scholarly journals The role and meaning of the state in neoconservatism

2021 ◽  
pp. 227-232
Author(s):  
V. V. Serediuk

Neoconservatism as an ideological and political-economic system of knowledge contains a number of ideas about the role, tasks, purpose and meanings of the modern state, its relationship with social institutions (family, church, NGOs), as well as its role in economic relations. American neoconservatism, in contrast to British or German, is also characterized by attention to the foreign policy function of the state. Reconsideration of the role, tasks and significance of the state in various spheres of society and in international relations in modern conditions determines the relevance of our study of this issue. Neoconservatism, the ideas of which were implemented in the policies of the conservative parties of the United States, Great Britain, and Germany in the 1970-1990s, continues to influence the implementation of national and international policies of various states to this day. Neoconservatism, unlike neoliberalism, offers a different understanding of the role and meaning of the modern state. Traditional values are ideologically substantiated and promoted: family, religion, morals, community, and the state. An important place in neoconservatism is given to social institutions, the need to overcome isolation of the individual from the institution of community (religious, social, government). The integration of the individual into social institutions and the return of the importance of the state authority in the worldview of the individual are considered priorities of state influence. American neoconservatism substantiates the US foreign policy function – to protect the democratic values in international relations. In the economic sphere, neoconservatives insist on reducing government intervention in market relations, returning to the ideals of classical economic liberalism, and taking a number of fiscal and monetary policy measures to reduce inflation, unemployment, and stimulate economic development. Although neoconservatism recognizes the need to build a strong state, it is not seen as authoritarian, encroaching on,restricting or abolishing human and civil rights and freedoms recognized in democracies after World War II. However, freedom is understood as a sphere of free behavior of the individual, which exists in relations with other members of society and is limited by the freedom of another person. Keywords: neoconservatism, state, role, individual, social institutions, traditional values, intervention, economy, law.

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 113-129
Author(s):  
V. A. Avatkov

The article considers the role of ideology and values in the formation and implementation of the current foreign policy of the Republic of Turkey. Taking into account the increasing role of regional actors such as Turkey in international politics, studying their tactics and mechanisms of influence on the global political environment is necessary to explain the further transformation of the international system.The study reveals the strengthening role of the ideology and values in world politics in general and in individual states, such as Turkey, in particular. Under the rule of the Justice and Development Party headed by the current President R.T. Erdogan the country began a gradual transition from «Kemalism», which includes the preservation of secularism, ProWestern democratic values and a gradual departure from the Ottoman heritage, to a more conservative domestic and foreign policy, characterized by the strengthening of Islamist and nationalist sentiments, as well as the transition to the policy of «neo-Ottomanism», «neo-pan-Turkism». The return of the idea of «aggrandizement» of the country to the official political discourse has affected the conduct of Turkey's foreign policy towards both the regional states and the world arena as a whole.The Republic not only began self-restoration as an autonomous actor of international relations in the eyes of the key world powers, but also started to spread its own values and ideas among the population of both the Middle East and among the states which constitute a national interest for Turkey (Russia, the post-Soviet space, etc.), thus influencing them at various levels and involving them in its orbit of influence – both politically, economically and from a humanitarian point of view.Using «hard power» abroad no longer meets the current Turkey’s policy. Instead it relies on forging humanitarian ties, combining initiatives in the cultural, educational and scientific fields to achieve a long-term influence. The Republic of Turkey is trying to spread the following values among the world community:«Justice». International relations must be just and fair. For Turkey it means conformity with its national interests.«Religious fatalism». Government actions both at home and abroad are legitimized through references to religion and fate.«Democratic values». The Republic of Turkey considers itself the most democratic state in the world and contrasts itself with “Western democracies”, which, according to the Turkish leadership, are spreading hegemony rather than democracy.«State-centrism» and collectivism. The interests of the state, society, and especially the Muslim Ummah, are placed above the values of the individual.«Traditional values». Given the Islamization and conservatism of Turkish society as a whole, traditional values also begin to play a major role in the general political discourse of the state.«Culture». Turkey also makes adjustments to the concept of «culture» in very inclusive terms, presenting its culture as a «melting pot» that can turn anything into Turkish.«Respect». In the eastern tradition, it is customary to show respect to elders, as well as neighbors and guests. Turkey uses a demonstration of respect in foreign policy instrumentally and pragmatically. An example of this is the address of the President of Turkey in relation to the leaders of other states: Nursultan Nazarbayev – «aksakal» of the Turkic world, Vladimir Putin is a «dear friend».


