Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Paleoconservative Age: They hate W. – from the right. (A paleocon bestiary)
The New Haven Advocate ^ | July 3, 2003 | Joe Miksch

Posted on 03/13/2004 10:56:05 AM PST by quidnunc

At first blush, the phrase "anti-establishment conservative" doesn't make sense. Aren't the conservatives, especially considering the United States' current political climate, the establishment?

Well, yes. But there are conservatives who consider what passes for a conservative today — George W. Bush, for example — equivalent to the Red under one's bed in the 1950s. These folks are called paleoconservatives and, according to guys such as Jim Libinskas, hold a world-view that champions "an isolationist, 'America First' foreign policy, regional culture and politics versus big government and pop culture, protection for American workers (economic nationalism), a stoppage or large curtailment of immigration and a defense of America's European and Christian identity."

The paleoconservative heyday occurred in the early and mid-1990s with anti-immigration, isolationist, anti-free trade, ultranationalist Pat Buchanan making more than a marginal impact in his runs for the Republican presidential nomination. After fighting a losing ideological battle against neoconservatives — well-connected, well-funded, well-organized leftists in the paleoconservative's eyes — the paleos, to a large degree, went the way of the dinosaur.

Yet they persist. Though few in number, their Web sites are many. At the vanguard in the beginning and toeing the line in the present is Chronicles magazine and its web presence www.chroniclesmagazine.org. Long considered the movement's bible, the mag has dipped in circulation from 20,000 at its peak to less than 5,000.

-snip-

(Excerpt) Read more at newhavenadvocate.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: antiwarright; bushhaters; paleocons
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-186 next last
To: billbears
You undermine your support for Israel statement by going on a rant about Iraq. About "far reaching wars all over the world". At best, you are trying to change the subject. At worst, . . . well, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I assumed (perhaps wrongly), that a statement would be quickly following telling me about the 'dangers' of Iraq and how it was in defense of this nation of states.

Sigh. Yes. I know what you were expecting. Very troll-like: Change the subject, ignite a flame war, yadda, yadda, yadda. Well, I won't fall for the bait. Try it on somebody else.

81 posted on 03/13/2004 2:24:46 PM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: billbears
On this , I agree!! California is lost, and many others will follow.
82 posted on 03/13/2004 2:27:16 PM PST by international american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
You "paleos" out there, I agree with you on many, many, things and will support you on those. You "neos" out there, I agree with you on many, many, things and will support you on those.

The press would like these divisions to fester.


The press likes neat characterizations (Paleo vs. Neo) no matter how inaccurate they are because they are easier to fit into a sound byte. Can't have any complexity on the political spectrum, can we now?

(Great post, A.)
83 posted on 03/13/2004 2:30:56 PM PST by eddiespaghetti (with the meatball eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
Since there are in fact two distinct GOP factions, the main question is:

Where does the evolution of either neo-con, or paleo-con lead America?

The evidence suggest neo-conservatism indeed evolves straight and unmistakenly into the maelstrom of pure liberalism.

84 posted on 03/13/2004 3:57:55 PM PST by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
F16Fighter wrote: The evidence suggest neo-conservatism indeed evolves straight and unmistakenly into the maelstrom of pure liberalism.

And just what evidence is it which suggests that?

85 posted on 03/13/2004 4:01:51 PM PST by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: eddiespaghetti
"The press likes neat characterizations (Paleo vs. Neo) no matter how inaccurate they are because they are easier to fit into a sound byte. Can't have any complexity on the political spectrum, can we now?"

I wouldn't blame the press -- there IS a problem.

The GOP's "spectrum," can be considered by enough conservatives a splintering, and thus creating enough of a chasm in party philosophy to eventually create a Third Party.

86 posted on 03/13/2004 4:04:05 PM PST by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
"And just what evidence is it which suggests that?"

Rampant RINOism which flirts with socialism and Big Goverment, caves in to contemporary social and cultural liberal policies, supports liberal immigrant policies and enforcement, and dances around 'America First' issues.

