Fareed Zakaria’s “The End of Conservatism”

I love Fareed and Thomas Friedman not just because they confirm my bias most times but because sometimes they do not, and when they don’t they deny me in a way that is void of party politics and hyperbolic rhetoric. I also have been known to learn a thing or two from them. So… When I saw Fareed’s piece at Newsweek online I had a bit of a start. Certainly Fareed has not sided with the 24 hour cable news pundits. That would be crushing. Or perhaps I was wrong and he was right? Scared of either outcome I read on. It turns out that Fareed’s shorter than normal piece is kind of a musing rather than anything else.

Fareed starts out with the accounts of a Bush insider who is writing a book defending Bush and his policies and makes some good points. But that certainly doesn’t spell the end of Conservatism? He goes on about how “conservatives” are voting for McCain. Hmmm, not really Fareed. They are voting republican and McCain is the most Republican. You see Fareed even a great mind like your own forgets that Republican and Conservative is not interchangeable. He commits this error in the first sentence! “Conservatives are a gloomy bunch at the moment. Many believe that their party—the Republican Party—has lost its way and that it has done so by abandoning its principles.” You see Fareed’s assumption here is that Conservatives own the Republican party. We do not. He also assumes that as GW Bush is the de facto head of the Republican party for a time he is also for a time the head of the Conservative Movement. He is not.

Conservatives have not had a politician as a leader since Reagan. And to be fair, Reagan was not absolutely conservative. Only in hind sight do we see that he was the most important conservative leader of our time but by no means the conservative messiah. He was not the embodiment of conservative principles. But he was close. Certainly the closest of my generation.

So how can Fareed infer that because of McCain and Bush being the head and temporary head of the Republican party that the Conservative Movement is dead? Only by assuming that the Party and the Movement are inextricably linked. Again with much respect, he is wrong.

Conservatives are at a crossroads and we are in effect defining ourselves. (Not “re” defining ourselves. The principles of the movement have always been there. Conservatism is a priori. ) The world is seeing that Conservatives are not just Republicans and that we are not necessarily white Christians. Now, if you are wagering that the next conservative to come through the door will be a white Christian that would still be a good bet. But more and more conservatives are defining what we are and what we are not. We are casting off stereotypes that have haunted us and revising flawed policy. This distinction between us and the Republican Party is what is being confused as “the end.”

You see, the Conservative Movement has pushed the Republican Party for a long time. But it is not the only influence. Christian and Social Conservatives have also done some pushing. And modifying Conservative with “Christian” or “Social” makes one something other than a true Conservative. Your heart may belong to God but when it comes time to render unto Caesar your ass belongs to the Movement. And unfortunately on issues like abortion and gay marriage the opposite has been true. There is no way you can call for less government intrusion and call for a Constitutional ban on gay marriage. There is no way a rights minded conservative that understands the meaning of “slippery slope” will be for any federal mandates or influence on abortion. And don’t even get me started on Federalism and education or immigration!

These issues are being discussed like never before. Conservatives are not coming to an end we are actually streamlining and defining what we are. The next logical step is that we remove from the Movement the modifiers. Modifiers are fine in a political party but you are either a conservative or something else. I welcome with open arms the Social Conservatives and Christian Conservatives and the Security Conservatives, all three legs of Rush Limbaugh flawed conservative stool/table, to the Republican Party but there is only room for true conservatives to lead the Movement. I know this is tough for some to hear. I am sure Rush would call me Judas for my notions on abortion or gay marriage. Or, maybe Rush knows that abortion is a State’s Rights issue and gay marriage was a useful tool for Rove in ‘04 that never had a chance to be law but is ultimately bad for the country. Which ever it is we shall see.

So, Fareed’s eye catching title did its work. I immediately clicked that link and read what he had to say. On this subject however he is off the mark. Conservatism is much broader than any party and is not tied to the failures or successes of that party. Conservatism is what Conservatism is, a movement, an ideology, a values system. And neither McCain nor Bush can do permanent damage to it.

Guns don't kill people... Bombs don't kill people... SUVs don't kill people...

It’s coming. Just wait a bit.

After the obligatory waiting period of a week or two the attack on “Guns” will begin. I was living in Ireland when the VA Tech shooting took place. The Europeans moved from condolences to contempt after about a week. “Gun Culture” was the preferred narrative or catch phrase. It won’t be long before the assault on guns begins here at home.

Soon after the Virginia murders I wrote a hasty piece for my blog you can find that here (please excuse the many typos and poor grammar). When the blame begins please note the amount of attention given to “guns” or other gun related equipment rather than the person who pulled the trigger. This is done sometimes on purpose and I suspect most often subconsciously. Because it is easier to attack something that has no voice like “guns” or "bombs" or "SUVs" and difficult to confront something that does, “people,” debaters will take the easy route and unfortunately address the symptom with much more rigor than the actual problem.

