Neo Conservatism: The endangered species of political thought

Sometimes it’s good to be unpopular. To be the odd one out in a group people and provoke debate rather than going alone with an uneasy silence. Yet you have to listen as well and then come to a reasoned judgement. That’s compromise without leaving principles behind. That’s what neo conservatism has to do now.

To label oneself as a neo con these days carries a similar social stigma as lighting up a cigaragette in a pub as well as possibly admitting you owned a spice girls cd as a kid (for the record I didn’t…..ahem). This isn’t a surprise. The three main political parties in the UK seem to have no time for it. The Lib Dems are completely against it, the Conservatives currently has much worse relations with their sister party (the American Republican party), which acts as the political base for neo conservatism, than it did in the Reagan/Thatcher days and the Labour Party is still incredibly split on issues related to it such as the Iraq war. The UK public seem to dislike it even more with support dropping across the board for neo conservative actions such as the war in Iraq. Even in its own backyard of the USA it is losing support and there’s a real risk that there won’t be a Republican President in 2008. Where does this resentment leave neo conservatism? The answer is dangerously close to extinction.

You know something is wrong when seemingly sane people in the UK actively believe that the USA is a bigger danger to world peace than Al Qaeda and associated groups such as Hamas as well as actively campaigning for a coalition defeat to the terrorists in Iraq. Whatever you think of the theory, if you destroy it as a politically active belief on the world stage then we are seriously limiting our options with dealing with this huge international threat. But equally the theory is not sustainable in its current form. Something needs to change both with neo cons and western none (or should that be anti) neo cons. It doesn’t surprise me that many of my peers don’t believe in neo conservatism. What does surprise me is that people believe the serious misinformation campaign that has been launched against it.

Since it came into existence the theory has had numerous successes. For a start its foundations are completely unconservative. This comes from the Trotskyist idea of permanent revolution of communism spreading through the world. The neo conservative alternative is of course democracy. Further evidence of this comes from individual influential neo conservatives who started their political lives with socialist tendencies such as James Burnham and Max Shachtman. By adapting left wing ideas and left wing figures the philosophy is able to see the argument from the other side better than a theory that has always been rooted in right wing politics. This broad view is its main strength. On a more practical side the main achievement comes from encouraging a strong change of attitudes during the cold war against the Soviet Union from one of appeasement to one of victory. By spending more on defence and challenging communism more aggressively wherever it emerged around the world the Soviet Union was led into a position of destruction. That also destroys a myth that the Soviet Union somehow killed off itself. It spent the money it did to try and keep pace with the USA and when it couldn’t anymore it failed. This was only made possible by Reagan and the Republican Party raising the challenge.

It was only when the approach of pre emptive strikes against emerging enemies of the West was reduced that we began to store up problems for ourselves. This short-sightedness can be blamed, I believe, upon the Clinton Administration. They ignored the threat for too long and allowed it to become too powerful. This is recognised by sources far more important than my thoughts, primarily the 9/11 commission and is one of the main reasons why the terrible terrorist attacks on the USA happened.

Yet whilst all the above reasons offer strengths for the Neo Conservative cause, there are weaknesses as well. Here’s what I think they are and what needs to be done to correct them:

1: Wars on the cheap:
The reason the West won the cold war was that it was prepared to invest in defence for the long term. In the short term this can be seen as a waste of money but if it cements a country’s position in the world order then it is well worth the investment. This didn’t happen at first in Iraq as the situation on the ground was misjudged in believing that the war would be a quick one. As we all know now that hasn’t happened and led to us having to spend more money than if it had been properly planned in the first place we would have had to spend

2: Alienation from the public:
After 9/11, 90% plus of people wanted to change strategy, to make it impossible for something like that to never happen again. That has now decreased drastically and left the theory looking like a closed group. This is not just people within the USA/ Britain etc but all across the Muslim world as well

3: Ideology no matter the cost:
Power sometimes brings arrogance and it is possible to exist outside the reality based world because of this. This is fine when it produces results but when it doesn’t it is seen as weak and ignoring genuine concerns of people on a practical level.

These three points leave big gapping holes that the enemies of Neo Conservatism can attack. Yet there are solutions and to implement them needs to brought about by brave and bold change.

1: Export free markets as well as democracy:
All western countries are successful when judged against there counterparts around the world not just because they are democratic but also because they exist as free market economies. Many states in the Middle East are run along complete or at least semi socialist lines guaranteeing the power of an elite at the top of society. It is naïve to think that an instant use of force is the only way to stop this. Economic change can bring change in a slower way by sidelining government and empowering citizens. The Neo Con needs to work with institutions like the IMF and World Bank to embrace these changes as much as possible.

2: Culture Wars:
The long terms history of Christian Conservatism is closer to the social conservatism of many Muslims than the liberal agenda pushed mercilessly in the West over the last 45 years. Bearing this in mind with the fact that the Neo Con agenda wishes to spread throughout the world it must have something to offer that is beneficial. Drug addicts, teenage pregnancies and mass abortions isn’t it and as long as groups like Al Qaeda can portray Western society as decadent then on a social scale the Neo Cons won’t be able to convince the people of the middle east that they wish to see a similar social culture to the one taught in the Koran. In essence, one must get their own house in order before looking to sort out others.

3: Africa:
This huge area will be the battleground of the next 100 years between the West and the Terrorists. Fundamentalism Islamic is spreading into the north east of this continent at an enormous rate and causing great atrocities in places like the Sudan. It is also used to control people. An example is education. Many African children still do not go to school so Islamic governments only offer schools that teach agendas such as Sharia law effectively brainwashing children who are desperate for an education. The Neo Con agenda is largely silent on this area and ignores the vast landscape at its peril. It is often forgotten that the origins of Al Qaeda were formed in North African countries close to Europe. History does repeat itself and the idea of gaining a base on your enemies’ doorstep appears to be nothing new here. Something must be done to stop this.

Those three objectives are no means the only things needed to change Neo Conservatism for the future. Much structural work needs to be done to win in Iraq and Afghanistan but the operation on the ground is pointless if the bigger theoretical argument isn’t won both at home and also with the majority of people in the Middle East who the philosophy is aimed at to liberate so they can enjoy the same quality of life and opportunity as we do in the West.