Michael Moore Conservatives

Michael Moore Conservatives are weak in the war on terror, opposed George W Bush’s re-election and are antagonistic towards Israel.

The idea of ‘Michael Moore Conservatives’ comes from this article (for The Weekly Standard) by The Economist’s Adrian Wooldridge. Wooldridge, co-author of The Right Nation, suggested that Michael Moore Conservatives have three main characteristics:

They sound an uncertain trumpet in the war on terror.

Michael Howard’s ‘if I knew then, what I know now’ remarks led former Telegraph editor Charles Moore to conclude that the Tory leader was “cowering in no-man’s land” on war fronts like Iraq. Michael Howard’s Conservatives “have half-allied themselves with the Left's idea of the Blair-Bush Axis of Evil,” writes Mr Moore, “while shying away from where its logic leads - bringing our troops home, inventing a common European foreign policy, isolating the United States in favour of the United Nations and signing up to the European Constitution”.

The Tory Party is certainly not the only conservative entity infected by the MooreOn tendency. Wooldridge argues that, on Iraq and Bush-bashing, The Mail and Daily Mirror are difficult to tell apart. In The Mail, Max Hastings penned an opinion piece with the playground headline - 'I Hate George Bush'. Boris Johnson’s The Spectator has employed the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan who was criticised by the Hutton Report. It has also called for the impeachment of Tony Blair over the Iraq campaign.

They support America’s Democrats over Bush’s Republicans. An October 2004 YouGov survey found that as many Tory MPs backed Kerry as Bush. Tory MPs Simon Burns, Ken Clarke, David Curry, Alan Duncan and Michael Portillo all supported the election of John Kerry. There are five factors explaining why so many Tories abandoned their longstanding Republican allies:

1. Many simply oppose Bush for the mishandled occupation of Iraq.
2. Some socially liberal Tories find the moral conservatism of America’s Republicans too difficult to swallow.
3. Old European Tories like Clarke, Heseltine, Hurd and Patten don’t like an assertive America eclipsing Brussels.
4. Then there are the ‘Enoch Powell conservatives’ who’ve never really liked America because of its BigMac materialism and its lack of sophistication.
5. Fifthly, there is simply ‘Blair-hatred’. Tories can’t stand Blair and the closeness of Bush to New Labour’s leader appalls them.

Antipathy towards Israel. Wooldridge writes:

“Hostility to Israel is restricted to a Buchananite rump in the United States; in Britain it is widespread on the right (as on the left), with fans in the foreign office, the business world, and the upper reaches of the Conservative party. Middle England has thoroughly internalised the left's view of the rights and wrongs of Israel and Palestine, a view that is propagated daily by the BBC, the Church, the universities, and the influential "camel corps" in the foreign office. One of the most popular political programs in Britain is a radio show called Any Questions? that takes selected panelists to town halls across the country. The burghers of Tory Britain react to discussions of the Middle East in much the same way that radical students might in the United States. Denounce Israel as a WMD-armed rogue state and you are guaranteed cheers and applause; defend Israel and you are booed. Indeed, anti-Israeli sentiment is the only area where internationalist Tories are in clear disagreement with John Kerry."

Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips expressed* outrage at British antagonism towards the region’s only democratic state:

“Middle Britain is now full of decent, liberally-minded, socially conscious people of moderate political views or none, who nevertheless loathe Israel with a passion and irrationally blame it for the ills of the world. This grotesquely inverted world view is the expression of a culture whose moral centre of gravity has now been all but destroyed by the staggering influence of far-left ideas which have comprehensively colonised the institutions of the establishment, through which they have long and successfully marched.”

Comments

[Richard Allen]

I find this term grossly offensive. Like many conservatives I opposed what I considered to be a idiotic war that went strongly against our national interests. I completely reject any comparison between my position and that of a left wing propagandist.

