What is the
goal of war? A war of defence is designed to defend the homeland and to punish
the evil doer who would seek to take your lands, wealth and women. You could
argue that the goal of a defensive war is to conserve or preserve the nation,
its people and their way of life. A defensive war is an inherently just war,
because self defense is a justified reason to use force against another nation.
A war of aggression
on the other hand is about attacking and changing the status quo, or the way of
the world, especially in the region or nation under attack. A war of aggression,
therefore, is inherently transformative and therefore not conservative. It is
also much less likely to be a just war, because one nation is not given
inherent authority over another nation. Therefore, a war of aggression is both
the antithesis of conservatism and very likely, you might even be able to argue
inherently, unjust.
While I am
not a conservative, this topic is interesting, because right now America is
engaged in a war of aggression and many conservatives are publicly supporting
it. In fact, the predominant support for this war is coming from the
conservative camp. Which is just another reason why I don’t consider myself a
conservative, it is really a meaningless posture rather than a coherent
ideology or philosophy of life. What is the purpose in saying, “I am a
conservative?” Why would you do that? There are things we should preserve or
conserve, and there are things we should progress and change, and there are
things we should transform and restore. Nailing yourself to only one of these
options, ideologically, is irrational, and the significant amount of ways that
conservatives often display they are not really seeking to conserve illustrates
this.
This is important
to understand, a war of aggression, which is what the US has engaged in, is
inherently progressive or transformational. The type of change that is being sought
is different depending on the war. For some it is regime change, for others it is
outright subjugation, for others it is annihilation and chaos. But the goal of
a war of aggression is to change, not to conserve. In this case, the justification
for this war has changed from moment to moment. It was claimed at one point it
was to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons, at another it was claimed it was
because Israel was going to attack so the US had to attack first to protect is
assets in the region, and at another point is was claimed that Iran was about
to attack and so the US got in first. So, the story has changed, as is often
the case in these sorts of wars, but whatever the justification offered, this
war was an act of aggression and the decapitation strikes show that the US
wanted to change the Iranian regime.
Jereth Kok has some interesting
things to say about this,
“Violently
overthrowing the government of a foreign country has got to be one of the least
conservative things that someone can do.
Let’s
work this through. What does it mean to be “conservative”?
To
be “conservative” means to prefer stability. To act with caution. To take
things slowly. To be wary of quick fixes. To distrust shiny new objects. To
reject radical change.
Russell
Kirk (1918 – 1994) was a noted American conservative thinker who wrote a piece
called Ten Conservative Principles. I think this is a pretty useful summary of
what it means to be politically “conservative”.
Kirk
argued that “conservatives are champions of custom, convention and continuity
because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know.” “The
continuity, the lifeblood, of a society must not be interrupted.” If things
must change in a society, this change “ought to be gradual and discriminatory,
never unfixing old interests at once.”
In
other words, don’t go upsetting the apple cart. A system may be flawed; it may
even have very serious, deeply embedded injustices. But rushing in and trying
to fix everything at once in a society is almost guaranteed to make things even
worse. Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know—a new devil that
you will create in your grand attempt to kill the old devil. Flawed systems
should be worked on gradually and with great care; it is reckless to dive in
with a jackhammer and blowtorch.
Kirk
criticises “liberals and radicals” as “imprudent” men who “dash at their
objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the
evils they hope to sweep away … Providence moves slowly, but the devil always
hurries. Human society being complex, remedies cannot be simple if they are to
be efficacious. The conservative declares that he acts only after sufficient
reflection, having weighed the consequences. Sudden and slashing reforms are as
perilous as sudden and slashing surgery.”
Social
and political systems that serve millions of people aren’t created overnight;
they cannot be created overnight. They are not like Ikea flatpack furniture
that you can put together in an afternoon with an Allen key. According to Kirk,
establishing working institutions is a process that is invariably “painful and
slow”.
