The Empire of Japan: protecting Asia from ImperialismThere have been several suggestions by readers for changing the contents of my article, "Conservatism's Moment", posted Monday morning.  The best of these are that (1) social conservatives feel the Republican Party has failed to effectively represent them and are primed to leave; (2) it would be better for American politics and make more sense for libertarian conservatives to form a third party; (3) social conservatives and neoconservatives also share a strong commitment to Israel; (4) the neoconservative international agenda greatly resembles the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere"; and (5) the term conservative has become, itself, Orwellian.  I will address these concerns briefly here. 

The first point, that social conservatives are loyal to the Republican Party only because the Democrats suddenly didn't represent them is true at a national level, however, I think the problem of potential social conservative disaffection could be solved with more federalism.  Were the Republicans to make that a core element of their party platform going forward, I think it would please socially conservative leadership.  Federalism is a fundamental tenet of libertarian conservatives.  So, an alliance with libertarians would give social conservatives the power to actualize their platforms at the state level.   

The second point, that libertarian progress would be better served via the creation of a third party campaigning on an anti-war, anti-corporate-welfare platform is also trenchant.  I think this would also eliminate much of the confusion that exists in American politics: we currently have a two-party system where there is little difference between the Republicans and Democrats outside of underlying philosophy; the last Republican President was elected as a social conservative, but believed in the power of government to change the world through war.  I'm not sure it is neccesary to continue to defend the Bush Administration.  Certainly if the Conservative Party continues to make national news, there is a possibility for a Republican split, with many center-left Democrats joining whichever remainder appears more moderate (given an Obama failure).  But I don't see this happening soon.  The best move for the Republicans is to basically undercut other parties trying to capitalize on the grassroots conservative movement currently taking the country by storm, push federalism, and give social conservatives effective autonomy in states where they are the majority—this while simultaneously calling for fiscal restraint and a scale-back of US overseas troop presence.  With this combination, and the right sales pitch, I think it's possible for the Republicans to capture both demographics and thereby form a statistical majority over Obama supporters.  Is it the best outcome for the country?  Probably not, but its a realistic step that appears obvious to me.   

The third point, that social conservatives and neoconservatives share a strong commitment to Israel is also true, but not the top issue for either faction.  With a poor economy, pressing social concerns at home, and two wars, Israel will probably not play a major role in the foreseeable future and remain something that Presidents of both parties pay lip-service to at the end of their terms, when "important" issues are often moot. 

The fourth point, that the neoconservative political philosophy resembles that of the Japanese military government during World War II is definitely true.  I tried to be neutral in my treatment of neoconservatism throughout "Conservatism's Moment", and, undoubtedly, it is in no small part because of neoconservative criticism of Obama that the Republicans find themselves in such good position now.  But my own opinion on neoconservatism is that it is a frightening and shocking ideology, and there is little "new" about it.  Neoconservatism has been espoused in different forms throughout history: the Empire of Japan's Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere is probably the closest philosophically: both movements came out of the general belief that aggressive spreading of "good" ideas would be good for conquered peoples: the neoconservatives seek to spread democracy, the Japanese sought to protect their Asian neighbors from the horrors of Western Imperialism.  However, neoconservatism also echoes the philosophy espoused by Julius Caesar (as opposed to that of Cato, Brutus, and Cicero), Napoleon, Trotsky, and other "liberators."

Whenever I think of the neoconservative ideal of spreading democracy in the Middle East, I always imagine myself as a rug-trader in Baghdad: through years of hard work I've built a reputation for excellence.  I have contacts from Istanbul to Islamabad.  High-ranking diplomats and dignitaries visit my shop and purchase my rugs.  I've recently bought a new house for my family and another property across town to open up another shop for my expanding stock.  My bank account is growing, and I'm satisfied with my operations.  It's taken twenty-five years to get this far, but I have lived an honest life and run an honest business, and I am proud of all I have acheived.  But then my city is bombed because a few over-educated guys half-way across the globe think there's a 1% chance it makes them safer.  A third of my customers are dead and another third flee the country.  My life, my hard work, my dream is over.

The fifth point, that the term "conservative" has lost a lot of meaning over the years is also undoubtedly true, and is a part of politics.  Bush refered to himself as a "compassionate conservative", but his policies were neither compassionate nor conservative.  Andrew Kitchell's comment to "Conservatism's Moment", "as much as I like the true values of the conservative movement these values scarcely exist in the Republican Party that is portrayed by the media (and the people who vote Republican...)," is thought-provoking at the least: there is a fundamental incongruity between espousing a political philosophy that doubts the competence of government to affect change and believing in a government-imposed death penalty, pre-emptive war, no child left behind, corporate stimulus, or domestic spying.  But one needs only to look at the difference between American and European political terminology to see this: the word "liberal" almost has the exact opposite meaning in the United Kingdom as in the United States.  This, in many ways, was the point of the article.  The Republicans should stop playing games, clarify their position, and put up candidates that represent that position, instead of simply pandering to voters.