The problems of mental health, youth violence and desensitization will take an unfortunate back-seat to besmearing the availability of lawfully gained guns and accessories. The same ridiculous notion that more regulation of lawfully gained guns will somehow reduce gun crime will be explored and emotion rather than fact and reason will take precedent. The fact that lawfully gained firearms are rarely involved in any crime will not be brought up or will be poorly represented. The fact that outlawing guns will only result in criminals having guns will be ignored or poorly represented. The fact that lawfully carried firearms reduce crime will be ridiculed and belittled with no facts to back up the slighting of these truisms. And most disturbing of all politicians will call for more "gun" regulation, addressing the symptom, rather than more understanding of "people" and the reasons they kill, the problem.

It’s coming…just wait.

Nancy Pelosi goes NEGATIVE

While my mind struggles between a bad choice (McCain) and uneasy choice (Obama) I am once again reminded of the stakes. Nancy Pelosi on CNN’s late edition told Wolf Blitzer that the surge is a “failure.” She sights the same thing we hear from all the liberal candidates that the surge was supposed to provide the time and space necessary for Iraq’s government to bring political change and to reconcile, which is partially true. Any student of history knows that six months of surge is not sufficient enough time for lasting reconciliation or real political change, for that matter neither is five years enough. These lofty goals will be the work of decades, if not centuries.

The surge was never designed to work in six months. It was designed to quell the violence enough for these goals of political change and reconciliation of religious sects to BEGIN. Not to be successful in total. Also mentioned are “benchmarks” that the Iraq government must achieve.

A list of benchmarks is great but if unrealistic deadlines are set it is only a list of failures that never had a chance. You can set as a goal loosing twenty pounds this week but you have no realistic chance of achieving it. You can set as a goal losing twenty pounds over the next two months and then only eat bacon cheese burgers and have no realistic chance of achieving it. Setting goals is easy, it’s the achievement of these goals that is hard.

What Pelosi is counting on is that you are stupid or very uninformed or so invested in defeat that you will believe anything to protect that investment. She doesn’t care that “Al-Qaeda in Iraq faces an ‘extraordinary crisis’. Last year's mass defection of ordinary Sunnis from al-Qaeda to the US military ‘created panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight’. The terrorist group's security structure suffered ‘total collapse’” according to the TimesOnline’s Martin Fletcher. Mr. Fletcher is quoting Abu Tariq an al Qaeda leader in Iraq. No, Nancy Pelosi and those like her will not bring this up. They can’t retain power or get elected on the truth because they have invested in defeat.

What Pelosi will do is summarily suggest “failure” and hope that you believe her, or even grow tired of hearing it and elect a leader that just makes it all go away. It is tempting to be that person. It is tempting to be a republican or democrat and just want it all to go away. I know I struggle with it. But it will not go away without the US finishing what it started. The Iraq investment is like a 30 year mortgage on your house. Nancy Pelosi treats it like a five year car loan.

My admonition to you this election cycle is not a particular candidate but rather a particular mindset. A mindset that questions defeatist language and holds political leaders to the truth. Not the truth as we want it to be but the truth as it actually is. You can find this truth by doing your own due dilligence and research. It is not just your civic duty to vote but to be an informed voter. Nancy Pelosi hopes on the other hand that you remain ignorant and accept “failure.”

A dirty little secret and Barack Obama.

At first glance at the title to this piece you might assume this is a hit piece designed to belittle or discount the efforts of Barack Obama. You would be wrong. This is about a secret so damaging that it could rip apart families and friends. A secret so powerful that most dare not speak it for fear it will heap ridicule and shame on the head of the fool that spoke it. I however am going to reveal this secret to you now.

Republicans like Barack Obama.

From Rush Limbaugh to Fred Barns to Benjamin Cook, republicans like Obama. They like the way he campaigns, they like the way he is beating up on the Clinton’s, they feel his inspiration and want to be apart of it. Republicans are not the cold hearted bastards characterized by the Clinton’s as wanting to starve children and kill senior citizens, we too want to be inspired. We too want to be apart of a change movement.

The question now is, does running an honorable campaign, being an inspiration and standing up to the Clinton Machine mean we will vote for Obama? For some it might. For me it will not. Obama is still a Liberal. That means he doesn’t recognize that Liberal social policy begets Liberal social policy and the never ending flow of money into these entitlements can not stop the social ills they are designed to stop. He doesn’t understand that national security is the most important issue of our time and that threats on our horizon are real. He doesn’t understand that the Federal Government is the second biggest problem in educating our kids and that less government involvement in education is better than more. (The biggest problem in educating our kids is the kid’s family or the lack of one.)

Barack Obama is an inspiring and great man. He moves me when he speaks, at times to the point of tears. I am not willing to say that there is not a scenario where I vote against my own party. There is. That scenario is very unlikely. I will say this. If Obama is running against the candidate of my choice this November and the results are close when I go to bed, I will not go to bed in a state of panic or fear scared that a Liberal will be the next president of the United States. (Like when Bush ran against Al Gore, or Kerry.) I will sleep very easy knowing that if Obama wins the election two things will happen. One, he will be very good for this country in many ways and two, after eight years of Obama the next Republican president will have his work cut out for him.

