Back from camden

Je publie ici l’exposé que j’ai présenté lundi dernier (17 janvier 2005) en cours d’anglais. Il concerne différents courants idéologiques de ce que l’on peut identifier comme faisant partie de la droite américaine. (Cette identification peut prêter à discussion selon le critère posé – en somme, savoir ce qui caractérise le mieux la droite américaine). J’ai donc choisi de présenter le néo-conservatisme, le paléo-conservatisme, et le libertarianisme.
L’exposé est finalement assez court, j’ai au fur et à mesure de sa préparation enlevé beaucoup d’informations qui m’ont parues inutiles compte tenu de la “démocratisation” nécessaire des idées exposées au public, le souci d’être clair et direct, pour tenter de mieux toucher les auditeurs.
Si vous désirez aller plus loin et trouver des références plus précises, comme des auteurs, ou des données historiques, voici toutes mes sources, se trouvant sur l’encyclopédie libre Wikipedia (finalement toute la matière de l’exposé s’y trouve):

* Neoconservatism
* Libertarianism
* Paleoconservatives
* Patrick Buchanan

The subject I treat today is a view on the different ideologies of the right wing in the United States. The recent reelection on the beginning of November, of Georges W. Bush as the President of the US, was the occasion on focus on the ideology that leads his foreign policy, which you all know, as neo-conservatism. But the right wing is constituted by other tendencies. I’ve choosen to treat three of thesefactions: neo-conservatism, libertarianism and what some commentators call paleo-conservatism. The study of these three ideologies and of their terminology can show that what can be seen as a simple global movement simplified as right wing is in fact very versatile and finally the ideas of some of its ideological movements are totally different. They can have a same basis of ideas on some subjects like the right to bear guns, free trade, tax policy, and pretend to have the same historical fundamentals, with the Founding Fathers tradition, but can really differ on some others. This study can show that neo-conservatism is just a sub-division of the right wing, and that other different main issues are possible.
The reference of freedom by the ideologies studied here is the one I’ve selected to categorize them by constitutive to right wing. Indeed, there are many classifications possible, for example by regarding conservative values, or the size of the state. But I’ve choosen freedom as a basis of their doctrine.
I’ll focus first on Neo-conservatism, then having a smaller look on that is so-called paleo-conservatism and finally, study libertarianism philosophy.
A little explanation on the term of neo-conservatism first.The term neoconservatism is characterized by an aggressive stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and lesser dedication to a policy of minimal government. The newness refers either to being new to American conservatism, because the neo conservatives often coming from liberal or socialist, backgrounds.
As a rule, the term refers to journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and institutions affiliated with policy think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, and periodicals such as Commentary, Policy Review and The Weekly Standard. The neoconservatives, are credited with influencing U.S. foreign policy, especially under the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush . Neoconservatives have often been singled out for criticism by opponents of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, many of whom see this invasion as a neoconservative initiative.
This political group supports a militant anticommunism, more social welfare spending than was acceptable to libertarians and mainstream conservatives.
But what is finally the most important is that domestic policy does not define neoconservatism; it is a movement founded on, and perpetuated by an aggressive approach to foreign policy, opposition to communism during the Cold War, free trade, and opposition to Middle Eastern states that are perceived to pursue terrorism or anti-Israel policies. Thus, their foremost target was the conservative but pragmatic approach to foreign policy often associated with Richard Nixon, that is to say peace through negotiations, diplomacy, and arms control, détente and containment (rather than rollback) of the Soviet Union, and the beginning of the process that would lead to bilateral ties between the People’s Republic of China and the U.S.
According to Irving Kristol, a neoconservative is a ‘liberal mugged by reality. Broadly sympathetic to Woodrow Wilson’s idealistic goals to spread American ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad, they grew to reject his reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish these objectives.
The neoconservative foreign policy makers are different than some of their more traditionalist conservative policy makers. While many from the old school believed that America’s allies should be unquestionably defended at all costs, no matter what the nature of their regime, many neocons were more supportive to the idea of changing regimes to make them more compatible and reflective of U.S. values.
Today, the most prominent supporters of the neoconservative stance inside the administration are Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. Neoconservatives perhaps are closer to the mainstream of the Republican Party today since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon than any competing faction, especially considering the nature of the Bush Doctrine and the preemptive war against Iraq.
The traditional conservative Claes Ryn has developed the critique that neoconservatives are actually what he calls a variety of neo-Jacobins. True conservatives deny the existence of a universal political and economic philosophy and model that is suitable for all societies and cultures, and believe that a society’s institutions should be adjusted to suit its culture. Neo-Jacobins in contrast are attached in the end to ahistorical, supranational principles that they believe should supplant the traditions of particular societies. The new Jacobins see themselves as on the side of right and fighting evil and are not prone to respecting or looking for common ground with countries that do not share their democratic preferences.
