Ultra-Conservative, Neo-Conservative, Conservative, Moderate Conservative... What's The Difference?

NEOCONS AND REALISTS.
Same Difference

According to many--perhaps even too many--there isn't much difference between any of the degrees of conservative. My only problem with conservativism--or liberalism--is when there seems to be an entrenchment into positions so tightly held that reason, intellect, fact, and genuine dynamics of any given situation do not allow a fair and truthful analysis and response to the matters at hand.

I know many conservatives... and respect only a handful... I know a lot of liberals... and respect only a handful. The truth of the matter is that I view most politicians as sell outs to greed, power and influence. We cannot reject conservative ideas out of hand or on the basis that they are conservative. But, neither can we endorse conservative ideas on the basis that they come from a conservative or conservative body.

Here, in Indiana, where I live, the politicians are busy selling the people of the state short. The Republican-dominated government--especially the General Assembly and the Governor--treats those of us living in the North (especially Northwest, near Chicago) as bastard children, even though this is where much of the state tax base exists. Most of the state is Republican-controlled and most of the decisions of the General Assembly are controlled from within the bounds of Marion County, centered around Indianapolis. That is also where the "big money" of politics rests as well... In Marion County. Most of the state is conservative and largely kowtows to the Bible-thumping Christian presence...

Now don't get me wrong, I am a Christian. I fully believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I read Scripture as lierature, as inspiration, as a moral guide and as the Living Word of God. It is my belief that God has called me to do what I do... teach, minister, write, think... and even my own personal struggles with family, work, finance, marriage, and day-to-day issues, etc. So it is not religion, religious fervor, or even Christianity that gives me cause for pause...

It is the all-too-willing nature of far too many conservatives to set aside the US Constitution and constitutional principles to put their version of Christianity on the top rung of the civil discourse. In their view of the world, if one wants to create a principle not based on their understanding of God--and that IS the issue: their understanding of God--then they not only dismiss it, but attack it. Which is exactly what other religious zealots do as well.

In today's news there is the issue of a Muslim Afghan that converted to Christianity and is now caught up in the tangles of an unjust application of "sha'ria". While Afghanistan has a constitution, it is set aside in favor of religious law, thus entangling religion with the state. While every Christian conservative I know, including President Bush, is now bemoaning the events in Afghanistan as being unfair, unjust and unprincipled, they cannot see how their own actions and push for God in government are essentially the same... and cause the same sort of enmeshed struggles between religious believers and those that do not believe in exactly the same manner... or in different beliefs altogether.

So, when I read this article in TNR Online, it struck me that the struggle from within the ranks of the conservatives--primarily found among the ranks of the Republican Party--is one to find a solidly cohesive voice based on principles that do appeal to a broader base of the general public.

Newspapers and magazines have been filled with talk of a conservative foreign policy schism. The Republican Party comes off sounding a lot like ... well, Iraq: Its charismatic leader deposed, long-suppressed feuds have bubbled up into a bloody and seemingly intractable feud.

I don't think that's quite right. The conservatives are more like a married couple bickering over how to break the news to their kids that they've gone broke and have to sell the house and move to a poorer neighborhood.

My take is that it is more like a married couple trying to work out differing views on what color the couch needs to be, what wallpaper to hang and who's job it is to take out the garbage... and speaking of garbage, that is precisely why these internal squabbles are becoming public. The Republican Party has generated a lot of garbage lately, and there aren't a lot of qualified Republicans ready to deal with the trash, the chores of cleaning house and restoring order to the Party, the Congress and the Republican-controlled government.

Supposedly, Republicans are divided over core principles. Neoconservatives favor continued Bushian wars to spread democracy, while realists are skeptical. However, neoconservatives aren't really pushing for any Iraq sequels. Many of them are threatening Iran, but they're talking about airstrikes to take out a nuclear program, not a land invasion to implant democracy.

This is where I seek reasoned counsel... These "core principles" being discussed are not core to being a citizen of the United States, or a good neighbor in the international community. While the United States is a super power and bears some responsibility for assisting the world to develop basic principles of human rights across the global political spectrum, we do not have any right to impose our will upon others in any way. But, being human beings, we are wont to do just that...

