badgenome said:
Well then, you should know how neocons thought at the time. Nowadays you can find Fukuyama running like hell from his own ideas. The elite are as prone to parochialism as anyone. And the naturally intelligent are probably more prone to believing foolish things than the less intelligent. The dullard tends to believe only in what he sees, while the intelligent often get carried away by their own fantastic imaginations. It doesn't help matters that if you grow up being told all the time how bright and smart you are, you can easily become convinced of your own intellectual superiority and are thus rendered unteachable. |
Agree to an extent that conceptions and misconceptions come and go, elites aren't immune to that. I wouldn't call it stupid though. Agree that people who backed Iraq war might had some ideological concept in the mind in general, like "current model of liberalism won, hurray" (though it was 2003, a bit late for "hurrah", no? If it was 5 year before that -- I'd understand this euphoria). But in regards to practical politics -- I don't buy that. Say, Nazi Germany's leaders might had some idological concept in their mind during "drang nach osten" (you name it), but they did solve their practical problems -- getting rid of the threat, at lest what they thought to be a threat.
I don't follow Fukuyama right now, but I do follow Zbigney B. -- not sure if he qualifies as neocon -- I do read a lot of dissapointment between the lines coming from him these days, drastic change since the 90s, enjoying that :D
//Speaking about *ahem* democratization, how Arab Spring fall into that scheme?
