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

Skip to comments.

All Against All (On the paleo- vs. neo-conservative debate)
The Claremont Institute ^ | April 10, 2003 | Charles R. Kesler

Posted on 04/27/2003 12:31:21 PM PDT by quidnunc

-snip-

The second major split within modern conservatism involves the Straussians in a rather different way. For over a decade, the clashes between Harry Jaffa and such partisans of the Confederate cause as Willmoore Kendall and M. E. Bradford have marked the forward lines of the North-South controversy. Jaffa has defended the hallowed ground of reason, equality (of natural rights), Abraham Lincoln, and the Union; Bradford has taken his stand on behalf of tradition, inequality, John C. Calhoun, and states' rights.

Recently, new armies have entered the field. The dispute between "paleo-conservatives" and "neo-conservatives" has generated not only smoke and noise but headlines, on account of Pastor Richard John Neuhaus's expulsion by the "paleo-con" Rockford Institute. Aside from that ungentlemanly action, the debate has centered around "global democracy," "secularism," immigration, and charges of envy and religious bigotry. These bitter disagreements occur in the context of two massive facts. One is that, in abstract terms, the paleo-cons and neo-cons agree on far more than they disagree on. Both sides agree that rationalism in politics leads quickly to Jacobinism; that universal truths of the sort expressed in the Declaration of Independence (or in twentieth-century liberalism: they tend to see the two as continuous) are ultimately destructive of authentic, historically rooted human communities; that history or experience is therefore a better guide than reason in political affairs.

Where paleo-cons and neo-cons disagree is over what is to be done. Strongly influenced by the Eastern Straussians (with whom they overlap), the neo-cons take a more or less Tocquevillian approach, reasoning that modern capitalist democracy is here to stay, that despite its anomie it has brought substantial benefits, that incremental improvement of our condition is possible and desirable. Their politics tends therefore to be utilitarian and meliorist but also strongly anti-utopian.

Both paleo- and neo-conservatives put a great deal of reliance on the idea of history (as their names, borrowed so to speak from the theory of evolution, attest). For the latter, it is liberal democracy's very success — the fact that, however uninspiring it may be, it has outlasted its foes — that proves its superiority; indeed, that makes it worthy and capable of propagation to the rest of the world. For the paleos, democracy's success, no matter how expansive, is hollow precisely because it cannot match the glories of traditional societies, especially that of the Old South. Thus the neo-con's cautious historicism shades over into a calculating utilitarianism, while the paleo-con's historicism rejects calculation in favor of a romantic appreciation of passion, the grandeur of the past, personal and national idiosyncrasy.

It is the peculiar nature of this dispute, the fact that the sides have so many premises in common, that helps to account for its second major characteristic: the allegations of nativism and anti-Semitism that color it. In the absence of a clear philosophical difference between the paleos and neos, the obvious ethnic and religious difference between them comes to the fore. That the neo-cons are mostly Jewish, and the paleo-cons emphatically not, is seized upon by both sides in weak moments as the secret explanation of the controversy. Of course, none of the policy questions that are being controverted here (immigration, "global democracy," etc.) can really be reduced to these terms. But the temptation to reduce them will be there so long as better arguments are not forthcoming.

This is particularly the case with the neo-conservatives, who have not responded as well as they should, I think, to the paleo-cons' criticisms. For the real issue is not whether there is room for Jews in a proper American conservatism, but whether, as the paleo-cons define it, there is room for America in conservatism. According to the traditional American understanding proclaimed in the Declaration, all men are created equal, and equally deserve to have their natural rights secured by a just government instituted and operating with the consent of the governed. The first purpose of conservatism would thus be to keep American government just, to make sure that it secures the common good and preserves the rights of its citizens. These rights, deriving from natural right, are based essentially on the citizens' humanity, and have no proper reference to their race, religion, ethnicity, class, or any other secondary or accidental characteristic.