As for any military action against Iran, did we not learn anything from our fiasco in Iraq? Our intelligence regarding Iran is just as shaky as that which we used to justify attacking the Hussein regime, Iraq, and our coninued foray into managing the future of Iraqi citizens. President Bush has conceded that he has lost political capital because of events in Iraq, but still has US forces committed to Iraq for a long time coming. He has also indicated that our forces will stay in Iraq until at least 2009... or longer if another ultra-conservative Republican wins the next election.

President Bush said Tuesday that the war in Iraq was eroding his political capital, his starkest admission yet about the costs of the conflict to his presidency, and suggested that American forces would remain in the country until at least 2009.

The neoconservatives and realists may be divided about the wisdom of invading Iraq, but their prospective strategies aren't that different. Both favor deep engagement with the world, nonmilitary measures to promote democratization, alliances with Pakistan and other unsavory allies, and so on.

But I ask what business we have promoting democracy around the world when we need to restore democracy at home? We need to rebuild our own infrastructures... our own highways, bridges, ports, waterways, energy resources, alternative energy resources, etc. We need to restore confidence in our political system so that 90% or more of our citizens eligible to vote, register and actively participate in the process.

The bottom line is that if only a range of 8 million to 75 million people participate in the election process on a regular basis, then we do not have a true democracy... we have an elitist version of a democratic republic, much like the Romans of old. Our own democracy is in a state of erosion and dilapidation... Something from Scripture comes to mind... "Physician, heal thyself..." If we don't have our act together when it comes to democracy, then how can we expect to be the example for the rest of the world. We need to do some internal repairs of our democracy... especially since many of our rights are being eroded by our own representatives of the democracy that we are holding out as a "model" for the world.

To the extent that there is a schism, it's between the GOP's intellectuals and its base. Republican voters have always held a dim view of nation building, democracy implanting, and any expenditure of blood or treasure that seems to have some charitable motivation. They can be roused to belligerency by wars of revenge or against communists of any sort, but they retain a deep-seated isolationist impulse.

Those Republican voters, though, are a fairly pliable lot. George W. Bush ran in 2000 as a committed enemy of nation building who promised a more "humble" foreign policy. He railed against what he saw as an overstretched military and promised to treat our friends overseas as "allies, not satellites." Republicans lapped it up. Now he's done the opposite of all those things, and they're still lapping it up.

I guess we threw that baby out with the bath water...

I know, I know--"9/11 changed everything." That's the pro-Bush explanation for his total ideological reversal, anyway. I'm not buying that one, either.

The only change that the events of 9-11 offered us is an awareness that the rest of the world already knew... we are vulnerable to terrorist attacks. But we are vulnerable because we are not doing what it takes to be secure. Our chemical plants are not secure. Our nuclear power plants are inadequately protected. Our ports are not secure. Our railways and highways are inviting attacks on hazardous materials. Our civil defense capabilities are at an all-time low. Our EMS, hospital and hazmat systems are plagued by inadequcies. Our major cities are still predominantly under prepared, and our rural communities are not prepared at all. We are spending millions upon millions and these tax dollars have been spent frivolously... much of it being spent on things not even remotely related to civil defense, homeland security or anti-terrorism. As was evidenced by the crashing towers of the World Trade Center, our architectural standards and security measures for major buildings are wholly inadequate (c.f. PBS NOVA: Why The Towers Fell). Our airports remain poorly protected.

Things did not change after 9-11... WE DID. I am not all that convinced that the changes were for the better.

The Bush Doctrine announced after September 11 held that we won't distinguish between terrorists and the countries that harbor them. The administration had good reasons to invade Iraq, but getting the terrorists wasn't one of them. That was just the reason given to the GOP base. Bush sometimes mentioned his desire to spread democracy before the war, but he only started emphasizing it after Iraq turned out not to have any weapons of mass destruction. The war didn't follow from the theory. The theory followed from the war.

None of what we were told has rung true. We were lied to by the man holding the highest office in our executive branch... the man holding the office where, as Harry S. Truman said, the buck stops and where we look for solid leadership and the truth.

The Republican base bought into this theory mainly because President Bush said it. As the end of the Bush era approaches and the prospects for democracy in Iraq grow ever more remote, Republicans are trying to figure out what to tell them next. What they're not arguing about is what to do next.

