Newsweek’s B.J. Lee writes about the development of Korea’s New Right Movement, essentially Korea’s homegrown neocons:
While Japan-bashing is a generally accepted practice across South Korea, a growing number of citizens worry that such populist outbursts are damaging the country’s reputation, making it seem backward and isolated from the world. They are rallying not to the opposition Grand National Party (GNP), which remains tainted by a corruption-stained past, but to a budding movement of neoconservative thinkers. This loosely affiliated group—comprised of younger, pro-Washington, pro-market, pro-globalization conservatives—argues that Roh has wildly misjudged Korean interests on a variety of fronts, including the islands, called Dokdo by Seoul and Takeshima by Tokyo. “Because of Dokdo, our international relations [will] deteriorate,” says Ahn Byung Jik, who leads a newly formed think tank called the New Right Foundation. “This government is making a huge mistake.”
For much of the last decade, South Korea has been led by progressive regimes that have sought to shake up Korea’s traditional foreign and domestic policies. They’ve done just that: under Roh and former president Kim Dae Jung, the government has distanced itself from Washington, adopted some socialist-tinted economic policies and pursued a rapprochement with Pyongyang. The New Right, in remarkable parallel to the rise of American neocons, has sprung up in reaction to these changes. They promote American-style capitalism, denounce the type of totalitarian socialism found in North Korea and—unlike traditional GNP conservatives—advocate a more open world view that transcends narrow nationalism. “The New Right has gained public support because Korea has moved too rapidly to the left,” says Hong Sung Gul, a professor of public administration at Seoul’s Kookmin University. “They have the potential to change Korean society again politically and ideologically.”
I’d be amiss, of course, if I didn’t mention how B.J. Lee was a favorite of the Roh administration, Uri Party and OhMyNews.
(Hat tip to reader)
27 Comments
“They promote American-style capitalism, denounce the type of totalitarian socialism found in North Korea and—unlike traditional GNP conservatives—advocate a more open world view that transcends narrow nationalism.”
This makes them neo-conservatives? Sounds like regular (non-Korean) conservatives to me. The word neo-con seems to be used to conjure up images of evil, but I personally see nothing wrong with what this group is doing. After all, American-style capitalism is the best form of capitalism (though it definitely has flaws), appeasement of the North is ridiculous and unproductive, and looking at the world from a wider viewpoint than nationalism just all make sense IMHO.
“This loosely affiliated group—comprised of younger, pro-Washington, pro-market, pro-globalization conservative”
Notice that Koreans are still not independent yet. There is no “pro-Korea” amongst the list of characteristics of this group, always still serving the interest of the powerful, and tagging along in hope for small change tips.
Koreans should be exposed to the history of Malaysia where under the guidance of one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century, Dr. Mahathir steered Malaysia through one of its most explosive growth period and at the same time, proved to be independent in its foreign policy - with no kissing up or buttering up to any superpower. This proves that it is possible for a small country with a population smaller than Korea to be completely independent and still do quite well economically.
So original in his thinking that Dr. Mahathir even defied the IMF during the height of the Asian Financial Crisis by rejecting IMF loans and in the end was proven to have done the right thing. http://pgoh13.free.fr/mahathir_IMF.html
And when it came to American style capitalism, so original was his approach that he advocated the Gold Dinar as the alternative to American style capitalism for the Moslem world, capitalizing on the fact that American dollar went off the gold standard.
The originality and reputation of Dr. Mahathir has propelled him way ahead of the rest of the Malaysian population. Alas, we are not quite able to catch up to him at this generation but his writings and books will continue to be a reference for our more prepared next generation and hopefully Koreans too will have a chance to catch some glipse of this man’s ideas for the world and inspire them to think outside the box, and question the status quo.
Uh, OK.
Ah, yes, the wonders of the amazing Dr. Mahathir. His country ranked 29th in competitiveness (hey, not bad for a developing country), 90th in Healthy Life Expectancy, 70th in per capita GDP (so much for the wonders of the bad doc’s ‘amazing’ economic programs), and 110 for press freedom (or lack thereof).
Mahathir is a big sweetheart. With love for all and happy chocolates, bubble gum trees. A rainbow in every pocket, a chicken in every pot. He will surly make his into heaven. God bless his pointed little head.
Now this makes as much sense as Mahathir_fan’s.
The low rank on GDP per capita is attributed to 2 facts:
1) A young population spured by Dr. Mahathir’s call to quadruple our population by the year 2020. Our median age is around 23 years old vs. say 32 years old in most countries.
