What does it mean to be a neoconservative?

As President-elect Donald Trump has begun announcing the nominees that will fill his cabinet and adminstration, some of the individuals selected are being referred to as neoconservatives or neocons. In a 2006 article, scholar Francis Fukuyama explained that neoconservatism up through the Cold War was based on “four common principles,” which included “a concern with democracy, human rights and, more generally, the internal politics of states; a belief that American power can be used for moral purposes; a skepticism about the ability of international law and institutions to solve serious security problems; and finally, a view that ambitious social engineering often leads to unexpected consequences and thereby undermines its own ends.” The philosophy’s origins also stem from anti-communist sentiments and the need for a theory to fight communism through the promotion of a different set of moral values.

However, for Fukuyama, the ideological school failed to create a cohesive theory for how the US should act after the fall of the Soviet Union. Ronald Reagan and many within his adminstration had used the neoconservative playbook, leading to the end of the Cold War. However, many of the interventions necessary to bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union, like the Vietnam War, have been papered over in the public memory. Famous neoconservatives or leaders whose advisors brought this foreign policy perspective include President George W Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The War in Iraq was based on neoconservative logic that by intervening, the US could protect its interests and fight terrorism, citing falsely that Iraq’s leader Saddam Hussien was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. The failures on full display for the world to see in Iraq lost neoconservatives a lot of credit within certain groups in Washington and even within Trump’s Republican party. Within politics, neocon is sometimes used as a way to signal a person who supports US interventionism, regardless of international law, because it is believed to serve the interests of the United States. Often, attempts to destabilize regimes unfriendly to American capital will be couched as attempts to liberate and bring democracy, and in other cases, relationships with autocrats are sold to the public as necessary to secure the country’s interests.

Neoconservatives versus right-wing isolationists

Donald Trump wants the US to be respected and maintain its status as a global leader. He campaigned on being a peace candidate, which contrasts with the neoconservative view, which sees American military interventionism as a strategic necessity and often frames it as a moral action. Whether or not Donald Trump is sincere in his commitment to bringing peace to the conflicts raging around the globe remains to be seen. The individuals he has nominated to his cabinet thus far make him slightly less believable.

For neoconservatives, supporting Ukraine is in the strategic interest of the United States as it weakens Russia militarily. Senator Marco Rubio, nominated to serve as Secretary of State, has changed his position on funding for Ukraine, initially showing strong support, and then over the last year, arguing that “a negotiated settlement” between the two parties is needed. However, this switch may have been an attempt to increase his favor with the then-GOP nominee, as he attacked the first Trump administration for abandoning military objectives, like the fight in Syria. Trump’s pick to serve as National Security Advisor, Congressman Michael Waltz, shares a common path with Senator Rubio. Initally supportive of US assistance to Ukraine, he has changed course, citing the lack of a strategic plan by the Biden adminstration. When the new White House team takes power, Waltz’s view allows for funding to continue to be sent so long as the strategy is different. Waltz sits within between the neoconservatives and isolationists because he understands that while unpopular with the public, the war in Ukraine and its position geostrategically is critical for NATO’s access to the Black Sea. Suppose funding for Ukraine is to stop under the new administration. In that case, some of the strategic priorities for Ukraine, the US, and its allies may still be incorporated into a potential peace agreement.

The softening of their neoconservative views, particularly in the case of Senator Rubio, may have been what it took to earn a cabinet position, as those more vocal in their ideology, like former US Ambassador Nikki Haley and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, will not be invited back to serve in the second Trump adminstration.

Then, there are the America-First isolationists, who care far less about the outcome in Ukraine and any losses that Ukrainians are forced to accept. A growing number of Republican Congress members oppose sending further military aid to Ukraine, and some, like Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, see the rhetoric about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ambitions as overblown. hese more isolationist members of the caucus create problems for neoconservative voices, who understand that the optics of sending more money to Ukraine do not play well with their base but are ideologically motivated to continue the US’ support to challenge the Kremlin.

Neoconservatives versus Liberals

One should not confuse a neoconservative’s support for Ukraine with the ideology that leads many Democrats to believe that further military aid to the country is justified. Unlike neoconservatives, liberals prioritize international laws and norms as fundamental components of the global system. Therefore, when a country like Russia invades a neighbor, this aggression must be confronted. However, as many historians have described the situation in Gaza as a genocide, the principles of international law and norms become much more complicated. Israel is a strong ally of the United States, which leads U.S. leaders to reinterpret international law in order to justify casualties. Neoconservatives, on the other hand, do not place the same emphasis on global institutions and laws, meaning their support for Israel does not rely on international legal frameworks. In the past, human rights have been a focus for them. Neoconservatives criticized President Biden for the withdrawal from Afghanistan, accusing him of failing to protect the rights of women and girls who would face life under Taliban rule.