Posted on 12/25/2006 8:54:12 AM PST by A. Pole
"Are there even any real conservatives left in America?" recently asked the one eager for knowledge. "There are," responded the wise man, "but they are often called paleoconservatives."
What are paleoconservatives? Well, as Russell Kirk once said, they are the only real conservatives left in America. The whole "conservative movement" has moved so far to the Left, or rather has been "neoconned," that many so-called conservatives are "conservative" in name only.
What do paleoconservatives believe?
Like mainstream conservatives, paleos are often religious, or at least reverent of religion. They are opposed to secularism, opposed to "gay marriage," opposed to the abortion industry, opposed to political correctness, opposed to the vulgarity of popular culture, and opposed to big government.
Otherwise, paleoconservatives hold more traditional views not held by many mainstream conservatives and certainly not by neoconservatives (aka "liberals in disguise").
For the remainder of the essay, I shall contrast paleos with neocons, who have gained prominence in America in recent years largely due to alliances with liberals. The liberal mainstream media is quite tolerant of neocons since they are only liberals of a different stripe.
First, unlike neocons / neoliberals, paleoconservatives oppose free trade. Historically and philosophically, conservatives have opposed free trade, and they should. It is destroying our economy, it is undermining our sovereignty, and it is national suicide. Unfortunately, many in the GOP have been "neoconned" into supporting free trade.
Second, unlike neoliberals / neocons, paleoconservatives are critical of mass immigration and oppose the third-world invasion of America. All immigration (whether legal or illegal) from the third world must end. Our country is currently being invaded, and many in the GOP (Bush, McCain, Rice, Brownback, Giuliani, Huckabee, et al.) not only have done nothing to oppose this invasion, they actually support it. They actively attempt to transform the USA into a third-world wasteland.
Third, unlike Leftists (and the neocons who have adopted this idea from them), paleoconservatives oppose the "proposition nation." The proposition nation is the left-wing idealization of a nation whereby one only has to believe in a few propositions to be considered a citizen. Not only is this contrary to history, but it is the recipe for self-destruction. Paleoconservatives support the traditionally conservative concept of a nation: one built upon kith and kin, blood and soil, genophilia (instinctive attachment to family and tribe), ancestral obligations, and ethnic solidarity.
Fourth, neocons at heart are philosophical liberals. They accept most of the liberal baggage of the Enlightenment and actually champion the left-wing notion of "rights." Paleoconservatives, however, reject Enlightenment notions of "rights," and rather believe in a more traditionalist, flawed view of human nature, one based in history, ancestry, community, and custom, and guided by the laws of nature. Obligation trumps right. Whereas most neocons / neoliberals side with the Enlightenment revolutionaries, paleoconservatives side with Aristotle and the Bible. Whereas neocons / neoliberals champion equality and egalitarianism, paleoconservatives cherish ancestral traditions and hierarchy.
Fifth, neocons support a neoliberal foreign policy, which resembles more Jacobin radicalism than conservatism. Neocons seek to transform the world into a liberal global democracy - tossing aside prudence, history, and realism. Paleoconservatives, on the other hand, realize that different types of government are better tailored for different cultures. Furthermore, paleoconservatives are largely non-interventionist, which means that we should not be a military for hire to solve others’ problems. If attacked, certainly, we should fight back, but we needn’t be the world’s policeman.
Regarding terrorism, many paleos support the position that the only way to end terrorism in the West (we can never stop it in the Middle East) is (1) to completely withdraw from the Middle East, and (2) to deport all Muslims from the West. This policy, more than any other, would reduce the chances of terrorist attacks on Western soil.
Neocons, however, support the opposite: endless war in the Middle East, and endless third-world immigration to the West. In fact, they just increased quotas for Muslims in the USA - not to mention the fact, as reported by Christian Science Monitor recently, that 200,000 Hispanics in the USA have recently converted to Islam.
Neocons, though, have no real historical attachment to America, and could care less about its wellbeing. They send our boys to die in a meaningless war in Iraq while the third world invades our country on an hourly basis. They protect Iraq’s borders, and allow ours to be flooded with third-world invaders.
In short, paleoconservatives are the only real conservatives left in America. Philosophically and ideologically, neocons are leftists in disguise, who fifty years ago would have been tried for treason but now portray themselves as patriotic Americans.
Paleo bump!
*BUMP*!