This is not quite the America celebrated by the paleo-cons, who emphasize the regnant inequalities in American life as it has actually been lived. The older traditionalists like Willmoore Kendall were not at home with this America, either, but some of the new or second-generation traditionalists go even further in their rejection of all natural-right arguments. M. E. Bradford is perhaps the best known of these. Whereas most of the older traditionalists (e.g., Kendall, Russell Kirk) saw some harmony — however tenuous — between natural law and tradition or history, Bradford and his followers denounce any appeal to rational, transhistorical principles. To put the difference plainly: whereas Richard M. Weaver traced the decline of the West to William of Occam's attack on universals, Bradford blames our current degeneration on the prevalence of universals in politics and morals.

Other second-generation traditionalists take a different tack. Thomas Fleming, the editor of the Rockford Institute's Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, understands the natural law not as a law of right reason (as Aquinas did), but as a "law of nature" in the modern scientific nor deterministic sense: he uses sociobiology and anthropology to prove that gender and class differences are natural. Attempting to combine traditional natural law with some version of the philosophy of history, Claes Ryn and Paul Gottfried try in different ways to find a philosophical basis for the role of reason within the historical process.

The real issue here is not whether particular paleo-cons are nativist or anti-Semitic, much less whether particular neo-cons are hypersensitive. Everyone involved in this debate agrees that anti-Semitism is wrong. It is a doctrine without defenders. But this consensus cannot endure if its grounds are allowed to be undermined. Paleo-cons as well as neo-cons have an interest in keeping this consensus and the conservative movement itself intact. The problem is that such vices as anti-Semitism and nativism are a constant temptation whenever virtue goes unexplained and unchampioned. When reason, equality, and natural rights (including the right of religious freedom) are contemned in the name of a monolithic and unrestrained "tradition," the ground for evil has been prepared.

As I say, the neo-conservatives in particular have not been very successful at articulating the larger questions at stake, partly because they have been unwilling to undertake the positive defense of American principles that is required. They need to say in broad daylight why nativism and anti-Semitism — errors with which they charge the paleo-conservative movement — are un-American, hence also unconservative. Such a declaration would invite a reconsideration of some of the principles they have shared half-heartedly with the paleo-cons. After all, the neo-cons have always stopped short of the paleo-cons' and the Old Right's open break with Lincoln and his interpretation of the Declaration of Independence. Yet only Jaffa and the Western Straussians have vigorously contested this attack on Lincoln and the role of equality in the American political tradition. The neo-cons, like the Eastern Straussians with whom they have so much in common, have been content to keep their discontents private, and to hope for the best. But the logic of the debate carries it more and more clearly in the direction of the classic North-South struggle within conservatism. And the border states must eventually choose sides.

-snip-

(Excerpt) Read more at claremont.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: antiwarright; charlesrkesler; neocons; paleocons
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-96 next last
A review of The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism: An Introduction to the Thought of Leo Strauss, edited by Thomas L. Pangle. University of Chicago Press, 285 pages, $45

For the past ten years, the liveliest and most interesting debate within conservatism has raged between two camps of Straussians — the so-called "Western Straussians," clustering around Harry V. Jaffa and the scholars associated with the Claremont Institute, and the "Eastern Straussians," among whose leading figures are Walter Berns, Allan Bloom, and Thomas Pangle (although the distinction is more a state of mind than of geography — there are "Western Straussians" in the East and vice versa). In books, scholarly essays, letters, columns, and not least in the pages of National Review, the two sides have clashed — occasionally with angry words and personal vituperation — over the nature of political philosophy, the character of America, and the status of revealed religion. The majority of Straussians, to be sure, have remained either in the middle or on the sidelines of disputes, watching them with a mixture of fascination and regret. But however sharp the personal exchanges may have been, the issues involved are of supreme importance for the future of American conservatism.

