International Politics

, Volume 46, Issue 2–3, pp 177–209 | Cite as

Foreign policy fusion: Liberal interventionists, conservative nationalists and neoconservatives — the new alliance dominating the US foreign policy establishment

  • Inderjeet Parmar
Original Article


Several tendencies in US foreign policy politics generated a new foreign policy consensus set to outlast the Bush administration. Three developments are analysed: increasing influence of conservative organizations – such as the Heritage Foundation, and of neoconservatism; and, particularly, democratic peace theory-inspired liberal interventionism. 9-11 fused those three developments, though each tendency retained its ‘sphere of action’: Right and Left appear to have forged an historically effective ideology of global intervention, an enduring new configuration of power. This paper analyses a key liberal interventionists' initiative – the Princeton Project on National Security – that sits at the heart of thinking among centrists, liberal and conservative alike. This paper also assesses the efficacy of the new consensus by exploring the foreign policy positions and advisers of President-elect Barack Obama and his defeated Republican rival, Senator John McCain, concluding that the new president is unlikely significantly to change US foreign policy.


consensus conservative neoconservatism liberal interventionism Princeton Project on National Security establishment 


  1. Abelson, D. (2006a) Think Tanks and Anti-Americanism. Paper presented at Anti-Americanism workshop, Central European University, 2006; later published in Higgott, R. and Malbasic, I. (eds.) (2008). The Political Consequences of Anti-Americanism, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Abelson, D. (2006b) A Capitol Idea: Think Tanks and US Foreign Policy. London: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, S. (1981) Race and Rapprochement. London: Associated Universities Presses.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, L. (2003) Pursuing Truth, Exercising Power: Social Sciences and Public Policy in the 21st Century. New York: Columbia University Press, p. 5.Google Scholar
  5. Arnove, R.F. and Pineda, N. (n.d.) Revisiting the “Big Three” Foundations. Unpublished paper in author's possession.Google Scholar
  6. Baxter, S. (2008) Obama may recruit Bush's defence chief. The Sunday Times, 29 June.Google Scholar
  7. Berman, E.H. (1983) The Influence of the Carnegie, Rockefeller and Ford Foundations on American Foreign Policy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  8. Berman, R.A. (2005) Anti-Americanism and the Pursuit of Politics. published as a paper by the Working Group on anti-Americanism of the PPNS; ca. September.Google Scholar
  9. Bromley, S. (2008) American Power and the Prospects for International Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  10. Brym, R. (1980) Intellectuals and Politics. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  11. Busby, J.W. and Monten, J. (2005) Without Heirs: The Fall of Liberal Internationalism in US Foreign Policy. Unpublished paper presented at ISA convention, San Diego.Google Scholar
  12. Campbell, D. (1992) Writing Security. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Carothers, T. (2008) A league of their own. Foreign Policy, July/August. 167: 44–49.Google Scholar
  14. CFR. (2001) Improving the U.S. Public Diplomacy Campaign in the War Against Terrorism. New York: CFR.Google Scholar
  15. CFR. (2003) Finding America's Voice: A Strategy for Reinvigorating Public Diplomacy. New York: CFR.Google Scholar
  16. Daalder, I.H. and Kagan, R. (2007) The next intervention: Legitimacy matters. Washington Post, 6 August.Google Scholar
  17. Daalder, I. and Lindsay, J. (2006) Democracies of the world, unite. The American Interest, November–December.Google Scholar
  18. Der Derian, J. (2003) Decoding the national security strategy of the United States. Boundary 2 30 (3): 19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eisenach, E.J. (1994) The Lost Promise of Progressivism. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  20. Ferguson, N. (2005) Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  21. Fukuyama, F. (2005) State Building: Governance and World Order in the Twenty-First Century. London: Profile Books, p. xix.Google Scholar
  22. Gedmin, J. and Kennedy, C. (2003) Selling America short. The National Interest, Winter.Google Scholar
  23. Hoare, Q. and Nowell-Smith, G. (eds.) (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. London: Lawrence and Wishart.Google Scholar
  24. Hodgson, G. (1972–1973) The establishment. Foreign Policy.Google Scholar
  25. Huntington, Samuel P. (1973) Transnational organizations in world politics. World Politics 25 (3): 333–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hurst, S. (2007) Is the Bush Revolution Over? Unpublished paper, ECPR conference, Pisa, Italy, September 2007.Google Scholar
  27. Kagan, R. (2007) International rivalry and American leadership. Policy Review, August–September.Google Scholar
  28. Kampfner, J. (2003) Blair's Wars. London: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  29. Kolko, G.A. (1969) The Politics of War: Allied Diplomacy and the World Crisis of 1943–1945. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar
