As a rule, I avoid delving into discussions and comments as regards to American Politics however I draw your attention to a weighty but very good piece posted on Monday over at American Power. Incidentally, the blog offers “commentary and analysis on American politics, culture, and national identity, U.S. foreign policy and international relations, and the state of education - from a neoconservative perspective.”
Donald Douglas considers the “diversity among Republicans of late on the question of which set of conservative values will prevail in the post-Bush era.” I pondered a related question this week following John Howard’s election loss after reading a post suggesting that one of Howard’s failures was in not building in conservative base during his 11-year rule. However, back to Donald’s piece, he wrote:
“The current ferment has got me thinking: Is Reagan the model, as he's often mentioned in the debate over the conservative future?”
There are many ideas, views and references throughout the article, I suggest you read the whole piece here.
“My neo-conservatism supports a muscular national security policy, and a large, well-funded defense bureaucracy to back it (and I deeply distrust the antiwar fringe libertarians backing the Paul campaign). I also see that with our international preponderance comes great responsibility. Perhaps we'll need more prudence in a post-Bush world, but we should not recoil from the robust use of power to achieve American interests.”
“Note, though, that some observers forget that neo-conservatism also offers a powerful domestic agenda of support for traditional values, personal responsibility, and the rejection of the social welfare paternalism of Great Society liberalism. Neoconservatives are especially upset by the descent of traditional morality as a guiding ethos for the new generations.
“In other words, government is not the problem, but is a possible solution to many policy dilemmas. The key, I would argue, is to move with intelligence and pragmatism. An ideological agenda along these lines - one that recognizes that government, i.e., the state - holds a promising avenue for a restoration of conservative ideology after the Bush presidency.”
As I said it is weighty and, one could argue, best left to the experts (as in political science gurus/pundits) to comment upon, to judge, decide rightly or justly. I do not constitute part of the latter and considerately, do not wish to pretend, but I did put in my bit:
“A nation as complex and powerful as America needs a measure of statehood and Governance to manage affairs and facilitate growth. One can argue all day about matters of size and scope, this representing a challenge for represented leaders. In this context, we need to differentiate between management and leadership for it is far preferable to have the state manage though, in accordance with the guiding principles of elected representatives – leaders – who embrace traditional conservative principles as opposed to populist conservatives who are merely at odds with conventional liberalism.”
“Without fear or favor, I am drawn to small, non-intrusive but intelligent Government idealism, a robust national security policy, adequately funded defense establishment, the advancement of time-honored values and morality and a check on the state and scope of social welfare programs. America must also need to confront islamification and related radical creeds, staunchly defend the constitution, and promote individual enterprise, liberty, and self-reliance for the welfare of capitalism; actions that will further American Interests both within, and outside your borders.”
My regular readers will note the incline toward a robust U.S. foreign policy, aside from this, very small Government ideology is a good idea however, to borrow Donald’s words, “utopian.”
Over to you...