Is it Possible for America to Embrace Neoconservatism Again Without Repeating History?

In 2021, I debated Shadi Hamid at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. I argued that the U.S. was backing a series of aggressive, expansionist regimes in the Middle East, whose actions were just as harmful as the Iranian influence they claimed to counter. I suggested that Washington adopt a neutral policy toward the region, guided by the principle, First, do no harm. Hamid, identifying as an interventionist, countered that America has a moral duty to prevent atrocities because its adversaries are worse. He cited the Russian-Iranian intervention in Syria, while I highlighted the Saudi-Emirati involvement in Yemen and the Turkish-Kurdish conflict. Since then, the world has produced countless additional examples of conflict and suffering.

Hamids new book, The Case for American Power, argues that power is an unavoidable reality. Someone must wield it, he writes, dismissing the notion of a morally flawless superpower as fantasy. He praises American domestic freedoms and tries to link them to U.S. influence abroad, a connection that often contradicts the very freedoms he celebrates. The book largely attempts to philosophically justify this contradiction, suggesting the possibility of a more humane U.S. empire, even if it remains aspirational rather than realized. Hamid notes that as a democracy, the U.S. has the capacity to improve in ways authoritarian states cannot.

Critics like Nathan Thrall describe this approach as feeling good about feeling bad, where acknowledging wrongdoing becomes a tool to maintain authority rather than rectify past mistakes. For example, while the Iraq invasion is widely recognized as disastrous, Hamid contends that U.S. power remains preferable to alternatives, despite the enduring influence of Iranian-aligned Shiite factions and the ongoing human rights abuses under their rule.

The U.S. is not unique in wielding military power, invading nations, or propping up dictators, but what sets it apart is the global scale of its reach. Hamid correctly observes that a flawless superpower does not exist, and Americas post-World War II dominance was historically contingent. He critiques past missteps, like engaging with China, yet warns against self-imposed limitations, framing the challenge as one of resolve and strategic imagination.

Today, American foreign policy is marked by proxy wars, regime manipulation, and selective interventions. Both the Trump and Biden administrations relied on indirect conflict strategies in regions where direct action was politically or logistically impractical. Hamid rejects a modest approach to power, arguing that the U.S. has the resources to maintain global dominance and should not entertain graceful decline.

Drawing on neoconservative tradition, Hamid emphasizes the need for assertive American leadership, citing Elliott Abramss Cold War-era concerns about global revolutions. Ironically, Hamid both critiques Washingtons longstanding alliances with Middle Eastern autocrats and implicitly validates the principles that produced those alliances. The central question remains whether America can wield power responsibly without replicating the destructive outcomes of its past interventions.

Author: Grace Ellison