2) A dilemma faced by the country where a need to keep cost down by lowering labour costs. Dr. Mahahtir himself has called on the population to reduce this reliance. He proved it by willingly investing in big projects such as the multimedia supercorridor etc. etc.. to help Malaysians but the populatoin was simply not yet ready for his big ideas. He was thinking too far ahead. He is the man with the right ideas but without a good team to implement them.
In any case, compare those numbers with that of Thailand or Indonesia or Philipines and resend those stats.
I’m going to ignore Malaysia on this one, since this post has nothing to do with that former British colony.
Snow: “Neo-conserviative” means “new conservative.” These guys weren’t conservative before and they are now. If you thank that’s a dark, evil term, then that’s your problem. To me it means someone who’s finally seen the light.
Anyway, kudos to B.J. on this story. I’m happy to see there’s a political group I can feel good about and I hope they form a party. And I liked the “Oh, My Agenda” report (apologies to whoever coined that excellent moniker). Now I like B.J. even more.
I have been a visitor to Marmot for a few years but have seldom read the comments; only to recently do so and find this nutcase on here. Hey, M_fan how about we meet in SS2, PJ thursday night;
M_fan maybe you should read some other sources than Mahathir’s own personally commisioned biography. How come most Malays I come across dont have the same respect for this senile old former dictator.
He wasnt standing up to the west; he was just using that old political ploy of pushing up an external threat to deflect internal examination of his cronyism and hypocracy.
Are they going to rip apart the American flag on August 15th?
I’ll be standing by with my Korean flag this time.
It would be heartening for Korea to have an “untainted” right-wing alternative to the GNP — kind of a German FDP in South Korea — that could pull the rest of the right into a more globalist, classically liberal position. But I’m not holding my breath just yet.
P.S. Though I don’t want to assist in his threadjacking, after reading Mahathir_fan’s declaration that Dr. Mahathir’s “originality and reputation … has propelled him way ahead of the rest of the Malaysian population,” I’m left wondering if he and others in the Mahathir cult of personality show their love by donning little Dr. M badges and doing dances in public squares while chanting, “The southeast is green, the sun rises. Malaysia has brought forth a Mahathir Mohamed.”
“Koreans should be exposed to the history of Malaysia where under the guidance of one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century, Dr. Mahathir” (mahathir fan)
Somehow I doubt whether fellow Malaysians like Lutpi Ibrahim, Tian Chua, Anwar Ibrahim, Irene Fernandez et al. will back you on that claim, m-fan.
This “neocon” who switched sides only after communism “lost” sounds like an opportunist rather than someone with any convictions.
Mahatir_Fan is shattering my world. I knew he was as clueless as a sentient being could possibly be on China and Korea, but had until now assumed he had a degree of expertise on Malaysia.
Wedge wrote:
> “Neo-conserviative” means “new conservative.” These guys weren’t
> conservative before and they are now.
Actually, with all due respect, that’s not what it means at all.
“Neo-conserviative” means “new-STYLE OF conservative” — that neo- has the same meaning as when it’s used in the neo-lithic era and Neo-Confucianism.
Politically / ideologically the American neo-cons are entirely different,
in many ways opposite, from what used to be called “a conservative” like,
say, Barry Goldwater or even Nixon/Ford/Bush-I. R Reagan and his followers
like Newt Gringrich got the neo-conservative movement going, and the Bush-II
/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Perle cabal and their followers are its new generation.
Conservatives were/are fiscally prudent, advocating balancing the budget, government should be adult-responsible and pay-as-it-goes. Neo-Conservatives
cut taxes for the wealthy without cutting hardly any spending, in fact greatly expanding spending in some sectors — balooning the national debt at an unprecedented late to unbelievable levels, just figuring that future generations will have to pay it off, who cares? Hey, the Party is now…
“deficits don’t matter!”, the Reaganites said and Bush II has implemented.
Conservatives were/are also prudent and pragmatic in international affairs, favoring general stability as the best atmosphere for business and the slow steady improvement of human welfare everywhere, so long as communism was kept at bay. Neo-cons have wild dreams of global and permanent American Empire,
are willing to take big gambles to overturn the present world-order in hopes of creating a new one in which the biggest corporations and the wealthy men who control them will dominate the globe unchallenged in the 21st-century.
Conservatives leaned towards the libertarian side on social issues whenever possible, while neo-conservatives advocate compulsory Protestant Christianity, trying to get it adopted as America’s State Religion.
