives had been socialists or liberals strongly supportive of the American Civil Rights Movement, integration, and Martin Luther King, Jr..^[16][17]

The neoconservatives, arising from the anti-Stalinist left of the 1950s, opposed the anti-capitalism of the New Left of the 1960s. They broke from the liberal consensus of the early post-World War II years in foreign policy, and opposed Détente with the Soviet Union in the late 1960s and 1970s.

George Orwell has been said by some^[who?] to have anticipated neoconservatism, but this claim has been challenged.^[18][19][20]

Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson, influential neoconservative forerunner.

[edit]Drift away from New Left and Great Society

Neoconservatives came to dislike the counterculture of the 1960s baby boomers, and what they saw as anti-Americanism in the non-interventionism of the movement against the Vietnam War.^{[citation needed]}

As the policies of the New Left pushed these intellectuals farther to the right, they moved toward a more aggressive militarism, while becoming disillusioned with President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society domestic programs. Academics in these circles, many still Democrats, rejected the Democratic Party's foreign policy in the 1970s, especially after the nomination of anti-war candidate George McGovern for president in 1972. The influential 1970 bestseller The Real Majority by future television commentator and neoconservative Ben Wattenberg expressed that the "real majority" of the electorate supported economic liberalism but social conservatism, and warned Democrats it could be disastrous to take liberal stances on certain social and crime issues.^[21]

Many supported Democratic Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson, derisively known as the Senator from Boeing, during his 1972 and 1976 campaigns for president. Among those who worked for Jackson were future neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and Richard Perle. In the late 1970s neoconservative support moved to Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, who promised to confront Soviet expansionism.

Michael Lind, a self-described former neoconservative, explained:^[22]

Neoconservatism... originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman,Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ('Scoop') Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals.' [After the end of the Cold War]... many 'paleoliberals' drifted back to the Democratic center... Today's neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists.

In his semi-autobiographical book, Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, Irving Kristol cited a number of influences on his own thought, including not only Max Shachtman and Leo Strauss but also the skeptical liberal literary critic Lionel Trilling. The influence of Leo Strauss and his disciples on neoconservatism has generated some controversy, with Lind asserting:^[23]

For the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting morality. Religion becomes what Plato called a noble lie. It is a myth which is told to the majority of the society by the philosophical elite in order to ensure social order... In being a kind of secretive elitist approach, Straussianism does resemble Marxism. These ex-Marxists, or in some cases ex-liberal Straussians, could see themselves as a kind of Leninist group, you know, who have this covert vision which they want to use to effect change in history, while concealing parts of it from people incapable of understanding it.

William Kristol defends his father by noting that the criticism of an instrumental view of politics misses the point. When the context is a discussion of religion in the public sphere in a secular nation, religion is inevitably dealt with instrumentally. Apart from that, it should be born in mind that the majority of neoconservatives believe in the truth, as well as the utility, of religion.^[24]

[edit]1980s

As the 1980s wore on, younger second-generation neoconservatives, such as Elliott Abrams, pushed for a clear policy of supporting democracy against both left and right wing dictators, who were at that time increasingly engaged in human rights abuses worldwide.^{[citation needed]} This debate led to a policy shift in 1986, when the Reagan administration (after initially dithering and then with Paul Wolfowitz's demands that he be let go) the administration urged urged Philippines dictator Ferdinand Marcos to step down amid turmoil over a rigged election. Abrams also supported the 1988 Chilean plebiscite that resulted in the restoration of democratic rule and Augusto Pinochet's eventual removal from office.^{[citation needed]} Through the National Endowment for Democracy, led by another neoconservative, Carl Gershman,^{[citation needed]} funds were directed to the anti-Pinochet opposition in order to ensure a fair election.^{[citation needed]}

The election of Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister in the United Kingdom brought new impetus to neoconservative ideas, with Thatcher representing the triumph of neoconservatism over the 'socialist' ideals of the European post-war consensus, built around union representation and the Welfare State (see British Neoconservatism). She also had a very neoconservative foreign policy – favouring strong actions and favouring democracy – she dispatched a fleet and overthrew Gen. Galtieri in Argentina^{[citation needed]} when he invaded the Falkland islands,^[25]she was in support not just of rolling back Saddam Hussein's aggression against Kuwait but of going on to Baghdad and having done with his hideous regime in 1991 ^[26] (the origins of the neoconservative argument over Iraq - that our^[who?] action was too late in 2003, not to rushed - they definitely supported the Shi'ite & Kurdish rebellions in 1991 but people like Paul Wolfowitz were arguing of the dangers posed by a totalitarian and expansionist Iraq as early as 1978 ^[27]) and she was also in favour of the humanitarian intervention that rescued Bosnia and was calling for it in 1992.^[28] She also had a strong sense of getting people away from welfare dependency, which forms a central basis of neoconservative thinking on domestic policy.

[edit]1990s

During the 1990s, neoconservatives were once again in the opposition side of the foreign policy establishment, both under the Republican Administration of President George H. W. Bush and that of his Democratic successor, President Bill Clinton. Many critics charged that the neoconservatives lost their raison d'être and influence following the collapse of the Soviet Union.^[29]

Neoconservative writers were critical of the post-Cold War foreign policy of both George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, which they criticized for reducing military expenditures and lacking a sense of idealism in the promotion of American interests. They accused these Administrations of lacking both moral clarity and the conviction to pursue unilaterally America's international strategic interests.^[30]

The movement was galvanized by the decision of George H. W. Bush and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell to leaveSaddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War in 1991. Some neoconservatives viewed this policy, and the decision not to support indigenous dissident groups such as the Kurds and Shiites in their 1991-1992 resistance to Hussein, as a betrayal of democratic principles.^{[citation needed]}

Ironically, some of those same targets of criticism would later become fierce advocates of neoconservative policies. In 1992, referring to the first Gulf War, then United States Secretary of Defense and future Vice President Dick Cheney, said:

I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home....

And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam [Hussein] worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.^[31]

Within a few years of the Gulf War in Iraq, many neoconservatives were pushing to oust Saddam Hussein. On February 19, 1998, an open letter to President Clinton appeared, signed by dozens of pundits, many identified with neoconservatism and, later, related groups such as the PNAC, urging decisive action to remove Saddam from power.^[32]

Neoconservatives were also members of the blue team, which argued for a confrontational policy toward the People's Republic of China and strong military and diplomatic support for Taiwan.

In the late 1990s Irving Kristol and other writers in neoconservative magazines began touting anti-Darwinist views, in support of intelligent design. Since these neoconservatives were largely of secular backgrounds, a few commentators have speculated that this – along with support for religion generally – may have been a case of a "noble lie", intended to protect public morality, or even tactical politics, to attract religious supporters.^[33]

[edit]2000s

[edit]Administration of George W. Bush

Wikinews has related news:Vanity Fair editor Craig Unger on the Bush family feud, neoconservatives and the Christian right

The Bush campaign and the early Bush Administration did not exhibit strong support for neoconservative principles. As a candidate Bush argued for a restrained foreign policy, stating his opposition to the idea of nation-building^[34] and an early foreign policy confrontation with China was handled without the vociferousness suggested by some neoconservatives.^[35] Also early in the Administration, some neoconservatives criticized Bush's Administration as insufficiently supportive of Israel, and suggested Bush's foreign policies were not substantially different from those of President Clinton.^[36]

Bush's policies changed dramatically immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks. According to columnist Gerard Baker,^[37]

It took, improbably, the arrival of George Bush in the White House and September 11, 2001, to catapult [neoconservatism] into the public consciousness. When Mr Bush cited its most simplified tenet – that the US should seek to promote liberal democracy around the world – as a key case for invading Iraq, neoconservatism was suddenly everywhere. It was, to its many critics, a unified ideology that justified military adventurism, sanctioned torture and promoted aggressive Zionism.

Bush laid out his vision of the future in his State of the Union speech in January 2002, following the September 11, 2001 attacks. The speech, written by (now) neoconservative David Frum, named Iraq, Iran and North Korea as states that "constitute an axis of evil" and "pose a grave and growing danger." Bush suggested the possibility of preemptive war: "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."^[38][39]

Some prominent defense and national security personalities have been quite critical of what they believed was Neoconservative influence in getting the United States to war with Iraq. Retired General William Odom, who had once served as NSA Chief under Ronald Reagan, was openly critical of Neoconservative influence in the decision to go to war, having said "It's pretty hard to imagine us going into Iraq without the strong lobbying efforts from AIPAC and the neocons, who think they know what's good for Israel more than Israel knows."^[40]

Nebraska Republican U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel, who has been critical of the Bush Administration's adoption of neoconservative ideology in his book America: Our Next Chapter, writes, "So why did we invade Iraq? I believe it was the triumph of the so-called neo-conservative ideology, as well as Bush administration arrogance and incompetence that took America into this war of choice ... They obviously made a convincing case to a president with very limited national security and foreign policy experience, who keenly felt the burden of leading the nation in the wake of the deadliest terrorist attack ever on American soil."

