Frum, National Review, et al (Neocons) vs. Novak, Buchanan, et al (Paleos) Articles Thread

various | 3/28/2003 | Pyro7480

[Pyro7480]

Here is a list of recent threads related to the current hot debate between the so-called "neoconservatives" or as some call them, "Canadian conservatives," and the so-called "paleoconservatives." This debate all started with an article from National Review by David Frum titled "Unpatriotic Conservatives."

Unpatriotic Conservatives by David Frum

Unpatriotic Conservatives: A war against America.

When the shooting starts (Novak responds to Frum)

Robert Novak: Wrong, But Still a Patriot: David Frum's analysis of Bob Novak went too far by David Keene

The Right Thing (ACU's Keene slams Frum over NR article)

WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON? [Neocon / Paleocon respones to Frum's "Unpatriotic Conservatives"]

Canadian Conservatives: An Odd and Very Peculiar Species.

National Review's Anathema Corner

If you haven't gotten in on the "fun" yet, now you have a central source for all the threads.

[Pyro7480]

If you know of any threads related to this that I missed, add it to this thread! Since I haven't commented on the controversy yet, I'm going to know. I think Frum made some good points in his article, but I think he used a club when a scalpel was required for the task. As for the paleos, I admire many of them, but there are some disturbing trains of thoughts going on over there. Also, the paleos have been making a good argument in their anti-UN, anti-internationalist stand, and I'm glad the neocons are finally waking up and smelling the coffee about the UN, and I hope the necons are less likely to rely on international institutions to solve crisis situations like Iraq.

I consider myself a "fusionist," close in ideological stance to Frank S. Meyer. I know some of the paleos would consider this to be a "species" of "neocon," I don't think fusionism is. This debate over what conservatism consists of is nothing new. It's been raging on and off for around fifty years, since the founding years of the modern conservative movement in America. It's bound to continue for years to come.

[Pyro7480]

I don't know. I'm not sure if the term "paleoconservative" is used as often in a similar way. Usually, people attacking them bring up the whole anti-Semitism strain that can be a tendency in paleo circles. It seems that people just bring that up in an attempt to "shut up" the paleos. I think both sides in this have valid concerns about the others' motives. I tend to side with the neocons on issues of foreign policy. However, on cultural issues, I'm a "crunchy" conservative, which is basically a paleoconservative without the racialist or isolationist tendencies, and a concern for the natural world, that is nuturing towards the environment, not "tree-hugger."

[billbears]

Weekend bump

[JohnGalt]

On what issues are neocons more conservative than paleocons or paleo-libertarians?

[Commander8]

I call myself a Paleoconservative. I'm a social conservative, an Austrian School Enthusiast, a non-interventionist, an anti-communist and a gold bug who, despite being a registered Republican, will vote for third party candidates more often than not. I don't mind being accused of being a libertarian, conservative, neo confederate or even a "classical" liberal.
Call me a moderate, and them's fightin' words.

[Commander8]

My instincts tell me you won't get a satisfactory answer.

[gramho12]

I think all of the labeling is utter BS - something for the verbose pundits to quibble about. Are you a neo-con, or a neo-lib ot a neo-liber, or a paleo-othodontic independent,etc.

Gibberish, all of it.

[d-back]

Free Republic has broken out into a Civil War between the Neocons and Paleocons.

[JohnGalt]

My point was that by his response we could judge whether it was a difference in tactics or a difference in ideology, culture, or region and then try to go from there.

[JohnGalt]

Perhaps, but that attitude serves the ruling class of the DC centric government, conveniently.

[DoctorMichael]

I just got my new National Review two days back and read the entire (very long) Frum article. I found it very informative in an 'inside-baseball' sense and have been very interested in the give-and-take the last few days on these Threads.

Bump.

[taxed2death]

I lean a bit towards the Paleo side myself, and have been attacked as a "Jew-basher" and "Nazi" all day long today on a different thread. As A tax payer, I have a vested interest as to where / how my money is spent. My stance on how my (tax) money is spent irks some hyphenated Americans in the worst way. I am an American first. My money should be spent in a way that benefits the majority of Americans, especially in cases where it is spent offshore. For this I am constantly called a Jew-Basher. Oddly enough, when I gripe about my money being spent in Egypt, or Colombia, I never hear a peep out of these people.

