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

Skip to comments.

What the Heck is a Paleoconservative and Why You Should Care
Intellectual Conservative ^ | December 8, 2006 | Dan Phillips

Posted on 12/10/2006 3:34:41 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-64 last
To: CaliGirl-R

Your Score

Your scored 0.5 on the Moral Order axis and -5.5 on the Moral Rules axis.

Matches

The following items best match your score:

  1. System: Conservatism
  2. Variation: Economic Conservatism
  3. Ideologies: Conservative NeoLiberalism
  4. US Parties: Republican Party
  5. Presidents: Ronald Reagan (93.01%)
  6. 2004 Election Candidates: George W. Bush (79.99%), John Kerry (78.12%), Ralph Nader (59.38%)

Statistics

Of the 262284 people who took the test:

  1. 0.9% had the same score as you.
  2. 79.7% were above you on the chart.
  3. 15.8% were below you on the chart.
  4. 28.5% were to your right on the chart.
  5. 59.5% were to your left on the chart.

 


Closest match with Reagan. I can live with that. (Don't know where they get the lineup with SKerry though!)
51 posted on 12/11/2006 7:28:19 AM PST by TChris (We scoff at honor and are shocked to find traitors among us. - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

Looks like you and I were a near-identical match.


52 posted on 12/11/2006 7:33:33 AM PST by TChris (We scoff at honor and are shocked to find traitors among us. - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: CaliGirl-R

Your Score

Your scored 4.5 on the Moral Order axis and -7 on the Moral Rules axis.

Matches

The following items best match your score:

System: Conservatism
Variation: Extreme Conservatism
Ideologies: Ultra Capitalism, Conservative NeoLiberalism
US Parties: Republican Party
Presidents: George W. Bush (90.89%)
2004 Election Candidates: George W. Bush (90.89%), John Kerry (60.16%), Ralph Nader (41.66%)
Statistics

Of the 262290 people who took the test:

0.3% had the same score as you.
95.8% were above you on the chart.
1.2% were below you on the chart.
8.5% were to your right on the chart.
89% were to your left on the chart.


53 posted on 12/11/2006 7:51:38 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
I can't believe I got matched up with Bush. Bush is considered the Extreme Conservative president?

************

Me too. I don't get it.

54 posted on 12/11/2006 7:53:03 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Wilhelm Tell

You are right about what you say. It seems like the differences have created so much hate and finger pointing. There is very little party soul searching going on, with no one really admitting they are part of the blame. It seems Republicans spend most of the time hurling insults at each other. I don't think any side should expect to get all their own issues addressed, they just want to know that the party has a place for them and respect for their issues. I think the Dems like this abuse of each other. It will keep them winning for some time to come.


55 posted on 12/11/2006 8:08:40 AM PST by dforest (Liberals love crisis, create crisis and then dwell on them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: familyop

"Paleo-conservatives = Pat Buchanan, David Duke and their kind, including Europeans who complain about "neo-cons."



wrong


56 posted on 12/11/2006 9:28:50 AM PST by taxed2death (A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ProCivitas
While I totally reject the idea that true Conservatism should be qualified with any adjective--the only function of doing that seems to me to be provide a measure of comfort for those who are only Conservative on particular issues that reflect their personal likes and dislikes--I would agree with your comments, as to those generally labelled as Paleo-Conservative. As one who has fought for traditional values for over half a century, and worked with a wide spectrum of Conservative movements, I do speak with some familiarity as to how American Conservatives are "wrapped."

But note, also, the absurdity of even trying to fit the false Conservative--such as the Trotskyite "Neocons"--under a Conservative umbrella! They are diametrically opposed to the concepts that led to settlement, development, the Conservative American Revolution, and the Conservative Federal Constitution. Even in the last 24 hours, we have seen how obviously non-Conservative is their influence today in Washington. General Pinochet, a true friend to the American people, passed away yesterday, and was mourned by the British Conservative Lady Thatcher, who understood first hand, how important Pinochet's contribution was to the survival of traditional Western values. At the same time, the White House issued a statement expressing sympathy for Pinochet's alleged victims!!

Pinochet moved effectively to save his native land from a Marxist takeover and consolidation of power. Is there any true Conservative who would not want the American military to intervene in order to prevent a Communist takeover of America? Yes, the Pinochet interim Government may have done in some known Communists. The supporters of the Founding Fathers, back in the late 1770s and 1780s ran off some foes of our Independence by putting them on split rails, and pouring hot tar over them, before they covered them with feathers. Some did not survive the process. Can we expect this White House, through the same anonymous spokesman, to mourn the victims of the American Revolution next July 4th?

Enough is enough!

William Flax

57 posted on 12/11/2006 9:33:28 AM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ProCivitas
Am I overlooking something about "Lockean contract theory"?

Yeah, I don't get that either. I thought John Locke was saying that if through your labor and wits you make something, then you own it, so long as you don't hurt someone else in the process. That to me seems a fundamental and conservative pillar.