-snip-

Perhaps most profoundly, the disagreement concerns the meaning of political philosophy, the central theme of Strauss's writings. Is political philosophy, as the "Easterners" maintain, a politic presentation of philosophy, basically a way of shielding philosophers' radical questioning from the disapproval of the many, of society? Or is political philosophy meant also and emphatically to offer philosophical guidance for political life? The point at issue is the meaning of the famous "Socratic turn" in philosophy, which boils down to the question of the status of morality. Does the philosopher dwell in a world beyond good and evil, or is morality a good in itself that he too must respect?

Taking morality seriously involves taking patriotism seriously, and so it is not surprising that the most obvious disagreement between the two Straussian camps concerns America. Now, the Straussians have helped to effect, over the past thirty years, a remarkable revival of scholarship on America, particularly on American political thought. Martin Diamond, Harry Jaffa, and Herbert Storing, to name the most prominent, showed that it was both necessary and proper to try to understand the Founders, Abraham Lincoln, and other American statesmen as they have understood themselves; that the condescending revisionism of Charles A. Beard, Carl Becker, Richard Hofstadter, and other historians would not stand critical scrutiny. Out of this common rejection of Marxist and progressive history, however, has emerged a significant split between the Straussians over what the Founders intended the American way of life to be.

The Eastern Straussians see America as fundamentally "modern," by which they mean that America stands for the renunciation equally of the wisdom of classical political philosophy and of Biblical revelation. Walter Berns, Thomas Pangle, and others assert that America is fundamentally Hobbesian. In other words, America was conceived in hedonism, atheism, and materialism, and dedicated to the pursuit of comfortable self-preservation. However glorious the Founding may have been, the nation organized on this founding principle had sooner or later to abandon all glory in favor of a descent into the life of self-interestedness. As George Will, profoundly influenced by this line of analysis, puts it, America was "ill-founded," doomed to moral and political decay by the logic of its own principles.

In contrast, the Western Straussians see America as broadly continuous with the classical and Biblical traditions. Indeed, in some respects they see it as perfecting those traditions, giving due public regard for the first time in history to the "laws of nature and of nature's God" — i.e., both to the moral common ground and to the moral and theoretical disagreements between the great defining principles of the West: Reason and Revelation, Athens and Jerusalem.

This is pretty abstruse stuff.

All I can say about the p[aleo-con philosophy is "That way lies madness!")

1 posted on 04/27/2003 12:31:21 PM PDT by quidnunc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
This is pretty abstruse stuff.

And a little stupid too. Paleo, Neo, pink, green.....Over all, it beats the vision of the (self) annointed.

2 posted on 04/27/2003 1:02:22 PM PDT by Tom Bombadil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
This is pretty abstruse stuff.

All I can say about the p[aleo-con philosophy is "That way lies madness!") M


If you find it difficult to understand (abstruse), how can you be qualified to judge that it is madness?
3 posted on 04/27/2003 1:14:33 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
It is odd you see this as abstruse. I find it clear and well written. The first section is very neo, the second less so.

To understand the Paleo case requires familiarity with Greek and Roman thought and the development of the European legal and religious tradition, and an historical imagination far beyond that associated with the standard version of history. (Called the "Whig version of history" by some Paleos, though the wit behind this description is lost on most.)

If you are of curious nature, interested in how things actually work, and seek the truth, the Paleo tradition has much to offer.

4 posted on 04/27/2003 1:16:02 PM PDT by Iris7 (Sufficient for evil to triumph is for good people to be imprudent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tom Bombadil
And a little stupid too. Paleo, Neo, pink, green.....

That I won't deny. While there is a Hillary out there in the wings, the neo/paleo debate should be pretty much out of mind. Sort of like arguing about how to arrange the coffee table while a bulldozer is heading for your house.
5 posted on 04/27/2003 1:18:59 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Iris7; Arkinsaw
The natural exrtension of the paleo-conservative mindset is a ruling elite.

