Neo Can't Save Us

For nearly three decades liberalism has had a bad name, beginning with Reagan and ending with Bush II. Even during the Clinton years, Liberalism was a word rarely uttered. As we come to the end of the Bush administration and the transition to the Obama administration, the belief now is that conservatism is dead or misguided or at fault for the problems we currently have. The blame lies not with liberalism or conservatism, but with neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism.

Liberalism, with its roots in the Enlightenment, suggests that through civil society more can be done for the citizen. It is a voice, however narrowly defined and constrained and biased toward Western-European notions of progress; the focus is one that is pro-active and aspires to assessing what is best for its citizens and then delivering upon that assessment. In one of its worst versions it has been associated with the civilization-barbarism dichotomy, in much of Latin America leading to the “second conquest” of the 1800s where the remaining indigenous peoples were dispossessed of their remaining lands. In its finer sense, however, it is forward-looking, it’s sponsors suggest that there is a way forward that is better than what we have in front of us.

On the other hand Conservatism, while having roots in elitism and royalist tendencies, also has its relative merits. Although there are deep concerns with keeping power structures as they are, which was a critique of early liberals, post-modernists suggest that the effects of liberalism (and later modernism) are not all that different if the voices advocating change are from the some basic food groups of people. Conservatism does have its upsides, in that he urges for thoughtful consideration of change, and asks questions of rampant change that is produced culturally and technologically. There is a pragmatic assessment that is part of conservatism that suggests that not all change is necessarily good.

In short, despite concerns with both liberalism and conservatism, their failures are actually better indicators of what I would call, “the human capability to screw up a good theory.” Nowhere is this more evident than in the successor movements of the neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism. Each strip the vestiges of reason (amazing, for liberalism!) and humanity out of their respective theoretical frameworks and applies a steamroller approach to their opponents. Neo-liberalism suggests that modernization must be supported at all costs, and in effect institutionalizes what was previously a by-product of liberalism; anyone who does not want to be a part of the system is seen as opting out of progress and citizenship as defined by the elites.

Neo-conservatives on the other hand, as one looks at the work of the neo-cons in Washington, institutionalizes a globalized approach to the creation of international royalty. It strips out the careful consideration of change in favor of maintaining political power and it sacrifices deliberation for justifying the neo-con ends by using any means required. Begun during the Reagan administration with Libya, then Bush I in the Persian Gulf, then Clinton in Kosovo, then Bush II in Iraq, and so on, the United States has pursued a policy of justifying it’s what is convenient to maintaining its power, as opposed to working in consultation with otheres. Thus, combined with the skewed world view that suggests one model of development (neo-liberalism), we find ourselves in a decision-making (neo-conservative) mode of making it happen regardless of justification.

At the end of the day, this is why the United States has become a United States which has favored guarding its personal sandbox of power, as opposed to leading from a democratic and ethical moral high ground. We can, and should be, greater than that. What we should learn from our history is that any theory or system, stripped of a process that questions itself, can be twisted into a mirror image assault on its original form. The process is what counts in determining what is democracy, liberalism, and conservatism, not a system, which as Eisenhower warned, becomes consumed with its own perpetuation…