And at the same time, the neocons try to smear paleoconservatives as "so far to the left"...
I have called myself a paleo-conservative for decades. I agree with you. The worst thing about the extreme Left is that they make RINOs look a bit conservative.
See my modest web page.
Yeah, but don't you dare question the Iraq war, or you'll be called a "leftie"...
What a mess it is when we focus on definitions and terms--instead of defining them first and focusing on the real issues. :-(
But, Merry Christmas all the same.
*shudder*
Bump!
Maybe the article is trying to say that Reagan was a leftie neocon as well. After all, he was a Democrat once upon a time--who needs evidence?
"neoconservatives (aka "liberals in disguise")'
What a pantload. Neocons were solidly behind the Iraq war, the wreckage of which paleos cling to like lifesavers. The error we neocons made was in thinking Arabs, when free to choose, would choose democracy. Our bad. That doesn't make one a liberal. In fact, liberty used to be a conservative thing.
LOL. Well, he never did defund the Dept. of Education...
Still is...but, some folks are afraid of liberty.
I would rather say that true conservatives are those willing to entertain the possibility that there are values more important than making money and getting rich.
If free trade destroys the moral basis of society, or allows foreigners to take over the USA, then some limitations may be in order.
That said, Kirk was unafraid to object to the first Gulf War citing it as a non-strategic war for "an oil can".
The paradox of paleoconservatism is: why support the tradition when socialism has become the tradition? But by jettisoning the Enlightenment, paleocons can't even make the case for originalist judges, since the "tradition" has been socialism and social engineering for decades.
Neoconservatives can make the case why socialism is a failure. We understand the relationship between economic freedom and political freedom. In addition, paleoconservatives have no explanation why Japan's closed medieval society took off after the Meiji restoration, while India after independence, which had centuries of exposure to the British, stagnated under protectionism and central planning. There are rational principles why markets and freedom work that transcend culture and locality.
With respect to foreign policy, paleoconservatives are the reason why we abandoned the British to fight the Nazis alone. Like James Baker, they want to throw one of our few friends in this world, Israel, to the wolves for the sake of "stability." However, waiting for radical revolutionaries, in this age the Revolutionary Islamists, to spike a nuke over the net would be an absolute disaster in our world. We transformed Italy, Japan, and Germany into modern societies, Russia isn't perfect but isn't even a fraction of the terror society it once was. The only reason why many conservatives are looking at the path of Comrade Nader these days is that they expected instant gratification in Iraq and haven't received it. They think if we have a homogenous culture and keep to ourselves, all policy challenges will disappear. That's not an approach to succeed militarily or economically in a globalized world.
Whatever.
I question the way the RINO's methods of being kindler gentler, compassionate conservatives...(which they are NOT)
You are a master of conciseness. LOL.
Not according to this writer.
This is more subtle. Before the rise of neoconservatism, many conservatists/paleocons were more lenient on issues of free trade, immigration etc ... as these problems were not so urgent or visible at that time.
The good example is Pat Buchanan, he worked directly with Ronald Reagan and there were in basic agreement.
Intelligent people can learn, change their views or readjust particulars while retaining the fundamental principles. If Reagan evolved from a Democrat to a Republican, there is not reason to assume that if he were still with us with undiminished capacities, he would not evolve along Buchanan lines.
Amen!
Unsing hatred of RINOs and Neo-cons to keep Palesos together ain't gonna get Paleos nowhere but extinct. This sounds like the dying gasp of the desperate. For example, deporting all Muslims from the West to solve terrorism? Why stop there, how about the Jews...and then of course those Christians who aren't "real Christians" or "Paleo-Chirtians"? Let's call them Neo-Con Christians. And don't do business with them either because that would be free trade and of course that might destroy the "purity" of the Paleos. Nothing like a good old fashioned purge...Stalin would be proud. A foreign policy that retreats behind castle walls in today's world deserves the name, "paleo"... Look up the word. You see other words like ancient, prehistoric, early, primative. The world waits for no one and that such a basic that "even a caveman can understand".
Love your tag line.
"no real historical attachment to America'
I missed that. You're correct in seeing it as backdoor Jew-bashing. This article could easily be isolationist, xenophobic, anti-semite Pat Buchanan riding to the sound of his gums.
It's a bit of a self-serving reach to say that Reagan would agree with the Buchanan of today.