Moreover it is a ruling elite based on class, not ability.

This is anathma to American principles.

France is governed by a ruling elite, the European union is governed by a ruling elite; that should be enough said.

The proof is in the pudding: paleos seem to be more than a little too comfortable with the idea of fascist dictators such a Francisco Franco for my peace of mind.

6 posted on 04/27/2003 1:27:54 PM PDT by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
Arkinsaw wrote:

And a little stupid too. Paleo, Neo, pink, green.....

That I won't deny. While there is a Hillary out there in the wings, the neo/paleo debate should be pretty much out of mind. Sort of like arguing about how to arrange the coffee table while a bulldozer is heading for your house.

THANK YOU!

Everyone needs to keep this in mind, especially as we get closer to election time! <p. Tia

7 posted on 04/27/2003 1:34:31 PM PDT by tiamat ("Just a Bronze-Age Gal, Trapped in a Techno World!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
The natural exrtension of the paleo-conservative mindset is a ruling elite. Moreover it is a ruling elite based on class, not ability. This is anathma to American principles.

Oh, my. Are you pulling my leg? You believe there is no ruling elite?Or if there is, it is not based on class? All of politics is about making "our" would be ruling elite replace the existing one, or about keeping "our" ruling elite in it's position. And of course "as a class".

8 posted on 04/27/2003 1:42:35 PM PDT by Iris7 (Sufficient for evil to triumph is for good people to be imprudent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
paleos seem to be more than a little too comfortable with the idea of fascist dictators such a Francisco Franco for my peace of mind.

I certainly have my differences with "paleo" dogma, and I also have my differences with "neo" dogma. I tend to pick and choose on my own rather than subscribe to a particular laundry list.

What you say about paleos may or may not be true. Regardless, that doesn't mean they are wrong on everything. I work with them just fine on the idea of sealing the border for instance. I do just fine with them on the idea of local control and limited government and property rights.

However I am pretty much on the "neo" side of things when it comes to foreign policy and other constitutional federal responsibilities.

I think most conservatives are like me in the fact that they choose sides on an issue by issue basis. We must be careful about letting two dogmatic groups divide us into dogmatic categories where we must subscribe to the whole list of issue positions or be an object of derision.

That fight can continue as long as it stays a fight between a couple of little minority groups slugging it out over dogma. But if we all get seduced into choosing sides and fighting with one another then its just not good for anybody except Daschle and Co.
9 posted on 04/27/2003 1:42:37 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
You are absolutely right that there is a bulldozer coming right at us. Daschle and Co., Hillary, et al. will be our doom if we do not take effective action. Myself, I vary between hope and "too little, too late."

"One man one vote" cannot survive. Either the left will disenfranchise us, or we disenfranchise them.

10 posted on 04/27/2003 1:54:07 PM PDT by Iris7 (Sufficient for evil to triumph is for good people to be imprudent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
The natural extension of the paleo-conservative mindset is a ruling elite.

Moreover it is a ruling elite based on class, not ability.

I don't see that. First, all countries are governed by ruling elites. Secondly the neo-cons are very much an elite and aspire to rule as one. Thirdly, there's much emphasis among the paleos on decentralizing power and bringing it back to local levels. Finally, it's hard to know just who to take as representatives of either neo-conservatism or paleo-conservatism. Those who present themselves as ideological leaders, naturally want to run things.

I would hope that America would reject the self-appointed leaders of both groups. Too often the paleo intellectuals show themselves to be foolish and obnoxious, the neo intellectuals to be ambitious and power hungry. In the end, the paleos are wrong about the Declaration of Independence and human rights. But there is much to be said for the paleos criticism of the neo-faction. Arguing against basic freedoms -- if that's what the paleos are doing -- is wrong, but it's sometimes necessary and praiseworthy to point out how the rhetoric of freedom can be used to increase domination and control.

One thing that should be noted is the neocons using some of the more obnoxious paleo statements to attack those who disagree with themon specific policy questions. More here.