And YOUR evidence to the contrary?

87 posted on 03/13/2004 4:12:21 PM PST by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
It's called politics as usual.

Paleocons and their ilk are destined to forever bottom-feed in the fever swamps of the lunatic fringe, as evidenced by the fact that their best-known champion garnered a mere 0.42% of the vote in Y2K.

88 posted on 03/13/2004 4:16:54 PM PST by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
Paleocons and their ilk

Forgive me for asking this, but I get confused, especially when the principles of (paleo-) conservatism get mixed up with whatever principal Pat Buchanan is enunciating at any particular time. (Especially as Buchanan changes his tune periodically. For instance, Buchanan in '96 saying that if Taiwan were to be attacked by mainland China, the US must intervene militarily against the PRC; while the Buchanan of 2003/4 warns against the possibility of doing just that).

What exactly are the tenets of (old-time) conservatism in the American context? It CAN'T be that whatever Buchanan believes in is what conservatism is.
89 posted on 03/13/2004 4:40:08 PM PST by eddiespaghetti (with the meatball eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: WRhine
IMO, GWB much like his Dad in 1992, is begging to be defeated in Nov. If he does lose he will have no one to blame but himself. Any American President that puts the interests of foreign nations and their peoples ahead of the interests of the American People that he is duty bound to serve and represent deserves to lose.

Lose, heck, he should be impeached.

I await your case that GWB puts other nations interests ahead of our own.

Anyway, GO KERRY!!

90 posted on 03/13/2004 4:51:21 PM PST by SJackson (The Passion: Where were all the palestinians?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
Thanks but sorry, I have no idea what the fuss is about.

I'm just asking a question: Why should America support Israel?

91 posted on 03/13/2004 5:02:25 PM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: MissouriForBush
Get-a-grip Missouri ~ go back and read what I wrote ~ what part of ".05% third party fringees" don't you understand?

We are winning ~ the bad guys are losing ~ trolls, terrorists, .05% third party fringees, democrats and the mainstream media are sad ~ very sad!

~~ Bush/Cheney 2004 ~~

92 posted on 03/13/2004 5:04:11 PM PST by blackie (Be Well~Be Armed~Be Safe~Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc; VaBthang4
The paleoconservative heyday occurred in the early and mid-1990s with anti-immigration, isolationist, anti-free trade, ultranationalist Pat Buchanan making more than a marginal impact in his runs for the Republican presidential nomination... At the vanguard in the beginning and toeing the line in the present is Chronicles magazine and its web presence www.chroniclesmagazine.org. Long considered the movement's bible, the mag has dipped in circulation from 20,000 at its peak to less than 5,000. — quidnunc
And don’t forget, "hard money". ;')
Cute buzzword for "simply bitter & contrarian". Loserdopians without the weed. — VaBthang4
LOL! Well put!


see Civ's favorites

93 posted on 03/13/2004 5:06:43 PM PST by SunkenCiv (...and the next step in the US -- two new Senators for Massachusetts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eddiespaghetti
What exactly are the tenets of (old-time) conservatism in the American context?

I'm guessing (a bit):

1. Economic protectionism, such as we had in the nineteenth century (not to mention the 1930's) when the US was rather a poor country.

2. Foreign policy designed for a weak country, as laid out by Washington's farewell. This is why you'll see the paleos making friends with Euro-types. The Europeans base their foreign policy on weakness, as do the paleos. As for Washington, if he lived longer, until America was stronger, he would probably have modified his views and endorsed America's first war against terror, the Tripolian Wars against the Barbary States.)

3. Refusal to accept that politicians need to appeal to those moderate swing voters to win.

4. Smaller government with minimal to no deficits.

Personally, I would say I am a neo-con on 1-3 except that neo-con is really a term of insult used by our adversaries. On 4 I am paleo.

