What criticism did opponents make of neoconservative support for pro-American dictatorships?

Critics of neoconservatism argue that there is a fundamental hypocrisy in the movement's foreign policy. While neoconservatives frequently profess a commitment to promoting democracy and idealism abroad, opponents contend that they have been consistently willing to support deeply undemocratic, pro-American regimes to serve national interests.1

This criticism specifically targets the neoconservative justification for backing authoritarian dictatorships, a stance famously articulated by Jeane Kirkpatrick in her 1979 essay, "Dictatorships and Double Standards." Detractors view this position as unapologetically cynical, arguing that it contradicts the movement's stated democratic values.1

Furthermore, critics point to a perceived inconsistency in neoconservative thought: while neoconservatives are often highly skeptical of the unintended consequences of domestic social programs, they frequently display a lack of similar caution regarding foreign interventions. Opponents argue that this failure to anticipate the negative outcomes of interventionist policies—such as the sectarian violence following the Iraq War—demonstrates a dangerous absence of the very skepticism they apply to domestic policy.1