58 posted on 12/11/2006 11:01:52 AM PST by JTHomes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

Variation: Economic Conservatism
Ideologies: Conservative NeoLiberalism
US Parties: Republican
Presidents: Ronaldus Magnus (96.88% or some such)


59 posted on 12/11/2006 12:40:40 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Dont overestimate the decency of the human race. H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

I scored "libertarian," although by no means a pure one.


60 posted on 12/11/2006 12:46:00 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Dont overestimate the decency of the human race. H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
I'm not scolding anyone, but if you discuss an article it would be nice to let the author know if they have a public e-mail.

I will deal with two issues that have come up. The relationship of paleos with social conservatives, and Lockean contract theory.

Most paleo leaders (as opposed to the rank-and-file who would be hard to characterize) are religiously orthodox and many are very devout. Many are Catholics but some are Orthodox, Conservative Lutherans, Conservative Calvinists, etc. There are relatively few evangelicals among the leadership. Even the ones who may be skeptics recognize the importance of Christianity to America and the West and accept our Christian tradition as a good, healthy, essential thing. There are probably no crusading atheists among the ranks.

They have always had a distant relationship with the religious right, even though they are all almost by definition social conservatives. There are a few reasons for this. First, they think the religious right has been too beholden to the GOP and too quick to support less than good conservative candidates such as Bush. Because they are for nonintervention, they do not support the War in Iraq. They think many Christian leaders(Falwell, Robertson, etc.) and the rank-and-file evangelicals have too easily supported a War that is hard to square with the Christian Just War tradition. Many see this as partially related to the majority Evangelical belief in dispensational pre-millienialism. Since they are mostly old school Christians, they don't embrace this doctrine, and they feel it is a big reason why many evangelical Christians, esp. the leadership, is overly supportive of Israel in matters of foreign policy. They also do not like the praise music, seeker sensitivity, etc. of much of modern evangelicalism.

In one area where you would think that Christians would have a big stake, halting Muslim immigration into America and Europe, they see the religious right as being completely absent from the fight. (I agree.) A growing number of Christian leaders are making nice on immigration, Brownback and Huckabee for example. They would view this as not necessitated by Scripture and suicidally ignorant. The cultural dissolution that massive immigration is likely to bring about will totally take their issues and the GOP off the table within the next 50 years.

Also, paleos favor regionalism and decentralization, radical decentralization really. They see the RR's focus on the federal government as counterproductive. Instead of trying to get a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, which is very unlikely to happen, they would support State action like SD did. That doesn't mean they are pro-choice. They just see local action as more likely to save more lives.

I am a Baptist and consider myself an evangelical, although I am a very traditional one and despise praise music and the like. But I came to paleoconservatism via the religious right. Therefore I have a more sympathetic view of the RR than do most paleos. I think the hostility is counterproductive.

Whoever said that the RR is a relatively recent phenomenon is exactly right. Issues such as gay marriage and the attacks on Christmas are fairly new issues. There used to be a very broad cultural consensus on such issues. Just 30 years ago the idea of gay marriage would have been unthinkable, for example. So the RR arose in response to cultural drift away from the historic consensus. This is why I believe the RR and paleos should/can work together. Despite the happy talk of some Christian conservatives like Brownback, the RR is not fundamentally a progressive movement. It is a reaction to cultural drift. So is paleoconservatism. The RR has resisted/is resiting a modernist drift to the left on theology and morals, but they have embraced modernism in many other ways. The Paleos can be viewed as resisting modernity in general. So I see both as part of any future counter-revolution against the leftward slide.

But the above illustrates a good point. Paleos are not libertarians on social issues, but they see restoring the cultural consensus that made gay marriage a laughable idea just a few years ago as more important than a law against it. Does that make sense?

Many paloes, esp. the leadership, are very skeptical that any political solution is possible. So they focus on culture and local action. Home schooling is a very paleo activity for example. Also, boycotting the local contractor who is building the abortion clinic is a more important activity than electing a "pro-life" Republican who isn't going to do anything about abortion anyway. Make sense?

This is long so I will post on Locke separately.
61 posted on 12/12/2006 12:26:09 PM PST by Dan Phillips (I wrote the article)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
On Locke. Locke conceptualized a bunch of free individuals coming together and consenting to be mutually governed in a way that is beneficial to all. Thus the "social contract" theory.

Locke had a high view of man. He did not see man as inherently corrupt. For him man is able to be improved if not "perfected." Paleos and Christians in general would see this as a fundamentally un-Christian conception (and unsupported by observation) since Christians see man as inherently corrupted by original sin. The Founders generally had a low view of man which was likely highly influenced by their Christianity.

