Neoconservatives and the Death of True Conservatism

Today's Republican Party seems to be dominated by evangelicals, "social conservatives," and neoconservatives (hereafter known as neocons). The Reagan presidency, the emergence of Christian dogmatists like Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham, and the tumultuous tenure of the Bush Administration represent the wholesale changes that have taken place among the American right. Displaced in this rise of new Republican thought are classic conservatives, who have been forced to obscure third parties and to the Republican fringe. The true characteristics that separated the Republican Party are diminishing as "conservatives" abandon true conservative principles for a massive pseudo-theocracy, a hawkish foreign policy, and the risible idea of "compassionate conservatism." We will see that many of the positions modern conservatives take on contemporary issues are backward when applied to the historical and sensible definition of conservatism. While the alignment of the parties is free to change as the political climate invariably shifts with time, they very way in which we describe our political beliefs should not be so easily altered. With this in mind, I am suggesting that we simply call a spade a spade. "Conservatives" as we know them today are not really conservatives.

It is possible, using an elementary understanding of the term, to arrive at the conclusion that today's conservatives truly are what they say they are. They are generally uncomfortable with change, especially on a social level, and this is one characteristic that can be defined as conservative. Other rudimentary generalizations such as this can be easily made, but when it comes to the issues that dominate Republican discourse, there is very little true historical conservatism to be found in the corresponding rhetoric. Take the issue of gay marriage and the proposed constitutional amendment banning it. Today's conservatives, like evangelical hero Mike Huckabee, so detest the idea of homosexual marriage that they support a constitutional amendment banning the practice. Just how conservative of a position is this? A federal law etched into our founding document that defines marriage, removing all state and local discretion, seems hardly indicative of the sort of ideals that defined conservatism for so long. A conservative approach may be uncomfortable with the notion of gay marriage, but would find little legitimacy in legislating it on the national level, as it would represent a striking example of government overreach.

Current trends of foreign policy belief among modern Conservatives are perhaps the best example of where actual conservatism has been left behind. The goal of the Bush Administration, from the beginning of the heavy U.S. presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been to establish a democracy in the troubled region. It is this influential faction of the right, represented by Bush and John McCain, that promote the exportation and implementation of democracy wherever possible. The idea of political independence through democracy in the Middle East as a solution to international terrorism is well subscribed to among today's conservatives. Yet these people are so far from the shady groves of conservatism here that it is hard to understand how beliefs of this sort are labeled as such. Historically it is has been liberals that have promoted the spread of democracy and American values. It was liberal democratic President Woodrow Wilson who first advocated the expansion of American and demoratic principles to foreign nations (hence the term for sort of policy as "Wilsonian"). This was a foreign policy that would be trumpeted by future liberal presidents FDR, Harry Truman, JFK, and LBJ. Truman would work to democratize the reconstruction of Europe and Japan after World War II, and JFK and LBJ had their hands in conquests for democracy in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Somewhere along the way, however, it became conservative to advocate policies of this sort. The long entrenched anti-interventionism of conservatives has conspicuously disappeared from their popular discourse. Bush, McCain, and aggressive foreign policy advocates are articulating a liberal vision, not a conservative one.

My third and final example of "conservative" nonsense is in regard to the Bush Administration's No Child Left Behind education policy. It is required of all education majors in the state of Pennsylvania to complete at least one course on special education and exceptionalities, and I am fulfilling that requirement this semester. In my studying of the laws regarding special education, I came across this gem of unreason: (the following quotes are from my textbook)

"The [No Child Left Behind Act] has the intention of improving students with disabilities by making sure that these students are included in the assessment of educational progress demanded of all students."

How in the name of common sense does lumping disabled students in with general students help special education students at all? This is that notion of "compassionate conservatism" roaring its ugly head again. Disabled students are not like everyone else, and it is antithetical to the purpose of education to judge them in the same way general education students are judged. Children with dyslexia, dysgraphia, and discalcula, for example, will on average almost uniformly perform at a lower level on standardized testing meant for general education students. This is to say nothing of more severe disabilities like Down Syndrome, autism, and Multiple Disability Disorder, where some students could hardly read standardized testing, much less comprehend it. Yet the scores of children of this sort are supposed to be judged the same as scores of general education students? Compounding this problem is that this will invariably lower overall test scores for most schools, resulting in funding cuts that harm all students in schools. No Child Left Behind also states that:

"Students with disabilities should not only be expected to learn the general curriculum, but also be expected to perform at a level comparable that of students without disabilities."

The idiocy of this bit of policy is scarcely comprehensible. Beyond being unrealistic and unpractical, this is pure cruelty to the special education students involved. You are going to force children with severe functional, emotional, social, and learning disabilities to take tests they cannot possibly succeed on, and then judge their results against the the same grades of regular education students? It isn't a matter of will or effort. These kids have been afflicted with disadvantages that render some tasks simply impossible to perform. Would you judge an arm amputee's strength by making him do the bench press? My non-partisan textbook puts it best: "Expecting students with disabilities to score the same, on average, as students without disabilities is expecting the impossible." (p. 60) Lastly, what is conservative about this policy? This is a national mandate effecting every public school in the United States, and not a single school can hide from its lunacy. It contradicts and overrides any privilege local governments have to dictate the terms of their own education systems.

Amid all this false characterization of political intentions, true conservatives like Ron Paul try desperately to be heard over the deafening rhetoric of the current Republican Party. If Paul falls off into obscurity, I hope someone else picks up the ball and tries to help the Republican Party find itself.