Conservatism and nuclear blowback

After reading a brief review of Scoblic's new book U.S. vs. Them: How Half a Century of Conservatism has Undermined America's Security, I must say that he makes some good points, but his desire to toss the prefix "neo" in describing the problem with today's conservatives goes too far, in my opinion.

Scoblic believes that the problem we see with today's conservatives isn't "neo" or "new" at all, but has been with us for the past 50 years since the Cold War began. In part, I believe this is true. The Cold War was the left-overs of what American economists thought was a sure way to avoid economic depression - spend government money on the MIC (military-industrial complex). It seemed to have worked (although Higgs rightly points out that it wasn't until about 1947 that war spending showed any signs of economic uplift, and moreover, that the "goods" and "services" produced during wartime are useless once war is over; after all, in peacetime, who needs bullets and fighter planes?), and at that point I think American conservatism began to wear new stripes. And that's one of the gripes I have with Scobilic. Before the Cold War, conservatism was something different, and that's why the neologism "neo-conservative" was born in the 1980s - because the conservatism had changed and began to embrace government spending within the MIC as a conduit for measurable success. When people today make references to "neo-conservatism," at least in libertarian circles, we're mostly making the distinction between pre-Cold War conservatism and the beltway brand of today. So yes, 50 years of conservatism is the reason for today's train-wreck - I agree with him there. But to drop the "neo" part? No way, because my brand of conservatism is pre-Cold War conservatism (non-interventionist, laissez-faire economics, sound monetary policy, states rights, etc.).

That's not to say that his work is a total waste. The best part of his thesis, and I believe worth reading the entire work to find out, is the idea that the nuclear arms race has created a less secure world because now non-nuclear countries are in serious competition to get themselves nuclear weapons capability in order to repel a potential pre-emptive American invasion, ala Iran and North Korea. All the pre-emptive war and interventionist foreign policy of Reagan/Bush has done is create the need for non-nuclear countries to do whatever they can to acquire these weapons in order to prevent an American occupation/invasion/attack. The threat of counter-attack in a nuclear theater is unrealistic. America is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons in wartime, and is now policing the world in neo-colonial fashion in order to bolster its trade routes. Japan could not have defended itself that fateful day, but if it had its own nuclear program, I doubt Truman would have ever dropped those two bombs to begin with. So what conservatism has done, according to Scoblic - and I think he's right - is create the need for non-nuclear countries to go nuclear, which threatens world peace and also generates environmental concerns (decommissioning of nuclear refinement, whether for energy or weapons, is costly).

All this could mean, and I hope it does mean, that the greater global proliferation of nuclear arms means that American conservatives will have to step back and reconsider their position as the "sole global superpower" - a PNAC term - and instead develop diplomatic skills to resolve conflicts.

Memorial Day thoughts on Ron Paul

There's a great article in the New York Times yesterday about Ron Paul.

Paul informally called it quits a few weeks ago, but technically all he did was "suspend" his campaign. But supporters, like myself, refused to let it happen. Although neo-conservative John McCain has all but sealed up the nomination on the Red side of the ballot, Paul's supporters just won't go away. And according to the article, we're mad as hell, the Iraq war being the most common thread.

The article is a bit unfair, casting all of Paul's supporters as rag-tag generation X-ers, which clearly isn't true. However, Paul's status as "Dr. No" in the House is mentioned, and that has been the catapult to cull a lot of support (Paul votes "no" on anything that expands the government's power or intrusiveness into people's lives). The article does, however, clearly illustrate that Paul's supporters won't go away, and that it's more than just a reactionary message against the current administration.

You see, in my opinion, many of today's outraged Democrats (and there are many!) are reactive in their political approach to America's current situation. Some Dems are indeed sincere in their fervor for change this time around, and that is wonderful, for around our necks the current administration makes Coleridge's albatross feel more like an ostrich. However, I find that many Dems have not quite studied out what it is they truly stand for. All they know is they don't want another Bush. Again, that's fine and dandy, but there's no meat to it, no purpose; it's just an equal, opposite reaction, void of any real motive. If they got their way this fall (and I predict they will), what then? Will they notice or do anything about the potential problems with the widespread sweeping executive authority that Bush has nabbed for the presidency? I doubt it. Again, it is good that so many Dems are against the current outrageous administration, but I get the feeling that they are that way simply out of the bipolarization of American politics, not because they are truly motivated to think one way or the other. Since their party doesn't like what the other party is doing, they stick with it without much thought or understanding.

Enter Ron Paul. There was even a time when Fox News, supposedly the most "fair and balanced" of them all, hosted one of the Republican debates (of course) and wouldn't let Paul in because his stance is so different from the others. Well, Paul is a Republican by name, but a libertarian (lower case "L") by trade. That's because he hasn't been "neo-conned" like many of the others. He clings to paleo-conservative thought, which is anti-interventionist, pro-freedom, limited government, very pro-civil liberties, laissez-faire economics, etc. etc. This is strange to most modern Republicans, who haven't noticed that the wool has been pulled over their eyes and that their party has been hijacked by neo-conservative, Keynesian zealots, beginning with Regan and finding its zenith in Bush.

Because of these changes in the Republican party over the last 30 years, and because Paul hasn't been duped with any of it, I submit that he is an issue-oriented candidate. His party may swing this way or that way (ala Hillary, who sounds like a generic neo-con at times like these), but in the end, he stands firm on what he believes - personal freedom and liberty. And that's where I think his supporters differ from their respective counterparts. They are not reactive to another party's choices or decisions, but rather wear the Republican (or libertarian) label proudly for what it could be under the leadership of a paleo-conservative like Paul. They (or "we," I should say) actually know what we stand for, and if the Republicans or the Democrats want to come with us, so be it. We welcome all who are interested in responsible foreign policy, stronger and sound monetary policy, and most importantly, greater individual freedom and liberty.

The most conservative

I know he's out of the race. I know he never had a chance. But, I will say this: Ron Paul was the only paleo-conservative (classical conservative) of the bunch. Watch him use a little sound reasoning and logic to answer the debate question surrounding his "questionable" allegiance to the Republican party.



I found this as I was searching around for more content from Justin Raimondo, whose new book will explain just where and when exactly today's Republicans were de-railed and distracted from their own fundamentals.