[edit]Bush Doctrine

The Bush Doctrine of preventive war was explicitly stated in the National Security Council text "National Security Strategy of the United States", published September 20, 2002. "We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed... even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack... The United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."^[41] Policy analysts noted that the Bush Doctrine as stated in the 2002 NSC document bore a strong resemblance to recommendations originally presented in a controversial Defense Planning Guidance draft written in 1992 by Paul Wolfowitz under the first Bush administration.^[42]

The Bush Doctrine was greeted with accolades by many neoconservatives. When asked whether he agreed with the Bush Doctrine, Max Bootsaid he did, and that "I think [Bush is] exactly right to say we can't sit back and wait for the next terrorist strike on Manhattan. We have to go out and stop the terrorists overseas. We have to play the role of the global policeman... But I also argue that we ought to go further."^[43]Discussing the significance of the Bush Doctrine, neoconservative writer William Kristol claimed: "The world is a mess. And, I think, it's very much to Bush's credit that he's gotten serious about dealing with it... The danger is not that we're going to do too much. The danger is that we're going to do too little."^[44]

[edit]2008 Presidential election and aftermath

This section requires expansion.

John McCain, who was the Republican candidate for the 2008 United States Presidential election, supported continuing the Iraq War, "the issue that is most clearly identified with the neoconservatives." The New York Times further reports that his foreign policy views combine elements of neoconservative and the main competing view in conservative circles, pragmatism, also called realism:^[45]

Among [McCain's advisors] are several prominent neoconservatives, including Robert Kagan... Max Boot... John R. Bolton... [and]Randy Scheunemann.

"It may be too strong a term to say a fight is going on over John McCain's soul", said Lawrence Eagleburger... who is a member of the pragmatist camp... [but he] said, "there is no question that a lot of my far right friends have now decided that since you can’t beat him, let's persuade him to slide over as best we can on these critical issues."

Mr. McCain, who is aware of the concerns, told reporters on his campaign plane early this week that he took foreign policy advice from a wide variety of people... Mr. McCain has always promoted his reputation for departing from ideological orthodoxy in both foreign and domestic policy... he talks to realists like... Henry A. Kissinger and... George P. Shultz.

Following the election, Jonathan Clarke, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, expressed the view that:

"[i]n many ways, the 2008 election represented a direct repudiation of the neocon style of foreign policy based on military-centred, unilateralist overreaching. At first sight, the incoming Obama administration appears to be the polar opposite of neoconservatism. Its instincts are multilateralist, being committed, for example, to adhering to the Kyoto Protocol and to international agreements like the Geneva Convention. It places a high priority on diplomacy, with President-elect Obama being open to direct talks with long-ignored countries like Iran and Cuba. Defense Secretary Gates, who is remaining in office, has made it clear that he regards military intervention as the genuinely last option. Furthermore, the financial meltdown and the drains of the Iraq and Afghan wars have chipped away at the pre-eminence of US power. It is difficult to argue today that the US enjoys a unipolar advantage. The safest bet, therefore, is that we can bid adieu to the neocons and leave their role to be adjudicated by history. They themselves argue that they form part of the mainstream of American history. It seems more likely that they will come to be seen as an aberration."^[46]

[edit]Evolution of views

[edit]Usage and general views

The term has been used before, and its meaning has changed over time. Writing in The Contemporary Review (London) in 1883, Henry Dunckleyused the term to describe factions within the Conservative Party; James Bryce again uses it in his Modern Democracies (1921) to describe British political history of the 1880s. The German authoritarians Carl Schmitt, who became professor at the University of Berlin in 1933, andArthur Moeller van den Bruck were called "neo-conservatives".^[47] In "The Future of Democratic Values" in Partisan Review, July-August 1943, Dwight MacDonald complained of "the neo-conservatives of our time [who] reject the propositions on materialism, Human Nature, and Progress." He cited as an example Jacques Barzun, who was "attempting to combine progressive values and conservative concepts." In his essay "Two Concepts of Liberty," Isaiah Berlin uses the term to refer to those who look for their societal ideal in what has come before; "rooted in the past – la terre et les morts – as maintained by German historicists or French theocrats, or neo-Conservatives in English-speaking countries..."^[48]

In the early 1970s, democratic socialist Michael Harrington used the term in its modern meaning. He characterized neoconservatives as former leftists – whom he derided as "socialists for Nixon" – who had moved significantly to the right. These people tended to remain supporters ofsocial democracy, but distinguished themselves by allying with the Nixon administration over foreign policy, especially by their support for the Vietnam War and opposition to the Soviet Union. They still supported the welfare state, but not necessarily in its contemporary form.

Irving Kristol remarked that a neoconservative is a "liberal mugged by reality", one who became more conservative after seeing the results of liberal policies. Kristol also distinguished three specific aspects of neoconservatism from previous forms of conservatism: neo-conservatives had a forward-looking approach drawn from their liberal heritage, rather than the reactionary and dour approach of previous conservatives; they had a meliorative outlook, proposing alternate reforms rather than simply attacking social liberal reforms; they took philosophical ideas and ideologies very seriously.^[49]

Political philosopher Leo Strauss (1899–1973) was an important intellectual antecedent of neoconservativism. Strauss notably influenced Allan Bloom, author of the 1987 bestseller Closing of the American Mind.

In January 2009, at the close of President George W. Bush's second term in office, Jonathan Clarke, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, proposed the following as the "main characteristics of neoconservatism"^[46]:

• "a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms
• low tolerance for diplomacy
• readiness to use military force
• emphasis on US unilateral action
• disdain for multilateral organizations
• focus on the Middle East
• an us versus them mentality".

[edit]Usage outside the United States

Main article: Neoconservatism (disambiguation)

In other liberal democracies, the meaning of neoconservatism is closely related to its meaning in the United States. Neoconservatives in these countries tend to support the 2003 invasion of Iraq and similar U.S. foreign policy, while differing more on domestic policy. Examples are:

• Japan, see: Neoconservatism in Japan.
• United Kingdom, see British neoconservatism.
• Czech Republic, see Neoconservatism in the Czech Republic.
• Europe, see Neoconservatism in Europe.

In countries which are not liberal democracies, the term has entirely different meanings:

• China and Iran, see Neoconservatism (disambiguation).

[edit]Views on foreign policy

International relations theory
• Idealism  Liberalism  Neoliberalism  Liberal Peace Theory  Sociological liberalism  Interdependence liberalism  Institutional liberalism  Republican liberalism
• Realism  Classical realism  Neorealism (structural realism)  Offensive realism  Defensive realism  Neoclassical realism  Liberal realism ('English School')
• Marxism  World-systems theory
• Dependency theory
• Functionalism  Neofunctionalism
• Critical theories  Constructivism  Feminism
• Other approaches  International Ethics  Postcolonialism  Post-modernism  Historical sociology
• Classifications  Rationalism
Politics portal
v • d • e

"Neo-conservatism is something of a chimera in modern politics. For its opponents it is a distinct political movement that emphasizes the blending of military power with Wilsonian idealism, yet for its supporters it is more of a ‘persuasion’ that individuals of many types drift into and out of. Regardless of which is more correct, it is now widely accepted that the neo-conservative impulse has been visible in modern American foreign policy and that it has left a distinct impact" ^[50]

Historically, neoconservatives supported a militant anticommunism,^[51] tolerated more social welfare spending than was sometimes acceptable to libertarians and paleoconservatives, and sympathized with a non-traditional foreign policy agenda that was less deferential to traditional conceptions of diplomacy and international law and less inclined to compromise principles, even if that meant unilateral action.

