Very sharp points on the relationship between state type and foreign policy, this is one of the areas where his overall thesis seems to crumble the most. The point about hypocrisy having value is very original, but I am not sure I find it convincing: surely the Soviet Union's international behaviour was worse than that of today's China, even though the former made bolder claims about the ideals they were supposedly spreading.
One of the differences between Hamid's neoconservative-flavoured stances and the actual neoconservatives is that he is trying to take universal values more seriously than they did. For example, the neoconservatives often ignored the tension between their unequivocal support for Israel, and their desire to spread democracy in the Middle East. In line with democratic peace theory, there was of course the idea that democracies do not fight each other, and therefore Israel would be safer if democracy spreads. But de facto, the reverse is true: Israel is so unpopular in the region that authoritarian regimes are a much safer bet than political systems in which the people's views about Palestine actually matter. So, if support for Israel and spreading democracy come into conflict - e.g. the Brotherhood or Hamas win free and fair elections - there is little doubt most neoconservatives prefer a stable autocrat.
It's an interesting point on democracy in the ME — I believe Shadi has argued that US affinity for Israel has contributed to supporting authoritarian governments in the region for precisely this reason. As for what more conventional neocons would say, my own view is that they aren't really around anymore, but Paul Wolfowitz for example struck me as being pretty sincerely committed at the time.
Similarly, I can recall asking Bernard Lewis about the possibility that pushing for democratization would create more problems than it might solve, and his answer was basically, let's hope it doesn't happen that way.
I think the more pragmatic view that you're otherwise describing could better be seen among the Cold War-era neocons—cf. Jeanne Kirkpatrick's "Dictatorships and Double Standards."
A couple thoughts:
Very sharp points on the relationship between state type and foreign policy, this is one of the areas where his overall thesis seems to crumble the most. The point about hypocrisy having value is very original, but I am not sure I find it convincing: surely the Soviet Union's international behaviour was worse than that of today's China, even though the former made bolder claims about the ideals they were supposedly spreading.
One of the differences between Hamid's neoconservative-flavoured stances and the actual neoconservatives is that he is trying to take universal values more seriously than they did. For example, the neoconservatives often ignored the tension between their unequivocal support for Israel, and their desire to spread democracy in the Middle East. In line with democratic peace theory, there was of course the idea that democracies do not fight each other, and therefore Israel would be safer if democracy spreads. But de facto, the reverse is true: Israel is so unpopular in the region that authoritarian regimes are a much safer bet than political systems in which the people's views about Palestine actually matter. So, if support for Israel and spreading democracy come into conflict - e.g. the Brotherhood or Hamas win free and fair elections - there is little doubt most neoconservatives prefer a stable autocrat.
It's an interesting point on democracy in the ME — I believe Shadi has argued that US affinity for Israel has contributed to supporting authoritarian governments in the region for precisely this reason. As for what more conventional neocons would say, my own view is that they aren't really around anymore, but Paul Wolfowitz for example struck me as being pretty sincerely committed at the time.
Similarly, I can recall asking Bernard Lewis about the possibility that pushing for democratization would create more problems than it might solve, and his answer was basically, let's hope it doesn't happen that way.
I think the more pragmatic view that you're otherwise describing could better be seen among the Cold War-era neocons—cf. Jeanne Kirkpatrick's "Dictatorships and Double Standards."
Superior to my review! I had some similar thoughts.
Many thanks!