What he’s describing is just regular old liberal internationalism , a set of ideas that’s fallen into political eclipse during the Bush years, but that are as robust and important as ever, if not more so. ~Matthew Yglesias

Yglesias closes in on something important in the Fukuyama article, which is the similarity of Fukuyama’s imagined foreign policy to the kind of foreign policy practised under Clinton. Fukuyama’s invocation of Kosovo was not an accident. Kosovo marked, and was very consciously promoted by Blair as marking, the beginning of the interventionism based on “human rights” that should transcend national sovereignty, which is why the “Leninist” neocons liked it as much as the Menshevik neocons a la Fukuyama.

Fukuyama wants interventions for human rights, he wants more Kosovos (thus apparently wanting more unjustified bombing campaigns that hand over European territory to Islamists and criminals), and he wants less of the global hegemon that enjoys his own hegemony promoted by the “Leninist” neocons. Benevolent hegemony no more–Fukuyama would like to see a sort of international consortium of human rights-friendly states or organisations of states that beat up on designated “offender” nations, just as NATO smashed Yugoslavia. His approval of the Kosovo attack is a good example of why a post-neocon internationalism and interventionism will remain just as wrongheaded, dangerous and subversive of real American interests as the current neocon interventionism.