Neoconservatism is dead

This is a rather unruly piece that i have not yet managed to publish yet. I have somewhere in mind, but it needs some revision. If anyone is actually reading this - i would appreciate thoughts (or passing it on to others who might be have comments on it)...

Neoconservatism is dead. Or I should rephrase (as really no political movement ever really dies, rather it mutates, or lies dormant for some misty-eyed romantic to discover later) – the current strain of neoconservatism that is able to actually achieve something, ultimately the only kind of political movement that matters, is dead.

This may seem like an awfully loud and obnoxious thing to say, especially on a website like this, but it needs saying so that hopefully we can try to move on from stagnant debates and recapture the essential pragmatic optimism that lies at neoconservatism’s core and salvage it in some way.

First, to explain why it is indeed dead. This is not for the obscure and vague anti-Bush reasons – though they are in a way a part of it – rather it is dead because neoconservatism at its core is about power. It is about having power, and using the power to go out and change the world for the better. It is about deciding that an evil is happening in the world and we must go and right it, and we will assume this strategic mentality because we possess the power to go and right this wrong.

Now hold on; I do not mean that in the bullying “might makes right” sense, rather in the pragmatic evolution of that phrase: “moral might makes you think you can actually do right.” Ultimately, the only way one can go and actually achieve things in the world, or the only way that one can train one’s strategic thinking that in this sense, is if one has the physical might to begin with. Modest means train you to have modest aims.

The result is that you look at the world around you and you see wrongs and you see (or at least you think) that it lies within your physical abilities to do something about this. The world is no longer divided into issues that impact you and issues that are someone else’s concern – it is divided into a world that you inhabit and you must try to make better. But at its foundation, it is about thinking that you have the power to do something.

It is from this idealistic foundation that one can trace the early neoconservative movement, who moved from being liberal idealists who found themselves stuck in a passive peacenik world that refused to go out and do something to make the world a better place. Yet at the same time they saw that within their grasp was the power to actually affect some change, and right some of the wrongs in the world.

These idealists are not only found in the city on the hill amongst the Bushian ideologues, but also amongst the European halls of power. Joschka Fischer managed to persuade a hyper-pacifist Germany that something needed to be done in the former Yugoslavia, and Tony Blair’s soaring rhetoric was something that predates anything that Michael Gerson penned for President Bush.

The unifying factor was that they saw a wrong and they thought they could right it. In Mr. Fischer’s case, and early Mr. Blair, they were right: unfortunately, President Bush seems to have overstepped the mark.

The reason for his failure is manifold, and I am not going to go in it, as it has been expressed by many more knowledgeable and sage than me. But, at its core, it was founded on the principle that he thought his nation had the power to right the wrong he saw in Iraq. The Bush administration, and Prime Minister Blair, saw that a tyrannical regime was thumbing its nose at the international community, and nothing was being done. The looked at the massed troops and physical might they commanded, and they thought that here was an easy equation: a people to liberate and they had the tools to liberate them.

The aristotelian flaw with their calculation was the same flaw that so often fails liberals: they operated on the assumption that inside everyone else is someone just like them fighting to get out. Inside Iraq they arrogantly assumed that there was a people with democracy as their default setting, simply waiting for someone to come and liberate them.

The result is one that we can watch on our television screens every night, and the unseen result has been the breaking of the notion of idealism in foreign politics as a viable alternative. To many of us this is rather confusing: the hopeful optimism that we see imbued in Tony Blair (and some President Bush) speeches has us hooked. They talk of a world that we can do something about, and as western liberal idealists, we drink it up. Yet, see where it has left us now: stuck in a war with no end in sight which has the added benefit of providing a bloody training ground that will undoubtedly come back and haunt us in years to come.

The simple solution for future actions is one of two paths (the likely outcome will be a moderate trundle somewhere down the middle): leave those poor saps to kill each other (isolationism) or figure a way of manoeuvring someone else to deal with the problem (realism).

Is there another way? To retreat to the old notions of neoconservatism is manifestly not going to function: not only is the power in the world that one could employ to impose one’s will gone, but the foundation of how it was being imposed was flawed anyway. People have different needs and desires, we are in no position to decide these for them.

Rather, we need to start to think pragmatically about how one can go about and right the wrongs in the world in a sensible manner. If we want the world to be like us, then we must recognize that it is not a sudden overnight change: it is an incremental process. If we are going to continue to assume that we are the pinnacle of humankind, then we must recognize that it took us an awful long time to get here.

How do we do this? Well, this does not mean simply jettisoning the army, and other security services and opening our borders to all and sundry dangers: it means taking stances that we know are right across the board. This does not translate into unilateral or sudden confrontation with every troublemaker we see around the world, but it does mean re-evaluating a number of key relationships, and accepting a certain burden as a result. So, rather than accept an awkward leader because he holds the keys to our energy supplies: work feverishly to find other sources, reinvigorate others that we have let fall by the wayside and accept that we may have to pay a bit more for electricity or gas (or in the latter case, stop using cars). Arms deals present a more delicate situation, as we need to maintain some sort of national capabilities if we are to truly remain independent: but more conscientious management is surely possible. Or else, why not make greater efforts to ascertain how military technologies can be utilized for civilian purposes? The Internet is a prime example of a former weapon that has transformed the world for the better.

More crucially, however, it means making sure that we are able to broadcast the rationale and reason behind what we are doing to the public. We live in an educated society. They do not require spoon feeding incorrect tabloid headlines to keep them onside: they can handle complex debates, and if done gradually and sensibly (and as long as we are right), will be persuaded.

Then we need to learn how to broadcast this message abroad. The failure to reach out to the Iranian people to let them know that we have essentially offered their leadership the deal they asked for is breathtaking.

Other more tangible ideas exist: we are seeing a resurgence in philanthropy, we should harness this tool to send out goodwill ambassadors around the world and make it more attractive for others to go and join them. It would also do our social fabric no harm if youngsters were offered opportunities to work abroad for a year or so. The idea already exists within the EU to get all students to spend a year in another EU country to strengthen the European identity: why not expand this to the world?

Unfortunately, the problems we have at the moment are not going away any time soon. However, we do not need to let our response to them dictate and destroy the notion that can try to do good in the world. We need to cauterize the wound, while pushing forwards in other ways and making sure that as a society we recognize what we are trying to achieve. We need to learn from the neoconservative’s mistake: our world cannot be imposed. We need to nurture the world to our side.