Go figure.

[The Old Hoosier]

There is another way. Just because you're against fighting a series of foreign wars against any WMD-dictator we don't like, doesn't mean you have to be an idiot who believes in putting all your money into cash and gold. It doesn't mean that you have to argue for a "culturally pure" America either.

On the other side, the neo-cons are clearly Wilsonians, more loyal to an internationalist ideology than they are to the United States. They are certainly not conservatives--conservatives do not believe in ideology, except as a reaction to Marxism. Conservatives believe in a naturally formed society without superimposed ideologies, based on human nature and the goodness of almighty God. Like what's in our Constitution.

And also Novak is right--Frum may not realize it, since he's a Canadian, but we had this 9-11 thing down here, and any sensible American would agree that al-Qaeda is definitely a bigger terrorist threat to us than is Hizbullah.

Frum was way out of line with his piece, and the NR editors, who have sold out the original intent of their magazine, should be ashamed of themselves.

[The Old Hoosier]

See my #14. The fact that some neo-cons, like Bill Kristol, also adopt conservative issues, does not mean that the two totally separate philosophies should be equated.

[u-89]

This thread - The Conservative Movement is Dead -got shoved into the smokey back room the second after it was posted. Too bad as it's an interesting thing to ponder.

[x]

I don't really think Frum and his sloppy attack deserve any more publicity. It's certainly possible to argue about foreign policy without engaging in reckless smears and wild allegation.

The paleoconservatism associated with Fleming and Chronicles is pretty much dead. Likewise, Lew Rockwell, though not a paleoconservative, has been running on intellectual fumes for some time. To the small degree that it was even known in the country at large it was unpopular. One can't carry on as Fleming did about peripheral topics and expect to be taken seriously or to have much of a practical influence, or even to leave much of a heritage theoretically. It may be that much of American culture deserves a raspberry, but endlessly repeating it is of little use, especially if one has nothing practical to put in its place. What Fleming offers looks more individual than political -- a set of attitudes, a lifestyle, a snobbery -- rather than a program.

But there's bound to be much criticism of neoconservative foreign policy assumptions in the future. And it's certainly not true that such a view is linked to racism or anti-semitism in most cases. That's a red herring. Dig up some of the old posts here from Clinton's 1998 Serbian venture and you'll see much conservative support for a less interventionist foreign policy. Or take a look at some of Bush's statements in the 2000 campaign.

The attitude of National Review today is very much a product of the passions and interests of the moment, than of lasting orientation in conservatives or conservatism. One can draw a connection between their promotion of this war and their attitude towards the Cold War, but some notable cold warriors of the old days aren't wholly persuaded that the neocon course today is for the best. After the war when we have to pick up the pieces and figure out what to do next the neocons' forward momentum is bound to break. And other voices will be heard.

One can leave aside more radical views that would like to back out of all alliances or international organizations -- or even break up the country and "smash the state" -- and find room to criticize some of the neoconservative assumptions and aspirations. We can't go back entirely to the isolationism of earlier years -- and even in the earliest days of the republic we were drawn into foreign conflicts -- but we can, and should, choose our actions and battles more carefully than the neocons want.

[homeagain balkansvet]

Scratch a paleocon, find a Neo-. -confederate, that is.

Look at the close confluence between Milosevicist Serbosymps and anti-constitutionalists on the hard right (despite the fact that Milosevic is himself a leftist Nazi of the worst sort).

I prefer to think of myself as a bronze-age conservative, meself.

[x]

Fleming wants too much to sit back and feel superior to the rest of the culture and to everything that's happened for the last 200 years. There's a lot that's wrong with American culture and with modernity, but we're all a part of it, and can't simply write it all off as a failure withoug writing off too much of our world. Past ages, including those Fleming glorifies had their faults as well, but they kept on working towards improvement.