[Mark S]

I think there is a sixth reason - a rather depressing tendency for some on the right to go along with liberal orthodoxy for the sake of a quiet life on the dinner party circuit

[Louise Hector]

I think perhaps the phrase "Michael Moore Conservatives" is slightly misleading and conjures up images of loony lefties who don't quite fit the Conservative Party.

As a 29 year old I find myself regularly described as being on the right of the Party, the left of the Party and someone who would make a much better Lib Dem than Conservative. I think this may be partly because the old right wing/left wing definitions are much less relevant today. Where do I fit for example? - I believe in much much tougher sentencing policies but also think that we should allow gay marriage and adoptions. I think that the decision to go to war in Iraq was a great mistake, yet to withdraw early would be an even greater one.

As for the bearded one - really enjoyed and agreed with the majority of Bowling for Columbine, but couldn't stand Farenheit 9/11.

We do political debate a great dis-service when we don't recognise the broadening of the opinions beyond the old right/left spectrum and create categories such as "Michael Moore Conservatives".

[wasp]

This is ridiculous.

The Iraq war marked a profound departure from Conservative foreign policy and was only supported by the Conservative party because of their support for the USA in fighting terrorism. It is also worth noting that conservative voters when polled were on average more anti-war than labour voters.

It is also not a conservative line that supports leaders who tell lies, obfuscate the truth marginalise intelligence officers and weapons inspectors and change their reasons for a war depending on the newspaper headlines. (pre war it was about links to al-quaeda, then about wmd, then about humanitarian interests after there were no al-
aqaeda links or wmd).

Opposing the war does not mean supporting withdrawal because conservatives believe that when you make a mistake it is your responsibility to atone for it. That means staying there until Iraq is stable once more.

Being a British conservative is about being conservative within a British setting, so yes most british conservatives are more socially liberal than their american counterparts.

George Bush also has a disgraceful record on protecting the environment and preventing catastrophic climate change. He refuses to support the international criminal court and has undermined the United Nations.

America is not the promised land it is a country with a huge disparity between the rich and poor and millions of people with no access to healthcare. Where a conservative government delivers tax cuts to benefit the rich not the poor and where government overspend is at astronomical levels.

And yes Tony Blair should have resigned over the war because he decided to go to war before he knew all the facts and then evaded the truth in order to support that position.

There seems to me to be little for British Conservatives to admire in George W Bush.

[Gary Monro]

On the whole a rather odd post.

The writer equates conservatives who do not support the war in Iraq - as I don't - with Bush-bashers - which I am not - support for John Kerry - I don't and, frankly, couldn't care less about him - antipathy to Israel - I have quite a bit of sympathy for Israel's situation, actually - and a generally un-conservative view of the world generally.

It's unsavoury to see Conservative Home resorting to the same tactics of wild extrapolation and abuse used by the liberal-left and the various politically correct fanatics in this country.

And the 5 points describing MooreOns like me are plain stupid. I'm socially conservative, very pro-American and my loathing for Blair does not affect my view on important matters like invading foreign countries.

I wrote an amateurish piece (rather like the one above) some time ago about why I thought the war was wrong. The writer of the above post might like to educate him/herself by reading it - not, I hasten to add, because it's well-written or especially insightful (it isn't) but because s/he might then realise that opposition to the war can have some other basis than these desperate neocon fantasies about why some of us are spoiling the party.

The post is here
http://garymonro.blogsome.com/2005/08/23/a-ramble-on-why-i-do-not-support-the-war-in-iraq/

[Shaun]

I posted this comment on http://atangledweb.typepad.com several months ago. I'll repeat it here:

"Interesting debate here. Before I am accused of being a leftist/liberal/pacifist, I must say that I am a social and moral conservative of the Peter Hitchens mould (in other words, a bloody 'Colonel Blimp' type). I am by no means a pacifist, but I only believe in JUST war and to my mind the 2003 Iraqi conflict (ongoing) was not a just war and not in Britain's national interest to participate in.

