Sunday, February 13, 2005

Pro-War Questions

Conservatives are or should be aligned with politics that value certainty, caution and a rationale that is skeptical of sweeping social changes. Addressing political conservatives who embrace President Bush's War or Terror, a few questions:

* Wikipedia defines classical conservatism thusly:
Classical conservatism is skeptical of plans to re-model human society after an ideological model. While an individual classical conservative may favor left- or right-leaning government, the defining aspect of classical conservatism is a belief in the importance of continuity with tradition, and that political change should come about through legitimate governmental channels. Classical conservatives generally oppose disenfranchisement, gerrymandering, or other political chicanery; above all, they oppose revolution. So long as rule of law is upheld, and so long as change is effected gradually and constitutionally rather than revolution, the classical conservative is content.
The current administration views exporting revolutionary democracy as essential to preserving the democratic, secular world in an era of proliferating technologies that empower mass destruction by small revolutionary groups. Is classical conservatism dead? And is sovereignty dead?

* As the world has come to loudly question whether the War on Terror is itself an un-winnable fantasy, what would have been the most effective case for authorizing the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan?

* Can it be applied to terror groups like al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and the panoply of unnamed demagogueries that comprise 'The Enemy'?

* If your answer involves renewed investment in a substantially deeper and broader U.S. military, address how as a 'whole-world' model our military will inevitably need to partner with other militaries. How will America's Armed Forces overcome current barriers to international cooperation, such as they are?

* Does the United States have an authority to assert that its view of democracy is absolute and inviolate?

* What can thwart hard power?

* Are you satisfied that the checks and balances of the American political system are sufficient to prevent our great power from falling into the wrong hands? How will you know if it has?

* Is there a relationship that can be struck with the United Nations that uses their long-honed resources of diplomatic management in such a way as to remain free from the taint of pervasive anti-Western politicism?

* How are good, strong sovereign borders maintained in an economic era that relies upon borderless global communication, travel, shipping and the exchange of ideas and virtual products over the Internet?

* If there was a political movement called 'Neoliberalism,' what would differentiate it from from Neoconservatism?