According to Ryn, neoconservatism is analogous to Bolshevism: in the same way that the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy established ways of life throughout the world to replace them with communism, the neoconservatives want to do the same, only imposing free-market capitalism and American-style liberal democracy instead of socialism.
The disputes over Israel and domestic policies have contributed to a sharp conflict over the years with ‘paleoconservatives’, who view the neoconservatives as interlopers who deviate from the traditional conservative agenda on issues as diverse as ‘states Rights,’ ‘free trade,’ immigration, isolationism, ‘the welfare state,’ and even abortion and homosexuality.
The term paleoconservative refers to an American branch of conservative Old Right. Some historians see the paleoconservatives’ intellectual ancestors as those anti-modern writers who defended hierarchy, localism, monarchy, and aristocracy.
Paleoconservatives esteem the principles of subsidiarity and localism in recognizing that one must surely be an Ohioan, Texan or Virginian as they are an American. They embrace federalism within a framework of nationalism and are typically staunch supporters of states’ rights. They are also more critical of the welfare state than the neoconservatives tend to be. They are more willing to question free trade, harshly critical of further immigration and tend to embrace an isolationist foreign policy. The best known contemporary paleoconservative is probably the commentator Patrick Buchanan.
Buchanan is decried as an isolationist, and is in favor of ending treaties that do not protect the interests of the United States, such as one-way defense treaties where the USA must come to the aid of other countries when they are attacked, but the other country has no reciprocal obligation. He is in favor of severely restricting immigration into the United States, and raising tariffs on imported goods to protect domestic industry. Pat Buchanan’s position regarding illegal immigration is seen by some critics as an attack on multiculturalism itself. Some critics accuse him of racism and anti-semitism, charges he vehemently denies.
Paleo-conservatism’s ideas are totally different from neoconservatism, much more isolationist, interventionist in economic matters. They differ for their position about social welfare; neoconservatism accept much more health care than a politician like Buchanan does.
Now, let’s focus on the libertarian movement.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy which advocates individual rights and a very limited government. Libertarians believe that individuals should be free to do anything they want, so long as they do not infringe upon what they believe to be the equal rights of others. For libertarians, there are no material ‘positive rights’ (such as to food, shelter, or health care), only ‘negative rights’ (such as to not be assaulted, abused or robbed). Libertarians further believe that the only legitimate use of force, whether public or private, is to protect these rights.
The fundamental values that libertarians claim to fight for are individual liberty, individual responsibility and individual property. Libertarians have an elaborate theory of these values that they defend, that strictly opposes collectivist views in this regard. As an example, many libertarians hold that personal liberties are inseparable from economic liberties. They make this point to contrast themselves with conservatives who tie free trade with a restrictive regulation of personal issues such as sexuality, drug use and speech.
It is a chief point for many libertarians that rights vest originally in individuals and never in groups such as nations, races, religions, classes, or cultures. This conception holds it as nonsensical to say (for instance) that a wrong can be done to a class or a race in the absence of specific wrongs done to individual members of that group. It also undercuts rhetorical expressions such as, ‘The government has the right to ‘”, since under this formulation ‘the government’ has no original rights but only those duties with which it has been lawfully entrusted under the citizens’ rights.
Taxation and regulation are seen as evil to libertarians . To many libertarians, governments should not establish schools, run hospitals, regulate industry, commerce or agriculture, or run social welfare programs. Nor should government restrict sexual practices, gambling, drug usage, or any other ‘victimless’ crimes. Libertarians also believe in an extremely broad interpretation of free speech which should not be restricted by government.
In consequence, Libertarianism is extremely different of neoconservatism. People in France could have a tendency to consider neoconservatives as some kinds of libertarians because they both insist on the fight for freedom, but it’s finally totally different. Neoconservatives believe in a strong collective moral for society, and specific democratic values to propage, even if abroad. Libertarians are neutral on the moral issues and want people to be free to choose their lifestyle. For example, they support a total drug legalization and let the consumer responsible for his use of drugs. They totally reject the democratic system, seen as a coercitive construction.
In the domain of foreign affairs, libertarians are isolationists and against preemptive wars as the Irak one, considering it as aggressive and without legitime goals.
Libertarians have the same tendency of isolationism in foreign affairs as paleoconservatives.
Finally we can see that each of these three tendencies can agree with the others on certain points, but differ on others. What is surprising is that each of them pretend to defend the same ideal of freedom, respect of human rights, and having the same roots in the Constitution and the founding fathers action. But their way to pursue their ideal of freedom is totally different.