The moral purpose of US power: neoconservatism in the age of Obama

Homolar, Alexandra

doi:10.1080/13569770902858111

Cited by 21 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, while the idea of natural “shared values” was evident in Obama's speech to the Indian parliament, “shared interests” receive equal emphasis and he prefaced his remarks on democracy promotion by noting that: “[n]o one nation has a monopoly on wisdom, and no nation should ever try to impose its values on another” (Obama ). Nonetheless, both Bush and Obama can be placed in a liberal foreign policy tradition that advocates policies of liberal interventionism, the moral purpose of US power and the indispensability of global US leadership (Homolar‐Riechmann ; Parmar ). All of these ideas have been evident in Obama's foreign policy in various ways, from his continued adherence to Bush's approach to counter‐terrorism, his support for humanitarian military intervention, and his choice of advisors, several of whom were participants in the Princeton Project on National Security (PPNS).…”

Section: The “Rise Of India”mentioning

confidence: 99%

A New “Special Relationship”?: Power Transitions, Ontological Security, and India-US Relations

Chacko

2013

Int Stud Perspect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article argues that power transitions generate not just physical security concerns for states, but also “ontological” insecurity, as established identities, hierarchies, and relationships are revised and challenged. It is suggested that seeking out “special relationships” with others is one way in which states seek to mitigate this uncertainty. Through an analysis of the discourse on the “rise of India” from policymakers and commentators in the United States, it is shown that recent US representations of India seek to consolidate a particular US identity, based on the notion of American exceptionalism, and attempt to construct a new “special relationship” with India in order to ameliorate the challenge posed by the rise of China to a US‐dominated world order and the assumption of the universality of US ideas and institutions. However, while India–US relations have improved, the relationship continues to be hampered by their differing world‐views and self‐perceptions, which, as in the past, undermine each other's sense of ontological security.

show abstract

Section: The “Rise Of India”mentioning

confidence: 99%

A New “Special Relationship”?: Power Transitions, Ontological Security, and India-US Relations

Chacko

2013

Int Stud Perspect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Others engage with neoconservatism through IR theory, arguing that neoconservatism is a counter-discourse to the ‘pathologies of modern liberalism’ (Williams, 2005: 312), which is believed to have abandoned republican virtue and degenerated into moral nihilism and multicultural relativism (Homolar-Riechmann, 2009: 182; Owens, 2007: 271–272). Meanwhile, it is also suggested that neoconservatism represents a counterpoint to realist, amoral discourses of power politics (Rapport, 2008: 278).…”

Section: Towards a Foucauldian Discourse Analysis Of Neoconservatismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neoconservatism as discourse: Virtue, power and US foreign policy

Pan

Turner

2016

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neoconservatism in US foreign policy is a hotly contested subject, yet most scholars broadly agree on what it is and where it comes from. From a consensus that it first emerged around the 1960s, these scholars view neoconservatism through what we call the '3Ps' approach, defining it as a particular group of people ('neocons'), an array of foreign policy preferences, and/or an ideological commitment to a set of principles. While descriptively intuitive, this approach reifies neoconservatism in terms of its specific and often static 'symptoms' rather than its dynamic constitutions. These reifications may reveal what is emblematic of neoconservatism in its particular historical and political context, but fail to offer deeper insights into what is constitutive of neoconservatism. Addressing this neglected question, this article dislodges neoconservatism from its perceived home in the '3Ps' and ontologically redefines it as a discourse. Adopting a Foucauldian approach of archaeological and genealogical discourse analysis, we trace its discursive formations primarily to two powerful and historically enduring discourses of the American self: virtue and power, and illustrate how these discourses produce a particular type of discursive fusion that is 'neoconservatism'. We argue that to better appreciate its continued effect on contemporary and future US foreign policy, we need to pay close attention to those seemingly innocuous yet deeply embedded discourses about the United States and its place in the world, as well as to the people, policies, and principles conventionally associated with neoconservatism.

show abstract

“…However, the idea that the beginning of the Obama administration marked a watershed moment, when smart power replaced militaristic unilateralism, simplifies the complexity of American foreign and security policy. The sense both of moral purpose and of the value of hard power remained in significant parts of the US policy elite after the end of the Bush administration 25 -as witnessed in the Obama administration's extensive use of drone warfare and targeted assassinations. At the same time, the ideas underpinning smart power long predated the Obama administration.…”

Section: Smart Power and Global Health Diplomacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Health for health's sake, winning for God's sake: US Global Health Diplomacy and smart power in Iraq and Afghanistan

McInnes¹,

Rushton

2014

Rev. Int. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ideas of smart power and Global Health Diplomacy have developed considerable prominence over the past decade in, respectively, the foreign policy and public health communities. Although in some respects separate, both suggest the potential for using health assistance to generate political as well as health benefits. The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan provide an opportunity to examine these assertions at the 'sharp end'. We consider both the health and wider strategic benefits of health assistance in these conflicts, as well as some of the ethical challenges involved. We conclude however that we should adopt the precautionary principle because: there is doubt over the quality of health services provided in such circumstances; concern over the wider effects of politicising health aid; and little proof that the claimed strategic benefits materialise in practice.

show abstract

The moral purpose of US power: neoconservatism in the age of Obama

Cited by 21 publications

References 12 publications

A New “Special Relationship”?: Power Transitions, Ontological Security, and India-US Relations

A New “Special Relationship”?: Power Transitions, Ontological Security, and India-US Relations

Neoconservatism as discourse: Virtue, power and US foreign policy

Health for health's sake, winning for God's sake: US Global Health Diplomacy and smart power in Iraq and Afghanistan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About