Citation

Caverley JD. Millennium J. Int. Stud. 2010; 38(3): 593-614.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2010, London School of Economics and Political Science, Millennium Publishing Group, Publisher SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/0305829810366473

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

While realists and neoconservatives generally disagreed on the Iraq invasion of 2003, nothing inherent in either approach to foreign policy accounts for this. Neoconservatism’s enthusiasm for democratisation would appear to distinguish the two but its rejection of all other liberal mechanisms in world politics suggests that the logic linking democracy and American security shares little with liberalism. Inspecting the range of neoconservative thought reveals a unifying theme: the enervating effects of democracy on state power and the will to wield it in a dangerous world. Consequently, the United States enjoys greater safety among other democracies due to a more favourable distribution of relative power. Viewing regime type through the prism of state power extraction in a competitive, anarchic world puts neoconservatism squarely in the neoclassical realist camp. The article concludes by suggesting why the rest of International Relations should care about this new ‘neo—neo’ debate.