Christopher Schroeder

Tag: democracy

  • Neocons Anyone?

    I’m unsure whether America needs to bring back the neocons as David Brooks (2025) argues, but I think he is right to highlight a missing ethical aspect to conservative politics today, which could serve as a corrective to the current Republican party.

    I realize that these values needn’t necessarily come from neoconservatives who came together as he suggests in the 1970s and later supported the Iraq War (18-29). At the same time, I think that the current conservative party offers little to convince voters that they have moral values, such as “basic decency” or “showing up on time, working hard, being there for your neighbor, listening with curiosity, respecting traditions” that Brooks recommends (21).

    Too many politicians prioritize party over principles, which reflects the value of retaining power at all costs rather than supporting the best for our communities and country. Without clear shared principles, conservative politicians will never get my vote, or even convince me to consider their perspectives even though I believe that a viable conservative party is essential to a functioning democracy.

    My objection to Brooks however is the absence of any accountability or even accounting for current political conditions. Such an aspect would include not only a president who adds partisan plaques beneath former presidents’ photos for example but also a partisan Supreme Court that promotes outcomes that are inconsistent not only with the U.S. Constitution but also some justices’ previously espoused beliefs.

    This aspect isn’t as important for consequences although those have their place in any justice that attempts to restore trust. Rather, it is a practical component to convince at least some of us that any effort to rebuild what current conservatives have dismantled and destroyed is worth the time and effort that doing so would require.

    Otherwise, we might sit out at least until we can be convinced that what has recently happened — everyone knew after his first term what Trump 2.0 could be — won’t happen again at least until those of us who have lived through it are no longer around to remember how destructive this time has been.

  • Holding Hope

    Last week affirmed an uncomfortable reality: more American voters chose an insurrection instigator to lead us.

    People can legitimately disagree I believe over legislative intervention for example or judicial activism. At the same time, they need some shared principles, such as the belief that convicted criminals are unfit for public office.

    Other politicians have committed crimes. Propaganda especially today can be convincing, or at least challenging.

    At the same time, everyone had access to the facts. Multiple officials, including the person whom he selected to be his senior military advisor, and the highest ranking military member, warned us that he is a fascist.

    As a result, the next four years will be a regular reminder that some, including his Republican enablers, are willing to reject accountability and other shared political principles. This reality represents a challenge to American democracy.

    Now isn’t the first time I realize that these principles have been challenged, or that such inconsistencies were acknowledged. Such conditions have existed since the founding of the United States when for example only some, and not all, people were considered equal.

    The lack of progress is perhaps more discouraging. Even more alarming could be the effects of outcome, such as withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement, which endangers our future existence, or pardoning the Silk Road founder and other convicted criminals, which reinforces the racial biases in the legal system.

    Regardless, hope can be found beyond our borders. South Korea for instance finally arrested and later indicted its president, who initially resisted such efforts and others.

    This situation is most likely messier than it might seem, but it illustrates that accountability despite its absence here is still possible. Some in other words still insist upon foundational democratic principles, which given the political differences might make this message even more heartening.

    Liberals must find better leaders. These leaders must be people who can convincingly and consistently challenge these conditions and all others that threaten the narrative of the United States both at home and abroad and who can call for basic political principles articulated in foundational documents and landmark rulings.

    Until then, we must hold onto hope wherever we can find it.