I think you're right about distrusting plans and "programs" to bring universal peace and prosperity, but if you have goals, it's useful to talk about how to get there, and indeed whether it's possible to get there. Too many paleoconservatives and paleolibertarians are utopians who sketch distant goals and ignore what to do before we reach the promised land -- or what to do if we never get there. It's all or nothing with them. It's good to have those goals on the horizon to strive for, but most of our lives will be lived on the journey, not at the destination.

Paleo and neo mean different things to different people. For some people the difference is foreign policy. Others focus on domestic policy and constitutional interpretation. I'm probably closer to Novak, who apparently isn't a paleocon but rather a conservative political realist who disagrees with the neo-cons on some specific issues, than I am to ideologues like Fleming or Sobran or Rockwell. But I do agree that Frum's attack is out of line. Much of what is valuable about conservatism has been lost in the celebration of world power.

[WaterDragon]

"I think all of the labeling is utter BS"

I think so, too.

[dcwusmc]

Bump for the common sense that frum lacks.

[Burkeman1]

Just because you're against fighting a series of foreign wars against any WMD-dictator we don't like, doesn't mean you have to be an idiot who believes in putting all your money into cash and gold. It doesn't mean that you have to argue for a "culturally pure" America either.

Very well said. Being a conservative is an attitude- not an ideology. I think one should dismiss Frum and sadly- National Review- as hopelessly in the grips of a rather narrow strain of ideolouges.

[The Old Hoosier]

But why the hell did we get involved in Kosovo? We had no business there whatsoever! At best, we added six months to the life of his regime by flaring up nationalist sentiment, and then we helped a group of heroin-dealing pimp terrorists--the KLA--get a foothold in surrounding countries like Macedonia.

[homeagain balkansvet]

Two words: Overthrow Milosevic. We had no idea that we would provoke him into attempted genocide, but then he went ahead and obliged us.

It worked, too. Took a year, but it worked. Now he's gone. Problem of course is that we have traded him for the Kosovar "problem" (i.e., trying to get them and the Serbs in Kosova to get along while preparing for inevitable independence from Serbia).

Oh, and the first person to correct my spelling gets the following message: You lost, deal with it.

[The Old Hoosier]

I didn't say anything about the genocide that allegedly started with the war--which we still, by the way, don't have evidence to show happened.

All I know is, we came into a brutal war, filled with atrocity on both sides, and we came in on the side of the Muslim terrorists. We never should have gotten involved in that dirty little fight. All we did was help the terrorists in the KLA so that they could start another uprising, this time in peaceful Macedonia. And don't think they aren't linked to al Qaeda.

Thank you Bill Clinton.

[The Old Hoosier]

Milosevic was finally out because people voted against him, and definitely no thanks to us at all. Our war on him only served to increase his popularity, temporarily.

Thank you for serving our country, but your service, sadly, was directed by a very evil and misguided man in search of a legacy. Our military should never be used that way.

[homeagain balkansvet]

There is no moral difference between Kosovo and Iraq. Support one means you must support the other, for the ends and the means are the same.

Deal with it, my friend. We decided that the US military must be used to end threats to the peace. They were used so.

As for Clinton, his intervention into Bosnia and Kosovo were the *ONLY* things he did right in 8 years. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[homeagain balkansvet]

Milosevic was finally out because people voted against him, and definitely no thanks to us at all. Our war on him only served to increase his popularity, temporarily.>>

That's not true at ALL! What happened is that the post war economic collapse killed his popularity, and he felt it necessary to call elections early, elections that he thought he could win. He lost them unexpectedly, and not sits in the Hague where he awaits justice. And soon, so, his killer wife.

[The Old Hoosier]

There is no moral difference between Kosovo and Iraq. Support one means you must support the other, for the ends and the means are the same.

This has to be one of the most simple-minded things I've ever read. No one ever argued that Milosevic posed a threat to the United States--the alleged reason for our presence in Iraq. Is it too much to fathom that some wars against evil dictators are in our national interest, and some are not?

I have loyally opposed both wars. But I don't think it would necessarily be inconsistent to oppose Kosovo and support Iraq, if you've fallen for what Bush says about Iraq's connection to Muslim terrorists.

[Burkeman1]

Paleo and Neo? What the heck is that? I am against this war in Iraq but does that make me a confederate sympathizer? NO! I am can't stand these labels.