11 posted on 04/27/2003 1:57:22 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Iris7
"One man one vote" cannot survive. Either the left will disenfranchise us, or we disenfranchise them.

We've still got the Electoral College thank God. Its the only thing preventing the urban centers ruling us all completely.

I don't think its all bad. People are fleeing the urban areas. As technology increases people will not have as much of a need to urbanize. After Sept. 11 large companies are also seeing that it is safer to distribute their operations rather than stuff them into an urban area like downtown New York. We have more black conservatives than ever before and more black participation. Its still small, but it is growing. As black Americans naturally filter into the middle class I think we will see the stranglehold that the Democrats have on them start to slip even more.

Its not all bad, there is still hope.
12 posted on 04/27/2003 2:04:02 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: x
The paleo-con desiderata is something very much akin to the antebellum South, a society stratified by a class system where upward mobility is difficult, if not impossible.

One sees echos of this in East Coast high society where 'old money' looks down on nouveau-riche arrivistes and denies them entry into their social circles.

13 posted on 04/27/2003 2:17:10 PM PDT by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
The paleo-con desiderata is something very much akin to the antebellum South, a society stratified by a class system where upward mobility is difficult, if not impossible.

Your sweeping claim has the same validity as "All Republicans are racist" and "All Conservatives are Nazis" and "You are a Fascist." In fact, Paleos are mostly interested in a return to Constitutional Government, with limited, enumerated, and explicit powers, and in how it can be kept that way, that is, to keep the genie of tyranny locked away forever. That this is quixotic goes without saying.

If you want to learn about politics and such read Cicero. Nothing has changed since then except technology.

14 posted on 04/27/2003 2:37:15 PM PDT by Iris7 (Sufficient for evil to triumph is for good people to be imprudent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
Of course there is hope. There is this old story:

Once a man was sentenced to immediate death by the King. The man told the King that if the King would spare him, the man would teach the King's favorite horse to sing. "Teach my horse to sing?" said the king. "Oh, yes. It will take only one year." said the man. The king agreed to the bargain.

The man sang to the King's horse every night. One night, one of the stablehands asked him if he really thought the horse would learn to sing. The man replied,"A year is a long time. I could die. The king could die. The horse could learn to sing."

Of course, putting all your eggs in such a basket is only prudent if the only other choice is immediate death.

15 posted on 04/27/2003 2:48:36 PM PDT by Iris7 (Sufficient for evil to triumph is for good people to be imprudent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Iris7
Iris7 wrote: If you want to learn about politics and such read Cicero. Nothing has changed since then except technology.

You keep nattering on about philosopers and ancient Greek and Roman worldviews.

May I remind you that both societies were heavily dependent upon slavery for their functioning?

Look at Old Europe, the countries of which are prone to ordering their societies acording to the dictates of philosophers.

This tendency gave us just in the last 100 years fascism, Marxism/communism and most lately postmodernism which — along with its handmaiden, multiculturalism — insists there is no such thing as objective truth.

So while studying the ramblings philosophers may be useful for liberal-arts students, there is very little there applicable for modern statecraft.

A pox upon all philosophers.

16 posted on 04/27/2003 3:01:28 PM PDT by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
"So while studying the ramblings philosophers may be useful for liberal-arts students, there is very little there applicable for modern statecraft.

A pox upon all philosophers."

How about Aristotle's Organon?

Or would you prefer to have statesmen who make decisions based on having a soothsayer cut open a chicken and do an entrail reading?
17 posted on 04/27/2003 3:10:28 PM PDT by Jason Kauppinen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
And you use amazingly sweeping generalities. Do not confuse your own opinions with the truth. In fact, your prejudices appear unexamined.

With enormous risk of being uncharitable, your point of view reminds me of Henry Ford's "History is bunk." That reminds me of "Ignorance is bliss." If I were mean spirited it would remind me of "Freedom is Slavery."