1965 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 260-279
Author(s):  
S. N. Mukherjee ◽  
Henry Tudor ◽  
Antony J. Black ◽  
Roger Clements ◽  
Richard A. Chapman ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 669-692 ◽  
Author(s):  
HALVARD LEIRA

AbstractJustus Lipsius (1547–1606) was among the most influential thinkers of the late 16th/early 17th centuries. His guides for action were highly influential in the establishment of moderate absolutism and what has been called the fiscal-military state across Europe. In this article I explore Lipsian thought in an International Relations context. Special attention is paid to his ideals of discipline, which were meant to order both the ruler and those that he ruled. Dignity, self-restraint and discipline were the recipes for the foreign policy of the prince, while the individual was subordinated to the purposes of the state, and taught to control his own life by mastering his emotions. If not a seminal thinker in his own right, it is necessary to understand Lipsius’ thought and influence to be able to fully understand the 17th century theoretical approaches to peace and prosperity and the relative discipline of early-modern statecraft.


Author(s):  
David Boucher

The classic foundational status that Hobbes has been afforded by contemporary international relations theorists is largely the work of Hans Morgenthau, Martin Wight, and Hedley Bull. They were not unaware that they were to some extent creating a convenient fiction, an emblematic realist, a shorthand for all of the features encapsulated in the term. The detachment of international law from the law of nature by nineteenth-century positivists opened Hobbes up, even among international jurists, to be portrayed as almost exclusively a mechanistic theorist of absolute state sovereignty. If we are to endow him with a foundational place at all it is not because he was an uncompromising realist equating might with right, on the analogy of the state of nature, but instead to his complete identification of natural law with the law of nations. It was simply a matter of subject that distinguished them, the individual and the state.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1957 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 918-919
Author(s):  
AIMS C. MCGUINNESS

I certainly agree with Dr. Dietrich that Asian influenza thus far has been a mild disease and not too serious a problem for the individual. Dr. Burney has pointed this out on a number of occasions, as, for example, in his remarks before the State and Territorial Health Officers on August 27. I agree, too, that the availability of antibiotics to deal with secondary bacterial infections should, to a great extent, minimize the severity of any epidemic in the United States.


2015 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 83
Author(s):  
Paul MacLennan

In the winter of 2015, as this review is being written, the price of gasoline is plummeting in the United States and what this will mean for the individual, community, and country for the immediate future but also in years to come is unknown. There are a wide range of implications in politics, economics, and international relations as well as effects on what the individual pays for everyday groceries. It is therefore important that libraries provide their communities with the resources that include information and discussion on how energy and its monetary value interact with society.


2017 ◽  
Vol 69 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 262-282
Author(s):  
Vladimir Ajzenhamer

The Great Debates are an important stage in the development of International Relations (IR) as a science. However, the ?exactness? of its chronology and content, as well as the precise determination of the actors and results, is questionable on several grounds. Therefore, relying on this, often contradictory, interpretations of the outcome of the Great Debates, little can be said about the current state of the mentioned theoretical dialogue. Today, IR scholars mostly discuss abandoning the idea of macro theory and the pluralistic silence in which medium-scale theories resonate in peace. However, this "diagnosis" still does not give us an answer to the question of who really won the fight of so-called big theories, or which theoretical paradigm today has the greatest influence within the disciplinary field? Applying the idea of reflexivity between the theory of international relations and the practice of foreign policy, the author of this paper rejects the restrictions of the mythos of the discipline (at the center of which is the myth of the Great Debates) and turns to the analysis of international political praxis as an instrument for the identification of the mentioned theoretical impact. At the center of the analysis are the foreign policy principles of the United States, which the author reviews in a hundred-year time interval, in particular emphasizing the doctrine of Wilsonianism and the principles of foreign policy advocated by the current US President Donald Tramp. Facing Wilsonianism and Trampism (determining, in turn, the latter as a realistic-constructivist Anti-Wilsonian coalition), the author offers his view of the current state of paradigmatic ?clashes? in the theory and practice of international relations.