The movement began to focus on such foreign issues in the mid-1970s^{[citation needed]}. However, it first crystallized in the late 1960s as an effort to combat the radical cultural changes taking place within the United States. Irving Kristol wrote: "If there is any one thing that neoconservatives are unanimous about, it is their dislike of the counterculture."^[52] Norman Podhoretz agreed: "Revulsion against the counterculture accounted for more converts to neoconservatism than any other single factor."^[53] Ira Chernus argues that the deepest root of the neoconservative movement is its fear that the counterculture would undermine the authority of traditional values and moral norms. Because neoconservatives believe that human nature is innately selfish, they believe that a society with no commonly accepted values based on religion or ancient tradition will end up in a war of all against all. They also believe that the most important social value is strength, especially the strength to control natural impulses. The only alternative, they assume, is weakness that will let impulses run riot and lead to social chaos.^[54]

According to Peter Steinfels, a historian of the movement, the neoconservatives' "emphasis on foreign affairs emerged after the New Left and the counterculture had dissolved as convincing foils for neoconservatism... The essential source of their anxiety is not military or geopolitical or to be found overseas at all; it is domestic and cultural and ideological."^[55] Neoconservative foreign policy parallels their domestic policy.

Believing that America should "export democracy", that is, spread its ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad, they grew to reject U.S. reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish these objectives. Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives take a more idealist stance onforeign policy; adhere less to social conservatism; have a weaker dedication to the policy of minimal government; and in the past, have been more supportive of the welfare state.

Aggressive support for democracies and nation building is additionally justified by a belief that, over the long term, it will reduce the extremism that is a breeding ground for Islamic terrorism. Neoconservatives, along with many other political theorists ^{[citation needed]}, have argued that democratic regimes are less likely to instigate a war than a country with an authoritarian form of government. Further, they argue that the lack of freedoms, lack of economic opportunities, and the lack of secular general education in authoritarian regimes promotes radicalism and extremism. Consequently, neoconservatives advocate the spread of democracy to regions of the world where it currently does not prevail, notably the Arab nations of the Middle East, communist China and North Korea, and Iran.

In July 2008 Joe Klein wrote in TIME magazine that today's neoconservatives are more interested in confronting enemies than in cultivating friends. He questioned the sincerity of neoconservative interest in exporting democracy and freedom, saying, "Neoconservatism in foreign policy is best described as unilateral bellicosity cloaked in the utopian rhetoric of freedom and democracy."^[56]

In February 2009 Andrew Sullivan wrote he no longer took neoconservatism seriously because its basic tenet was defense of Israel:^[57]

The closer you examine it, the clearer it is that neoconservatism, in large part, is simply about enabling the most irredentist elements in Israel and sustaining a permanent war against anyone or any country who disagrees with the Israeli right. That's the conclusion I've been forced to these last few years. And to insist that America adopt exactly the same constant-war-as-survival that Israelis have been slowly forced into... But America is not Israel. And once that distinction is made, much of the neoconservative ideology collapses.

Neoconservatives respond to charges of merely rationalizing support for Israel by noting that their "position on the Middle East conflict was exactly congruous with the neoconservative position on conflicts everywhere else in the world, including places where neither Jews nor Israeli interests could be found—not to mention the fact that non-Jewish neoconservatives took the same stands on all of the issues as did their Jewish confrères."^[58]

[edit]Views on Economics

While neoconservatism is generally supportive of free markets and capitalism, favoring supply side approaches, there are several points of disagreement with classical liberalism and fiscal conservatism: Irving Kristol states that neocons are more relaxed about budget deficits and tend to reject the Hayekian notion that the growth of government influence on society and public welfare is "the road to serfdom".^[59] Indeed, to safeguard democracy, government intervention and budget deficits may sometimes be necessary, Kristol argues.

Further, neoconservative ideology stresses that while free markets do provide material goods in an efficient way, they lack the moral guidance human beings need to fulfill their needs. Morality can only be found in tradition, they say, and, contrary to the libertarian view, markets do pose questions that can't be solved within a purely economic framework. "So as the economy only makes up part of our lives, it must not be allowed to take over and entirely dictate to our society".^[60] Stelzer concludes that while neoconservative economic policy helped to lower taxes and generate growth, it also led to a certain disregard of fiscal responsibility.^[61] Critics consider neoconservatism a bellicose and "heroic" ideology opposed to "mercantile" and "bourgeois" virtues and therefore "a variant of anti-economic thought".^[62]

[edit]Distinctions from other conservatives

Most neoconservatives are members of the Republican Party. They have been in electoral alignment with other conservatives and served in the same presidential administrations. While they have often ignored ideological differences in alliance against those to their left, neoconservatives differ from paleoconservatives. In particular, they disagree with nativism, protectionism, and non-interventionism in foreign policy, ideologies that are rooted in American history, but which have fallen out of the mainstream U.S. politics after World War II. Compared with traditionalist conservatism and libertarianism, which may be non-interventionist, neoconservatism emphasizes defense capability, challenging regimes hostile to the values and interests of the United States^{[citation needed]}. Neoconservatives also believe in democratic peace theory, the proposition that democracies never or almost never go to war with one another.

Neoconservatives are opposed to realist (and especially neorealist) theories and policies of international relations ^{[citation needed]}, often associated with Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. Though Republican and anti-communist, Nixon and Kissinger made pragmatic accommodation with dictators and sought peace through negotiations, diplomacy, and arms control. They pursued détente with the Soviet Union, rather thanrollback, and established relations with the Communist People's Republic of China. On the other hand, American neoconservatives are often held up as exemplars of idealism (often, paradoxically, called liberalism) in international relations, on account of their state-centered and ideological (as opposed to systematic and security-centered) interpretation of world politics.

Unlike most schools of conservative thought, neoconservatives tend to be secular though some believe, as Strauss did, in religion but not god. They think it's good for the masses and promotes morality.

Unlike all other schools of conservative thought, the neoconservatives are prepared to make war on the status quo, sometimes gaining them the name radical conservatives ^[63]. Most recently they've been associated with advocating the removal of Saddam Hussein - something violently opposed by realists and mainstream conservatives as something that could cause instability but the neoconservative view says that instability for now will result in long term stability as a democracy will replace a dictatorial and totalitarian regime

[edit]Criticism of terminology

Some of those identified as neoconservative reject the term, arguing that it lacks a coherent definition, or that it was coherent only in the context of the Cold War.

Conservative writer David Horowitz argues that the increasing use of the term neoconservative since the 2003 start of the Iraq War has made it irrelevant:^{[citation needed]}

Neo-conservatism is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no 'neo-conservative' movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today 'neo-conservatism' identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists.

The term may have lost meaning due to excessive and inconsistent use. For example, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld have been identified as leading neoconservatives despite the fact that they have been life-long conservative Republicans (though Cheney and Rice have supported Irving Kristol's ideas).

Some critics reject the idea that there is a neoconservative movement separate from traditional American conservatism. Traditional conservatives are skeptical of the contemporary usage of the term and dislike being associated with its stereotypes or supposed agendas. Columnist David Harsanyi wrote, "These days, it seems that even temperate support for military action against dictators and terrorists qualifies you a neocon."^[64] Jonah Goldberg rejected the label as trite and over-used, arguing "There's nothing 'neo' about me: I was never anything other than conservative."

[edit]Antisemitism

Further information: New antisemitism

Some writers and intellectuals, particularly conservatives, have argued that criticism of neoconservatism is often a euphemism for criticism of conservative Jews, and that the term has been adopted by the political left to stigmatize support for Israel. In The Chronicle of Higher Education, Robert J. Lieber warned that criticism of the 2003 Iraq War had spawned^[65]

a conspiracy theory purporting to explain how [American] foreign policy... has been captured by a sinister and hitherto little-knowncabal. A small band of neoconservative (read, Jewish) defense intellectuals... has taken advantage of 9/11 to put their ideas over on [Bush]... Thus empowered, this neoconservative conspiracy, "a product of the influential Jewish-American faction of the Trotskyist movement of the '30s and '40s" ([Michael] Lind)... has fomented war with Iraq... in the service of Israel's Likud government (Patrick J. Buchanan and [Eric Alterman).

Time magazine's Joe Klein has suggested it is legitimate to look at the religion of neoconservatives. He does not say there was a conspiracy but says there is a case to be made for disproportionate influence of Jewish neoconservative figures in US foreign policy, and that several of them supported the Iraq war because of Israel's interests, though not necessarily in a conscious contradiction to American interests:

"I do believe that there is a group of people who got involved and had a disproportionate influence on U.S. foreign policy. There were people out there in the Jewish community who saw this as a way to create a benign domino theory and eliminate all of Israel's enemies....I think it represents a really dangerous anachronistic neocolonial sensibility. And I think it is a very, very dangerous form of extremism. I think it's bad for Israel and it's bad for America. And these guys have been getting a free ride. And now these people are backing the notion of a war with Iran and not all of them, but some of them, are doing it because they believe that Iran is an existential threat to Israel."^[66]

David Brooks derided the "fantasies" of "full-mooners fixated on a... sort of Yiddish Trilateral Commission", beliefs which had "hardened into common knowledge... In truth, people labeled neocons (con is short for 'conservative' and neo is short for 'Jewish') travel in widely different circles..."^[67] Barry Rubin argued that the neoconservative label is used as an antisemitic pejorative:^[68]

First, 'neo-conservative' is a codeword for Jewish. As antisemites did with big business moguls in the nineteenth century and Communist leaders in the twentieth, the trick here is to take all those involved in some aspect of public life and single out those who are Jewish. The implication made is that this is a Jewish-led movement conducted not in the interests of all the, in this case, American people, but to the benefit of Jews, and in this case Israel.