True Conservatives understand that making money and getting rich are NOT values, but the usual result of a combination of intelligence, creativity, luck and a strong work ethic.
Therefore, one should never define the values of a rich person solely on the basis of their wealth. In our culture, we often hear of the rich person who lacks values, who needs to be defined by their wealth because they are empty inside.
There are just as many rich people who lead lives of relative obscurity, because they have nothing to prove.
Free trade does not destroy the values of a society, when all that is necessary, is to understand that trade is only free when it occurs in both directions. To attack free trade itself is foolish.
seems like there will definitly be a third party push in 2008 by the left for the useful idiots to be divided and conquered.
I am a paleoconservative, with the except that I disagree with him that a fundamental tenet of paleoconservativism is that you want to make immigration decisions based on race.
Spot on.
and thank you Harry Truman for keeping my father from having to go back to the Pacific theater to fight the war on Japanese home soil.
massaging the useful idiots to make a suicide run for 2008. Remember the only way a democrat has won the presidency in 2002 and 2006 was with third parties running at the same time.
I think that if Reagan were alive today, he may agree a lot with Buchanan, but he would be a very positive influence on Buchanan's thinking also, so it might not be exactly like what we're seeing now.
I'd certainly hope not. Buchanan's descended into borderline derangement.
Neocons, on the other hand, embrace the New Deal and federal authority to control all things as an exercise in "regulating commerce among the several states".
I thought it was Canadian bashing.
Giving them a 'democracy' is a great idea on paper. However, it's very difficult to transform regions of the world that have a 7th century mentality in a few years. Many of the 'people' in that part of the world have a savage animalistic barbaric mindset... and sadly it's not going to change anytime soon.
If this is what paleos actually believe, then they are fundamentally anti-American. This country is a product of the Enlightenment, built entirely of people who immigrated from other places - from cultures that believed in blood-and-soil tradition - to a new country where Jefferson promised that a person could by hard work improve his lot. This is what makes us different from classbound countries where the goodies flow to people who made a good choice of parents. If this is what defines a paleo, then I'm proud to be a neocon!
And on foreign policy, I don't believe in being a world policeman either, but America is the first nation in history to offer its bitterest enemies a chance to build Toyotas as an alternative to being annihilated. Whether Iraq can be 'fixed" pr not, all we want is for history to record that we offered the Arabs that same opportunity.
Per your argument, "For example, deporting all Muslims from the West to solve terrorism? Why stop there, how about the Jews..." The difference between Muslims and Jews is that no-one has ever seen a Jewish suicide bomber. That is the equivalent of a hypothetical fanatical Episcopalian terrorist - it doesn't exist. Deporting Muslims would prevent sleeper cells and possibly another 9/11. Deporting suicide bomber Jews and Episcopalian terrorists would prevent nothing - first, because no one is worried that they would ever work for Osama and Al Qaeda. Second, because fanatical Episcopalians and suicide bomber Jews do not exist.
You are stretching your argument to nonsensical lengths to compare Muslims (known to be responsible for numerous terrorist attacks) with hypothetical (suicide bomber)Jews and "not real Christians" aka (Episcopalian terrorists) - which are not resposible for any terrorist attacks. No Paleoconservative that I know of has ever advocated that position (0r strawman) that you are attacking.
As to supporting fair trade and opposing free trade, Paleo conservatives have distinguished supporters, including the first Congress of the United States - which passed the first Tariff act, Abraham Lincoln, and numerous Republican presidents after him. Abraham Lincoln turned the U.S. into the Arsenal of democracy with his protectionist views - do you now say Lincoln was wrong?
Actually there are a lot of conservatives who believe that globalization / free trade with its wholesale export of American jobs is one of the biggest threats to our nation.
I'm a Paleo!
Seriously, the author is right. The neos have moved far to the left.
I'm happy where I am. A little lonely sometimes, especially when it comes to representation in Washington, but overall, happy.
"Abraham Lincoln turned the U.S. into the Arsenal of democracy"
A cite for that would sure be great. Otherwise, I say fooey. WWI resulted in that distinction. The US was primarily agrarian before then.
Terrorism.... Some examples: Ireland - Protestant versus Catholic. America - KKK versus Jews, Catholics, African Americans... There is plenty of non-Muslim related terrorism. It's a tactic, not a race or religion. As for Free Trade, if I were among the first Congress or a contemporary of Lincoln, I might agree. Today? Not a chance.
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.