Sam Roggeveen on Tony Abbott, already being underestimated by so many journalists: But both Tony Abbott's friends and enemies should disabuse themselves of any notion that he is some kind of a radical neoconservative... As he told ABC's 7.30: âI supported [Iraq], but a lot of people would question its wisdom and its outcomes... The interview ... revealed a realist streak in Abbott's foreign policy thinking. His instinct is always to support the US alliance, but âI just think we need to be very careful in a situation like this [Syria] because we can easily make a bad situation worse by acting precipitously... Those who now call themselves conservative in America are essentially political radicals, who hold dogmatic views about taxation, the size of government, sexual morality and the use of US power, all of which are totally divorced from context and circumstance... The tradition of thought Abbott draws on for his conservatism could not be more different. Battlelines is peppered with references to Roger Scruton, Michael Oakeshott and Edmund Burke, each of whom in their different ways dedicated their work to resisting the threat posed by extremist ideology of all kinds. One of the defining features of this type of conservatism is that it is anti-ideological. Ideology presupposes that a system of government can be perfected by abstracting it, thus pulling it away from the concrete practices of particular societies. But as Abbott says in Battlelines, âConservatism starts with an appreciation of what is and what has been and tries to discern the good from patterns of conduct.... British Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan wrote glowingly in the UK Daily Telegraph recently that Abbott âhas no time for the notion, favoured by some Melbourne clever dicks, that Australia is an Asian power: his country's alliances with Britain, the United States and the other Anglophone democracies are central to his worldview. Actually ... Abbott [has] said: âDecisions which impact on our national interests will be made in Jakarta, in Beijing, in Tokyo, in Seoul, as much as they will be made in Washington. Judging by what Abbott has said and written on the topic, the Anglosphere ... does have its place as part of Australia's relations with the world, particularly in defence and intelligence sharing. But for Abbott, the Anglosphere is a primarily an intellectual construct, a common heritage of civic institutions, art, literature and ideas, not a diplomatic tool. Don't expect Abbott to turn his back on Asia.