[edit]Criticism

The term neoconservative may be used pejoratively by self-described paleoconservatives, Democrats, and by libertarians.

Critics take issue with neoconservatives' support for aggressive foreign policy. Critics from the left take issue with what they characterize asunilateralism and lack of concern with international consensus through organizations such as the United Nations.^[69][70][71] Neoconservatives respond by describing their shared view as a belief that national security is best attained by actively promoting freedom and democracy abroad as in the democratic peace theory through the support of pro-democracy movements, foreign aid and in certain cases military intervention. This is a departure from the traditional conservative tendency to support friendly regimes in matters of trade and anti-communism even at the expense of undermining existing democratic systems and possible destabilization. Author Paul Berman in his book Terror and Liberalism describes it as, "Freedom for others means safety for ourselves. Let us be for freedom for others."

In an essay in the New York Times Magazine in 2006 that was strongly critical of the Iraq invasion,^[10] Francis Fukuyama identified neoconservatism with Leninism.^[10] He wrote that neoconservatives:

…believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevikversion, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support.^[10]

Republican Congressman and libertarian leaning former Presidential candidate Ron Paul has been a long time critic of the neoconservative movement as an attack on freedom and the U.S. Constitution, including an extensive speech on the House floor addressing neoconservative roots and how neoconservatism is neither new nor conservative. That speech can be seen in a variety of places online [1].

[edit]Foreign interventionism

Recently neoconservatives and military, in line with the Bush Doctrine, are speaking of cumulative and synergistic Effects-Based Operations to combat asymmetric warfare nature in the War on Terrorism and their Axis of evil supporters. Such proactive foreign interventionism has over time created some controversy as in the case of Operation Gladio, School of the Americas, the Iraq War, the war in North-West Pakistan and over policies of low intensity conflict or other effects-based operations. Some conservatives, like Rush Limbaugh, say that parts of suchdemonizing controversy is fueling a culture of fear. Currently there are also controversies with Russia accusing the USA of interfering^[72] in theRussia-Georgia war, Bolivian president Evo Morales accusing the USA of supporting an insurrection against him^[73] and Venezuelan presidentHugo Chavez saying the USA has been plotting for overthrowing his presidency.^[74][75] Both Bolivia and Venezuela accuse the George W. Bush administration of interfering with their democratically elected governments. The 2004 award-winning documentary film Fahrenheit 9/11 byMichael Moore criticizes the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The 2007 documentary film The War on Democracy by Christopher Martin and John Pilgertreats the subject of United States history of foreign interventionism in Latin America.

[edit]Imperialism and secrecy

John McGowan, professor of humanities at the University of North Carolina, states, after an extensive review of neoconservative literature and theory, that neoconservatives are attempting to build an American Empire, seen as successor to the British Empire, its aim being to perpetuate a Pax Americana. As imperialism is largely seen as unacceptable by the American public, neoconservatives do not articulate their ideas and goals in a frank manner in public discourse. McGowan states,^[76]

Frank neoconservatives like Robert Kaplan and Niall Ferguson recognize that they are proposing imperialism as the alternative to liberal internationalism. Yet both Kaplan and Ferguson also understand that imperialism runs so counter to American's liberal tradition that it must... remain a foreign policy that dare not speak its name... While Ferguson, the Brit, laments that Americans cannot just openly shoulder the white man's burden, Kaplan the American, tells us that "only through stealth and anxious foresight" can the United States continue to pursue the "imperial reality [that] already dominates our foreign policy", but must be disavowed in light of "our anti-imperial traditions, and... the fact that imperialism is delegitimized in public discourse"... The Bush administration, justifying all of its actions by an appeal to "national security", has kept as many of those actions as it can secret and has scorned all limitations to executive power by other branches of government or international law.

Tim Dickinson has accused the George W. Bush administration of political denialism,^[77].

[edit]Friction with paleoconservatism

Main article: Neoconservatism and paleoconservatism

Starting in the 1980s, disputes over Israel and public policy contributed to a sharp conflict with paleoconservatives, who argue that neoconservatives are an illegitimate addition to the conservative movement. For example, Pat Buchanan calls neoconservatism "a globalist, interventionist, open borders ideology."^[78] The open rift is often traced back to a 1981 dispute over Ronald Reagan's nomination of Mel Bradford, a Southerner, to run the National Endowment for the Humanities. Bradford withdrew after neoconservatives complained that he had criticized Abraham Lincoln; the paleoconservatives supported Bradford.

[edit]Related publications and institutions

[edit]Institutions American Israel Public Affairs Committee Bradley Foundation Ethics and Public Policy Center Foundation for Defense of Democracies Henry Jackson Society Hudson Institute Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs Project for the New American Century American Enterprise Institute [edit]Publications Commentary Front Page Magazine Policy Review The National Interest The Public Interest The Weekly Standard

[edit]See also

• Clash of Civilizations
• Factions in the Republican Party (United States)
• Globalization
• Jewish right
• Liberal Hawk
• Neoconservatism and paleoconservatism
• Neoconservatism in Japan
• Neoliberalism
• Neoliberalism in international relations
• Paleoconservatism
• Project for a New American Century
• Plato's Republic
• Trotskyism

