The original article is in Finnish, so what follows is quick and dirty translation by yours truly. I thought it brings up some interesting points that I have not seen put forward here in any detail yet, though Mike has touched on them briefly a couple of times. Note that the term "neoconservative appears in two different meanings in translation, as both the neocons like Wolfowitz et al and in the meaning "the new right wing", as both terms in Finnish are the same. And if anybody entertains thoughts of posting this stuff elsewhere, I'd rather you didn't and if you absolutely must, put in the disclaimer that this is an unofficial and unauthorized translation of Mr. Helo's writings.
Okay, that was it, thoughts?Helsingin Sanomat as translated by Edi wrote:The recent defeat of the Democratcic party in both US presidential and Congressional elections is closely connected to the manner in which moral issues are covered in American mainstream media. The neoconservatives led by George W. Bush have managed to call into question the whole moral basis of the welfare state advovated by the "left" wing of the Democrats.
The United States has emphasized its status as the first country in the world where everyone is guaranteed an equal opportunity to better their lot since its founding. But outside this doctrine of individual rights that supports the modern consumer society there is a whole group of issues and questions about social equality that the welfare model tackles in the form of wealth distribution and education policy issues. The neoconservatives do not see this kind of thinking as genuinely moral.
Immediately after the presidential election it was announced that Bush intends to "reform" the American social security system. In simplified terms the reform means that in the future social security services would not be provided by the state but by religious volunteer organizations.
American neoconservatism was created in the 1970s in the name of the Moral Majority. It was a reaction to the radicalism of the late 1960s that seemed to abandon all traditional American values with its demands for a welfare state.
After all, the middle class had only recently agreed to the demands for civil rights by the black minority, which was felt to be radical in and of itself.
The "moral majority" created by the tele-evangelists evolved gradually into an ecumenical anti-welfare state movement. Its premise is that if the Western idea of loving one's neighbor becomes a social issue, it will threaten the position of Christianity as the basis of the common man's everyday ethics.
Social justice and fairness should therefore be based on the individual religiously motivated love for one's neighbor. If we support the redistribution of wealth only because we think that race riots weaken our country's competitiveness, then our motications can indeed be seen as morally irrelevant.
The ethics favored by the religious fundamentalists -- and focused more on the motivations of actions than on the results of the actions -- are already deeply embedded into the American social discourse. We must remember that already during President Clinton's term the federal social security system was weakened so much that the mainstream media noted that America has kissed the welfare state goodbye.
In 2000, the electorate was wooed with proclamations that the freedom of religion written into the Constitution did not apply to the non-religious. This was said by Al Gore's vice presdential candidate Joe Lieberman.
In fact, the neoconservatives have managed to call into question the whole concept of politics as societal action whose aim is to mediate conflicts between groups with different interests through compromise. Compromise is not acceptable to the moralist.
In the field of foreign policy this approach of shunning talking politics is clearly visible in even Democratic views. President Jimmy Carter tied US foreign policy tightly to human rights issues and during President Clinton's term there was a drive to create a doctrine of "rogue states" that pose a threat to free societies.
When President Bush later wanted to attack Iraq, the Democrats had no arguments left to attack the moral basis of a war of invasion. After all, Saddam Hussein had demonstrably violated human rights in his country even without weapons of amss destruction. In the eyes of the electorate, Bush's new doctrine of preemptive war didn't look nearly as radical a definition of foreign policy as political scientists claim it to be.
Edi