Neo-conservatives are actually quite “radical” by the literal definition;
they are idealistic-dreaming activists who work to change everything to its roots. Many traditional Conservatives have spoken out against them.
So what are the neo-conservatives in Korean politics? They obviously don’t
have dreams of a global Korean Empire based on the chaebol (they may or may
not support the American one), and they haven’t yet seemed to have suggested
intentionally bankrupting the nation or having right-wing Protestant
ministers dictate Korea’s social policies. Tho those ideas may be waiting
in the wings as they observe America, who knows?
Their main thrust seems to be to oppose maintaining the status-quo situation
with North Korea — they advocate fairly radical changes in policy towards
it and are willing to accept the instability that might bring — a stand
based on principle against pragmatism, thinking that it will work out better
in the long-run. In a sense they advocate returning to the hard-line policies toweards NK of Korea’s 1948-1992 Conservative governments, but without the taint of corruption and military-orientation that those older conservatives still carry, and with more genuine concern for human rights.
It’ll be interesting to see whether they get organized to become a real
force in Korean politics, and how soon…
“These guys weren’t conservative before and they are now. If you thank that’s a dark, evil term, then that’s your problem. To me it means someone who’s finally seen the light.”
Wedge, I consider myself to be a conservative (one who has seen the light), maybe even a ‘new conservative’ since I was somewhat of a socialist when I was young and stupid. Maybe I’m just being overly defensive, but I often get the impression that people use this word in a negative sense. That when they use it, they mean that neo-conservative means evil personified.
Wedge, maybe you see what I mean with sanshinseon’s post about neo-cons.
“they are idealistic-dreaming activists who work to change everything to its roots.”
“compulsory Protestant Christianity, trying to get it adopted as America’s State Religion.”
“Neo-cons have wild dreams of global and permanent American Empire”
“are willing to take big gambles to overturn the present world-order in hopes of creating a new one in which the biggest corporations and the wealthy men who control them will dominate the globe unchallenged in the 21st-century.”
Please, sanshinseon, you’re analysis of neo-cons is laughable. It sounds like a conspiracy theory. Those evil neo-cons are conspiring to take over the world for their evil buddies in the big corporations? That’s how many who hate Bush put him down. ‘He’s not really a conservative, he’s actually part of some vast evil right wing cabal (known as neo-cons) who want to take over the world.’
Actually, Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney are NOT neo-conservatives!
Whereas socialists, communists and other leftists never dream of changing the world order? If a leftist holds radical ideas about destroying capitalism and bringing forth ‘a new dawn for humanity’, other leftists think he’s a genius, but if a supposed neo-con does something that is ever so slightly radical, they’re called evil, radical, and the conspiracy theorists kick into overdrive. Ridiculous.
Snow: Ditto for me. I’ve gotten more conservative with age. You’re right that the term often is used with negative connotations.
Sanshinseon: I guess the term “neoconservative” is what you want it to be. To me, it’s someone who is relatively new to conservatism. Wikipedia has a good discussion of the term at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)
sanshinseon wrote:
Conservatives leaned towards the libertarian side on social issues whenever possible, while neo-conservatives advocate compulsory Protestant Christianity, trying to get it adopted as America’s State Religion.
That’s an interesting goal or a movement founded by mostly-Jewish intellectuals.
Seriously, what silly source did you copy and paste that from?
{sigh} I see that it has escaped your attention, the strong political
alliance between conservative upper-class Jews, neo-conservative activists
and right-wing Christians in American politics — centered around absolute
support for Israel (for different reasons — Jewishness, spread of American
Empire in the Middle-East, and hurrying along the Rapture / Apocalypse,
respectively — but they are firm allies nonetheless, and their membership
heavily overlaps). Google about this and you will have thousands of pages
to read about it.
snow:
> Actually, Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney are NOT neo-conservatives!
That assertion would be quite a surprise to anyone who knows much about
this subject — check the wikipedia article quoted just above. They are
leaders of the new generation of neo-conservatives — government-in-power
leaders of course, not the intellectual godfathers by any means. Cheney
and Paul Wolfowitz were founding members of the PNAC, or haven’t you heard
of that? Google it for some education.
> Whereas socialists, communists and other leftists never dream of
> changing the world order?
Well, this gets to precisely the point. The neo-conservatives are the new
version of the Marxists — same radical dreams of Utopia through radical
change, just coming from the opposite point of view, corporation-and-
plutocrat-rule instead of proletariat-rule. Many neo-conservatives are in
fact former Leftist/Marxists — they’re just carrying the same habits of
thought and strategies forward, from the right-wing instead of the left.