In my opinion, a JUST war can be declared against:
1. an entity that threatens the British state's authority

2. an entity that threatens the British nation, ie. possible invasion or terrorist attack

3. an entity that threatens British subjects or interests abroad

4. if for altruistic reasons (to help out other non-British interests/people), ONLY when a country's sovereignty is violated by illegal invasion. Internal affairs/regime change cannot apply (will explain later)

(1.), (2.) and (3.) does not apply. There were no signs that Iraq was going to attack us, by WMD or terrorist attack. Whatever Blair said before the war, there was no evidence of nuclear WMD that would reach Britain or any British dependancy. I did believe that Saddam had biological/chemical WMD (since proved wrong) but that would hardly be constituted a threat in comparison to what North Korea, Iran, China etc. had. Besides, Blair and the intelligence reports did not provide evidence that he would suddenly launch a WMD attack (he hasn't done so before against the West and a long time ago since the Iran war or launching Scud missiles against Isreal, so why would he suddenly in 2003?). Secondly, Saddam did not harbour terrorists, as he would not have tolerated foreign militia or armed movements in Iraq which he could not control (before the 2003 invasion, Saddam had a tight grip on Iraq's internal affairs and border controls). Besides, he was very secular and did not share Bin Ladin's Jihadist or the Shia's Islamist viewpoints, even if they were as anti-American as he was. Saddam was only interested in one thing: controlling and maintaing his power over Iraq. (3.) doesn't apply: British subjects were free to visit Iraq and were not threatened. British embassies or subjects abroad were not under threat (do not associate Islamic terrorism with Iraq).

Reason (4.) can be applied to when we declared war on Nazi Germany for invading Poland or in Gulf War One (1991), when Saddam invaded Kuweit (in other words when a country's national sovereignty is violated). I do not believe we must declare war for regime-change, because imposing a new political system on a country is contentious when there has not been a history or culture of democracy in that country. How sure are we that stability, not even to mention democracy, is going to last in Iraq when UK/US soldiers leave there? I believe the current post-Saddam Iraq government is only held in place by American/British military presence, with Iraq facing a instable future even if the new Iraqi government can exert some authority without the help of the US/UK military. Look at previous unsuccessful US regime change examples, such as Haiti in the Carribean.

So, why did Tony Blair decide to participate in Bush's war on Iraq? Blair believed it is in Britain's national interest to be the USA's closest ally (ie. suck up to the USA) to increase Britain's influence in the world and win favours from the USA (which has not really been forthcoming). Obviously he couldn't tell the country and parliament that he was willing to risk British soldiers' lives for such a policy and that is why he emphasized Saddam's WMD violations. If it was really about WMD they would have allowed Hans Blix's weapons inspectors more time and support.
Has our standing in the world increased after the conventional conflict in 2003? No, not really, as many falsely perceive us as Bush's poodle (the 51st state) not able to stand on its own feet.

While I am no anti-American (I would probably vote Republican if I was an American - but not with the incompetent Bush as leader), I hate for our foreign policy to be a franchise department or near clone of the US state department's foreign policy. It does not have to be a master-poodle relationship. Even Margaret Thatcher occasionally critisized Reagan."

[Kate Castle]

In my experience Michael Moore is actually a rather useful figure and certainly can be an entertaining film maker. Some of Moore's points can be shot down but generally the questions he raises are interesting and ones that others fail to ask.

An intelligent approach to the war on terror would not have included invading Iraq. What Islamist terrorists wanted was US forces on their own ground and there is evidence that guerilla attacks were planned before the Iraq invasion even took place. Opposing the war in Iraq was a smart approach to the war on terror, not a weak one.

[Michael Turvey]

I am sick of the ridiculous rhetoric prevailing from some conservative corners that suggests that if anyone questions any aspect of the War on Iraq, the War on Terror, or Israeli foreign policy they are an anti-American, anti-semitic loony lefty.

I am none of these.

Just because some prominent Conservatives express a certain view on these important matters are the rest of us required to suspend our faculties of critical thought?

Michael Howard's position was a reasonable and carefully qualified one. Sadly the caveats were either not reported or not listened to and his position came across as unclear and weak.