This illustrates the problem with the conservatives and especially the ultra-conservatives... they have left the decisions up to someone else based on a personality rather than checking the facts and realities... Bush said it, so it must be true. We are now seeing the same damned thing coming up in the wake of the current push to blame the media for the lack of political support for Iraq... Bush and his gang are saying that the press is not reporting on the "good" that is being done... But if we ask the average Iraqi what is "good" and we will find out that getting fresh water, turning on the electricity, picking up the garbage, restoring health care, and re-establishing jobs is "good," and developing a democratic government is the least of their concerns. On top of that, most of the Iraqis would rather have a civil war than be occupied by a non-Muslim force.

The "Bush Plan for Iraq" is an utter failure and it has nothing to do with how the media is reporting on Iraq and everything to do with a flawed plan, a flawed understanding of the Iraqi people and culture, and a flawed administration that refuses to listen to anything but their own "yes men."

I'll summarize the recent conservative manifestos. National Review Editor Rich Lowry, sort of a conservative/realist, argues in a cover story that while the Iraq war "was in important respects ill-conceived," the outcome is "still in doubt," and we can win. Going forward, our foreign policy should be adjusted to allow "more of an emphasis on diplomacy and allies; a realization that creating democracy through military intervention is deeply problematic; a greater measure of prudence."

Herein lies another rub... most of the conservatives at the base of the Republican Party are "sort of" Republican and mostly ultra-conservative Christians... and most of the intellectuals in the Republican Party are "sort of" intellectual and mostly party wonks. The distance between the party wonks and the party base is bridged by party consultants that get people elected without really caring about what the plan is once these folks get elected... as long as they get paid... "After all, we are capitalists, not communists." (The Godfather)

On the other hand, disillusioned neoconservative Francis Fukuyama in his much-discussed essay in The New York Times Magazine laments "the Bush administration's incomprehensible failure to plan adequately for the insurgency." Nonetheless, "we need to prevail." Fukuyama argues that "the worst legacy that could come from the Iraq war would be an anti-neoconservative backlash." He favors tweaking: better alliances, more skepticism about imposing democracy, etc.

The clarion call for all Americans is to become more involved and take politics seriously... to get directly involved in assessing each candidate, each political body, and assure that our core American values are implemented HERE--on our shores--first and foremost... As my grandfather and father used to tell me, "Charity begins at home." In this case, polity and democracy begin at home.

What did arch-neoconservative Bill Kristol have to say to this? In a Weekly Standard editorial, he blasted Fukuyama's essay but almost entirely avoided its substance. Instead, Kristol issued rousing calls for "resolve" against the enemy and denounced "dishonorable retreat." This is roughly translated as: "La la la, I can't hear you."

Here lies yet another rub... NO SUBSTANCE! Most of the ultra-conservatives do not examine the substance of matters. They are one or two issue voters that take a candidate on their word... as long as that word is in keeping with what they want to hear about being against abortion, for prayer in schools, for the Ten Commandments being displayed in court foyers, and making sure America returns to "family values" as defined by a handful of hypocritical ultra-conservative Christian Right preachers like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, et al.... all of whom have had their share of controversial scandals and "crises of faith and conscience."

Here is the real difference between the realists and the neocons: The former think the way to keep the base in line is to concede some mistakes and adjust accordingly, while the latter think any admission of error will cause their political coalition to collapse.

And the difference between these folks and the rest of us is that we think we need to resolve some issues, do some serious inward consideration, implement some serious problem-solving steps, and return to the core first principles embedded and clearly stated in our Constitution...

We do not detain people without just cause...

We do not mistreat, torture, isolate or demean people in our custody...

We do not invade sovereign states without a causus beli (act of war) or a mandate under international law...

We do not send troops into harm's way without an adequate plan, just cause or a workable strategy for getting the hell out of the pickle...

We do not impose our will upon others, but stand ready to render aid...

We do not lie to our own citizens...

We do not lie to our congress...

We do not violate our own Constitution, our own laws or our own first principles...

WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE GOOD GUYS... That's the part that the conservatives, neoconservatives, ultra-conservatives, the Christian Right and the Republican Party do not seem to get... I am not sure the Democrats get it either... But at least they have a little better record for standing up for us Average Joes.