“I’m left wondering if he and others in the Mahathir cult of personality show their love by donning little Dr. M badges and doing dances in public squares while chanting, “The southeast is green, the sun rises. Malaysia has brought forth a Mahathir Mohamed.””
That’s American culture - we don’t do those things here. Americans woudl don their little badges with American flag and sing “America the beautiful” on public squares.
Instead, those of us who are his fans often find ourselves disagreeing with the man.
http://www.malaysia-today.net/.....powers.htm
It is still a big bug that Korean politicians need to label themselves as pro-Washington or anti-Washington. There is no need for this label. Koreans should be pro-Korea and not care less what Washington thinks. What Washington thinks should be irrelevant because in the end, that is the democracy principle. That the people have the power, and the people who live on the peninsular. If the people living on the peninsular have no power to dictate their destiny, but that destiny is controlled by Washington, then clearly that is not democracy.
“The West is trying to create governments in Africa and Asia in their image. Their version of democracy is meant only for those educated in their image. Once - and it happened in India - the democracy they prefer brings in a government they do not like, they moan about the death of democracy.”
Wedge:
> I guess the term “neoconservative” is what you want it to be.
Well, no it isn’t. It’s not an arbitrary term, open to definition by
anyone who decides to use it to mean whatever they want it to mean.
It has a definite meaning in American politics, at least (and on this blog
we are, perhaps, trying to figure out what it means in Korean politics).
> To me, it’s someone who is relatively new to conservatism.
The prefix Neo- used in front of a noun referring to a political ideology
or an artistic or cultural practice is rooted in the Greek “new” but it
does NOT mean a person who is new at doing that thing, as in the word
neophyte. It refers to a new style of that ideology, philosophy, religion,
cultural-practice etc — in the vernacular, “a whole new ball-game”.
For the Korean/Oriental context, check out the history of Neo-Confucianism
for example — that term does not in any way mean a person who has just
recently become a follower of Confucius…. It’s an entirely new style
of Confucianism, radically different from the previous — just as American
Neo-conservativism is a weird radical break from traditional conservative
philosophy and ideology.
I’m actually quite an admirer of the traditional conservative line from
Edmund Burke through many of the founding-fathers of the USA through
Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, JFK and Goldwater. The present-day
neo-conservatives are something entirely different, in the ways that I
outlined above, and yes those are accurate comparisons (although
simplified and cartoonised for blog-response-posting-level, surely).
As I mentioned, many venerable senior traditional conservatives have
vociferously criticized the current neo-conservatives in power for their
reckless radicalism — William F. Buckley Jr. is far from the least.
Examples are found all over the net, from standard news sources and
periodicals– look them up if you please.
> Wikipedia has a good discussion of the term at:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)
Yes, and that article makes my points exactly; i humbly suggest that you
read the entire thing, not just that one sentence in it modified with “can”
that indicates the possibility of a loose and improper vernacular usage.
If you are going to refer to yourself as a neo-conservative, you should at
least get educated on what that term means… After some study, i think
that you might decide that you are not one at all, but rather more of a
traditional conservative like me — but new to the cause, and unlearned
about it (that’s OK, we’ll welcome you). Then again, of course, maybe
you really are one of those Empire-on-Borrowed-Cash-Dreaming radicals….
Instead, those of us who are his fans often find ourselves disagreeing with the man.
Oh. I thought his fans just moved to San Diego.
“That’s American culture - we don’t do those things here.” Where is “here”–west of the 405 freeway?
Sanshinseon, I consider myself a relatively traditional conservative and yet I don’t find the supposed neo-cons to be particularly scary. I don’t agree with everything that Bush has done (especially when it comes to big government), but I hardly think that he is far different from a trad conservative. And your examples from before are still ridiculous. Protestantism as the official and compulsive state religion? That is truly laughable. And to make the US into an empire? Bush is doing what he thinks we assure the US’ leading position in the world, I hardly think he’s interested in creating an empire. After all, where are the colonies? And colonies need more than a pack of soldiers to be a true colony.
Conservatism comes in a wide variety of ‘flavors’ and to demonise neo-cons is ridiculous, especially since it’s very hard to even pin down what a neo-con is, so to separate a strain of conservatism and call them the devil incarnate is crap.
sanshinseon, your demonising of supposed neo-cons remains laughable. I consider myself to be a relatively traditional conservative (for example, I hate the fact that Bush has exploded the budget), but I still easily see him and his admin as being within the wide umbrella of conservatism (maybe in the same way that the left has a wide range of viewpoints, all united under an idiotic hatred of capitalism).