  30. Kristol, W. (2004) Postscript – June 2004: Neoconservatism Remains the Bedrock of U.S. Foreign Policy. In: I. Stelzer (ed.) Neoconservatism. London: Atlantic Books, p. 76.Google Scholar
  31. Leffler, M.P. (1992) A Preponderance of Power: National Security, the Truman Administration, and the Cold War. Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lieber, R.J. (2003) The neo-conservative conspiracy theory: Pure myth. Available at
  33. Lloyd, J. (2000) The Anglosphere project. New Statesman, 13 March.Google Scholar
  34. Lobe, J. (2006) Elite project proposes bipartisan grand strategy. Inter Press Service News Agency, 27 September.Google Scholar
  35. Loconte, J. (2008) McCain's democratic realism: A departure from the Bush doctrine? The Weekly Standard, 31 March.Google Scholar
  36. Meyerson, A. (1991) Building the New Establishment. Policy Review 58 (Fall): 6–18.Google Scholar
  37. Mickelthwait, J. and Wooldridge, A. (2005) The Right Nation. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  38. Milne, S. (2008) Secret US plan for military future in Iraq. The Guardian, 8 April.Google Scholar
  39. O’Neil, A. (2006) American Grand Strategy: The Quest for Permanent Primacy. In: B. O’Connor and M. Griffiths (eds.) The Rise of Anti-Americanism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Pape, R. (2003) The strategic logic of suicide terrorism. American Political Science Review 97 (3): 343–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Parmar, I. (2004) Think Tanks and Power in Foreign Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Parmar, I. (2005a) Catalytic events, think tanks and American foreign policy shifts: A comparative analysis of the impacts of Pearl Harbor 1941 and 11 September 2001. Government and Opposition 40 (1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Parmar, I. (2005b) ‘I’m proud of the British Empire’: Why Tony Blair backs George W. Bush. The Political Quarterly 76 (2): 218–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Parmar, I. (2006a) Conceptualising the State-Private Network. In: H. Laville and H. Wilford (eds.) The US Government, Citizenship Groups and the Cold War. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Parmar, I. (2006b) Anti-Americanism and the Major Foundations. In: B. O’Connor and M. Griffiths (eds.) The Rise of Anti-Americanism. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Parmar, I. (2007) Not neoconservatism but Conservative Nationalism and Liberal Interventionism: The New Alliance Dominating the US Foreign Policy Establishment. Centre for International Politics, University of Manchester, October, Working paper (no. 36), ISSN: 1754 2839.Google Scholar
  47. Parmar, I. (2008) A Neo-Conservative-Dominated US Foreign Policy Establishment? In: K. Christie (ed.) National Identity and US Foreign Policy in the 21st Century. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Princeton Project on National Security. (2006) Forging a World of Liberty and Law. US National Security in the 21st Century. Final report of the Princeton Project on National Security, Princeton University.Google Scholar
  49. Quinones, E. (2006) Project aims to ‘kindle debate’ on U.S. national security. Princeton Weekly Bulletin, 16 October.Google Scholar
  50. Renshon, S.A. (2007) Premature Obituary. In: S.A. Renshon and P. Suedfeld (eds.) Understanding the Bush Doctrine. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Rosato, S. (2003) The flawed logic of the democratic peace theory. American Political Science Review 97 (4): 585–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sanders, J.W. (1983) Peddlers of Crisis: The Committee on the Present Danger and the Politics of Containment. Boston, MA: South End Press.Google Scholar
  53. Scott-Smith, G. (2002) The Politics of Apolitical Culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Shoup, L. and Minter, W. (1977) Imperial Brain Trust. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  55. Sinclair, A. and Byers, M. (2007) When US scholars speak of ‘sovereignty’, what do they mean? Political Studies 55 (2): 318–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Smith, T. (2007) A Pact with the Devil. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. Stockman, F. (2008) Obama stance on Iraq shows evolving view. The Boston Globe, www.Boston.com8 March.
  58. Thompson, J.A. (1992) Another look at the downfall of ‘Fortress America’. Journal of American Studies, 26 December: 393–408.Google Scholar
  59. Toenjes, L.A. (n.d.) U.S. Policy Towards Iraq: Unraveling the Web. Available at
  60. Walt, S. (2006) Woodrow Wilson Rides Again. TPMCAFE BOOK CLUB; accessed 12 January 2007.
  61. Wehner, P. (2008) Obama's war. Commentary, April 2008.Google Scholar
  62. Wilford, H. (2003) The CIA, the British Left, and the Cold War. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  63. Woodward, B. (2004) Plan of Attack. London: Pocket Books.Google Scholar
  64. X (George Kennan). (1947) The sources of soviet conduct. Foreign Affairs, July.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Inderjeet Parmar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PoliticsSchool of Social Sciences, University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations