C-Suite Network™

Menu
Search
Close this search box.

Category: Geopolitics and History

Categories
Geopolitics Geopolitics and History News and Politics

A Nation Divided National Conservatism vs Freedom Conservatism

A Nation Divided National Conservatism vs Freedom Conservatism

 

The American political landscape is marked by a profound and growing schism, one that delves deep into the heart of conservative ideology. This divide, encapsulated in the clash between National Conservatism and Freedom Conservatism, reflects a broader struggle over the future direction of the United States and the essence of Americanism. This dichotomy is more pronounced as we edge closer to the 2024 national elections just a few months away.

Political historians on both sides of this debate explore the origins, principles, and implications of these competing visions to understand the nature of this division and its potential impact on the nation. As Victor Davis Hanson has put it, we are in an “existential war for the soul of America.”

Freedom Conservatism is rooted in the libertarian and classical liberal traditions that prioritize individual liberty, free markets, and limited government. This faction champions economic freedom and personal autonomy, advocating for policies that reduce government intervention in both the marketplace and private lives. Freedom conservatives argue that true Americanism lies in maximizing individual choice and minimizing the role of the state, believing that the principles of liberty and free enterprise are the essence of the American spirit.

Around 2010, the notion of a “Woke” perspective (slang term of African American Vernacular English) entered mainstream American politics. Although not a new term, its origins date back to around 1930-Stay Woke. Adopted by modern-day Democrat ideology, Woke–Ism is a liberal FreCon objective to address the broader spectrum of racial injustice, LBGTQ+ rights, and other identity political aspirations.

Principles and Philosophies

National Conservatism is characterized by its commitment to preserving the cultural and moral foundations of American society. National conservatives argue that a strong, cohesive nation requires a shared cultural heritage and moral framework.

They emphasize the importance of the family unit, religious traditions, and patriotic values, believing that these elements are essential for maintaining social order and national unity. For them, Americanism is about preserving the nation’s cultural identity and moral integrity.

In contrast, Freedom Conservatism is driven by a belief in the primacy of individual rights and the power of free markets to drive prosperity and innovation. Freedom conservatives advocate for deregulation, tax cuts, and policies that promote entrepreneurship and economic growth. They contend that personal freedom and economic opportunity are the cornerstones of a thriving society and that the government should play a minimal role in regulating individual behavior or economic activity. Their vision of Americanism celebrates the entrepreneurial spirit, individual initiative, and the pursuit of personal liberty.

The Nature of the Conflict

The conflict between National Conservatism and Freedom Conservatism is not merely a theoretical debate; it has practical implications for policy and governance. National conservatives often support measures that protect American industries from foreign competition, restrict immigration to

preserve cultural integrity, and promote traditional values through public policy. They argue that such measures are necessary to safeguard the nation’s identity and stability in an increasingly globalized world.

Freedom conservatives, however, view many of these measures as antithetical to the principles of liberty and free enterprise. They advocate for open markets, limited immigration restrictions, and a government that refrains from imposing moral or cultural standards. Freedom conservatives believe that individual freedom and economic dynamism are the best means to ensure national prosperity and social progress.

Implications for American Politics

The divide between National Conservatism and Freedom Conservatism has profound implications for American politics. It influences the priorities and platforms of political candidates, shapes the policy debates within conservative circles, and affects the broader national discourse. This schism also complicates efforts to present a unified conservative front, as disagreements over fundamental principles can lead to internal strife and fragmentation.

Moreover, this ideological rift reflects broader societal tensions in America. Debates over national identity, cultural values, and the role of government are not confined to conservative circles; they resonate across the political spectrum. As such, the struggle between National Conservatism and Freedom Conservatism is part of a larger conversation about the future of the United States and its place in the world.

Similarities:

  • Commitment to Conservatism: Both National Conservatism (NatCon) and Freedom Conservatism (FreCon) are rooted in a commitment to conservative principles. They share a common foundation in valuing tradition, upholding the rule of law, and seeking to maintain a stable and prosperous society
  • Emphasis on Limited Government: Despite their differences, both NatCon and FreCon emphasize the importance of limiting government intervention. They agree that an overreaching government can infringe on personal freedoms and stifle economic growth
  • Patriotism: Both factions are deeply patriotic, believing in the importance of American exceptionalism and the unique role of the United States on the global stage. They are committed to preserving and promoting the nation’s strengths and values
  • Economic Prosperity: Both NatCon and FreCon aim to foster economic prosperity, although their methods may differ. They agree that a strong economy is vital for the nation’s well-being and that economic policies should encourage growth and opportunity

Differences:

  • Cultural Preservation vs. Individual Liberty: NatCon emphasizes the preservation of cultural and religious traditions, advocating for policies that protect and promote these values. FreCon, on the other hand, prioritizes individual liberty and personal autonomy, arguing that the state should not impose cultural or moral standards on individuals
  • National Sovereignty vs. Global Markets: NatCon places a strong emphasis on national sovereignty and is often skeptical of globalization, advocating for policies that protect American industries and jobs. FreCon, in contrast, champions free trade and open markets, believing that global economic integration is beneficial for growth and innovation
  • Immigration Policies: NatCon typically supports more restrictive immigration policies to preserve cultural integrity and national security. FreCon generally advocates for more open immigration policies, arguing that immigration is a source of economic dynamism and cultural enrichment

NOTE: These are additional Differences from the previous list

  • Role of Government in Moral Issues: NatCon supports a more active role for government in promoting and enforcing traditional moral values. FreCon, however, believes that the government should refrain from legislating morality and that individuals should be free to make their own choices in matters of personal and moral significance
  • Economic Approach: While both value economic prosperity, NatCon may support protectionist measures and government intervention to safeguard national interests, whereas FreCon advocates for minimal government interference in the economy, believing that free markets should operate with minimal regulation.

Understanding these similarities and differences is crucial for grasping the ongoing debate within American conservatism. Both NatCon and FreCon offer distinct visions for the future of the United States, each rooted in a shared commitment to preserving and enhancing the nation’s core values and principles.

The clash between National Conservatism and Freedom Conservatism represents a pivotal moment in the history of American conservatism. It is a battle over the core principles that should guide the nation, and it highlights the complex and often contentious nature of political ideology. As America navigates this divide, the outcome will have lasting implications for the nation’s identity, governance, and place in the global order. Understanding this conflict is essential for grasping the current state of American politics and the challenges that lie ahead in reconciling these divergent visions of Americanism.

Categories
Geopolitics and History Leadership News and Politics

Summit of the Future? Or Rehash from the Past-You Decide

Summit of the Future?

Or Rehash from the Past-You Decide

As diplomats converge in New York for the UN’s Summit of the Future, touted as a transformative moment for global governance, one can’t help but wonder: Is this summit truly the groundbreaking event it claims to be, or just another exercise in bureaucratic self-preservation? With the world facing numerous conflicts—from the ongoing strife in Gaza and Sudan to the turmoil in Ukraine and Myanmar—the summit’s agenda certainly appears urgent. Yet, despite the lofty goals of the summit and its promise to rethink how we address global challenges, there’s a lingering question: Will this event genuinely pave the way for new solutions, or will it merely recycle old ideas under the guise of innovation?

The summit’s focal point, the New Agenda for Peace (NAFP), supposedly aims to revamp the UN’s approach to peace and security. But upon closer inspection, it’s hard not to see this as another instance of bureaucratic repetition. While the NAFP touts bold proposals like eliminating nuclear weapons and reforming UN peacekeeping efforts, these ambitions have echoed through UN corridors for decades without substantial progress. How can we expect different results this time around?

Critics argue that the NAFP, far from being a revolutionary document, is little more than a collection of recycled concepts lacking any real roadmap for implementation. The emphasis on state-led solutions seems particularly misguided given the diverse and complex nature of today’s conflicts. One must ask: Why continue to lean on a system that has repeatedly shown limitations, especially when dealing with conflicts rooted in local grievances and power struggles?

Marina Kumskova, a senior adviser at the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict, sums up the skepticism well: “It was more an attempt from the UN to try to make themselves relevant.” Her words reflect a broader disillusionment among peacebuilders and experts who see the NAFP as an effort by the UN to maintain its waning influence, rather than a genuine attempt to address the root causes of global instability. This skepticism is shared by many who feel that the agenda, like so many before it, fails to incorporate the needs and voices of local communities and civil society.

This lack of innovation and inclusive thinking isn’t just an abstract critique. It has real-world consequences, as noted by Eugene Chen of New York University’s Center on International Cooperation. Chen points out that the NAFP lacks coherence because it was cobbled together by various UN agencies rather than being crafted with a unified vision. When even those involved in the process describe it as a “patchwork,” one has to question the efficacy of such an approach in tackling complex global conflicts.

