What is "Palaeo"conservatism?

My own questions | november 13, 2001 | Me

[Zionist Conspirator]

I do not post these musings of mine to be disagreeable or provocative, but I simply do not understand the consistent inconsistencies of "palaeo"conservatives. And I am not referring to their position on Communist Arabs vis a vis their position on every other Communist in the world. I am referring to something far more basic.

I do not understand someone calling himself a "palaeo"conservative who then invokes "liberty," "rights," etc., for the very simple reason that "palaeo"conservatism connotes a European-style conservatism that opposes these very things in the name of Throne and Altar. So why do our disciples of Joseph de la Maistre pose as followers of Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, or Friedrich von Hayek?

I don't know. Honestly. I'm asking.

True, Charley Reese and Joseph Sobran (unlike their more honest and consistent fellow, Pat Buchanan) pose as across-the-board individualist Jeffersonian ideologues. But truly consistern libertarians, even the most "rightwing," took positions on civil rights and the new left in the Sixties that were (and are) anathema to some of these fellow travellers. I recently went to a libertarian site (this one here) where I was impressed with the fearless consistency of a true libertarian, such as Rothbard. I urge interested parties to read some of Rothbard's writings here (particularly "Liberty and the New Left") and honestly ask themselves if they can imagine "libertarians" like Sobran or Reese (or their supporters here at FR) saying such things.

Imagine, for example, the following quotation from Rothbard, from the article just cited:

It is no wonder then that, confronted by the spectre of this Leviathan, many people devoted to the liberty of the individual turned to the Right-wing, which seemed to offer a groundwork for saving the individual from this burgeoning morass. But the Right-wing, by embracing American militarism and imperialism, as well as police brutality against the Negro people, faced the most vital issues of our time . . . and came down squarely on the side of the State and agaisnt the person. The torch of liberty against the Establishment passed therefore to the New Left.

Okay, the militarism/imperialism quote is right in character, but can you honestly imagine Sobran saying such things about "police brutality against the Negro people" or heaping such praises on the New Left in an address before Mississippi's "Council of Conservative Citizens?" Or Reese saying such things before a League of the South convention???

Something doesn't fit here.

The thing is, the "palaeo"right has roots going back to the turn-of-the-century European right (eg, Action Francaise) as well as to the Austrian school of economics. In fact, sometimes these roots jump out from the midst of libertarian rhetoric--for example, when someone stops thumping the First Amendment long enough to bemoan the subversive, rootless, cosmopolitan nature of international capitalism (and surely no one expects libertarian Austrian economics to create a Pat Buchanan-style monocultural country!), or to defend Salazar Portugal or Vichy France.

In short, what we are faced with here is the same situation as on the Left, where unwashed, undisciplined, excrement-throwing hippies rioted in favor of the ultra-orderly goose-stepping military dictatorships in Cuba and Vietnam. In each case--Left and Right--the American section advocated positions that the mother movement in the mother country would not tolerate. For one thing, Communist countries exploit and use totalitarian patriotism; no one in Cuba burns the Cuban flag and gets away with it, I guarantee. Yet partisans of nationalist-communist Cuba advocate the "right" of Americans to burn their national flag. And can anyone imagine what Franco or Salazar would have done to some dissident spouting Rothbard's rhetoric back in Iberia in the 1950's or 60's? Yet once again, a philosophy alien to the mother country is seized upon by native Falangists as the essence of the movement.

I don't get it. Palaeos, like Leftists, don't seem to be able to make up their minds. Are they in favor of or opposed to "rights liberalism?" Do they dream of a reborn medieval European chr*stendom, or a reborn early-federal-period enlightenment/Masonic United States of America? Do they want a virtually nonexistent government or something like the strong, paternalistic governments of Franco, Salazar, and Petain that will preserve the purity of the ethnoculture? Or they for or against free trade? (It is forgotten by today's Buchananite Confederacy-partisans that "free trade" was one of the doctrines most dear to the real Confederacy.) Are you for Jeffersonial localism or against it when a Hispanic border town votes to make Spanish (the language of Franco!) its official language?

I wonder if I could possibly be more confused than you yourselves seem to be.

Honestly, it does sometimes seem that the issue that defines "palaeo"ism is hostility to Israel. Why else would someone like "Gecko," a FReeper who openly admired 19th Century German "conservatism," which he admitted was a form of state socialism, be considered a member of the family by "disciples of Ludwig von Mises?" None of this makes any sense at all.