Author(s):  
D. V. Dorofeev

The research is devoted to the study of the origin of the historiography of the topic of the genesis of the US foreign policy. The key thesis of the work challenges the established position in the scientific literature about the fundamental role of the work of T. Lyman, Jr. «The diplomacy of the United States: being an account of the foreign relations of the country, from the first treaty with France, in 1778, to the Treaty of Ghent in 1814, with Great Britain», published in 1826. The article puts forward an alternative hypothesis: the emergence of the historiography of the genesis of the foreign policy of the United States occurred before the beginning of the second quarter of the XIX century – during the colonial period and the first fifty years of the North American state. A study of the works of thirty-five authors who worked during the 1610s and 1820s showed that amater historians expressed a common opinion about North America’s belonging to the Eurocentric system of international relations; they were sure that both the colonists and the founding fathers perceived international processes on the basis of raison d’être. The conceptualization of the intellectual heritage of non-professional historians allowed us to distinguish three interpretations of the origin of the United States foreign policy: «Autochthonous» – focused on purely North American reasons; «Atlantic» – postulated the borrowing of European practice of international relations by means of the system of relations that developed in the Atlantic in the XVII–XVIII centuries; «Imperial» – stated the adaptation of the British experience. The obtained data refute the provisions of scientific thought of the XX–XXI centuries and create new guidelines for further study of the topic.


Author(s):  
Andrés Malamud ◽  
Júlio C. Rodriguez

From November 1902 through February 1912, four presidents governed Brazil. Throughout all this period, though, only one person headed the foreign ministry: José Maria da Silva Paranhos Jr., alias Baron of Rio Branco (20 April 1845–10 February 1912). This political wonder and diplomatic giant was to shape Brazil’s international doctrine and diplomatic traditions for the following century. His major achievement was to peacefully solve all of Brazil’s border disputes with its South American neighbors. Founded in 1945, Brazil’s prestigious diplomatic school carries his name, Instituto Rio Branco, and, since the early 2000s, Brazilian foreign policy has become the largest subfield of international relations in university departments across the country. Indeed, Brazilian foreign policy is to Brazilian academia what American politics is to US academia, namely, a singular phenomenon that has taken over a general field. In contrast with the United States, most in-depth research from about 1998 to 2010 came from foreign-based scholars; however, since then a large cadre of mostly young academics in Brazil have seized the agenda. Unlike the pre-2000 period, the orientation has been toward public policy rather than diplomatic history. That the top Brazilian journals of international relations are now published in English rather than Portuguese attests to the increasing internationalization of the field.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2-1) ◽  
pp. 62-91
Author(s):  
Irina Zhezhko-Braun ◽  

This article is the third and final in a series dealing with the birth of a new political elite in the United States, the minority elite. In previous articles, the mechanism of its appearance was analyzed, as well as its ideology, goals, program and values. The black movement, as the most co-organized of all protest movements, is entering the final phase of its development, being engaged in the placement of its representatives in state and federal governments, political parties and other social institutions. The women’s movement has recently been taken over by ethnic movements, primarily blacks, and has become their vanguard. This article describes new social elevators for the promotion of minority representatives into the corridors of power. The logic of promoting people of their own race, gender and nationality to the highest branches of power began to prevail over other criteria for recruiting personnel. During the 2020 election campaign, a new mechanism for promoting minorities in all branches of government was formed. It is based on numerous violations of local and federal electoral legislation. The mechanism of pressure on the US electoral system is analyzed using the example of the state of Georgia and the activities of politician Stacey Abrams. The article describes Abrams’ strategy to create a network of NGOs that are focused on one mission - to arrange for the political shift of the state in the elections. These organizations circumvented existing laws, making the state of Georgia the record holder for electoral irregularities and lawsuits. The article shows that Abrams’ struggle with the electoral laws of her state is based on the political myth of the voter suppression of minorities. The author identifies a number of common characteristics of the new elite. The minority elite does not show any interest in social reconciliation and overcoming racial conflict, but rather makes efforts to incite the latter, to attract the government to its side and increase its role in establishing “social justice” through racial quotas and infringement of the rights of those social strata that it has appointed bearers of systematic racism in society. As the colored elite increases and the government’s role in resolving racial conflicts grows, the minority movement is gradually condemned, it ceases to be a true grassroots movement and turns into astroturfing.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document