Dear Glenn,

An excellent column, as always. I think that you are correct in much of what you say. The neoconservative movement has radically redefined the political spectrum in the US and it does advocate the expansion of government power, particularly in ways that lead to the creation of a police state. This is very frightening and disturbing and, I hope, it can eventually be turned back. Certainly, these people seem to have little in common with "traditional" conservatives though, I should point out, "conservatism" did not, historically, simply mean the rejection of big government. There was a long conservative tradition of actually supporting the use of government power to maintain and protect -i.e., "conserve" - society. Where that tradition has gone is one of the tragedies (among many) of modern "conservatism".

However, I also note, and agree with, a comment made by an earlier letter writer: the Democrats in your country have largely supported many of the changes and actions advocated by George Bush and the neoconservatives. The differences they have with Bush don't seem so much ideological as they are about questions of implementation. It may be that many of these people are simply political cowards, but I think that there is more to it than this.

When I look at the neoconservatives and their writing and thinking, what seems most clear is that they are concerned about creating and maintaining an American Empire. It is not obvious to me that they ever wanted to assert police powers and big government domestically - this is an element of their thinking that has evolved out of the events of 9-11 and that is tied to that event because they have come to understand that the pursuit of empire abroad is most easily facilitated when they can demonize and control the opposition at home, either through fear or intimidation. (They have also used the fear of 9-11 for simple domestic political gain) But the general goal of American Empire is one that the neocons share with most other aspects of the mainstream American political elite.

Consider: Chalmers Johnson first wrote about the gradual expansion of an American military empire in the book "Blowback". Johnson published "Blowback" in 1999; he was talking about creeping American empire and militarism under Bill Clinton. And (to paraphrase a quote that I can't find at the moment) there is no mainstream American political figure who does not believe in American primacy in the world until the end of time.

The neocons may be most distinguished from people like Clinton in that they are much more brutal and blatant in their goals, much less subtle, and much more confident (or at least they were) in the efficacy of military power. They were prepared to be bullies, to revel in American power, and to rub the nose of the rest of the world in just how superior the US is to everyone else. The liberals may have believed many of these same things, but they were much smarter, more diplomatic, and much more aware of the limitations of military force. But the goal - the creation and maintenance of American Empire - was much the same.

It may be that if liberals were in charge on 9-11, they would not have gone so far down the road to creating a police state. Their take on what was required for the maintenance of American power would have been different than the neocons. But the similarities in thinking between what passes as the "left" in the US and the right - even the warped conservatism of the neocons - should not be overlooked.

I hope I have not overstated my case, or repeated too much of what others may already have said. As always, thanks for the good work.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

Dear Joan,

Since this is pretty much what I suggested in my letter to your previous article on Kathy Sierra situation, I'm all in favour of this new approach. Not that I'm taking any credit - this is a pretty obvious response and, as you indicate, the people at Salon have been planning this change for a while. I hope that this brings an element of accountability to letter-writing that has, so far, been lacking.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine