In the Summer 2003 number of The Salisbury Review, the British high Tory quarterly, paleo-conservative Paul Gottfried offered a brief commendation of The American Conservative. According to Gottfried, Pat Buchanan’s and Taki Theodoracopulos’ new periodical served as an enlightened rejoinder to the neo-conservatives who have hijacked the American right. The Salisbury Review, Gottfried went on, was a beacon of earnest conservatism in the midst of neo-conservative interlopers.

A caption appearing under Mr. Gottfried’s piece, however, made clear that The Salisbury Review did not want to pigeonhole itself in such a manner. It reads: “Some British readers may not be familiar with the American ?Conservative Wars.’ Paleo-conservatives (Old Right) have traditional beliefs in the nation; some of them are even isolationist. Neo-conservatives, many of whom were leftists who ?turned’ during the Cold War, regard the health of the free market as the most important political issue.”

To be sure, this note doesn’t come close to capturing the intellectual jousting of sundry paleo-cons and neo-cons, a battle that hinges on two starkly different visions of American foreign policy: whereas the paleo-cons are stalwart isolationists, the neo-cons favor the use of American power as an ameliorating force in world affairs.

To paleo-conservatives such as Gottfried, this interventionist agenda smacks of neo-Trotskyism. Gottfried has made much of the far-left roots of the forefathers of neo-conservatism; according to him, the neo-cons never drifted away from the idea of “perpetual revolution” advocated by Leon Trotsky.

Naturally, this is nothing but piffle: though some neo-conservatives had intellectual ties to anti-Stalinist Marxism, these roots are so ancient that drudging them up seems like little more than an impoverished attempt at proving guilt by association. Indeed, some New York intellectuals associated with neo-conservatism were originally Marxists; yet, having disabused themselves so thoroughly of this past in other regards, it seems odd to assume that Trotskyist notions of foreign policy would retain appeal for them after many decades. Gottfried, moreover, would be at pains to find contemporary Trotskyists who support the current neo-conservative agenda; how, then, can he assume that those who dismissed Marxism years ago are acting in its name?

In America, this is all so much chatter, as the neo-cons have won the fight, as the modern Republican Party has staunchly sided with neo-conservative ideals. After 9/11, the Bush Administration cast aside its earlier adherence to isolationist foreign policy in favor of a grander vision of America’s role in the world. And virtually all the principal organs of American conservative opinion—from large circulation newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal and The New York Post to smaller periodicals such as Commentary, National Review, The Weekly Standard, The New Criterion, The Public Interest, etc.—adhere to neo-conservative positions.

Naturally, it would prove impossible to distill these views into a few maxims—especially since the term “neo-conservative” has been so widely misapplied by journalists, many of whom have clearly never read a word of Irving Kristol’s work, let alone the oeuvre of Leo Strauss and Lionel Trilling. Even so, it is safe to say that, in the war of ideas waged within the Republican Party, the isolationists have most assuredly lost.

The same cannot be said, however, for Britain—the site of the real ideological tussles within modern conservatism. Even a quick perusal of the small circulation Salisbury Review and the venerable (London) Spectator make this crystal clear.

In a recent issue of The Speccie, for instance, columnist Rod Liddle — whose quirky sense of humor parallels that of his cross-continental colleague Mark Steyn — averred that everyone would be much better off if Saddam were still in power. Not even as vehement an American critic of the Iraq War as Howard Dean ventured such an opinion on this side of the Atlantic. And Liddle’s evaluation of matters is hardly unusual: each issue of The Spectator seems to offer at least one article inveighing against military intervention in the Middle East.

Unsurprisingly, the magazine also carries its fair share of anti-Israel sentiment. The May 22 number of the journal contained Mary Wakefield’s fawning interview with Sir Crispin Tickell, a prominent opponent of both the Jewish state and the neo-conservatives. Queried about President Bush’s regard for Israel, Tickell opined, “You can never underestimate the importance of the Jewish vote.”

Sir Crispin obviously and perhaps willfully harbors appalling misconceptions of American politics: Jews, after all, compromise a miniscule two percent of the population of the United States, and the large majority of them vote Democrat. That such a man would aver that “it is impossible to overestimate the neoconservatives’ ignorance of the real world” is surely laughable; Tickell doesn’t appear to have much of a grasp on the basics of American political life.

Still, one repeatedly finds such sentiments in the pages of The Speccie. At the same time, however, the magazine has its share of pro-war, pro-Israel hawks. In the very same issue that contains Wakefield’s softball interview, James Delingpole contributes a scabrous attack on fair-weather isolationism entitled “Cursed are the Peaceniks.” In the May 15 number of the periodical, Toby Harnden excoriated American leftists who savor Iraqi casualties in hopes that their growing numbers will cause Bush to lose the upcoming election.

Whereas The Spectator appears positively schizophrenic, The Salisbury Review has been surprisingly quiet on the matters of Iraq and Israel, preferring to confine itself to discussions of the European Union and various domestic matters. To be certain, some contributors to The Salisbury Review have dilated on Iraq and Israel. But the journal has established no orthodoxy on the matter.

Clearly, then, Britain—and not the United States—is home to the “conservative wars.” The natural question to ask about this state of affairs is Why? Certainly the connection of Tony Blair to the war in Iraq is related to conservative apprehension regarding the matter. Although former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith was a staunch supporter of the liberation of Iraq and current Tory chief Michael Howard remains pro-war, Howard has begun to question Blair’s association with President Bush in a move some opponents are labeling a political ploy.

But we cannot attribute the greater skepticism regarding neo-Wilsonianism among British conservatives merely to politics as usual. There appears to be a stronger tradition of isolationism on the British right than exists in America. Not only is the BBC (in)famously anti-war, The London Times, The Independent, and The Guardian all offer reporting and editorials mostly slanted against intervention in Iraq. Even The Telegraph, Britain’s right-wing daily, is far from a staunch defender of Bush’s foreign policy.

Regarding Israel, the British press is even more stilted. With the exception of The Telegraph, the UK newspapers all are stalwart opponents of Israel, regularly running dubious coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that harps on Israeli sins, bereft of any historical context.

For whatever combination of reasons (some more benign than others), The Spectator is currently a source of lively, pugnacious, and polemical debate. It serves as the epicenter for Britain’s “conservative wars.”

And there is much at stake in these battles—for England, the United States, and the world. By attempting to distance themselves from the Iraq War in order to gain political leverage over Tony Blair, Tories—who are probably too weak now to replace the current government—would potentially usher in Gordon Brown as the new Prime Minister. Given Brown’s comparatively un-reconstructed leftism, it is difficult to see how this would be a boon to British conservatives.

Naturally, if Britain backs away from a more pugnacious view of foreign policy, America will lose its most important ally in the War on Terrorism. If Tory MPs, under the leadership of Michael Howard, lose their resolve, the country’s politicians will slide ever closer to the positions of France, Spain, and their western European brethren.

This might put a smile on not only Jacques Chirac’s face, but Osama bin Laden’s as well.