Myths of Neoconservatism: George W. Bush's ‘Neo-conservative’ Foreign Policy Revisited

Hurst, Steve

doi:10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800103

Cited by 26 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…geopolitical strategy (extensively described elsewhere, e.g. Dueck, 2004;Hurst, 2005;Kagan and Kristol, 2000;Stelzer, 2004).…”

Section: Contradictions and Limits Of Neoliberal Globalization And Thmentioning

confidence: 99%

Varieties of US Post-Cold War Imperialism: Anatomy of a Failed Hegemonic Project and the Future of US Geopolitics

Graaff¹,

Apeldoorn²

2011

Critical Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seeking to explain the changes -within underlying continuities -that have taken place in US geopolitical strategy since the early 2000s, this article analyses the dialectical interplay between political agency -in turn linked to specific social forces -and changing structural conditions within the global political economy. Geopolitical strategy is thus seen as constructed through a network of actors whose practices are shaped by their own social positions as well as by the broader global structural context. Analysing these networks with social network analysis we show how neoconservative intellectuals -linked to dominant sections of US capital -came to formulate a hegemonic project for the preservation of US primacy in the context of the rising contradictions of US-led neoliberal globalization. The ultimate failure of this hegemonic project subsequently set the structural context in which the network around Obama is now trying to formulate a more effective strategy.

show abstract

“…geopolitical strategy (extensively described elsewhere, e.g. Dueck, 2004;Hurst, 2005;Kagan and Kristol, 2000;Stelzer, 2004).…”

Section: Contradictions and Limits Of Neoliberal Globalization And Thmentioning

confidence: 99%

Varieties of US Post-Cold War Imperialism: Anatomy of a Failed Hegemonic Project and the Future of US Geopolitics

Graaff¹,

Apeldoorn²

2011

Critical Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Just as neoliberalism has come to dominate redistributive policy in the USA, its influence can also be traced in the recent shape of American defense policy. This may come as something of a surprise given both the “big government” traditionally associated with national security (Waddell 2001) and the influence (or at least perceived influence) of neoconservative‐oriented intellectuals on defense policy under the recent presidency of George W. Bush (see Halper and Clarke 2004; for a contrasting view see Hurst 2005). As Wendy Brown (2006:691) notes, there is an ostensible disparity between neoconservativism (as a “moral–political rationality” that has come to be associated particularly with the American context) and neoliberalism (a “market–political rationality” that “does not align exclusively with any political persuasion”).…”

Section: The Neoliberalization Of Warfare and Defensementioning

confidence: 99%

Workfare–Warfare: Neoliberalism, “Active” Welfare and the New American Way of War

MacLeavy

Peoples

2009

Antipode

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent decades, welfare reform in the USA has increasingly been based on a political imperative to reduce the number of people on welfare. This has in large part taken place through the establishment of a "workfare" state, in which the receipt of state benefits requires a paid labor input. Designed to reduce expenditure on civil social services, welfare-to-work programs have been introduced. At the same time, the restructuring of US defense provision has seen the "military-industrial complex" emerge as a key beneficiary of state expenditure. Both of these trends can be characterized, this paper argues, as manifestations of neoliberal thinkingwhether in the form of the "workfarism" that is undertaken to bolster the US economy, or the "defense transformation" that has been intended to enhance US war-making capacity. While these two aspects have been analyzed in detail independently, the aim of this paper is to probe the similarities, connections and overlaps between the workfare state and the recent American emphasis on high-technology warfare-the so-called "Revolution in Military Affairs"-and "defense transformation". There are, the paper argues, strong homologies to be drawn between the restructuring of the American defense and welfare infrastructures. Furthermore there are also instances where warfare and welfare are being melded together into a hybrid form "workfare-warfare", in which military service is increasingly positioned as a means of gaining welfare and, conversely, traditionally military industries are becoming involved in the area of welfare provision. The result, it is argued, is an emergent form of workfare-warfare state in the USA.

show abstract

“…During the election campaign of President George W. Bush in 2000, and in the first months of his presidency in 2001, Bush and his team defined a foreign policy that would make international relations work domestically for the US without full consideration of the non-domestic consequences (e.g. Dunn, 2003;Hurst, 2005). Summarising from Beeson and Higgott (2005), Dunn (2003), George (2005), Hurst (2005), Leffler (2005), and USDS (2003), these elements have been described as:…”

Section: Us Foreign Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dunn, 2003;Hurst, 2005). Summarising from Beeson and Higgott (2005), Dunn (2003), George (2005), Hurst (2005), Leffler (2005), and USDS (2003), these elements have been described as:…”

Section: Us Foreign Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The predominant international response was generosity, involving donations and offers of aid. This event took place in the fifth year of a US presidency which has pursued a foreign policy containing numerous elements that are unpopular with other states, and which has generated various forms of conflict worldwide (see Camroux and Okfen, 2004;Dunn, 2003;Dunne, 2003;George, 2005;Hurst, 2005). Katrina therefore provides a further case study opportunity for examining 'disaster diplomacy'-an exploration of how disaster-related activities do and do not yield diplomatic gains.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Hurricane Katrina disaster diplomacy

Kelman

2007

Disasters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hurricane Katrina struck the United States at the end of August 2005. The consequent devastation appeared to be beyond the US government's ability to cope with and aid was offered by several states in varying degrees of conflict with the US. Hurricane Katrina therefore became a potential case study for 'disaster diplomacy', which examines how disaster-related activities do and do not yield diplomatic gains. A review of past disaster diplomacy work is provided. The literature's case studies are then categorised using a new typology: propinquity, aid relationship, level and purpose. Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath are then placed in the context of the US government's foreign policy, the international response to the disaster and the US government's reaction to these responses. The evidence presented is used to discuss the potential implications of Hurricane Katrina disaster diplomacy, indicating that factors other than disaster-related activities generally dominate diplomatic relations and foreign policy.

show abstract

Myths of Neoconservatism: George W. Bush's ‘Neo-conservative’ Foreign Policy Revisited

Cited by 26 publications

References 12 publications

Varieties of US Post-Cold War Imperialism: Anatomy of a Failed Hegemonic Project and the Future of US Geopolitics

Varieties of US Post-Cold War Imperialism: Anatomy of a Failed Hegemonic Project and the Future of US Geopolitics

Workfare–Warfare: Neoliberalism, “Active” Welfare and the New American Way of War

Hurricane Katrina disaster diplomacy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About