18 posted on 04/27/2003 3:14:25 PM PDT by Iris7 (Sufficient for evil to triumph is for good people to be imprudent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jason Kauppinen
Good show! How droll.
19 posted on 04/27/2003 3:20:04 PM PDT by Iris7 (Sufficient for evil to triumph is for good people to be imprudent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Jason Kauppinen
Jason Kauppinen wrote:How about Aristotle's Organon?

What about it?

Jason Kauppinen wrote: Or would you prefer to have statesmen who make decisions based on having a soothsayer cut open a chicken and do an entrail reading?

This is a specious argument and you know it.

Allow me to bring it down to an even more basic level.

Which ancient philosophers do you take into account before you decide which car to buy or how to present a proposal to your boss?

20 posted on 04/27/2003 3:20:08 PM PDT by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
"Bradford blames our current degeneration on the prevalence of universals in politics and morals."

Of course Bradford is dead wrong. It is in fact the prevalence of anti-universals that has caused degeneration. This the substance of the political fugue, flaw in the application. It's so simple. Why not just shout "Republic!" a few times and go home?

ArchConservative btt

21 posted on 04/27/2003 3:23:49 PM PDT by Darheel (Visit the strange and wonderful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iris7
Of course there is hope. There is this old story:

If I'm going to have hope I figure it might as well not be a cheerless hope. :-)
22 posted on 04/27/2003 3:27:10 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
For the paleos, democracy's success, no matter how expansive, is hollow precisely because it cannot match the glories of traditional societies, especially that of the Old South.

I don't know what this guy's idea of a paleoconservative is, but no one I've come across who identifies himself as such, comes even close to the description above.

For paleocons, the success of republican government is so resounding that it can spread purely by example. It's the neocons that seem to have such little faith in it that they need to militarily impose it everywhere they can.

23 posted on 04/27/2003 3:29:19 PM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
"This is a specious argument and you know it.

Allow me to bring it down to an even more basic level.

Which ancient philosophers do you take into account before you decide which car to buy or how to present a proposal to your boss?"

Allow me to bring it down to an even more basic level.

Who's work are you using and building upon when you demand non-specious arguments, and use them to prove your points?
24 posted on 04/27/2003 3:29:57 PM PDT by Jason Kauppinen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Iris7
Iris7 wrote: And you use amazingly sweeping generalities. Do not confuse your own opinions with the truth. In fact, your prejudices appear unexamined.

Hogwash!

You're the one who dotes on philosophers and what do they do if not make sweeping generalities.

Iris7 wrote: With enormous risk of being uncharitable, your point of view reminds me of Henry Ford's "History is bunk." That reminds me of "Ignorance is bliss." If I were mean spirited it would remind me of "Freedom is Slavery."

Now you're being — and I'll be charitable here — silly.

History is a window to the past, not a blueprint for the future.

You can put as much lipstick on the paleo-con pig as you wish, but the past that they so greatly admire was — for all it's gentility and romantization — deeply bigoted and cruel.

It gave us, for instance, slavery, Bleeding Kansas and lynch law.

25 posted on 04/27/2003 3:33:14 PM PDT by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
"Look at Old Europe, the countries of which are prone to ordering their societies acording to the dictates of philosophers."

Look at America. Our philosophers were Locke, Hobbes, the rest of the Enlightenment philosophes. Just like "Old Europe." "This tendency gave us just in the last 100 years fascism, Marxism/communism and most lately postmodernism which — along with its handmaiden, multiculturalism — insists there is no such thing as objective truth."

The "tendency" of societies to base themselves on Western philosophy is the rule, not the exception. As a matter of fact, the only countries currently free of Western philosophy are theocratic dictatorships in the Middle East.

26 posted on 04/27/2003 3:35:30 PM PDT by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
Which ancient philosophers do you take into account before you decide which car to buy or how to present a proposal to your boss?