Again, the neo-cons aim to create a compulsory Protestant state religion? Where did you hear this from? A commie website? Ridiculous.
And the US wants to create an empire? Where are the colonies (and you need more than soldiers to create a colony)?
And world democratic revolution? Where has Bush exported revolution to? Why hasn’t he gone into Sudan or North Korea or a whole host of other non-democtratic states crying out for ‘democratic intervention’? Because the reality is that it’s a nice idea but very impractical for running a powerful country. The US just can’t go running around doing this kind of thing. There are far ‘important’ interests, such as those of business, the need for oil and the need for strategic positioning. That is what is on Bush’s mind, despite his claims about democracy. Even his detractors claim that his talk of democracy is not sincere (I think he is relatively sincere, but he has many other things to consider when it comes to foreign affairs).
Read some other sources of info other than those with an axe to grind. The neo-cons are little more than hawkish conservatives and even that wouldn’t qualify as a definition.
I can’t understand why any of you need to get bunchy about the use of “neocon” as a pejorative term, when “liberal” has been a term of disparagement in American politics ever since the Reagan administration. Really, the term itself is completely neutral and only takes a pejorative meaning depending on who says it. Surely “neocon” sounds better and more assertive than the musty “paleocon,” the term it is actually intended to be in distinction to.
While I would never vote for either, I’d still choose a “neocon,” over some creepy, “paleocon,” Pat Buchanan fanboy anyday.
Snow,
> call them the devil incarnate is crap.
> demonising of supposed neo-cons remains laughable
I didn’t use those words or anything like them, please note. All talk of
devils and demons is only coming from you; what that reflects of your
personal beliefs and psychology, i would never presume to speculate. I
regard neo-conservatives as intelligent human beings with false beliefs
and mistaken, harmful policies.
> The neo-cons are little more than hawkish conservatives
> and even that wouldn’t qualify as a definition.
I will stand by the idea that there’s quite a bit more going on with them
than “a little more hawkish”. There in fact lies another of the strong
differences that I failed to previously mention — they are what we call
“chicken-hawks” — not one of their leaders ever fought in a war on behalf
of the USA, rather they all dodged that as best they could, as cravenly as
any hippie (but with less moral foundation; at least the hippies oppose
wars ideologically while refusing to fight them). GW Bush & Cheney are
‘Exhibit A’ here. Not one of the prominent Neo-con leaders has a son or
daughter willing to fight in Afghanistan or Iraq — risking life and limb
for your country is just something for ‘the little people’ donchaknow –
military service is for the servant-class. Traditional conservatives
were/are proud to serve, willing to death and injury for what they believe
in, responding when America was attacked; they honored the casualties and
veterans. Neo-cons launch imperial wars-of-choice for ideological reasons
and send only other family’s children to have their limbs blown off in them.
Then they cut veterans benefits. The difference between these two political
stances could not be more stark.
You mention that you “hate the fact that Bush has exploded the budget” –
do you not in any way realize that the exploding deficit is not some kind
of accident but is their deliberate policy?? It’s one of the key neo-
conservatives policies, starting with the Reagan administration. Look it
up — “Deficits don’t matter”. Clinton, a Democrat balanced the federal
budget (a primary traditional-conservative value), and Republican Neo-
conservatives made it their first order of business to reverse that in
early 2001 — an excellent indication of how very much things have changed
in the Washington DC para-reality…..
But you and I clearly disagree on the policies and intentions of what we
are from different points of reference calling ‘neo-conservatives’. So i
will merely agree to disagree with you, and be done with it.
2 Trackbacks
[...] Newsweek’s latest article on South Korea’s “New Right” is a must-read (ht to the Marmot). The New Right, in remarkable parallel to the rise of American neocons, has sprung up in reaction to these changes. They promote American-style capitalism, denounce the type of totalitarian socialism found in North Korea and—unlike traditional GNP conservatives—advocate a more open world view that transcends narrow nationalism. “The New Right has gained public support because Korea has moved too rapidly to the left,” says Hong Sung Gul, a professor of public administration at Seoul’s Kookmin University. “They have the potential to change Korean society again politically and ideologically.” [...]
Houston Limousines…
If you’re looking for a limousine in Houston, we’re your answer…