neoconservadroid

Fukuyama, throughout his article, argues with Krauthammmer over both the ideological substance of neoconservatism as well as the implementation of neoconservative vision. Fukuyama argues that legitimacy of American values and institutions is not automatic in the eyes of those around the world -- and a certain degree of realism requires us to acknowledge that since India thinks that a UN resolution is the only thing that can make a war legitimate, then we need to respect that reality if we want a nation like India's support. There were some in the room during the dinner who thought that Frank Fukuyama's remarks didn't really define true neoconservatism because he didn't acknowledge the universalism of American ideals and institutions and acknowledged that America's predominant power would breed rival balances of power in the future -- which these observers feel doesn't hang with pure neoconservatism.

I'm convinced that Fukuyama is a major stakeholder in neoconservative circles -- mostly because he thinks he is and makes a claim to some degree of ideological stewardship of this movement. But it's clear that Krauthammer and he disagree strongly on ideology and on its practice in Iraq. I have been informed by the editor of National Interest that Charles Krauthammer will have a counter-point article in the next issue of the journal.

// posted by Unknown @ 9:14 AM   permalink