Those are concerns of a far more specific and secondary nature; as such it's entirely proper to consult experience local to both time and place. Learning about the basic foundations of human nature, and about how to apply them, is an inquiry of a primary and general nature; as such one should look over a somewhat wider compass in order to pursue it.

27 posted on 04/27/2003 3:36:25 PM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Reactionary
Reactionary wrote: Look at America. Our philosophers were Locke, Hobbes, the rest of the Enlightenment philosophes. The "tendency" of societies to base themselves on Western philosophy is the rule, not the exception. As a matter of fact, the only countries currently free of Western philosophy are theocratic dictatorships in the Middle East.

The Founding Fathers established the U.S. upon a set of principles from a number of sources, not upon the work of one particular person.

They borrowed freely from the enlightment but were not slaves to it.

They were practical men who started with one simple precept, that all men are created equal, and built uopn it.

28 posted on 04/27/2003 3:49:12 PM PDT by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

"Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican"
--Reagans Law

29 posted on 04/27/2003 3:54:12 PM PDT by ChadGore (Freedom is as natural as a drawn breath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc; Chancellor Palpatine; Poohbah; dighton; wimpycat
I agree. The paleos are in favor of big government in certain areas. They are also very negative.
30 posted on 04/27/2003 4:15:29 PM PDT by hchutch (America came, America saw, America liberated; as for those who hate us, Oderint dum Metuant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ChadGore
Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican"

In between the primary and the general...is how Reagan put it.

Otherwise honest debate is needed.

31 posted on 04/27/2003 4:19:48 PM PDT by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
That's where trhe likes of Buchanan and Smith have exposed themselves to be contrary to the conservative cause. They attack their fellow conservatives between the primary and the general. They can't take a couple months off?
32 posted on 04/27/2003 4:21:57 PM PDT by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
"They were practical men who started with one simple precept, that all men are created equal, and built uopn it."

So did the Bolsheviks.
33 posted on 04/27/2003 4:50:43 PM PDT by Jason Kauppinen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: hchutch; quidnunc; general_re; Chancellor Palpatine; Poohbah

... two camps of Straussians ...

If I'm not mistaken, that was an endless back-and-forth in National Review.

34 posted on 04/27/2003 4:50:55 PM PDT by dighton (Amen-Corner Hatchet Team, Nasty Little Clique, Vulgar Horde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
I can certainly see you are resistant to my best efforts. Reminds me of liberals I have known. If you refuse to see the absurdity of your position certainly there is nothing I can do for you. I wash my hands.
35 posted on 04/27/2003 5:04:02 PM PDT by Iris7 (Sufficient for evil to triumph is for good people to be imprudent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Jason Kauppinen
Jason Kauppinen wrote: ("They were practical men who started with one simple precept, that all men are created equal, and built uopn it.") So did the Bolsheviks.

The Bolsheviks built their society and economy according to the dictates of Marx, Engels and Lenin, and by and large they adhered to those dictates regardless of their workability.

36 posted on 04/27/2003 5:05:08 PM PDT by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Iris7
Iris7 wrote: I can certainly see you are resistant to my best efforts.

Those were your BEST efforts!?

37 posted on 04/27/2003 5:09:10 PM PDT by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Depends on the paleo. In my case, about the only federal agencies I'd like to see enlarged are the Navy, Air Force, Civilian Marksmanship, Border Patrol and Customs. If wanting to see an end to unfunded mandates, the Department of Education, etc., make me, in your view, very negative then so be it.
38 posted on 04/27/2003 5:10:53 PM PDT by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
Do you wish be to be insulting to your wisdom and intelligence? I see no evidence that you have had any idea about what I have been saying. If you are not interested in something that does not fit in with your preconceptions after being reasoned with so sweetly by so many on this thread, then who am I to think I can get though to you?
39 posted on 04/27/2003 5:13:09 PM PDT by Iris7 (Sufficient for evil to triumph is for good people to be imprudent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
"the paleo-cons and neo-cons agree on far more than they disagree on"

And what little they do disagree on is made up.

