Is President Yoon an American conservative?

By Michael Breen

According to the press, Korean and foreign, President Yoon Suk-yeol is a conservative. But is he?

This may seem like a stupid question, but I ask it, in part because he was the chief prosecutor for a very progressive government and is said to be quite socially liberal, but mainly because, as a foreign observer, I notice that many non-Koreans who consider themselves to be progressive or liberal disapprove of Yoon without knowing much about him.

It seems to me that a lot of foreign press coverage, for example, is not just critical ― that would be a normal reflection of a correspondent's professionalism ― but is often condescending and sneering, if not in the stories, then in the reporters' own Tweets and social media posts in a way that I don't recall them being towards former President Moon Jae-in.

Why would that be? Because one has liberal slapped across his forehead and the other has conservative? What I mean is, they don't seem to check what the president is doing, disapprove of it and describe it as either liberal or conservative. Rather, they approve or disapprove before he starts because of the label. Then everything he does is made to fit. We've kind of become used to this type of political commentary, so it may not strike people as odd.

The problem with it, though, is that, for the foreigner, the conservative-liberal labels might mean something different than they do for the Korean.

So, what am I talking about?

Broadly speaking, we have two main inclinations in democracies: progressives (or liberals, in the American sense) believe in improving society by changing things, while conservatives believe in keeping hold of things as they are. Obviously, progressives will argue for the status quo sometimes and conservatives will want to make changes, so the difference between them is a matter of degrees.

Obviously, expressed like this, we can understand what is being said when someone is labeled one way or the other. We can understand, for example, that a conservative in a communist state does not share the same convictions as a conservative in a long-established democracy. What they share is the predisposition to preserve what they know and move forward into new territory with caution.

But when a non-Korean, say an American, reads that Yoon is a conservative or that Moon was a liberal, what is that likely to mean to them?

In America, you could say, leftists, be they moderate or hardline socialists, are nice because they tend to prioritize justice and equality over other values. They think it is the fundamental duty of the government to solve social problems, protect civil rights and help the less fortunate. In this, they are not entirely wrong, which is why the left is necessary and often has the better arguments and policies.

As for conservatives in America and elsewhere, they tend to be distinguished from progressives for their bedrock belief in individual liberty, personal responsibility and the free market. A government's fundamental role, they think, is not to deliver happiness but to safeguard the freedom needed for citizens to pursue their individual goals. This makes some sense and is why the right often has good points and good policies.

Both right and left wings are attached to the body of democracy in that they share a belief in individual liberty and rights, in the rule of law, in clean and effective government and in the market. But the wings themselves differ in how values are prioritized, with equality on the left and freedom on the right. All well and good, because you need two wings to fly.

But, flying back to Korea, we have two problems. The first is that conservative and progressive don't mean what they mean elsewhere. Also, that central body part where they both agree is different. For example, both left and right in Korea agree with what in America would look like a progressive level of expectation of government and subsequent intrusion by the state.

But how do the Korean wings differ? Is belief in freedom the mark of Korean conservatives? Is freedom their core value, as it is with conservatives in other countries? Does a fundamental conviction about individual liberty, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, and freedom of choice underpin their vision of what makes the Republic of Korea a great country and one worth living in and dying for? Is it their fundamental conviction that the duty of government is to safeguard these freedoms so that citizens may pursue their individual goals?

I think not. I think the real differentiator is far deeper and more elusive. It concerns the concept of the nation itself. There are two of them. One is the familiar Republic of Korea. This nation has roots going back millennia but is itself young. It began in 1948, freed from Japanese rule after World War II and spawned by America. It was illiberal but is now a democracy. It has done so well that it is respected around the world as an advanced state, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with other free-market, liberal democracies. This is the Korea of the “conservatives” and it is one they expect North Koreans to one day join.

The other version of Korea has its roots in the Japanese colonial period, although the identity also goes back millennia. This is Unified Korea, yet to be born. It is the country of the political left, its body battered by a hostile power but its soul intact, pure and innocent. The devotees of this nation see both North Korea and South Korea as impostors, temporary and imperfect.

To add to the confusion, as many, if not most, people are a mix of right and left, it's quite normal for an individual to relate comfortably with both versions of Korea.

The second problem that arises when the outsider, flying into Korea, applies the left-right labels to politics here is the depth of animosity between those two camps in the place he's departed from. The main thing these days the American right and left, for example, have in common, it seems, is mutual hatred and contempt. The bigotry and vulgarity on both sides is astounding.

It is that mentality, I would suggest, that is invisibly at work when the outside commentator refers to the Korean politicians and slaps on the right or left label and proceeds to tell us how we should think about them.

Michael Breen (mike.breen@insightcomms.com) is the author of "The New Koreans."