[edit]Notes

1. ^ Polity, 2008 Robinson, Paul. Dictionary of International Security. Polity, 2008. p. 135
2. ^ Fiala, Andrew. The Just War Myth. Rowman & Littlefield. 2008. p. 133
3. ^ Vaughn, Stephen L. Encyclopedia of American Journalism. CRC Press, 2007 p. 329
4. ^ Tanner, Michael. Leviathan on the Right. Cato Institute, 2007. pp 33-34.
5. ^ ^a b Goldberg, Jonah (2003-05-20). "The Neoconservative Invention". National Review. Retrieved 2008-03-30.
6. ^ Kinsley, Michael (2005-04-17). "The Neocons' Unabashed Reversal". The Washington Post: p. B07. Retrieved 2008-03-30.
7. ^ Harrington, Michael (Fall 1973). "The Welfare State and Its Neoconservative Critics". Dissent 20. Cited in: Isserman, Maurice (2000). The Other American: the life of Michael Harrington. New York: PublicAffairs. ISBN 1891620304. "...reprinted as a chapter in Harrington's 1976 book The Twilight of Capitalism, pp. 165-272. Earlier in 1973 he had sketched out some of the same ideas in a brief contribution to a symposium on welfare sponsored byCommentary, "Nixon, the Great Society, and the Future of Social Policy", Commentary 55 (May 1973), p.39"
8. ^ Dionne, E.J. (1991). Why Americans Hate Politics. New York: Simon & Schuster. pp. 55–61. ISBN 0-671-68255-5.
9. ^ Marshall, J.M. "Remaking the World: Bush and the Neoconservatives". From Foreign Affairs, November/December 2003. Retrieved on December 1, 2008.
10. ^ ^a b c d Fukuyama, F. (February 19, 2006). After Neoconservatism. New York Times Magazine. Retrieved on: December 1, 2008.
11. ^ see "Administration of George W. Bush."
12. ^ Kristol, Irving (1999). Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea. Ivan R. Dee. ISBN 1-56663-228-5.
13. ^ Gerson, Mark (Fall 1995). "Norman's Conquest,". Policy Review. Retrieved 2008-03-31.
14. ^ Pohoretz, Norman (1982-05-02). "The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy". The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved 2008-03-30.
15. ^ Boneau, Denis. "The New York Intellectuals and the invention of neoconservatism". Voltairenet.org. Retrieved 17 May 2009.
16. ^ Nuechterlein, James (May 1996). "The End of Neoconservatism". First Things 63: 14–15. Retrieved 2008-03-31. "Neoconservatives differed with traditional conservatives on a number of issues, of which the three most important, in my view, were the New Deal, civil rights, and the nature of the Communist threat... On civil rights, all neocons were enthusiastic supporters of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 (sic), while the National Review was suspicious of King and opposed to federal legislation forbidding racial discrimination.".
17. ^ Gerson, Mark (Fall 1995). "Norman's Conquest,". Policy Review. Retrieved 2008-03-31. "Podhoretz was a liberal in that he supported the New Deal and civil rights".
18. ^ "PBS: Thinktank". Retrieved 17 August 2009.
19. ^ "PBS: Thinktank". Retrieved 17 August 2009.
20. ^ Hanks, Robert (June 1, 2002). "Reclaiming George, Daily Telegraph". The Daily Telegraph (London). Retrieved 17 August 2009.
21. ^ Mason, Robert (2004). Richard Nixon and the Quest for a New Majority. UNC Press. pp. 81–88. ISBN 0807829056.
22. ^ Lind, Michael (2004-02-23). "A Tragedy of Errors". The Nation. Retrieved 2008-03-30.
23. ^ The Power of Nightmares, episode 2.
24. ^ Mark Gerson: The Neoconservative Vision: From the Cold War to the Culture Wars, pp. 284-85. Madison Books, 1997. ISBN 1-56883-054-5.
25. ^ http://www.euronews.net/2009/04/01/argentina-mourns-first-post-junta-president/
26. ^ http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-67537838.html
27. ^ http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/175524-1 (at about 14:35)
28. ^ Bevins, Anthony; Goodwin, Stephen (December 17, 1992). "Thatcher warns of 'Holocaust' risk in Bosnia appeal". The Independent (London). Retrieved May 20, 2010.
29. ^ Jaques, Martin (2006-11-16). "America faces a future of managing imperial decline". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 2008-01-31.
30. ^ Bill Clinton and the Decline of the Military of December 2006 at "Human Events Underground Conservative" website, quotes several former articles, and an ongoing research, claiming that President Clinton had purposefully lowered the US military budget.
31. ^ Pope, Charles (2008-09-29). "Cheney changed his view on Iraq". Seattle Post Intelligencer. Retrieved 2008-10-25.
32. ^ Solarz, Stephen, et al. "Open Letter to the President", February 19, 1998, online at IraqWatch.org. Accessed September 16, 2006.
33. ^ Bailey, Ronald (July 1997). "Origin of the Specious". Reason. Retrieved 2008-03-31.
34. ^ "Bush Begins Nation Building". WCVB TV. 2003-04-16.
35. ^ Vernon, Wes (2001-04-07). "China Plane Incident Sparks Re-election Drives of Security-minded Senators". Newsmax. Retrieved 2008-03-30.
36. ^ Harnden, Toby; Philps, Alan (2001-06-26). "Bush accused of adopting Clinton policy on Israel". The Daily Telegraph (London). Retrieved 2008-03-30.
37. ^ Baker, Gerard (2007-04-13). "The neocons have been routed". The Times (London). Retrieved May 20, 2010.
38. ^ "The President's State of the Union Speech". White House Press Release, Jan. 29, 2002.
39. ^ "Bush Speechwriter's Revealing Memoir Is Nerd's Revenge". The New York Observer, Jan. 19, 2003
40. ^ "General Condemnation".
41. ^ "National Security Strategy of the United States". National Security Council. 2002-09-20.
42. ^ "The evolution of the Bush doctrine", in "The war behind closed doors". Frontline, PBS. February 20, 2003.
43. ^ "The Bush Doctrine". Think Tank, PBS. July 11, 2002.
44. ^ "Assessing the Bush Doctrine", in "The war behind closed doors". Frontline, PBS. February 20, 2003.
45. ^ Bumiller, Elisabeth; Larry Rohter (2008-04-10). "2 Camps Trying to Influence McCain on Foreign Policy". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-04-16.
46. ^ ^a b "Viewpoint: The end of the neocons?", Jonathan Clarke, British Broadcasting Corporation, January 13, 2009
47. ^ Fritz Stern: Five Germanies I Have Known (2006 hc), p.72
48. ^ Isaiah Berlin, "Two Concepts of Liberty," in The Proper Study of Mankind: An Anthology of Essays (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2000), 241.
49. ^ Kristol, Irving. "American conservatism 1945-1995". Public Interest, Fall 1995.
50. ^ http://www.e-ir.info/?p=1394
51. ^ Muravchik, Joshua (2006-11-19). "Can the Neocons Get Their Groove Back?". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2006-11-19.
52. ^ Kristol, What Is a Neoconservative? 87
53. ^ Podhoretz, 275.
54. ^ Chernus, chapter 1.
55. ^ Steinfels, 69.
56. ^ Klein, Joe "McCain's Foreign Policy Frustration" TIME magazine, July 23, 2008
57. ^ Andrew Sullivan,"A False Premise", Sullivan's Daily Dish, February 5, 2009.
58. ^ Joshua Muravchik: The Past, Present, and Future of Neoconservatism Commentary October 2007.
59. ^ Irving Kristol: The Neoconservative Persuasion. Weekly Standard, August 25th, 2003http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp?page=2
60. ^ Murray, p. 40
61. ^ Stelzer, p. 198
62. ^ William Coleman: Heroes or Heroics? Neoconservatism, Capitalism, and Bourgeois Ethics. Social Affairs Unit.http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000553.php
63. ^ Neoconservatism: Why we Need it (Douglas Murray)
64. ^ Harsanyi, David (2002-08-13). "Beware the Neocons". FrontPage Magazine. Retrieved 2008-08-31.
65. ^ Lieber, Robert J. (2003-04-29). "The Left's Neocon Conspiracy Theory". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 2008-03-31.
66. ^ Jeffrey Goldberg: Joe Klein on Neoconservatives and Iran The Atlantic blog, July 29, 2008.
67. ^ Brooks, David (2004). Irwin Stelzer, ed.. ed. The NeoCon Reader. Grove. ISBN 0-8021-4193-5.
68. ^ Rubin, Barry (2003-04-06 accessdate=2008-03-31). "Letter from Washington". h-antisemitism.
69. ^ Kinsley, Michael (2005-04-17). "The Neocons' Unabashed Reversal". The Washington Post: p. B07. Retrieved 2006-12-25. Kinsley quotes Rich Lowry, whom he describes as "a conservative of the non-neo variety", as criticizing the neoconservatives "messianic vision" and "excessive optimism"; Kinsley contrasts the present-day neoconservative foreign policy to earlier neoconservative Jeane Kirkpatrick's "tough-minded pragmatism".
70. ^ Martin Jacques, "The neocon revolution", The Guardian, March 31, 2005. Accessed online December 25, 2006. (Cited for "unilateralism".)
71. ^ Rodrigue Tremblay, "The Neo-Conservative Agenda: Humanism vs. Imperialism", presented at the Conference at the American Humanist Association annual meeting Las Vegas, May 9, 2004. Accessed online 25 December 2006 on the site of the Mouvement laïque québécois.
72. ^ CNN: Putin accuses U.S. of orchestrating Georgian war, September 12, 2008
73. ^ CNN: Bolivian president calls for ouster of U.S. ambassador, September 12, 2008
74. ^ CNN: Venezuela to expel US ambassador over coup plot, September 12, 2008
75. ^ TIME: U.S. Ambassador Patrick Duddy given 72 hours to leave Venezuela, September 12, 2008
76. ^ McGowan, J. (2007). "Neoconservatism". American Liberalism: An Interpretation for Our Time. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. pp. 124–133. ISBN 0-807-83171-9.
77. ^ Dickinson, Tim (2007-06-20). "The Secret Campaign of President Bush's Administration To Deny Global Warming". Current Biology (Rolling Stone). Retrieved 2007-07-14.
78. ^ Tolson 2003.