American Exceptionalism

It has been interesting watching the international markets react to our economic "troubles". The weak dollar has made foreign investment in the US even more attractive. It is an interesting dynamic. I have always thought that a large part of the international economy is based not on our economy per se (think dollar value) but rather on the stability and predictability of our economy. Gainful economies require order and predictability and most nations’ economies “borrow” or “invest” in our order and predictability to stabilize their own economies. Looks like foreign markets are rebounding on word of our "stimulus" package. A package not designed to bring any real economic change, only temporary order and predictability.

These foreign markets rely not just on the value of the dollar and performance of our markets but on the predictability and strength of the US economy. This begs the question “what is the US economy?” What are the various parts that matter? I don’t mean economic indicators, I mean the actual parts: industry, research and development, innovation, emerging markets, industrial standards, productivity, acceptance of risk and enforcement. These things that the US provides are the pillars of the world economy, not because we choose for them to be pillars, but because the ordered predictability of our economy makes it that way. If this predictability and order was hypothetically provided by China or some other country then that country would be the pillar that world economies leaned on.

As it is, the world leans on us. This phenomenon is part of what is known as American exceptionalism. Most would point to other more tangible variables to explain this exceptionalism, variables like our constitution, republicanism or environmental explanations such as geography, climate, availability of natural resources, social structure, and type of political economy. These variables are not what actually make our country exceptional, rather it is the reaction of other nations to these varibles in action. None of these variables are exclusive to the United States of America. Other nations have similar political economies, more natural resources, friendlier georgraphy and climate. Why then are these nations not exceptional. A better question, why then are these nations not treated exceptionally by other nations?

You see it is not the variables nor the outcome that makes America exceptional, rather it is the fact that we are treated exceptionally by other nations. We are held to different standards and given larger responsibilities, not because we ask to be exceptional but because others ask it of us. So it is the act of others asking and us acting that makes us different from all other nations in world. There is no arrogance nor benevolence to this relationship. We did not ask for this responsibility but neither can we shrink from it. It is just the way it is. So as Dubai, and the United Arab Emirates buy up our resorts, ports and bail out our banks ask yourself what it is they are really investing in? What makes this American investment more attractive than another? The answer? The exceptional security provided by the US in the form of order and predictability, something in short supply in the Middle East.

A few of my favorite photos.

You see, I am not all politics and anger!!! I actually have a creative side.

United States Defense Strategy

Can you defend America with ham-strung hard power tactics and realist-driven soft power half-measures? The mixture of the two has been a witch’s brew of chaos. Real “Smart Power” is the result of a viable coercive force and the willingness to employ it and a viable attractive force that recognizes the paradigm change from state-security to human-security in a globally interconnected world.

It is the manifestation of "Walking softly but carry a big stick..." It is hard power that provides the time and space for soft power to be effective. This relationship is called Smart Power if both work in concert.

Going forward US defense will be a mixture of public diplomacy, diplomacy, and quick and decisive coercive force. This will not include state building or other "construction" projects that require troops on the ground for long periods of time. Nor will it include projects of attrition like insurgency engagements or peace keeping in hostile areas where it is impossible to tell friendly from foe.

To participate in these building and tearing down projects the US will have to work with regional organizations and/or the UN. Unilateral or Bilateral action is too easily hijacked by liberal global opinion no matter how justified the action. Until the US can bridge the pubic diplomacy divide global opinion will remain heavily against the US and any coercive action it takes.

Anytime the US as the world hyper-power uses force unilaterally or bilaterally it will be characterized as unjust, imperial, colonial and disproportional. Our allies are powerless to come to our aid after the fact because their actions will be seen as unauthentic and forced.

Regional multilateral alliances with significant multinational troop deployments are the only option for any extended ground engagements.

Next, disengagement is not an option in the foreseeable future when it comes to energy security. Until a comprehensive energy program is online engagement with unsavory regions and nations is necessary. Coercive measures by the world’s largest consumer of energy will be seen as imperial, colonial and disproportional. Success in Jerusalem, Beirut and Baghdad is much more important than anything done in Riyadh, Tehran or Damascus. Therefore current coercive measures should be finished only when mission objectives are complete and further coercive engagements should be handled at 30,000 feet with minimal troops on the ground for targeting and bomb damage assessment. All haste and earnestness should be deployed to bring resolution to the continuing problems in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq. Without these three countries at peace there is no chance for energy security until and unless comprehensive energy alternatives are found.

At first blush this looks like we are hanging our national security on whether we upset a global audience. Quite the contrary. My assessment takes into account that no matter what we do coercively as a hyper-power there will be a great deal of blowback from a globally liberal and vocal group. The din of this globally liberal group provides time and space for our enemies to operate. By countering with public diplomacy we lessen the enemy’s time and space and increase our own for necessary and justified coercive measures. Unfortunately the US does not participate skillfully or at the numbers necessary to be effective in direct public diplomacy. Therefore, currently, to have any time and space to operate by force we must join regional alliances and other multinational solutions so that we do not, by unintended consequence, provide for our enemies the very arena we work so hard to destroy.

Benjamin Cook

Director, the Organization for Public Diplomacy

www.org4pd.org