[Restorer]

The CIA, in its present state, is viewed by its Capitol Hill overseers as incapable of targeting bin Laden.

Mr. Novak appears to have been entirely correct in this assertion.

[Stepan12]

The most amusing response to this old article that I know of is from Taki (can't spell or pronouce his last name). Taki sounded drunk when he wrote Dave Frum was a bum and then revealed that his fellow Paleos told him not to get angry and hysterical but Taki said he didn't care or maybe he just can't control himself (snicker).

[kalee]

ping

[Texasforever]

Now ya done it. LOL

[Rembrandt_fan]

It galls me no end to see Pat Buchanan trotted out as the token conservative on talking-head pundit shows on television. Buchanan is not a conservative, nor are Raimondo, Francis, Sobran, or any of the other 'paleos' mentioned in the article. They go so far right that they wrap around and become so closely identified with the far left in idealogical conformity as to be indistinguishable. The reason they carry the 'conservative' tag at all is that it pleases the left-leaning MSM to identify them as such, thus smearing legitimate conservatism, and--for the 'paleos' themselves, the Buchanan crowd, particularly--wraps them in a cloak of mainstream conservative respectability.

[carlr]

I think many are only happy when they are miserable.

Losing makes them miserable.

[ARealMothersSonForever]

Bump fer a read.

[ansel12]

This is a very good article.

There is a good reason why the Buchanan crowd is still seen as a fringe part of conservatism, it is because they still have one or two positions we agree with, but this writer does a good job of revealing the many reptilian aspects of their movement.

There is a reason why Buchanan is the favorite "conservative" spokesman for the left wing media.

[BlazingArizona]

an essay that could plausibly be read to liken Abraham Lincoln to Hitler. In the spring of 1981, Ronald Reagan was trying to persuade a balky Congress simultaneously to enact a giant tax cut and to authorize a huge defense buildup; to slow inflation, end fuel shortages, and halt Soviet aggression, from Afghanistan to Angola. It was not, in other words, a good moment to refight the Civil War.

This issue is Lew Rockwell's hobbyhorse. Though all libertarians fault Lincoln for using force to keep seceding states in the Union, thereby giving the nation a push toward centralization and away from states' rights, Rockwell became obsessed with this point. His blog has become a secular version of the Phelps church, cheering on al Qaeda and providing a gathering place for young conspiracy theorists and washed-up old anti-Semites.

[Mr. Brightside]

On September 30, 2002, Pat Buchanan offered this explanation of 9/11 during a debate on Chris Matthews's Hardball: "9/11 was a direct consequence of the United States meddling in an area of the world where we do not belong and where we are not wanted. We were attacked because we were on Saudi sacred soil and we are so-called repressing the Iraqis and we're supporting Israel."

'nuff said?

[JDoutrider]

4LTR

[Alien Gunfighter]

I didn't bother to read the article, but I'm sure by its lack of brevity that it is close to gospel.

[billbears]

Oh good, the old article from the little Frummer boy. Haven't seen this one in oh...about three years is it? And it's no more true then than it is now.

I HAPPEN to have been in the room when "paleoconservatism" first declared itself as a self-conscious political movement. It was in the spring of 1986, at a meeting of the Philadelphia Society, and Professor Stephen Tonsor of the University of Michigan read the birth announcement.

Well isn't that special. Unfortunately for Davie, old conservatism was a self-concious political movement in 1796 when General Washington gave his Farewell Address.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Three words: Paul Craig F***ing Roberts.

[marron]

Part of the problem is the fuzziness of the term "conservative". The fuzziness lies in what specifically it is that you are trying to conserve. US conservatives are of a very special type. US conservatives are basically what were once called "classic liberals". We mainly are trying to uphold and adhere and preserve the principles built into the US constitution, which is the quintessential classic liberal document.

Jefferson and most of the founding fathers were classic liberals mostly; John Locke who inspired most of them was a classic liberal. Even Edmund Burke, who lived about the same time and is sometimes thought of as the "father of conservatism", was a Whig, that is to say, a classic liberal.

Our conservatism is not mere traditionalism, not mere resistance to change. The value of traditionalist conservatism depends a great deal on what traditions it is that you want to preserve. Not being clear on this is how neo-confederates are able to blend themselves in, for example. Conservatism that isn't tied to positive philosophical values gives rise to what we sometimes call "Republicans in Name Only" whose only purpose seems to be to act as a drag on Democrats, and an obstruction to their brethren, but never really standing for anything. If the Dems propose a huge new program, the "Rinos" will propose one half that size, and then the two will split the difference. That should sound familiar because we do it all the time.

As much as we dislike so-called "Rinos", that is what conservatism is when it is disconnected from principle.

Patriotism, when it is disconnected from positive principle, degenerates into nationalism and racialism. The kind of patriotism we know is a beautiful thing, precisely because it is informed and inspired by something more than mere nationalism, it is tied to a love of liberty.

This is, I suppose, why the twisting of the term "liberal" has been so pernicious, because the term "conservative" is itself more fuzzy than we realize, and it allows people who do not share our values to masquerade among us. Conservatives of the "classic liberal" variety don't particularly want to preserve any status quo; they want to build liberty, and that sometimes means kicking over the table.

I always say that the interesting arguments are all on our side of the aisle. On the left, all you have is a struggle for power, and a dividing of the spoils, and principles are flexible and expendable. On our side, you have grownups trying to build liberty, preserve liberty, and the arguments are all about how best to do that. There is a pretty broad spectrum; from the more libertarian to the more traditionalist, to the guy who wants to fight, to the guy who wants to pull in the drawbridge, but for all of us the common element is liberty and how to keep it.

[AmishDude]

Long but fantastic article.

[Dialup Llama]

"Jobs for the lads" may be an effective slogan for a trade union, but the paleos needed to develop a more idealistic explanation for their resentments,

Only a person who has been "set" for a long time can say this without so much of a shadow of conern for other people who are struggling with outsourcing and reduced real wages.

[Bahbah]

This is really a fascinating review of the history of conservatism, much of which occurred when I wasn't paying much attention. Thank you for finding and posting it.

[EternalVigilance]

The vast majority of conservatives identify themselves as simply "conservative".

The "paleo" and "neo" appellations are contrived and inaccurate.

The Buchananites represent an aberration, and only a tiny constituency.