94 posted on 03/13/2004 5:11:45 PM PST by Steve Eisenberg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: eddiespaghetti
eddiespaghetti wrote: Paleocons and their ilk Forgive me for asking this, but I get confused, especially when the principles of (paleo-) conservatism get mixed up with whatever principal Pat Buchanan is enunciating at any particular time. (Especially as Buchanan changes his tune periodically. For instance, Buchanan in '96 saying that if Taiwan were to be attacked by mainland China, the US must intervene militarily against the PRC; while the Buchanan of 2003/4 warns against the possibility of doing just that). What exactly are the tenets of (old-time) conservatism in the American context? It CAN'T be that whatever Buchanan believes in is what conservatism is.

To Know what the current paleocon brain farts are, follow the link to the orignal article in the New Haven Advocate and open some of the links therein to Chronicles, VDare and the other paleocon sites.

As goes paleoconservatism so goes Pat Buchanan — and vice versa.

Pat's direct-mailing lists of paleocons is his and Bay's meal ticket.

95 posted on 03/13/2004 5:12:05 PM PST by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: blackie
You still didn't answer my question. Or does being against pandering to illegal aliens and against out-of-control federal spending fall only within the purview of third-party fringees??
96 posted on 03/13/2004 5:28:23 PM PST by MissouriForBush (Insert "Was" Because of Disastrous Illegal Immigration Non-Plan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: MissouriForBush
As I said ~ get-a-grip!

In case you haven't noticed ~ we're at war!

Find someone else to play your juvenile games with ~ keep whining and enjoy your misery ~ I'm not sharing it with you!

Bye!

We are winning ~ the bad guys are losing ~ trolls, terrorists, .05% third party fringees, democrats and the mainstream media are sad ~ very sad!

~~ Bush/Cheney 2004 ~~

97 posted on 03/13/2004 5:54:31 PM PST by blackie (Be Well~Be Armed~Be Safe~Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc; DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet; Sam's Army; AmishDude; rdb3; jpsb
These folks are called paleoconservatives

"Are called"? Who calls them "paleoconservatives"?

The first definition of "conservative" in the dictionary is "Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change."

I'm not sure American conservatives--who favor "traditional views and values" and tend "to oppose change"--need be called anything other than simply "conservative" to distinguish them from others who refer to themselves by the word, "neoconservative."

Further, the neologism, "neoconservative," seems a strange construction:

Do "neoconservative" people have a new way of "Favoring traditional views and values" and a new way of "tending to oppose change?"

In fact, I wonder if we shouldn't be suspicious of anyone who hides behind such a strained use of language as the seemingly oxymoronic, "neocoservative."

It seems to be a kind of doublespeak.

Exactly what kind of people are these self-styled "neocoservatives" anyway?

Isn't there a simpler word to describe them?

98 posted on 03/13/2004 5:56:30 PM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason
Age of Reason wrote: (These folks are called paleoconservatives) "Are called"? Who calls them "paleoconservatives"?

It's an appellation which the paleos coined to describe themselves.

99 posted on 03/13/2004 6:02:58 PM PST by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
You undermine your support for Israel statement by going on a rant about Iraq. About "far reaching wars all over the world". At best, you are trying to change the subject. At worst, . . . well, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Ah, I see. Because I don't support these wars that necessarily makes me part of the problem. Is that it? I'm not changing the subject. The subject is neocons. Perle, Wolfowitz, and Kristol's cronies over at the PNAC advising the foreign affairs of this nation of states with far reaching and vague calls for 'global leadership'. Tell us AmishDude. In your words what constitutes 'global leadership'? Bombing those that disagree with this nation of states into submission? Even if they do not represent a clear and present danger to our nation of states?

Let me make it perfectly clear for you without stooping to the innuendoes of 'troll-like'. If this nation of states is not directly threatened by the actions of another nation, then there is no reason to get involved with 'regime change' or whatever the Wilsonians are calling it today. That's not my view. That's the view of the men who founded this nation of states and signed the document our leaders used to follow

100 posted on 03/13/2004 6:14:06 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-186 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson