Advertisement

“Time for an Insurrection”: From the Dole Campaign to the Project for the New American Century

Chapter
  • 127 Downloads

Abstract

Despite William Kristol’s optimistic determination to continue to promote an expansive foreign policy, by April 1996—a whole seven months before the Presidential election—he had already resigned himself to a defeat, probably a heavy one. Senator Bob Dole (R-Kansas), the Republican candidate, “may lose badly,” he told readers of The Weekly Standard. In particular, Dole lacked a vision of America’s role in the world. Yet despite this gloomy prognosis, Kristol urged conservatives to “aggressively prosecute their case and advance their cause with little regard to Dole.” What was important was that Republicans prevented a Dole defeat from “derailing the ongoing Republican realignment and from blocking the emergence of a new era of conservative governance.” For Kristol, the 1996 campaign was primarily to be used as a platform to project a new Republican foreign policy that would transcend the election. If this was done with sufficient vigor, it was not completely beyond the realms of possibility that Dole might even eke out a victory. “His best chance to win the Presidency,” Kristol claimed, “is if others create a political environment that sweeps him in.”1

Keywords

Foreign Policy Middle East Moral Ideal Republican Party Strategic Interest 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. John Feffer (ed.), Power Trip: U.S. Unilateralism and Strategy after September 1. (Seven Stories, New York, 2003): 208.Google Scholar
  2. 16.
    James Mann, Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush’s War Cabine. (Viking, New York, 2004): 231–33.Google Scholar
  3. 17.
    Bob Dole, “Shaping America’s Global Future,” Foreign Polic., No. 98 (Spring 1995): 32–34.Google Scholar
  4. 22.
    Hal Brands, From Berlin to Baghdad: America’s Search for Purpose in the Post-Cold War Worl. (The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, 2008): 208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gerald Frost and William E. Odom (eds.), The Congress of Prague: Revitalizing the Atlantic Allianc. (AEI Press, Washington, D.C., 1997).Google Scholar
  6. 39.
    Kristol and Kagan, “Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy”: 19, 20, 23, 26; Robert Kagan, “The Benevolent Empire,” Foreign Policy. No. 111, Summer 1998: 24–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Geir Lundestad’s “Empire by Invitation” thesis in his United States and Western Europe Since 1945: From “Empire” by Invitation to Transatlantic Drif. (Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, 2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. John Lewis Gaddis’s “Empire by Imposition” thesis in his We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War Histor. (Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, 1997): 26–53.Google Scholar
  9. 50.
    Joshua Muravchik, The Imperative of American Leadership: A Challenge to Neo-Isolationis. (AEI Press, Washington D.C., 1996): 161, 163, 164.Google Scholar
  10. 52.
    Michael Ledeen, Freedom Betrayed: How America Led a Global Democratic Revolution, Won the Cold War, and Walked Awa. (AEI Press, Washington D.C., 1996).Google Scholar
  11. 59.
    Maria Ryan, “Neoconservative Intellectuals and the Limitations of Governing: The Reagan Administration and the Demise of the Cold War,” Comparative American Studie., Vol. 4, No. 4, December 2006: 409–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Maria Ryan 2010

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations