Dichotomy of Conservative and Neo-Conservative Philosophy

by Matthew Luther

If you're not from America, you might not realise that party platforms are incredibly weak in this country. In Europe and even in Canada, politicians are so loyal to a centralised party platform that you can vote for the party and not the candidate, being assured that the policies presented in the platform will be faithfully carried out by their appointed leader.

In America the parties are what we call 'big tents' in political terminology. It means that people who have views that disagree with some or even many parts of the established platform can still be a member of the party and attain elected office with their blessing. The Republican Party is the bigger tent of the two parties. There is no cardinal issue with which no republican can disagree and not get along in the party, unlike the Democratic party which severely limits the success of any who disagree with the Roe v. Wade decision, affirmative action, or most recently, fail to view every international conflict in which America is involved as 'another Viet Nam,' or at least 'a Quagmire.'

That being said, certain wings of the different parties come to dominance throughout certain periods. Many have described the George W. Bush administration as a practising body for the "neo-conservative" wing of his party, while Democratic politicians Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry have been painted as representatives of the "New England" or anti-war left of theirs. In defining what strict American conservatism is, it would be wise to contrast it to what is being practised by the leadership of the Republican Party today. I can do this on a point by point basis, covering a few hot button political issues.

Federalism

Conservative Republican dogma holds that the function of the federal government should be rather limited and that the governments of individual states are better equipped than the federal government to make policy decisions for their territories on most issues by dint of their greater understanding of the conditions therein. This holds for a number of issues, including the death penalty, taxation, abortion, regulation, gay marriage and education. The exceptions to this were when, during the Civil War, the Republican party of Abraham Lincoln claimed powers of the national government in determining the right of slave ownership with the Emancipation Proclamation, the 13th Amendment in 1865, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the 14th Amendment in 1868 and again in the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which met with what was at that time the longest filibuster in American legislative history from a coalition of Southern Democrats.

Ironically, in spite of the commitment among conservatives to states rights and smaller government, the most influential, and generally most widely embraced conservative Presidents in American history (Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan) are known for administrations that allowed the power and scope of the national government to expand.

Neo-Conservatism on the other hand has a track-record of being unabashedly friendly with the idea of a strong national government. This can come either as a component of a strong national defence (as evidenced by dramatic increases in federal military spending and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security), or as what is deemed by its practitioners to be an acceptable expansion of federal powers over civil liberties in the interests of national security (as evidenced by legislation such as the USA Patriot Act).

Fiscal Responsibility and a Free Market

Conservative Republicans generally believe in the maxim, "the freer the market, the freer the people." A conservative government is small, imposes very few economic regulations (to avoid stunting the growth of business), and collects minimal tax revenue from its people. It also spends very little, having strict limits on governmental services outside of those related to the national defence and the essential workings of maintaining the three branches of government, thus maintaining a fiscally responsible system, incurring as little debt as possible and paying it promptly.

This is one point where Neo-Conservatism, particularly as practised by our sitting President, becomes very controversial in conservative circles. Neo-Conservatives believe that the scope of national government and spending must grow to meet certain challenges of the times, but simultaneously are unwilling to raise taxes to maintain the balance of revenue, believing that keeping the markets running high is paramount and that the federal government can reap the dividends further along the line to make up for its debts.

Judicial Constructionism

Both Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives believe in a non-activist or constitutional constructionist judiciary. Even conservatives and neo-conservatives who agree with the concept of a woman's right to abortion generally disagree with the Roe v. Wade decision on the grounds that it made a very loose interpretation of a part of the US Constitution (namely the 4th Amendment) to address a matter it was not meant to cover. As a general rule, if a Republican believes a change has to be made (regarding gay marriage, abortion, civil rights, et cetera), he will pursue it through democratic venues: i.e. lobbying for a change in the legislature or a constitutional amendment, rather than leaving it up to nine robed un-elected officials. To the conservative mind, the US Constitution should be interpreted as it was written and as it was intended to be read by the founders. It addresses under that condition a large, but limited number of issues, parameters inside of which the elected bodies of the government of these United States (preferably on the state level) have free reign. Let not those parameters be warped simply for the purposes of effecting change that one interest group or other could not successfully achieve through the democratic process.

Foreign Policy

The strict conservative view of foreign policy has generally been one of near isolationism, however, time and time again, events have turned in such a manner as to force America onto centre stage in the world, by dint of either its location, its sheer size, its economic and political strength, or the necessity of combating an enemy or defending an ally abroad. Some conservatives embraced this position, particularly during the Cold War, believing America to be the only nation properly equipped to lead the charge against the Soviet threat, other conservatives rejected it completely and generally took the attitude of 'if we stay out of it, it will go away.'

Neo-Conservatives, in another one of their defining principals, are totally willing to throw America's hat into the ring during the course of world events. They see America's position as leader of the free world indispensable in protecting ourselves and others. They see our safety, the safety of our allies (some of the more prominent being Israel and Britain), and the stability of the world at large to be irrevocably intertwined, and believe that America should not back down from or shirk that responsibility, even in difficult situations. They believe that American intervention abroad is a benevolent influence on the world and that American power should continue to supersede all others to ensure that we can maintain stability.

As I said before, the Republican Party is a big tent and members may hold all, none, or a mix of the convictions from either of the persuasions listed above. I call them persuasions and not movements, because in both cases they lack a total continuity or organisation among their members. Very few people truly declare themselves one type of conservative/Republican or another, so this list of issues and convictions must be regarded in totality as simply another lens through which to view the Republican Party.