The disillusionment extends beyond policy experts to those directly involved in conflict zones. Kaltumi Abdulazeez, a peacebuilding activist in Nigeria, dismisses the NAFP as “just another report” that fails to impact the lives of those it purports to help. Her frustration is palpable and shared by many in the Global South who view such initiatives as disconnected from their realities. How can a document formulated in air-conditioned offices in New York truly grasp the nuanced, on-the-ground realities of conflict in places like Nigeria or Myanmar?

Even those who see some merit in the NAFP, like Fred Carver of Strategy for Humanity, admit its limitations. While Carver acknowledges the agenda as a “clever framing” of the UN’s role, he concedes that its direct impact on alleviating conflicts is likely to be minimal. So, what are we left with? A document that might fine-tune existing frameworks but lacks the bold vision needed to tackle the growing crises around the world.

The insistence on national sovereignty as a cornerstone of the NAFP further complicates its potential effectiveness. In contexts where the state itself is a primary actor in conflict, such as Myanmar or Sudan, prioritizing state-led solutions can seem not only ineffective but actively harmful. As Kim Jolliffe, an expert on Myanmar, points out, emphasizing national ownership in such situations is “ridiculous” and disconnected from the realities on the ground, where state actors are often part of the problem rather than the solution.

Jolliffe’s critique cuts to the heart of the matter: How can an agenda that reinforces state control be expected to foster peace in regions where the state is engaged in oppressive or violent actions against its people? This question is not just theoretical but reflects a fundamental flaw in the NAFP’s approach, one that could render it ineffective or even counterproductive in many of the world’s most volatile regions.

For those on the front lines of conflict, the NAFP’s bureaucratic language and top-down approach feel far removed from the urgent needs of local communities. Voices from conflict zones like Syria and Nigeria express a common sentiment: these grandiose plans often translate into little tangible support or change on the ground. “Who cares about local organizations?” asks Abdulazeez, highlighting the disconnect between international policy and local realities.

Even in contexts where the UN could play a positive role, such as early intervention in conflicts, the NAFP falls short. Sarah-Derval Ephosi Lifanda of Hope of Africa suggests that if the agenda’s recommendations had been applied earlier in Cameroon, where tensions between English-speaking separatists and the francophone state escalated into conflict, much suffering could have been avoided. Yet, even Lifanda’s cautious optimism is tempered by the recognition that effective implementation remains an elusive goal.

The core issue, as echoed by many critics, is that the NAFP and similar initiatives seem more focused on maintaining the status quo than on embracing the transformative change they profess to seek. The language of the agenda, filled with vague references to “state sovereignty” and “national ownership,” often seems more about placating member states than addressing the real drivers of conflict. And as long as the UN remains tethered to such diplomatic niceties, it’s difficult to see how it can genuinely address the complex, deeply entrenched issues facing today’s world.

So, as diplomats gather to discuss these lofty ideals, one can’t help but ask: Is this summit truly a step forward, or just another exercise in political theater? Will it result in tangible changes that improve lives and reduce suffering, or will it become yet another chapter in the long history of well-intentioned but ultimately ineffective UN efforts? As the world watches and waits, the onus is on the UN to prove that this is more than just rhetoric—that the Summit of the Future will indeed be a turning point, not just a footnote.

Categories
Biography and History Culture Economics Geopolitics Geopolitics and History News and Politics Other

How The War in Ukraine is Causing a Global Shortage For Millions…

Russia and Ukraine export nearly a third of the world’s wheat and barley. And  more than 70 percent of its sunflower oil…

The war in Ukraine is preventing grain from leaving the “breadbasket of the world” and making food more expensive across the globe.

World food prices were already climbing, and the war has made things worse, preventing over 20 million tons of Ukrainian grain from getting into the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Asia.

According to this article in Intelligencer, West Africa is facing its worst food crisis in a decade, with the number of people in need of emergency food aid standing at 27 million in April and rising fast. Another 13 million face severe hunger in the Horn of Africa, and as many as 19 million will be food insecure in Yemen by the end of this year.

Europe embraces for another mass migration crisis sparked by food shortages in Africa and the Middle East.

Sri Lanka, once more prosperous than its neighbors, applied last month for 100,000 metric tons of food aid from a regional food bank as its debt crisis threatens to leave millions hungry.

Watch this video for a full explanation of the developing food crisis…

 

WATCH:

For more information visit tylerhayzlett.com