The
polar opposite of conservatism is revolution. Revolution is the complete
overthrow of a governing system, with the aim of replacing it with something
wholly different. The problem with revolution is that it seeks to achieve the
impossible—creating a healthy, functioning polity and society in an instant.[1]
In other
words, Kok is correctly arguing that regime change is a form of revolution, and
revolution is the bread and butter of the progressive worldview. He gives
examples of progressive revolutions in his article that demonstrate this. Progressives
believe in overturning and changing society. They want to transform and
change, and if they can do so radically they will, no institution or element of
society is safe from the transformative gaze. From marriage, to government, to
the church, to education to every aspect of society you will observe that progressives
are on an endless journey to change things as much as possible.
When you recognize
this, then you can see that regime change is simply the progressive worldview
applied to foreign policy. Regime change wars show this in every way: the goal
is to replace one regime with another, the goal is to stir up the people to
turn on their own government to bring change, often colour revolutions (that is
revolutions equipped and aided by foreign agencies) are an integral part of the
process, usually instability is fostered, and sanctions are used to break the
economy and build in people a desire for change. In every way regime changes
wars are a version of the progressive passion project. Which is fascinating, because
this shows how conservatives have been overcome by progressive impulses, even
if it is mainly in relation to foreign policy.
What it also
shows though, is that the conservative worldview, at least as maintained by
many of its proponents, is not a coherent and consistent perspective. They are
conservatives in some ways, but they will throw those principles out the door
when their favoured political leader decides to go to war with their preferred
enemy. Trump, who I would argue is not a conservative and never was, is the
head of the nominal conservative party in the US, and so many conservatives
will reflexively support his efforts, and many progressives will reflectively
oppose them. This is just the way of things.
Now, a sophisticated
response that some might give to my piece here is that they know that this war
is not meant to conserve anything, it is meant to bring change. In fact, I
would agree with them. This war is an example of the process of creative
destruction. Creative destruction is when systems are shaken by new events or
new technology which forces rapid change, and which benefits those who are ready
for that change. Whether or not this leads to a better world is a moot point,
it will lead to a better world for some and not for others. And it will bring
change overall.
Creative destruction
is an economic term,
“Creative
destruction is a concept introduced by the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter
in the early 20th century. It refers to the process by which innovation and
technological progress lead to the continual transformation of the economic
structure, resulting in the destruction of old industries and the creation of
new ones. This dynamic process is considered a key driver of economic growth
and development.
Innovation
serves as the spark that ignites change, whether through the introduction of
cutting-edge technologies, the creation of novel products and services, or the
daring initiatives of entrepreneurs challenging conventional norms. This
constant pursuit of improvement and adaptation creates a competitive
environment where the old must yield to the new, a phenomenon encapsulated by
Joseph Schumpeter’s concept of creative destruction.”[2]
In other
words, the point of creative destruction is to shake things up so that you have
an opportunity to bring some of the changes that you want to bring in any given
system. In a stable system from which many benefit, the desire for change is
relatively low, however, if you can create instability, you can create the
motivation for change in many people in that system.
Therefore, I
concur with those who are argue that President Trump is seeking to not conserve,
but to actively bring change through this war. In fact, his real goals and the
level of change he really wants, might not have even been publicly stated. That
being said, this does not justify a war of aggression, nor does it mean that
his choice was a wise one. When you unleash a war of this magnitude on the
world, you risk creating a situation which you cannot control, that can escalate
very quickly. I would argue we have already seen this happen. This would
explain why the President has made many claims about the war ending quickly
that have not come to pass, because even though he was intending to bring about
change, that rate of change is now out of his hands, and hence the war is
dragging on.
This is a
useful opportunity to again observe that conservatism is not a coherent
perspective. Nor really is being a progressive. Rather you need an objective
marker for your reality, for instance, being a Christian that holds to the
teachings of Jesus and the Church throughout history, and you need to evaluate
things in society on a case by case basis to determine what should progress,
what should be conserved, and what needs to be restored.
Hence, Kok is
right that regime change wars are not conservative. However, we should not be
surprised that conservatives are not holding their ideology coherently or
consistently, because it is not a coherent or consistent ideology in the first
place. This is why I do not call myself a conservative and have not for some
time.
List of
References
[1] Jereth
Kok, 2025, https://substack.com/home/post/p-192661407
[2] Stefan
Mitzkus, 2024, https://digitalleadership.com/blog/creative-destruction/
No comments:
Post a Comment