Americans working and living in Europe are often struck by the preoccupation in defense and security circles with the pernicious influence of âneoconservativesâ on U.S. foreign policy. There is a pervasive sense that American foreign policy is being driven down a radically new path by a small band of ideologues who have virtually hijacked the policymaking process.
European defense and foreign policy elites are not the only ones who seem to believe that current U.S. foreign policy is something of an aberration; this view is found more broadly in European public opinion as well. In a 2003 Pew poll, approximately 75 percent of those surveyed in France and Germany said the current âproblem with the U.S.â was mainly President George W. Bush, while only 21 percent said it had more to do with the United States in general. The end result is a dominant opinion in much of Europe that little will be repaired in the transatlantic relationship until there is a new presidential administration in the United States, or at least a marked reduction in the influence of the small group of neoconservative extremists who surround President Bush.
Although there are notable exceptions, many European commentators and much of the public are resorting to conspiratorial theories to explain the direction of U.S. foreign policy and somehow overlook the fact that American public opinion runs in favor of the presidentâs handling of foreign affairs. Perhaps more important, however, they overlook the deep historical roots of the current direction of American foreign policy. It is not driven by a âneocon cabal.â
Rather, it is that certain individuals associated with the neoconservative label have been particularly articulate in expressing a set of policies that flow from two ideas that resonate deeply in American public opinion. The first is a belief that the United States has a responsibility to spread its vision of individual liberty. The second is that the primary and perhaps exclusive task of the federal government is to protect its citizens from external threats. Whatever the actual causes of U.S. action in any particular instance, those principles loom large in the public debate and shape how and when the United States becomes involved in other countriesâ affairs. article continues |