Neocons and liberal interventionists differ mainly on multilateralism, not goals
Evidence
The only important intellectual difference between neoconservatives and liberal interventionists is that the former have disdain for international institutions (which they see as constraints on U.S. power), and the latter see them as a useful way to legitimate American dominance. Both groups extol the virtues of democracy, both groups believe that U.S. power—and especially its military power—can be a highly effective tool of statecraft. Both groups are deeply alarmed at the prospect that WMD [weapons of mass destruction] might be in the hands of anybody but the United States and its closest allies, and both groups think it is America’s right and responsibility to fix lots of problems all over the world. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 469
Categorization
Category: Factual Claims
- XREF: Distinguishes the internal policy-establishment split Kumar has tracked since ch9’s neocon-vs-liberal hegemony discussion; payoff of earlier ‘accommodation versus confrontation produce distinct liberal and conservative Islamophobias’ claims.
Related
- Neocons and liberal interventionists differ only in tactics, not imperial aims (similarity 0.91)
- Realist and neocon foreign policy camps differ in tactics not imperial goals (similarity 0.86)
- Neoconservatism is defined by unipolarism and military preponderance (similarity 0.80)
- Both neocons and realists deploy an Islamic threat frame serving shared US dominance (similarity 0.80)
- Neocons and liberal interventionists differ only over international institutions (similarity 0.80)
- Neocons are integrated across realist and liberal think tanks, not a separate bloc (similarity 0.79)
- Bush and Clinton administrations resisted the neocon anti-Islamic-terrorism agenda (similarity 0.78)
Broader Connections
- Neocons and liberal interventionists differ only over international institutions
#expands(1.00) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 469