As a final postscript, I must add once more that I am myself a "palaeo" in all my instincts (except that I don't go around advocating a Biblical Theocracy for Israel and a Masonic republic for the United States, nor do I brandish the Bill of Rights like an ACLU lawyer). Whatever the intrinsic opposition between palaeoconservatism (at least of the more honest de la Maistre variety) and a reborn Halakhic Torah state based on the Throne and Altar in Jerusalem, I have never been able to discover them. I guess the rest of you know something I don't (although it sure as heck ain't the Bible). If there is some law requiring "true" palaeoconservatism to be based on European idealist philosophy, Hellenistic philosophy, or Austrian libertarian economics rather than the Divinely-Dictated Word of the Creator, I would like to hear about it. All I know is the rest of you "palaeos" seem to take hostility to Judaism (not just Zionism and Israel but Judaism itself) as a given for anyone who wants to be a member of the "club." And you seem to have a mutual agreement to act as though Biblical Fundamentalist Zionism didn't exist and that all sympathy for Israel originated in the philosophy of former Trotskyist/globalist/capitalist/neoconservatism (which is confusing because according to libertarianism capitalism is good). I have moreover learned from past experience that if I question any of you about your position on the Bible you ignore it with a smirk I can practically feel coming out of the monitor.

My attitude is as follows: for true libertarians who are actually sincere and consistent I have a deep respect, even though I disagree with you philosophy. For people who insist that one should be required to oppose the existence of a Jewish State on the ancient 'Eretz Yisra'el in order to even consider himself a conservative, you can all boil in hot excrement, since I have no desire to belong to your loathsome `Amaleq-spawned society. I simply wish I could understand why conservatism--which to me has always meant an acknowledgement of the Jewish G-d and His Word--has spawned so many people whose fundamental outlook is so diametrically opposed to this.

At any rate, while I do not expect any other than taunting, smart-aleck replies, I will most assuredly listen with an open mind to any explanation of the otherwise inexplicable Franco/Ayn Rand connection.

[ouroboros]

bump

[Zionist Conspirator]

Thank you, CatoRenasci. You have given the most detailed and reasoned response to my inquiry.

However, the question still remains. Why would America's counterparts of Ultramontanism (Sobran, for example) adopt the very un-Catholic, un-Ultramontanist doctrine of rights libertarianism as their message? Why not simply shout "Throne and Altar?" I believe at least the elder (late) Brent Bozell openly identified with the Spanish Carlists and refrained from posing as Thomas Jefferson.

For whatever reason the First and Third strands of conservatism you mention seem to have blended into a single stream. But it still doesn't make any sense.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Authoritarin conservatism, that of the high Tory or Ultramontagne Continental Conservative. Whether it glorifies the state in monarchal or religious terms, it still views the individual as subordinate to the state. It lacks being totalitarian only because of its traditionalism grounding in morality (in most places) and the sense of reciprocal obligation of all in society in the Great Chain of Being whereby each had is place.

Please forgive me for repeating myself, but this paragraph of yours is simply delicious.

Now--why would someone with this view of the individual invoke Rothbardian libertarianism? That is the question.

[Alain Chartier]

What is paleoconservatism?

[KC Burke]

All good points. The last (and only significant-essential) American Tory died on the dueling field by the hand of one A. Burr.

[annalex]

Political philosophies pivot on two independent axes: Individual vs. State and Traditional vs. Novel. The first is Libertarian vs. Socialist axis; the second is Conservative vs. Liberal axis.

At this particular point in time in American politics, many wish for a return to traditional America which happened to enjoy small government and respect for individual rights as well as respect for Christian tradition, and so the wishes of libertarians and conservatives align -- not due to a common philosophy, but due to a circumstance.

[KC Burke]

For another take on exactly who is out of step or inconsistant, see Thomas Sowell's references to Rights and understandings thereof in A Conflict of visions. Sowell contends, IMHO, that is libertarians themselves who are outside those of The Constrained Vision of mankind wherein he casts as conservatives of any strip. On Rights, he contends they stand with Rousseau, Marx and all of the Unconstrained Vision...a significant inconsistancy.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I think your post comes closest to what a Paleo is, except for your insistance that Sobran, Reese, and Buchanon are Israel-haters. When the Cold War Ended, Israel ceased to be a strategic asset to the U.S., and when the Paleo crew pointed this out, they were viciouslyattacked by the neo-conservatives, many of whom were jewish. Most Paleos have a major distrust if not outright hatred towards what they interpret as a globalist, pro-Israel, interventionist agenda put forth by the neo-cons. They suspect this interventionist policy of the neo-cons is nothing more than a transparent attempt to keep the U.S. overly involved in the Middle East for the benefit of Israel.

Excuse me, O Unbelieving One, but you must be about two years old. My little crusade against people like you grows directly out of my experience with rightwing groups during the Cold War, when my simple little Bible Belt beliefs were shaken to their foundation by what I discovered.

