What is says is that anti-communism no longer matters. Religion and culture (witness Kevin Williamson’s anti-elitist sneer above) now drive American conservatism; foreign policy takes a way back seat. ~Democracy in America

This is, to put it kindly, a very strange interpretation of some of the complaints and attacks against Anne Applebaum’s regret-filled endorsement of Obama.  First, let me say that Applebaum’s piece is a good example of the sort of thing I have been talking about when I said:

Many have hedged their Obama endorsement with paeans to the “old” McCain whom they once liked and their alleged Obama endorsements are filled with disappointment that McCain has let them down, as if to say, “I can’t believe you’re making me do this.” 

It is true that anticommunism is obviously no longer the glue that holds conservatives of different strands together, and it would be fair to say that anti-jihadism does not quite inspire the same unity, especially when one is told that anti-jihadism is inseparable from support for the war in Iraq.  That being said, I don’t see how anyone looks at mainstream conservatism and the Republican coalition today and concludes that “foreign policy takes a way back seat” to religion and culture.  During the campaign, it has been central, and this has been true of major and minor Republican candidates alike.  Ron Paul’s dissenting presidential campaign was focused primarily on foreign policy questions, and McCain’s nomination is almost unthinkable without foreign policy arguments being at the heart of mainstream conservatism.  The one and perhaps only meaningful litmus test was support for the “surge.”  That doesn’t mean that the arguments that circulate among mainstream conservatives are good arguments, but they clearly take priority over everything else.  Until the financial crisis hit, virtually every other issue was framed in terms of national security and sticking it to those lousy Iranians/Russians/Venezuelans/whoever.  To some extent, despite her lack of foreign policy knowledge, the Palin choice was a roundabout acknowledgement of the centrality of foreign policy to the campaign because her presumed energy expertise would help achieve–so she keeps telling us–chimerical energy independence (thus supposedly thwarting the ambitions of Putin, Chavez, et al.). 

Palin was a symbolic nod to social conservatives, yes, but even the themes they have had her using show an emphasis on foreign affairs and national security.  In choosing Palin, McCain was freed by and large to ignore social issues, and for the most part he has ignored them; choosing Palin “proves” that he accepts pro-lifers and social conservatives into his camp, so their issues do not even require that much in the way of lip service.   

The bit that I found particularly amusing about the one denunciation was the description of Applebaum as “Europe-dwelling,” as if this were still supposed to be considered a moral failing.  The phrasing made it sound as if Williamson, the one penning the attack, was equating Europe to some sort of hovel or cave, which I suppose must have been the point.  Oh, no, a Europe-dweller!  This is supposed to be an insult?