Some comedy for today. This article is an example of what full-on neoconservatism actually looks like, basically a hybrid of the French revolutionary tradition, Trotsky’s concept of permanent revolution, and Zionism. Although this author is not a neocon leader, just some talentless and thoughtless hack.
By Shay Khatari, The Week
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war on Ukraine has disillusioned many of the hope of a new era, a time free of great wars, on autopilot toward liberalization. But war is a fact of nature. Peace, on the other hand, is a human product, and it takes superpower to preserve it. At the end of the Cold War, a segment of foreign policy experts and intellectuals on the right were warning that the allure of peace was too dangerous, that the post-Cold War era was a moment that could not last forever. This cohort was closely associated with the Reagan administration. Indeed, many of them worked for the man who won the Cold War. They would go on to be labeled neoconservatives.
In 1996, two Reagan alumni, Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, wrote an essay that prescribed what the foreign policy of the United States should look like: protecting U.S. hegemony and military superiority; maximizing U.S. power; engagement with the world; and promoting liberal democracy. That vision came to define the movement.
The whole story was bigger, of course. Irving Kristol, regarded as the godfather of neoconservatism, was mainly interested in domestic policy, and his preferences for foreign policy didn’t always overlap with the foreign policy neoconservatives who would come later. But for whatever reason, the label stuck. Throughout the 1990s, these neo-Reaganites were the respected scholars and experts of the right. They were the smart and educated Republicans.