[edit]References

• Auster, Lawrence. "Buchanan's White Whale", FrontPageMag, March 19, 2004. Accessed online 16 September 2006.
• Joyce Battle, ed. "Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984", National Security Archive, Electronic Briefing Book No. 82, February 25, 2003. Accessed online 16 September 2006.
• Buchanan, Patrick J.. "Whose War", The American Conservative, March 24, 2003. Accessed online 16 September 2006.
• Bush, George W., Gerhard Schroeder, et al., "Transcript: Bush, Schroeder Roundtable With German Professionals", The Washington Post, February 23, 2005. Accessed online 16 September 2006.
• Chernus, Ira. Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin, Boulder: Paradigm, 2006. ISBN 1-59451-276-0.
• Dean, John. Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, Little, Brown, 2004. ISBN 0-316-00023-X (hardback). Critical account of neo-conservatism in the administration of George W. Bush.
• Frum, David. "Unpatriotic Conservatives", National Review, April 7, 2003. Accessed online 16 September 2006.
• Gerson, Mark, ed. The Essential Neo-Conservative Reader, Perseus, 1997. ISBN 0-201-15488-9 (paperback), ISBN 0-201-47968-0(hardback).
• Gerson, Mark. "Norman's Conquest: A Commentary on the Podhoretz Legacy", Policy Review, Fall 1995, Number 74. Accessed online 16 September 2006.
• Gray, John. Black Mass, Allen Lane, 2007. ISBN 978-0-7139-9915-0.
• Hanson, Jim The Decline of the American Empire, Praeger, 1993. ISBN 0-275-94480-8.
• Halper, Stefan and Jonathan Clarke. America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order, Cambridge University Press, 2004. ISBN 0-521-83834-7.
• Kagan, Robert, et al., Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy. Encounter Books, 2000. ISBN 1-893554-16-3.
• Kristol, Irving. Neo-Conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea: Selected Essays 1949-1995, New York: The Free Press, 1995. ISBN 0-02-874021-1 (10). ISBN 978-0-02-874021-8 (13). (Hardcover ed.) Reprinted as Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, New York: Ivan R. Dee, 1999. ISBN 1-56663-228-5 (10). (Paperback ed.)
• —. "What Is a Neoconservative?", Newsweek, January 19, 1976.
• Lara Amat y León, Joan y Antón Mellón, Joan, “Las persuasiones neoconservadoras: F. Fukuyama, S. P. Huntington, W. Kristol y R. Kagan”, en Máiz, Ramón (comp.), Teorías políticas contemporáneas, (2ªed.rev. y ampl.) Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia, 2009. ISBN 978-84-9876-463-5.Ficha del libro
• Lara Amat y León, Joan, “Cosmopolitismo y anticosmoplitismo en el neoconservadurismo: Fukuyama y Huntington”, en Nuñez, Paloma y Espinosa, Javier (eds.), Filosofía y política en el siglo XXI. Europa y el nuevo orden cosmopolita, Akal, Madrid, 2009. ISBN 978-84-460-2875-8. Ficha del libro
• Lasn, Kalle. "Why won't anyone say they are Jewish?", Adbusters, March/April 2004. Accessed online September 16, 2006.
• Lindberg, Tom. "Neoconservatism's Liberal Legacy", Policy Review, 127 (2004): 3-22.
• Mann, James. Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet, Viking, 2004. ISBN 0-670-03299-9 (cloth).
• Manuel, Sam. "Jew-hatred, red-baiting: heart of claims of 'neocon' conspiracy", The Militant (U.S.), June 28, 2004. Accessed online 16 September 2006.
• Mascolo, Georg. ""A Leaderless, Directionless Superpower: interview with Ex-Powell aide Wilkerson", Spiegel Online, December 6, 2005. Accessed 16 September 2006.
• Muravchik, Joshua. "Renegades", Commentary, October 1, 2002. Bibliographical information is available online, the article itself is not.
• Muravchik, Joshua. "The Neoconservative Cabal", Commentary, September, 2003. Bibliographical information is available online, the article itself is not.
• Prueher, Joseph. U.S. apology to China over spy plane incident, April 11, 2001. Reproduced on sinomania.com. Accessed online 16 September 2006.
• Podoretz, Norman. The Norman Podhoretz Reader. New York: Free Press, 2004. ISBN 0-7432-3661-0.
• Roucaute Yves. Le Neoconservatisme est un humanisme. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2005.ISBN 2-13-055016-9.
• Roucaute Yves. La Puissance de la Liberté. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2004.ISBN 2-13-054293-X.
• Ruppert, Michael C.. Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil, New Society, 2004. ISBN 0-86571-540-8.
• Ryn, Claes G., America the Virtuous: The Crisis of Democracy and the Quest for Empire, Transaction, 2003. ISBN 0-7658-0219-8 (cloth).
• Stelzer, Irwin, ed. Neoconservatism, Atlantic Books, 2004.
• Smith, Grant F. Deadly Dogma: How Neoconservatives Broke the Law to Deceive America. ISBN 0-9764437-4-0.
• Solarz, Stephen, et al. "Open Letter to the President", February 19, 1998, online at IraqWatch.org. Accessed September 16, 2006.
• Steinfels, Peter. The Neoconservatives: The Men Who Are Changing America's Politics, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1979. ISBN 0-671-22665-7.
• Strauss, Leo. Natural Right and History, University of Chicago Press, 1999. ISBN 0-226-77694-8.
• Strauss, Leo. The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism, University of Chicago Press, 1989. ISBN 0-226-77715-4.
• Tolson, Jay. "The New American Empire?", U.S. News and World Report, January 13, 2003. Accessed online September 16, 2006.
• Wilson, Joseph. The Politics of Truth. Carroll & Graf, 2004. ISBN 0-7867-1378-X.
• Woodward, Bob. Plan of Attack, Simon and Schuster, 2004. ISBN 0-7432-5547-X.
• Raimondo, Justin. Reclaiming the American Right:The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement, Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2008.ISBN 1-933859-60-1.

[edit]Further reading

This article's further reading may not follow Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive, less relevant or many publications with the same point of view; or by incorporating the relevant publications into the body of the article through appropriate citations. (December 2009)

• Dorrien, Gary. The Neoconservative Mind. ISBN 1-56639-019-2
• Ehrman, John. The Rise of Neoconservatism: Intellectual and Foreign Affairs 1945—1994, Yale University Press, 2005, ISBN 0-300-06870-0.
• Friedman, Murray. The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy. Cambridge University Press, 2006.ISBN 0-521-54501-3.
• Heilbrunn, Jacob. They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons, Doubleday (January 15, 2008) ISBN 0-385-51181-7
• Murray, Douglas. Neoconservatism: Why We Need It. ISBN 1-59403-147-9.
• Smith, Grant F., ed. Neocon Middle East Policy: The 'Clean Break' Plan Damage Assessment. ISBN 0-9764437-3-2.

[edit]History

• Fischel, Jack R. "The Rise of Neoconservatism", (book review).
• Heilbrunn, Jacob. "5 Myths About Those Nefarious Neocons", The Washington Post, February 10, 2008.
• Lind, Michael. "How Neoconservatives Conquered Washington", Salon, April 9, 2003.
• "Neocon 101", Christian Science Monitor.
• Ross, Benjamin. "Who Named the Neocons?", Dissent, Summer 2007.

[edit]Identity

• Boot, Max. "What the Heck Is a 'Neocon'?". An attempt to deny, in contrast to Kristol, the existence of neoconservatism.
• List of prominent neoconservatives, Sourcewatch.org.
• "Neoconservatism: Key Figures",The Christian Science Monitor.
• Steigerwald, Bill. "So, what is a 'neocon'?"
• Stelzer, Irwin. "Nailing the neocon myth".
• Selden, Zachary , "Neoconservatives and the American Mainstream". Selden is director of the Defence and Security Committee of theNATO Parliamentary Assembly.

[edit]Explanations of ideas

• Kristol, Irving. "The Neoconservative Persuasion".
• "Q&A: Neocon power examined", The Christian Science Monitor. Max Boot discusses the extent of neoconservative influence.

[edit]Critiques

• Fukuyama,,Francis. "After Neoconservatism". Archived copy of original New York Times article. Also available in .pdf
• "Neocons Put on a Surge-Stravaganza", CommonDreams.org News Center, September 8, 2007.
• Peak, Alexander S. "Conservative Socialism", LewRockwell.com. Libertarian critique of neoconservatism, likening it to socialism. Also available in .pdf
• RightWeb, International Relations Center. Critical analysis and biographies of neoconservatives.

[edit]Conservative criticism

• Buchanan, Patrick J. "Nation or Notion?" buchanan.org, October 4, 2006.
• Gottfried, Paul. "What's In A Name? The Curious Case Of 'Neoconservative'" Vdare.com, April 30, 2003.
• Gottfried, Paul. "Conservatives, Neoconservatives, Paleoconservatives: What Next?" Vdare.com April 12, 2007.
• Gottfried, Paul. "Strauss & the Straussians" Humanitas, Vol. 18, Nos 1-2, 2005.
• Grigg, William Norman. "Neoconservative fascism", LewRockwell.com, May 4, 2007. A paleolibertarian critique of neoconservatism.
• Ryn, Claes G. Strauss & History. Humanitas, Vol. 18, Nos 1-2, 2005.
• "Why do NeoCons hate France?" Conservative Times, April 20, 2007.
• Zmirak, J.P., "America the Abstraction" The American Conservative, January 13, 2003.

