FREIGHTED WITH CONSEQUENCE (via Mike Daley):

Neoconservatives and the American Mainstream (Zachary Selden, April 2004, Policy Review)

[Many European commentators and much of the public] overlook the deep historical roots of the current direction of American foreign policy. It is not driven by a “neocon cabal.” Rather, it is that certain individuals associated with the neoconservative label have been particularly articulate in expressing a set of policies that flow from two ideas that resonate deeply in American public opinion. The first is a belief that the United States has a responsibility to spread its vision of individual liberty. The second is that the primary and perhaps exclusive task of the federal government is to protect its citizens from external threats. Whatever the actual causes of U.S. action in any particular instance, those principles loom large in the public debate and shape how and when the United States becomes involved in other countries’ affairs.

The first principle is often credited to Woodrow Wilson, but in some ways its roots stretch back into the eighteenth century. It is founded on the moral assertions that have been part of American political thought since the early days of the republic. Chief among them is the idea that individual liberty is a moral absolute and that a system of governance that enshrines individual liberty is morally and practically superior to all others. This is a very fundamental belief, deeply embedded in American political thought and public opinion. It is a principle, however, that does not necessarily have the same level of importance in modern European political systems, whose constitutions tend to place a greater emphasis on social harmony than on individual liberty.

The second principle conflicts somewhat with the first and serves to moderate the impulse to intervention. Since the republic’s founding, there has been a vigorous debate as to the proper role of the federal government, a debate that is still at the heart of most cases brought before the U.S. Supreme Court. But there has always been a strong trend toward the idea of a limited federal government whose sole exclusive area of responsibility is in foreign affairs and the protection of the nation from external enemies. In fact, the first five numbers of the Federalist focus almost exclusively on foreign affairs and the need for a federal government to protect the nation from foreign influence. The end result of this idea is a broad consensus across the political spectrum that cautions against foreign interventions unless they are required for national security reasons.

We see these contradictory principles at work today. Since the 1970s, there have been those who argue for American military intervention in the Middle East, optimistically promoting what essentially boils down to a set of “American” values for the region. But most Americans have looked askance at such ideas without a national security justification for direct intervention. September 11, 2001, was the turning point. An increasingly large proportion of public opinion became more certain that the only way to ensure the nation’s security against transnational enemies operating from the Middle East was to transform the region. What was previously seen as too risky became acceptable in the aftermath of 9-11.

In essence, public opinion shifted in favor of policies that have been articulated by neoconservatives for at least a decade, and neocons have been very adept at articulating a policy that resonates with longstanding ideas in American public life. Therefore, what many label “neoconservative” is a product of ideas that are neither “neo” nor “conservative,” but a worldview that has broad appeal to American citizens in ways that are difficult for many Europeans to fully fathom within the context of their own political systems.

In short, if Europe is waiting for a new administration or a new set of policy professionals to rise to positions of influence, the continent may be in for a very long wait. The style in which affairs are conducted may change, and the blunt take-it-or-leave-it pronouncements of the current administration might be softened, but the substance of American foreign policy will remain roughly the same. The current direction of U.S. foreign policy — reshaping the Middle East, preemptive confrontations with potentially threatening adversaries, and an ambivalent attitude toward international organizations that constrain the use of American power to achieve those ends — is unlikely to change substantially with any new administration that could conceivably come to the White House in the near future.

If Mr. Selden is basing his argument on the premise that there's no chance of the Democrats retaking the presidency and Congress then he may be right that a change of administration or personnel in this one would make little difference. However, if the argument is that a Kerry administration would be as willing to destabilize the Islamic world and force Reformation upon it then he seems wrong. And his error flows from much the same source as the misperceptions of the Europeans--an overemphasis on neoconservatism.

This is the case because truly understanding the policy of the Bush administration requires not understanding his aides but the President himself and he is driven not by any academic theories but by his faith. It's a great irony that Europeans and others worry that the President has been captured by a neocon cabal when, instead, they've been captured by a theocon. As always with Mr. Bush, one need not look beneath the surface to find the secret tides that are shaping the wave he rides; he's explained things quite clearly and with such frequency that only the willfully ignorant can have failed to miss his meaning:

Americans are a resolute people who have risen to every test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world and to ourselves. America is a strong nation, and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers.

Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity.

The idea that it is proper, even necessary, for Americans to sacrifice for the liberty of others because they are being denied God's gift of liberty does indeed derive from the ideals of our Founding, but is so radical in human history that it is absurd to believe that it would be pursued regardless of the identity of the president.

Indeed, John Kerry has placed himself on the opposite side of this issue in nearly every instance that has arisen since he's been and adult. It is his position--entirely defensible and understandably popular--that the liberty of others is seldom, if ever, worth the sacrifice of American men and material. If America were attacked again he'd certainly have to respond--the country would demand it--but it is hard to discern from whence would flow the belief that he would suddenly seek to universally vindicate God's will in the world.

Perhaps it is because we are in the midst of events or perhaps it is because Mr. Bush is justly criticized from so many political quarters that we can not perceive how radical his presidency really is. From reducing the influence of the state--by voucherizing education; re-privatizing health care and social security; breaking up the influence of the civil service; etc.--to restoring civil society--via the Faith Based Initiative--to restoring a culture of life--through abortion restrictions; biotech limits; a ban on gay marriage; etc.--to pursuing reform in the Middle East and things like the AIDs initiative in Africa, virtually his entire program of government, both here and abroad, derives from his Christianity. Whatever you may think of John Kerry or the neocons, it seems safe to say you can't say the same of them.

The difference between Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry is so fundamental--especially because Mr. Kerry is such a retrograde figure, rather than at least being a Third Way Democrat--that the election of 2004 represents the starkest choice between two different visions of the future in the history of the nation and has profound implications for the world.

MORE:
Apocalyptic president?: How the left's fear of a right-wing Christian conspiracy gets George W. Bush -- and today's evangelical Christians -- all wrong. (Alan Jacobs, 4/4/2004, Boston Globe)

AS THE PRESIDENTIAL election draws closer, some people are asking, in ominous tones, a question: What impact does President Bush's evangelical Christianity have on his administration's policies? As an evangelical, an interpreter of literary and cultural texts, and a long-time observer of the evangelical world, I have both a personal and a professional interest in this question. And I'm here to offer an answer: Probably not much. [...]

President Bush, like most evangelicals (and most Americans), is intellectually mongrel. The likelihood that his thinking and his policies are shaped by a single, coherent, radical ideology is virtually nil. Bush may be a bad president -- he may pursue bad policies on the domestic front and abroad -- but if so, his Christianity has little or nothing to do with it. And with the exception of John Ashcroft, there's no one among his core advisors who could possibly teach him what right-wing evangelical politics are supposed to look like -- at least, not until Donald Rumsfeld becomes an ardent premillennialist or Karl Rove a disciple of Christian Reconstruction.

The connection between Christian commitment and politics has always been pretty strange in this country. Ronald Reagan became beloved of the "religious right" while rarely darkening the door of a church and articulating only vague belief in a vague God, while the church-going, Bible-toting Bill Clinton was despised by them. If there has been a recent American president whose policies were derived relatively consistently from evangelical Christian theology, it would be Jimmy Carter, that Baptist Sunday-school teacher from Plains, Ga. But that's a story for another day.

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 4, 2004 11:19 AM