Locke also believed in the blank slate or tabula rasa. That man was not born with a certain nature, but his nature was largely imposed on him by his environment. Change the environment, change the man. This too goes against all observation as well as the Christian belief that the natural order generally squares with the Divinely ordained order. So paloes would see the family, the primacy of the mother child bond, socialization, patriarchy, hierarchy, etc. as part of a Divine/natural order. Viewed at this level you can see that Locke's conception was fundamentally liberal. But if you follow the logic you can also see why the paleo conception is in many ways more conservative than most modern "conservatives" will tolerate. Conservative have no problem appealing to a natural/Divine order when it comes to lesbians not adopting babies, but how many would reject the liberal egalitarianism that says for example that being a "Mister Mom" is perfectly OK. See what I mean? Paleos resist appeals to the theoretical, in this case gender roles are imposed by society and mom and dad are really interchangeable, and appeal to tradition, history, revelation, nature, etc.

So the problem with Locke is that his conception is really a purely mental exercise. No society has ever formed itself in that way. America, as a colonial country that broke away from the motherland, is about as close as you can get. But it is extremely naive to believe that even America came about as a result of this fanciful social contract. American's already had an organic society before the Founders signed the Declaration or the Constitution and that society is much more than its government. We were primarily British Islanders, we were Western, we were Christian (mostly Protestant) etc. which defines us as a society more than any document could.

Americans, due to the colonial nature of our country are uniquely vulnerable to this "contract theory" conceit. Compare the US to a country in Europe or the East for example. Did Poland become a country because all the Polish people got together and theoretically consented to some contract, or did Poland precede the modern nation? The nation is not a contractual agreement among individuals, but is more like an extension of the tribe. Family, tribe, community, extended tribe, nation. Of course those who extend this thinking understand why the paleos are particularly concerned about immigration. Again, the underlying theory or conception leads to views that many modern "conservatives" are unwilling to endorse.

Paleos see the liberal modern Enlightenment focus on the atomistic individual as harmful. Man is by nature a social animal. He can not be properly conceived of outside of his social roll - family, community, etc. They see much of modern conservatism, focused as it is on the individual and rights, as actually a brand of liberalism.

Economic libertarianism is thus the flip side of the coin of socialism. Both are theoretical constructs that rely on abstract philosophizing and a general acceptance of Enlightenment views. But they are not anchored by tradition, history, family, common bond, etc. and are thus dangerous and destructive of the traditional society. This does not mean that paleos can't and don't accept free-market capitalism as the most efficient economic system. (On paper, since Paleos are less likely to embrace a mercenary political pragmatism, they actually are much closer to libertarians on the government programs they would shut down than is a pragmatic conservative who embraces the free-market but doesn't’t think shutting down large, established government programs is feasible. Their reasoning is just somewhat different.) They just reject economic reductionism, materialism, acquisitiveness, etc. on the basis that family, society, etc. are greater goods than efficiency, and there are more important things in life than stuff.

Someone mentioned the Founders and how influenced they were by the Enlightenment. Great question. (In fact that may well be the most essential question.) Paleos are not agreed on this. There were clearly liberal and conservative elements of the Founding. We were rebelling against the King in favor of some measure of popular consent, so there was definitely a liberal element. But there were conservative elements as well that primarily resided in the people as a whole, the remarkably by most standards religious orthodoxy of Americans for example. Many paleos believe that despite the liberal Lockean idiom of the Declaration, the Founding was basically conservative. Others see the Founding as inherently corrupted by liberalism, hence many of our problems today.

What ever view they take on the Founding, paleos generally agree that the American conservative tradition has been most fundamentally manifested in the South, and the progressive impulse has been most fundamentally evidenced in the North.

Well I just basically wrote my paleo philosophy article that I promised.

Try not to react viscerally that conservatism means a certain set of policies such as foreign intervention and free-trade. Look at the basic assumptions, and I think it will be hard to dispute that paleoconservatism is really a more ancient or authentic form of conservatism. Whether modern conservatives are willing to go there is another matter. But what needs to be conceded is that much of modern conservatism is really a light form of liberalism. Those who embrace the designation of "classical liberalism" are conceding this.
62 posted on 12/12/2006 1:58:05 PM PST by Dan Phillips (I wrote the article)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dan Phillips
"I'm not scolding anyone, but if you discuss an article it would be nice to let the author know if they have a public e-mail."

OK, I checked, you do have one.

~~~rim shot~~~

All kidding aside, I'm glad you're here, I posted your article because I found it to be informative, well-written, and interesting. We post many articles and most authors would rather sue us than take the time to discuss them with us.

I do have some comments on your comments...

"The cultural dissolution that massive immigration is likely to bring about will totally take their issues and the GOP off the table within the next 50 years."

If you're talking about Muslim immigration into Europe, I agree, if you're talking about mass immigration of Muslims into America, I don't see that happenning...today or anytime in the near future.

Before I proceed, I'd like to define a term; immigrant means immigrant (I am one), not illegal alien.

Europe needs to repopulate, and their primary source of available immigrants are Muslim countries, so yes, Europe has a huge problem. America repopulates from Christian countries south of our borders.

63 posted on 12/12/2006 1:59:07 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: CaliGirl-R

I am proud almost beyond words to report that the President I am most like was Ronald Reagan--96.88%. About 77% of those taking the test are to the left of me.


64 posted on 12/27/2006 1:28:04 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (The people walking in darkness have seen a great light...Merry Christmas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-64 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