[edit]Leo Strauss and Trotskyism

• Balint, Benjamin. "Review of The Truth About Leo Strauss"
• Ben Jelloun, Mohammed. "Wilsonian Or Straussian Post-Cold War Idealism?", Swans.com. A postcolonial-Nietzschean view)
• "Confronting Neoconservatism", Logos, Spring 2004. Several articles on neoconservatism.
• Drury, Shadia. "Leo Strauss and the neoconservatives", Evatt Foundation, September 11, 2004. Claims Strauss inspired the neocon movement.
• Eden, Ami. "Now it's Trotsky's fault?", The Forward. Skeptical look at the existence of a Trotskyist-Neoconservative link.
• King, Bill. "Neoconservatives and Trotskyism" Challenges the view that there is a relation between the neocons and Trotskyism.
• Raimondo, Justin. "Trotsky, Strauss, and the Neocons", Antiwar.com, June 13, 2003. Alleges neoconservatism is a conspiracy inspired by Leo Strauss and Max Shachtman.
• Zmik, J. P. "America the Abstraction" an analysis of the Trotskyite connections to the origins of neoconservativism, from a paleoconservative viewpoint.
• Raimondo, Justin. "The Imperial Delusion", Antiwar.com, 2006.
• Ross, Ben. "George Bush's Philosophers" Left-liberal account of neoconservatism's origins.
• Wald, Alan. "Debate with Michael Lind on neoconservatism and Trotskyism", History News Network.

[edit]American Jews

• Gorin, Julia. "Blame It on Neo", OpinionJournal, September 23, 2004. "Just because we call ourselves 'neocons', it doesn't mean you can."
• Lobe, Jim. "Attacking Neo-Cons From the Right". Review of America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order, a critique by two center-right authors.

[edit]External links

• Adam Curtis. The Power of Nightmares, BBC. Archive.

Categories: Conservatism | Neoconservatism | Foreign relations of the United States | Anti-communism in the United States | Right-wing politics | Political history of the United States | Political ideologies

• This page was last modified on 15 June 2010 at 20:34.
• Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
  Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
• Contact us

• 
  
• Privacy policy
• About Wikipedia
• Disclaimers

• 
• 

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝


【出展リンク２】：　新保守主義　：　


http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/新保守主義_(アメリカ合衆国)

アメリカ合衆国における新保守主義（しんほしゅしゅぎ、英：neoconservatism：ネオコンサバティズム、略称：ネオコン）は、保守ムーブメントの1つ。米国において、今日のタカ派外交政策姿勢に非常に影響を与えている。

目次  [非表示] 1 アメリカ新保守主義の呼称 2 新保守主義者の歴史 2.1 起源 2.2 新左翼及びソ連との緊張緩和（デタント）への反対 2.3 ネオコンとイスラエルの関係 3 他の米国保守思想との違い 3.1 伝統主義 3.2 リバタリアニズム 3.3 反共主義 3.4 アメリカ合衆国の保守合同 3.5 ネオコンの軍事・外交政策 4 ネオコンとされている有名な思想家・政治家 5 関連項目 6 外部リンク

アメリカ新保守主義の呼称 [編集]

Neoconservatismの直訳として新保守主義が使用されている。この言葉は形容矛盾であるが、元祖ネオコン思想家の1人であるノーマン・ポドレツによれば、「ネオコンは元来左翼でリベラルな人々が保守に鞍替えしたからネオなのだ。」として、ジョージ・W・ブッシュなどに代表されるいわゆる旧来保守との区別を呼び掛けている。アメリカ内ではメディアや民主党などによって蔑称として使われ、略称としてNeocon（ネオコン）と呼ばれる事が多い。

新保守主義者の歴史 [編集]

起源 [編集]

アメリカ合衆国の新保守主義の源流は、1930年代に反スターリン主義左翼として活動したトロツキストたちによる。後に「ニューヨーク知識人」と呼ばれるグループである。ニューヨーク知識人の多くは、アメリカの公立大学の中で最も歴史のある大学の1つであるニューヨーク市立大学シティカレッジ (CCNY) に学んでいる。CCNYは、高度に選択的な承認基準と自由教育により、20世紀初頭から中期にかけて「プロレタリアのハーヴァード」(“Harvard of the Proletariat”)と称されていた。それは当時、ハーヴァード大学をはじめとするアイビー・リーグの私立学校が、大多数のユダヤ系アメリカ人や有色人種たちに関し排他的な入試制度を持っていたからである。

当代のニューヨーク知識人には、社会学者ダニエル・ベル、政治学者シーモア・リプセット、リチャード・ホフスタッター、マイケル・ハリントン（シカゴ大学出身。左翼から保守に移行した知識人を批判的に「新保守主義」を名付けたのは、彼といわれている）、政治学者マーティン・ダイアモンド、文芸批評のアーヴィング・ハウなどがおり、こうした人の中に、のちにアメリカ新保守主義の創設者（founder）[1]と考慮される文芸批評家のアーヴィング・クリストル、その妻であり歴史家のガートルード・ヒンメルファーブ、ネーサン・グレイザー、シドニー・フックらがいた。したがってニューヨーク知識人の中で新保守主義へと転向したのは、一部に過ぎない。また、重要な人物としてマックス・シャハトマンが挙げられる。ポーランド移民である彼はトロツキズムの党派社会主義労働者党―第四インターナショナルから、独ソ不可侵条約締結とソ連邦によるバルト3国侵攻を期に、ソ連邦の国家性格やその「帝国主義からの防衛」の是非をめぐってトロツキーらと論争し、社会主義労働者党から分裂してアメリカ労働者党を結成する。ハリントンやハウは、彼に魅了され左翼になった（後に転向）。

第二次世界大戦後、シャハトマンのグループは民主党に入り込み、党内最左派として UAW（全米自動車労組）などを基盤に活動していく。人数的には少数派だったがAFL-CIO（アメリカ労働総同盟・産業別組合会議）の会長や政府高官にメンバーを送り込んでいた。1970年代に入るとさらに保守化し、シャハトマンの死後このグループは分解の方向に向かった。このシャハトマン・グループ傘下の青年社会主義同盟に入っていたのがカークパトリックなどである。シャハトマンの新保守主義への貢献は、戦前にはトロツキスト・グループを形成し青年ユダヤ人に知的公共空間を提供したこと、戦後はユダヤ人たちが米国の現実政治のなかで影響力を与えていく回路をつくりあげたことだろう。

なお、左翼からネオコンに至ったことで、両者に通底する何らかの部分があったと指摘するマイケル・リンドは、新保守主義の「民主主義の輸出」というコンセプトは彼らが青年期に信奉したトロツキズムの「革命の輸出」の焼き直しであるとしている。

新左翼及びソ連との緊張緩和（デタント）への反対 [編集]

最初の社会政策批評家の重要なグループが労働者階級から出現したのち、元祖ネオコン（まだこの言葉は使っていなかったが）たちは、基本的に社会民主主義者か社会主義者であった。彼らは第二次世界大戦を強く支持した。

元祖ネオコン思想家こと、アーヴィング・クリストルやノーマン・ポドレツは、『コメンタリー誌』に関係していた。

初期ネオコンたちは反スターリン主義者であり、1950年代 - 1960年代初頭の時期に公民権運動・キング牧師を強く支持していた。しかし、彼らはジョンソン政権のいう「偉大な社会」に幻滅を感じ、1960年代のカウンターカルチャーを軽蔑した。そして彼らは、ベビーブーマーの間、とりわけベトナム反戦運動や新左翼運動の中に反米主義が広がっているのを感じた。

アーヴィング・クリストル（『コメンタリー誌』の元編集長、ワシントンのアメリカンエンタープライズ研究所の上級フェロー、タカ派雑誌『ナショナル・インタレスト』の出版者）によれば、ネオコンは、「リアリティに襲われたリベラル」である。

ネオコンとイスラエルの関係 [編集]

ネオコンを支えているのは共和党のイスラエル政策を支持するアメリカ国内在住のユダヤ（イスラエル）・ロビーである。アメリカのユダヤ系市民はアメリカの総人口3億人に対して600万人に満たないが、その内富裕層の割合が多くアメリカの国防・安全保障政策に深く関わっている。歴史的に数多くの差別を受けてきた経緯からかつてはリベラル派の民主党支持者が多かったが、民主党のビル・クリントン政権が進めた中東政策に対する不満から、共和党に鞍替えしている有権者が多い。共和党の掲げる中東の民主化政策が結果的にはイスラエルを利することになるからである。また、同時にイスラエルの右派政党リクード党も共和党と利害が一致しているため手を結ぶことが多い。このような経緯から、2001年に登場した共和党ジョージ・W・ブッシュ政権には数多くのネオコンが参入しており、同時多発テロ以降の強硬政策を推し進めた。