40 posted on 04/27/2003 5:23:30 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iris7
Iris7 wrote: Do you wish be to be insulting to your wisdom and intelligence? I see no evidence that you have had any idea about what I have been saying. If you are not interested in something that does not fit in with you preconceptions after being reasoned with so sweetly by so many on this thread, then who am I to think I can get though to you?

I understand that you attempted to invoke the philosophies of ancient Greeks and Romans to argue that the paleo-con mindset is not antithetical to American principles.

There may be reasonable elements to their worldview, but taken all in all it is a noxious witch's brew of horribles which should athanama to all consciousness conservatives.

Read Eric Margolis' writings in the Toronto Sun.

Read Taki Theodoracopulos's column in Taliban Pat's magazine.

Tell me there's anything to admire there.

41 posted on 04/27/2003 5:33:33 PM PDT by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
No, sorry Old Boy, no point. I'd have to lead you through so much, and you would be so resistant.
42 posted on 04/27/2003 5:35:33 PM PDT by Iris7 (Sufficient for evil to triumph is for good people to be imprudent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
So you have read Margolis and Taki. At least a little. I am impressed. Can you count on your toes too?
43 posted on 04/27/2003 5:40:59 PM PDT by Iris7 (Sufficient for evil to triumph is for good people to be imprudent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
The neoconservative movement first emerged in the 1960s and 1970s as a reaction to the cultural and political turmoil of the era. Many "neocons" were former liberal Democrats who once supported many programs of the New Deal and the Great Society.
Angered by what they perceived to be growing pacifism and opposition to the Vietnam War within the Democratic Party, neoconservatives began to defect and support the anti-communist policies of the Republican Party — especially during the Reagan administration in the 1980s.

=====
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030427-12845138.htm

====

And thus the march to the liberal left continues to occur in the republican party.
44 posted on 04/27/2003 6:21:50 PM PDT by FSPress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tiamat; Arkinsaw
On the contrary, it's extremely helpful to gain a background understanding of the different schools of conservatism in order to understand which school of thought is propelling which conservative public figure. Ex: David Horowitz = neocon; Pat Buchanan = paleo. Very different guys.
45 posted on 04/27/2003 8:04:39 PM PDT by lurky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Iris7
"One man one vote" cannot survive. Either the left will disenfranchise us, or we disenfranchise them.

Can you elaborate on this?

46 posted on 04/27/2003 8:11:31 PM PDT by lurky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: lurky
Ex: David Horowitz = neocon; Pat Buchanan = paleo. Very different guys.

They may be very different guys, but their points of view are not necessarily at odds with each as much as the neo/paleo split is portrayed in the media. I am very much with Buchanan when it comes to the border, to local control, etc. But I am with Horowitz in regards to foreign affairs and valid Federal government powers.

I'm not against understanding. What I am against is the "you bastard neos"/"you rotten paleos" stuff we are seeing more and more of here on FR.
47 posted on 04/27/2003 8:12:16 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
I hear that. I just think, "the more people know, etc." And there are some serious power plays in DC right now between these 2 camps.
48 posted on 04/27/2003 9:12:24 PM PDT by lurky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
"The Founding Fathers established the U.S. upon a set of principles from a number of sources, not upon the work of one particular person."

I didn't mention "one particular person"; I mentioned Hobbes, Locke, the Enlightenment philosophes. Perhaps the most popular among the Founders was the Baron de Montesquieu.

49 posted on 04/27/2003 9:13:52 PM PDT by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
The Paleos are nuts, they are a cult like the marxist not a political belief system.
50 posted on 04/27/2003 9:15:06 PM PDT by weikel (Baghdad Bob for DNC chairman, Sharpton for Dem nominee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-96 next 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