We lost again. And in the end, we were eliminated. It was a match in which even a draw would have secured a spot in the knockout round, but we collapsed 0-1 to South Africa. For the three days that followed, our fate rested in the results of other teams' matches, and in the end, our elimination in the group stage was confirmed.
A tournament expanded to 48 countries, with the lowest qualification threshold in history. A squad said to be the strongest ever. We held all those conditions in hand, and yet the result was elimination. It was not because the opponent was strong, but because we collapsed on our own. Choices made without preparation, repeated misjudgments, and an operation that was never fixed in the end. It was not an accident but a foretold ending. When incompetence is consistent, it is more like a skill.
And, without fail, those words came out.
"All responsibility lies with me, the head coach."
This sentence is no longer a declaration of responsibility. It is closer to a stock phrase for evading it. The attitude of bearing responsibility only in words while keeping one's seat is not responsibility but performance. Responsibility is proven not by words but by one's departure. The moment words replace action, responsibility evaporates from the system. We have seen this scene countless times in politics.
Sports are honest. Process, justification, and narrative all become excuses before the result. A career as a "legend," the virtue of "internal cohesion," the wrapping of "stability"—none can defeat a single scorecard. Hong Myung-bo's appointment was justified with the words experience and stability, but in essence it was a choice that refused change. It was a personnel decision made in order not to change, and the current disaster is the bill for it. And that bill always falls on the weakest.
This scene reflects Korean conservatism exactly.
Conservatism is inherently a politics that speaks through results. Putting duty before rights, responsibility before justification, and achievement before intention. That was the basis for conservatism's existence. If so, the question is simple. Does that basis still remain in today's conservatism?
The answer is already out. Even after failing to take power and becoming the opposition, conservatism has not changed. It lost in elections and collapsed in governance, but there has not been a single corresponding act of self-liquidation. The figures, the decision-making structure, and the nomination process all remain the same. Instead of dissecting failure, they poured their energy into justifying it, and rather than analyzing the causes of defeat, only the technique of refusing to admit defeat grew more sophisticated.
"Still, we are the alternative."
This sentence is now not conviction but self-hypnosis. Loyalty instead of proven ability, private connections instead of public achievement, govern personnel decisions. The culture of holding people accountable has disappeared, and only silence that covers failure remains. Change becomes a risk, and incompetence is dressed up as stability. At this point, the name "conservatism" is not a value but an alibi for impunity.
What is even more fatal is the direction of responsibility. Today's conservatism is generous to itself and harsh only to its opponents. It stays silent on the governance it destroyed with its own hands, while raising the loudest voice in criticizing the current government. It blames its own failures on external factors, while reading its opponents' mistakes as fundamental incompetence. This very asymmetry is a sign of corruption. The moment the standard of responsibility points only outward, politics loses its capacity for self-correction.
The words "I will take responsibility" are repeated, but there is no sight of anyone taking responsibility. Even when the leadership changes, the line is maintained, and even when they lose an election, the strategy stays the same. Only the faces are swapped while the structure is left untouched. Responsibility is consumed as language, and power is fixed within the structure. This is not conservatism but the survival method of vested interests borrowing the language of conservatism.
Politics must be harsher than sports. A defeat in a match can at least be repaid in the next match, but the failure of politics is immediately billed to the lives of the people. Conservatism does not follow even the simple common sense that when results are bad, you change your approach. Instead, it hides behind the comparison that "we are still better than the other side" and the slogan that "now is the time to unite." But there is no case of an organization that fails to learn from defeat succeeding in rebuilding. This is not a matter of ideology but of survival.
A true conservative must be able to deny himself. The more desperate the value he seeks to protect, the more he must cut out from within those who damage that value. He must be able to clear away failed leadership, dismantle outdated structures, and, if necessary, sever ties starting with those closest to him. To cry "stability" while embracing failure is not conservatism but cowardice.
Just as Hong Myung-bo covered his present incompetence with past glory, Korean conservatism is likewise merely hiding its present behind its past. The difference, if any, is that the failure of football can be challenged again four years later, but the failure of politics can mortgage an entire generation.
The people have already handed over scorecards several times. They issued warnings in the clearest way possible—through elections—but conservatism neither interpreted nor accepted that message. Who would trust a conservatism that has never once been strict with itself? Trust is not begging but the accumulation of responsibility.
I ask Coach Hong Myung-bo. Do you intend to take responsibility befitting those words?
I throw the same question to Korean conservatism. Do you have the resolve to fully bear the defeat and start over from scratch?
The crisis of conservatism began not from the outside but from within. The moment it fails to apply to itself the standards it set, conservatism collapses from within. There are many conservatives who cry out responsibility in words. But the conservative who steps down from his seat, dismantles the structure, and breaks with the past is nowhere to be seen.
In the end, it comes down to one sentence.
Prove it not with words but with results. If you cannot, then speak of conservatism no more.
