A South Korean conservative identity crisis as political tides shift

On May 5, 1951, during a joint hearing of the US Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees, General Douglas MacArthur was asked whether the Japanese could be trusted to defend the freedoms they had gained under the post-surrender occupation. He responded affirmatively, stating that Japan was capable of maintaining its liberal democratic system.

Well, the German problem is a completely and entirely different one from the Japanese problem. The German people were a mature race. If the Anglo-Saxon was say 45 years of age in his development, in the sciences, the arts, divinity, culture, the Germans were quite as mature. The Japanese, however, in spite of their antiquity measured by time, were in a very tuitionary condition. Measured by the standards of modern civilization, they would be like a boy of twelve as compared with our development of 45 years. Like any tuitionary period, they were susceptible to following new models, new ideas. You can implant basic concepts there. They were still close enough to origin to be elastic and acceptable to new concepts.

While MacArthur’s statement referred to Japan, many aspects of his observation can be applied to South Korea – particularly regarding political ideology.

Despite South Korea’s rise as an advanced industrialized nation, many South Koreans still struggle to grasp the fundamental meaning of conservatism. Notably, conservatives in South Korea often avoid calling themselves “conservatives” and instead refer to themselves as “rightists.” This distinction stems from two key misconceptions.

1. Misunderstanding conservatism

South Koreans often define conservatism strictly by its dictionary meaning: “a commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation.” This interpretation makes conservatism seem rigid and unappealing – especially to younger voters – causing conservative leaders to distance themselves from the label altogether.

According to this definition, the opposite of conservatism is progressivism, which is widely associated with forward-thinking ideals and societal advancement. This presents a branding issue for conservatives, as progressivism inherently carries a more positive connotation.

To address the misunderstanding, South Korean conservative leadership must reflect deeply on the core principles of the ideology they claim to represent. For example, the American Conservative Union defines conservatism as “the political philosophy that sovereignty resides in the person.” This perspective – emphasizing individual liberty and personal responsibility – succinctly defines conservatism. It could resonate with modern South Korean voters if effectively communicated.

2. Failure to take a clear conservative stance

Another major issue facing South Korean conservatism is the lack of a firm and consistent ideological stance – a problem akin to “barking up the wrong tree.”

US Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts famously stated: “Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.”

While Roberts used this metaphor to emphasize that judges should act as neutral referees rather than active players shaping policy, it can be applied to South Korean politics: a political party must firmly uphold its ideological foundation so the public can understand what “team” it represents.

For decades, leaders of the People Power Party (PPP), South Korea’s largest conservative party, have taken it for granted that their core conservative voter base – often referred to as “house rabbits” (a metaphor for loyal supporters expected to vote for the PPP no matter what) – would always support them. Based on this assumption, they have prioritized appealing to swing voters and even left-leaning voters by shifting their rhetoric and policies toward the center.

A striking example of this failure is the PPP’s reluctance to address historical narratives. The Jeju Uprising of 1948, for instance, was initiated by communist insurgents, yet the PPP has consistently avoided engaging with this topic, fearing backlash from swing voters and leftists.

However, this strategy has repeatedly failed:

• Core conservative voters feel alienated and unappreciated, leading many to abstain from voting.
• Swing voters struggle to understand the PPP’s ideological stance, resulting in a lack of support.
• Left-leaning voters remain loyal to their own party, regardless of the PPP’s attempts at outreach.

To regain political strength, it is imperative for South Korean conservatives to:

• Embrace and articulate the true meaning of conservatism – a philosophy rooted in individual liberty and responsibility rather than mere resistance to change.
• Take a clear and firm ideological stance as a conservative party instead of diluting their message in an attempt to appeal across the spectrum.

The changing landscape of South Korean politics

Interestingly, while conservatives struggle with their identity, the Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) – traditionally known for its pro-China and anti-US stance – has also undergone ideological shifts, dramatically so within the last few weeks:

• On February 4, 2025, The DPK proposed nominating US President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.
• On February 23, DPK leader Lee Jae-myung declared that his party is now a “centrist and conservative party.”
• On March 11, The DPK’s January 21 resolution proposal reaffirming support for the US-ROK alliance and joint efforts toward North Korea’s denuclearization passed with bipartisan support.

While the DPK’s moves are likely mere lip service, these developments may still indicate that both of South Korea’s major political parties are undergoing significant transformations, reflecting broader shifts in South Korean society

Challenges and growth

Despite its challenges – whether due to misunderstandings about conservatism or shifting political identities – South Korea’s liberal democracy continues to mature. Like any growth process, this evolution comes with growing pains.

Can South Korea be relied upon to defend the freedoms it gained after the Korean War? It can, and it already has. However, its continued maturation depends on a stable political environment and strong international support.

The US, as its longstanding ally, can help South Korea navigate challenges through diplomatic engagement, economic cooperation,and security assistance – demonstrating that America First does not mean America Alone.

Hanjin Lew is a political commentator specializing in East Asian affairs and a former international spokesman for South Korean conservative parties.

READ: South Korea’s left fights for survival in a right-leaning landscape