Professor Wendy Brown, in her article “American Nightmare: Neoliberalism, Neoconservatism, and De-Democratization” describes neoliberalism and neoconservatism as two parallel “rationalities” working in tandem to diminish the democratic nature of society. Neoliberalism emphasizes the market aspect of reality while neoconservatism valorizes its moral aspect. And she asks:
How does a rationality that is expressly amoral at the level of both ends and means (neoliberalism) intersect with one that is expressly moral and regulatory (neoconservatism)?…How does support for governance modeled on the firm and mormative social fabric of self-interest marry or jostle against support for governance modeled on church authority and a normative social fabric of self-sacrifice and long-term filial loyalty, the very fabric shredded by unbridled capitalism? (Brown 2006, 692)
Brown’s answer to this question is that neoliberalism paves the way for neoconservatism. It weakens the institutions of liberal democracy thus making it possible for “neoconservative’s authoritarianism”. It is the combination of these two rationalities that gives rise to an intense “anti-democratic political culture” (Brown 2006, 710). In her analysis of the collusion between these two “rationalities”, however, Brown sees the significant effect as “de-democratization”, I would claim that the more important effect is imperialism, and that “de-democratization” can be seen as a means towards that end.
A critique of Brown’s analysis would question her characterization of neoconservatism as “expressly moral”. I would argue that neoconservatism entails a postmodern critique of morality and that its morality is post-Nietzschean (Drury 1988; Naranjit 2008). Strauss for instance, a philosopher much favored by neoconservatives, sees the problem of morality in the modern age as that of conceiving the very possibility of morality in the face of modernity’s skeptical tenor. Strauss resolves the issue by outlining the exoteric nature of political philosophy. Philosophy defends “public orthodoxy” exoterically even while it esoterically recognizes its “deadly truths” and the skeptical nature of philosophy (Strauss 1953; Naranjit 2008). The express morality of neoconservatism is therefore a cloak that hides its real driving force – the will to power. The impulse towards imperialism is the expression of this will to power which Nietzsche considers as what is fundamental in reality (Strauss 1996).
Kinhide Mushakoji in “Towards a Multi-Cultural Modernity: Beyond Neo-Liberal/Neo-Conservative Global Hegemony” describes the features of what he calls “global colonialism” “The combination of a global neoliberal structure of exploitation with the military/political hegemony can be interpreted within the historical trajectory of colonialism, which we propose to call “global colonialism”(Mushakoji 2010, 3). According to Mushakoji, it has two sides – an economic aspect and a military/political aspect. I would argue that this global colonialism is a fundamental part of the “new nationalism” of neoconservatism. In this study I use the term ‘neoconservatism’ to describe the underlying philosophy behind what Mushakoji calls “global colonialism”, and I argue that neoliberalism is its economic arm.
The philosophy of Darryl Naranjit 