2

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

The End of Neoconservatism

After 2001 my political prognosis was very different than now, in 2006. Bush’s foreign policy plans were all but approved by Congress following 9/11, including the reckless pre-emptive strike on Iraq; domestic policies, including the unfortunate Patriot Act, were almost all rubber-stamped approved by a cowering Congress; and Republicans made gains in the house and the senate in consecutive elections. Needless to say, the conservative movement seemed alive and well, though I think any contemporary political prognosis must take into account that this movement may very well be in demise, and here’s why.

The neoconservative branch of the conservative movement is markedly in decline. Fukayama, the supposed intellectual progenitor of the neoconservative movement, has stated that the Iraq War is in shambles, calls for resignations and investigations into Sec. Rumsfield and other policy "hawks" are increasing, and many initiatives of the Bush administration, including his privatization for social security, aren’t even seeing the light of day of a congressional vote. Democrats consistently outpoll Republicans in polls for 2006, and it is not a question of whether Democrats will pick up seats in the house or senate, but instead just how many. Though the media is certainly corporate -- and thus, by logical extension, conservative – and Republicans will continue to hold majorities in both chambers after 2006 in all probability, the political mood is swinging away from the neoconservative movement and instead towards progressivism.

It is important that not only will Americans move away from conservatism and all its permutations in terms of cultural identity and larger societal shifts, but also that the political structure also becomes Democratic; without votes and winning elections, this anti-Bush and anti-conservative thrust means very little except on a local level. As evidenced in the financial backing of Sen. Kerry in 2004, Democrats can compete financially with the richer Republican elite, and this relatively equal distribution of resources for election is important for Democrats to win over the electorate. In some respects, just as, factually speaking, one must support evolution over creationism because it demonstrates concrete truths, so might American society come to understand and sympathize with the demonstrable truths of progressive politics, and move towards a left-of-center country, particularly in the fields of universal health care, environmental protection, a balanced foreign policy and war on terror, preservation of civil rights, and ethical but pro-business economic policies.

6 Comments:

At 6:08 PM, Blogger Geoffrey said...

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, etc.

 
At 9:50 PM, Blogger Sean Hurly said...

Well I will agree with you that many people are angry. But they are angry with the Bush administration, not the Republican Party as a whole. I think the Democrats will pick up some seats in the house, but your not going to see a gargantuan gain. The problem the Democrats have is that they have not come up with any alternative solutions. It will still be a Herculean task to over through the Republican majority. Now they can gain ground, but the problem lays with their leaders? Who is actually the main leader in the Democratic party? The problem the Democrats have is that they have three parties. You have the Kerry/ Kennedy clan. Than you have the Clinton clan and the Deaniacs. Now it was easy for President Clinton during his tenure in office, because he actually had allot of moderate Democrats when he was around, but this party has gotten fanatical. So are people really going to give up one for the other? If Sen. Clinton runs in 2008 I don't expect her to even win the Democratic election, neither does Alan Combs, her winning is not 100%. Kerry on the other hand presents a grave risk to her, since the Clintons and the Kerry/Kennedy clan hates each other. The main thing during campaigns is not what you have done for people, but its what your going to do for them next. So as we can already see, the Democrats have yet to come up with solutions to problems and that is why they won't win back the majority in either house. This is not flummoxing and they cannot debate in 2006 using tar baby tactics, or they will be sitting ducks. The Republicans have done for the most part, a good job distancing themselves from the Bush administration thus far. You can bet your last dollar that they will stay distanced until the elections are over. So what happens in 2008 if a somewhat conservative moderate like Mike Huckabee wins the Republican nomination? What can the Democrats do if they have a left winger running against a moderate? I guess the only thing left to do is wait and see.

 
At 1:04 AM, Blogger M. J. Baker said...

What the real problem is, as I see it, with the "Neoconservatism" and the current state of the republican party is that has lost its philosophical edge, and in fact has no governing set of principles. It used to be that being conservative meant that one was for smaller government, government staying out of your life, free market activity, and restraint and scepticism in dealing with other countries. Instead, the crew running things now has brought us cronyism, ballooning deficits, an agressive, interventialist foreign policy (and an ill-thought out one at that). It occurs to me as I write this that the Democrats also have no philosophy. Maybe that's just the "try and tell them what they want to hear at-all-costs" nature of politics today.

 
At 6:16 AM, Blogger Chris Hodges said...

The best proof that the education system in this country is broken is that ittakes so much time toeductae liberals on simple issues. Example: it took 4 years to teach liberals that the Presidential Election is decided by the Electoral College.

Well, here is Liberal Civic LEsson #2: in America, elections are not referendums, where the people vote up or down on one party. They are choices where people pick one party over another.

So, yes ...the conservatives have problems, but the country is not going to put liberals in place.....

 
At 6:38 AM, Blogger Tredibaker said...

It is just as plausible that the US will turn to isolationism(a conservative philosophy).

 
At 9:14 AM, Blogger A said...

The Republicans ARE in trouble. More so than they and their pollsters believe. The problem isn't the failure of the neocon philosophies. The problem is that conservatism doesn't get tried. When it does, it succeeds brilliantly. Bush reached across the isle and it got Kennedy credit for the biggest education control bill in US history. B reached across the isle and it got him backstabbed in the FBI and CIA. He reached across the isle with Harriet Miers and we ALMOST got a hard core pro-abortion, pro-affirmative action, female version of David Suter who only had to hide her tendencies for 3 maybe 4 years. B reached across the isle and now we have record deficits. The only thing he has done right is tax cuts and Aghanistan/Iraq wars, and if he weren't showing signs of namby-pambyism Al Qaeda would have been crushed by now. The pride of the conservative movement is, of course, the Reagan years. R stood his ground in the face of namby-pambyism and succeeded brilliantly on virtually all fronts. But his legacy is fading. Just for the record, Bush is NOT a conservative, never was. Neither was his father. He is a laboratory example of a middle-of-the-roader. And the Repubs are committing themselves to doing it again with Juliani in 08. J is anti-self defense, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, liberal who calls himself a Repub. Since Reagan, there has NOT been a conservative in the Whitehouse. Since Reagan, there has not been pride in America where stadium crowds sing the national anthem OUT LOUD. Since Reagan, America has been declining. The Repubs are more concerned with retaining power than doing the things that gained them power. They will lose it. So I agree with your conclusions but not your reasons.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home