Your implication that "paleos" merely began criticizing Israel when the Cold War ended is false and disengenuous. I was a member of a rightwing organization during the height of the Cold War, and the Right Wing was rabidly anti-Israel throughout the course of that conflict. This was at the same time that it was rabidly interventionist in every other case. They wanted us to support Rhodesia. They wanted us to support South Africa. They wanted us to support Somoza. They wanted us to support Taiwan. They were interventionist and national-security oriented to a fault, but they made one exception: they did not want to intervene on behalf of Israel because they didn't like Israel.

Any perusal of far right publications and literature during the Cold War era will illustrate the truth of my words and your own disingenuousness.

Furthermore, you illustrate well the arbitrary nature of your own prejudices when you call support for Israel "globalist." Support for Israel against its enemies is no more inherently "globalist" than is support for Taiwan against Communist China, as you are well aware. Your arbitrary classification of pro-Israelism as globalist as opposed to (for example) support of Taiwan outs you completely.

This is the guy who thinks Fundamentalists are "stooges," right?

Bet you don't say that to them when you need them to march in anti-abortion protests with you. Assuming you're even against abortion in the first place.

[A.J.Armitage]

.

[A.J.Armitage]

Political philosophies pivot on two independent axes: Individual vs. State and Traditional vs. Novel. The first is Libertarian vs. Socialist axis; the second is Conservative vs. Liberal axis.

Interesting. Makes more sense than ones I've seen that separate libertarianism and authoritarianism from right and left without specifying what right and left mean. I have a question, though. Traditional and novel what? Morals can't be it, unless you're already at the state end of the first axis, because for a libertarian, tradition vs. novelty is simply not a political issue He may care about it passionately, but would never get the government involved.

[muleboy]

Congratulations All!

For creating and perpetuating the most mature discussion/debate I have yet seen on FR.

If only more of the posts concerning Israel, Political Philosophy labels/definitions, Personalities, etc. could be so polite and erudite.

Many thanks.

[Twodees]

Thanks for the ping, Big o, but this is the kind of thing that gives me a headache. It's the writing of someone who has confused himself to the point of distraction and is pouring it all out in an overly verbose vanity which, of course, blames others for his confusion.

[okie01]

1) The classical liberalism born of Locke, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill, which was the liberalism of the Founders and the 19th century...

You recall that Goldwater, whom many of us would consider to have been our particular Pied Piper, always described himself as a "19th Century Liberal".

[RLK]

Einstein postulated for dimensions, length, width, depth, and time. For purposes of political discussion we can postulate three, width, depth, and time. Many people on all parts of the political spectrum concentrate on one restricted area or iss in depth, but lack breadth in their considerations. This leads them to believe they are in alliance with others concerned about that same area and who may share the same malady. Others look at issues entirely superficially, not realizing that more intense study would lead them to a different interpretation of events than they now hold. The difference between their position and those with whom they disagree is depth of understanding. Still others are not aware of the temporal history of issues resulting in disagreement. Additionally, all individual political positions are subject to individual intellectual end experiental limitations.

What you get is what you get, regardless of labels.

[Dumb_Ox]

BOSWELL: Is it necessary to believe all the Thirty-nine articles[of the Church of England]
JOHNSON: "Why, sir, that is a question which has been much agitated. Some have held it necessary that all be believed. Others have considered them to be only articles of peace, that is to say, you are not to preach against them.
-Boswell's Life of Johnson

It is quite possible for a man to agitate for certain principles, yet not be a True Believer in them. Not because he is a two-faced liar, but because he knows that far worse principles are running about, and the common good of the nation requires a modicum of peace between competing systems, lest we perish in an ideological civil war. I do not know if this method is at work within paleoconservative thought.

[muleboy]

And then you ruin it by calling jimmydean a two year old.

U.S. support for Israel is inherently Globalist. Israel is on the other side of the globe. Globalists created the modern state of Israel. U.S. supports Israel often in contradiction to it's own self-interest.

Well, it was good while it lasted.

[JmyBryan]

Bump - great questions and thread

[annalex]

Traditional and novel what?

Anything that is the topic on hand: economic, political, cultural. A conservative would argue that the traditinal way is better and a liberal would argue that the innovative way is better. Depending on where the proponent of a certain view happens to stand on the Libertarian/Socialist axis, he would proceed to argue for an individualist or statist implementation of that view.

For example (intentionally contrived a bit), a liberal would argue that the Eastern religions should be taught in schools because that would refresh the minds of mostly Christian kids. If he is also a libertarian he would press for relaxation of government immigration and education policy so that American kids could more easily get their high school education in Tibet; if he is a statist he would push for a federal mandate effect the same change. A conservative would argue the opposite: that since most are traditionally Christian, Christian basics should be taught in schools: a statist conservative would again push for a mandate and a libertarian conservative would place his hopes on the free market to deliver Christian education.

[tpaine]

A second for sanity.