Horse Sense: What’s Left and What’s Right? (Part II)
It is no wonder the end of the Cold War (an international bipolar regime of sorts) started to shake up political labels again. Victory in the Cold War took away a major defining aspect of conservatism and along with it, a host of military and foreign policy related issues no longer resulted in unanimity on the Right. The end of the Cold War also gave liberals a reprieve, particularly with the return of economic prosperity and the advent of the information age and a global economy. You might think conservatives would be more cohesive and organized today than they are. After all, there are always more liberal reform directions to go in, and theoretically there is just one heritage and a few identifiable traditions to defend. That’s why liberal parties get most of the bad rap for incessant squabbles. Lately, however, the conservative movement finds itself in special disarray, reminiscent of the Democratic Party of the Sixties. There’s a tremendous debate on the Right about what went wrong and what is necessary to define the “next†brand of conservatism. Although there are particular circumstances producing this problem for the conservative movement, the situation was predictable if not altogether inevitable. For decades the conservative movement operated in and thus affected both of the major political parties in this country. After the Reagan Revolution, however, it became increasingly identified with the Republican Party. Of course, since political parties are vehicles for electoral success primarily, when movements based upon ideas become identified with one or the other political party, they tend to lose steam or worse, find their central tenets and cherished principles compromised for the sake of political expediency. For a long time conservatives enjoyed Republicans’ electoral successes with at least a partial success of their ideas. The war in Iraq, however, has opened up fissures in their coalition, and a host of inconsistent policies misnamed “conservative†by the Bush Administration has stymied the movement outright.
If ideological movements can and do use political parties, political parties and administrations also use ideological labels when they think it helps them sell their policies—compromised tenets and principles, or no! The buzz today amongst conservatives is about a small cadre of intellectuals within the conservative movement called neoconservatives, who were once constructive (or at least they did less damage) while we were engaged in the Cold War. Since 9/11, however, they led the administration into war with Iraq. Further, the “neocons†are so hawkish in the War on Terror that some would prosecute war on the entire Muslim world. They are at the forefront of saber rattling towards Iran, even though our military is overcommitted and stretched thin. A traditional or “paleoconservative†objects to changing foreign policy emphasis away from national security and protecting America’s vital interests to that of democratizing the entire planet. A traditional American conservative supports attempts at brokering peace, not using war unnecessarily as an instrument for foreign policy. Phyllis Schlafly completes the list of other things the Bush Administration has stood for, alien to conservatism defined during the Reagan years: “nation-building overseas, highly concentrated executive power, federal control of education, big increases in social entitlements, massive increases in legal and illegal immigration, forcing American workers to compete with low-wage foreigners (under deceptive enticements such as free trade and global economy), and subordinating U.S. sovereignty to a North American community with open borders.â€
Now you could be one of those, like most Americans, who thinks we should try to get away from polarizing political labels and maybe from ideology altogether. Your point is well taken to this extent. At the end of the day, it may not matter if there’s “big†government or “small†government or whether it is a conservative or liberal thing to be for one or the other—just so long as it’s a “smart†government (and I would add constitutional government), i.e., having enough of the right kind of government to get the right job done. Ideology is fine, even important, but so is pragmatism and common sense. Ideology shouldn’t obscure facts or preclude someone from entertaining other viewpoints and alternative approaches. Ideology should facilitate thinking, not substitute for it. That goes for whether you are liberal or conservative, no matter what’s Left and what’s Right.
_____________________
Wesley Allen Riddle is a retired military officer with degrees and honors from West Point and Oxford. Widely published in the academic and opinion press, he ran for U.S. Congress (TX-District 31) in the 2004 Republican Primary. Email: wes@wesriddle.com.
other posts you may enjoy ::
Have you enjoyed this post? Would you consider subscribing to our blog via RSS or a daily e-mail? That way you'll never be out of the loop. New posts will come directly to you -- brilliant!
Share This ::