他の米国保守思想との違い [編集]

元来アメリカ合衆国には3つの保守があったといわれている。

1. ヨーロッパの保守思想に近い伝統主義。
2. リバタリアニズム。
3. 反共主義（反共産主義）。

伝統主義 [編集]

アメリカ合衆国には伝統及び原点回帰すべき過去が存在しないがゆえ、アメリカ合衆国の伝統主義者は「古き良きものへの回帰」への希求を志向する傾向が強い。近年では宗教（キリスト教、特に福音派）への接近、宗教の社会的立場の復権運動と結びつける思想が強くなっている。

リバタリアニズム [編集]

経済的自由と個人的自由の双方を重視する思想。いかなる領域においても政府の介入を基本的に認めない。 「大きな政府」に傾きがちなリベラルはもちろん、個人の私生活を束縛しようとする伝統主義とも対立する。また、新保守主義とは異なり、軍備拡張や徴兵制、海外派兵には否定的である。 （リバタリアニズムはアメリカの伝統に根ざした思想であるが、狭義の「保守」ではない点に注意。）

反共主義 [編集]

ネオコンは、この反共主義の考え方を多く受け継いでいるという俗説があるが、反共主義外交は1つのイデオロギーではなく、観念であり、ネオコンの民主主義といったイデオロギーとは異質である。

アメリカ合衆国の保守合同 [編集]

重要なのは、アメリカ合衆国の保守の立場を採る組織や個人の間では、必ずしも利害が共通しているわけではないと言う事である。

例えば、キリスト教精神に重点を置く伝統主義者と、完全なる自由競争を唱えるリバタリアニズムの間で、極めて深刻な政治対立を引き起こした。

また、外交政策や安全保障政策に重大な関心を払わない伝統主義者とリバタリアニズムは、反共主義の積極介入主義との間で、極めて深刻な政治対立を引き起こした。

この3つの保守思想を1つの大きな「保守主義」としてまとめあげることに成功したのが、1955年に創刊されたナショナル・レビューという雑誌である。

この雑誌の編集者の ウィリアム・バックリー・ジュニア は、上記3つの保守派に対し、それぞれの問題の起因はリベラリズムにあると主張した。「リベラリズムは反共主義者の嫌う共産主義を容認し、リベラリズムは伝統主義者の嫌う伝統の破壊者であり、リベラリズムはリバタリアニズムの嫌う大きな政府の支持者である」とし、リベラリズムと対立する3つの異なる思想を統合したのである。

この試みは1960年代のアメリカの保守主義運動と連動して、1つの潮流を作り出した。

1964年、共和党大統領候補バリー・ゴールドウォーターの有名な演説が行われた。

「自由を守るための急進主義は、いかなる意味においても悪徳ではない。そして、正義を追求しようとする際の穏健主義は、いかなる意味においても美徳ではない」

保守派はこの演説を大歓迎した。そして、このゴールドウォーター演説に影響された多くの保守派の政治家が、アメリカの次代を担うことになる。

また重要な指摘として、それまでの共和党は、現在のような保守主義ではなかったという点がある。共和党が保守派を利用したのではなく、保守派が共和党を利用したのである。これにより、共和党の保守化が進み、1980年代のレーガン政権誕生へと繋がってゆく。

2001年、保守派は「思いやりのある保守主義」を掲げ、それらの政治勢力に後押しされる形でブッシュ政権が誕生した。前述のような背景、思想を持つ人物がブッシュ政権の中枢を担っている。

ネオコンの軍事・外交政策 [編集]

ネオコンは、自由主義・民主主義を世界に広めることを理想とし、軍事政策や外交政策は新現実主義路線を採る。また、自由主義と民主主義は人類普遍の価値観であると考え、その啓蒙と拡大に努めている。

また、ネオコンは核戦略において、元トロツキストでランド研究所の重鎮アルバート・ウォルステッター (w:Albert Wohlstetter)に強い影響を受けている。

「緊急事（同時多発テロなど）にはアメリカの国防に何ら寄与しない」として、国際連合に極めて批判的である。国際連合の枠外による国活動を主張するが、それは単独行動主義的であるとして、同盟諸国から批判されることも多い。「有志連合」などは、国際連合の影響力の及ばない多国籍からなる一時的な国際組織として注目されたが、アメリカ合衆国はこの有志連合を恒久的に維持する姿勢を現時点では見せていない。

CIAにも批判的であることが多い。そのため、軍産複合体と利害が近く、CIAを犠牲にして国防総省の発言力を高めることに積極的である。彼らがCIAを嫌う理由は職員に民主党員が多いためなど、諸説あるが、最も考えられるのはCIAの過去にあるといわれている（反共を理由に腐敗する独裁政権や軍事政権に対するCIAの援助に反感を持っているとされる）。といってもこれもブッシュ政権での傾向であり、カークパトリックといったかつてのネオコンはその援助に積極的だった。ポスト冷戦であるジョージ・H・W・ブッシュ政権の時代から中東の民主化構想が考えられ、ジョージ・ウォーカー・ブッシュ政権のイラク戦争はそれに基いているとされる。オレンジ革命など俗に「色の革命」と呼ばれる民主化ドミノもネオコンの援助があったと言われ、中央アジアといった旧ソ連や共産圏から同盟国のサウジアラビア、バチカンまでも民主化の対象にされている。

ネオコンとされている有名な思想家・政治家 [編集]

• アーヴィング・クリストル - ネオコンの創始者と考えられている
• ダニエル・ベル - 社会学者、「イデオロギーの終焉」論
• シーモア・リプセット - 政治学者
• リチャード・ホフスタッター - 政治史家
• デーヴィド・フラム - カナダ出身の記者、「悪の枢軸」という単語を考案した
• フランシス・フクヤマ - 政治学者で『歴史の終わり』の筆者、大統領の生物倫理委員会の会員、後にイラク戦争の誤りを認め転向
• リチャード・チェイニー - 米国副大統領、元国防長官、前ハリバートン会長
• ナタン・シャランスキー - ジョージ・W・ブッシュの拡大中東構想に影響を与えた
• ポール・ウォルフォウィッツ - 世界銀行総裁、元国防副長官
• ジョン・ボルトン - 国務次官補、元国際連合大使
• ロバート・ケーガン - 政治評論家
• リチャード・パール - 国家防衛政策委員長
• ノーマン・ポドレツ - 政治学者
• エリオット・アダムス (w:Elliott Abrams)
• リンダ・チャヴェズ w:Linda Chavez
• リン・チェイニー (w:Lynne Cheney) - チェイニー副大統領夫人、反ネオコン学者の評論家
• ジョン・コーニン (w:John Cornyn) - 共和党上院議員、元テキサス州司法長官
• ダグラス・ファイス (w:Douglas Feith) - 前国防次官
• クリストファー・ヒチェンズ (w:Christopher Hitchens) - イギリス出身の解説者
• マイケル・レディーン (w:Michael Ledeen)
• ルイス・リビ　(w:I. Lewis Libby)
• フィリップ・メリル (w:Philip Merrill) - 輸出入銀行会長
• ロナルド・ロトゥンダ (w:Ronald D. Rotunda) - ジョージ・メーソン大学法学教授
• マイケル･ノヴァック (w:Michael Novak) - 研究者
• ピーター･バーガー (w:Peter Berger) - 研究者

関連項目 [編集]

• アメリカ新世紀プロジェクト（PNAC）
• アメリカ帝国
• アメリカ同時多発テロ事件
• イラク戦争
• ニューヨーク市立大学シティカレッジ
• トロツキズム
• 新保守主義
• 保守主義
• 単独行動主義
• キリスト教右派
• 副島隆彦
• 米中冷戦

外部リンク [編集]

• 『田原牧さんに聞く　ネオコンの出自はトロツキスト 米国の原理の下今でも世界革命目指している』 senki 2003-7-25

• 「トロツキスト」側の反論
  
  
  • 『シャハトマン派とアメリカ知識人 山本ひろし』 トロツキー研究 第44号。
  • 『姜尚中とトロツキズム』 かけはし2003.4.14号

カテゴリ: 出典を必要とする記事 | ネオコン | 政治思想 | アメリカ合衆国の政治史 (1990年-) | アメリカ合衆国の国際関係 (1990年-)

• 最終更新 2010年5月12日 (水) 13:21 （日時は個人設定で未設定ならばUTC）。
• テキストはクリエイティブ・コモンズ 表示-継承ライセンスの下で利用可能です。追加の条件が適用される場合があります。詳細は利用規約を参照してください。

• プライバシー・ポリシー
• ウィキペディアについて
• 免責事項

• 
•