The New Conservative Divide: Paleocons versus Neocons

The split between neoconservatives and paleoconservatives over the Iraq war goes deeper than many realize. Their differences on ethnic issues are threatening to become the biggest internal battle conservatives will face this decade.

Modern conservatism has generally encompassed multiple forms. Over the last half of the 20th century, each decade has contained at least two identifiable strains of conservatism. The 1950’s saw the onset of modern conservatism, beginning with William F. Buckley’s intellectual National Review, which established conservatism as a force against communism and its milder American counterpart, the New Deal. It was an international conservatism, unlike the establishment conservatism of the time, which was isolationist. In the 1960’s, conservatives divided over civil rights. A minority of conservatives rallied around the states’ rights position espoused by Barry Goldwater, particularly southerners motivated by their opposition to the civil rights movement. Their counterparts supported the Civil Rights Act, although they did not agree with other parts of the civil rights movement.

Neoconservatism emerged in the 1970s, as a reaction to the radical leftist agenda of the 1960’s. Neoconservatives were more interested in challenging the hippies and activists than dismantling the entrenched programs of the New Deal. Their conservative counterparts in the 1970’s were the John Birchers and Young Americans for Freedom, who refused to budge an inch in support of any program of the left, and who preferred Barry Goldwater or John Ashbrook for President over President Nixon. In the 1980’s, President Reagan successfully brought together social conservatives and business conservatives to form his base in the Republican party. By the 1990’s, those conservatives had merged to some extent, many of them becoming Rush Limbaugh conservatives who supported both the economic and social agenda of the Republican revolution in 1994. Frustrated by the compromising of the new Republican leaders, particularly the capitulation of Newt Gingrich, a drift to the libertarian right emerged, which had already begun with the founding of the Republican Liberty Caucus in 1990.

As the first decade of the 2000’s progresses, it is becoming increasingly clear that the two types of conservatism that will define this decade are neoconservatism and paleoconservatism. The war in Iraq has brought out a deep division between the two philosophies, exemplified by paleoconservatism opposition to the conservative Bush administration’s intervention into Iraq.

Paleoconservatism is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as, “extremely stubborn or stubbornly conservative in politics.” The term paleoconservative actually originated fairly recently, in the Rockford Institute’s Chronicles magazine, as a reaction to what was seen as increasing neocon encroachment into conservatism. Palecons claim that their brand of conservatism is the true descendant of conservative thought of the 1950’s and 1960’s. Paleocons prefer an isolationist foreign policy, and accuse neocons of being interventionist and soft on big government programs. Neoconservative is defined as an intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the liberalism of the 1960’s. Paleocons tend to believe that most conservatives today and over the past couple of decades are neocons.

What may really be the primary and underlying source of division between the two philosophies is their approach towards Israel. Since Israel was established in 1948, U.S. policy has generally been one of preserving Israel’s stability in the Middle East. Most conservatives have historically aligned themselves with this position for varying reasons. Some saw the state as compensation for the displaced Jews after their slaughter in the Nazi holocaust. Others saw it as a bastion of democracy to be supported amongst the Arab authoritarian regimes as a check on their spread and power. Many Christians supported the existence of a strong Jewish state because of their close relationship with the Jewish people theologically as the chosen people, their reverence for the Jews as the inhabitants of the Holy Land in Biblical times, and Biblical prediction that the Jewish people will eventually return to the Holy Land.

Yet, ironically, it is now primarily Christian conservatives who make up the paleocons opposing aid to Israel. Instead of seeing Jews as fellow kindred, these Christians see Jews as hostile to Christianity, and therefore are less inclined to support Israel. Instead of welcoming Jews – who have generally been considered solidly liberal - into the Republican party, many paleocons are suspicious of their intentions. Paleocons accuse the Republican party of being overrun by neocons, and many paleocons believe that Jewish conservatives are behind this. The accusations have gotten quite touchy, with many paleocons accusing Jewish conservatives of using anti-Semitic accusations to bully their way around and push their own agenda. Of course, when paleocon Pat Buchanan throws around phrases like, “Congress is Israeli-controlled territory,” there is an argument that can be made that a remark like that could be construed as anti-Semitic.

Many anti-Israel paleocons are using the Iraq war as an opportunity to speak out not just against the war, but to accuse conservatives and President Bush of supporting the war because the neocons, who they claim are dominated by Jews, are in favor of it. However, this argument is flawed in several aspects. First and most obvious, not only neocons supported the war. Most conservatives supported the war, some even more adamantly than the neocons, such as military, law enforcement, and certain social conservatives. Secondly, most conservatives are not “neocons,” unless the term is broadly defined to include any conservative who is not anti-interventionist, which is how some paleocons seem to be defining it. The standard definition of neocon only encompasses a small percentage of conservatives; most conservatives did not become conservative only in reaction to the 1960’s, and most still resent big government; they would be quite happy if welfare completely disappeared. Paleocons tend to overemphasize neocon approval of the welfare state. In reality, it would probably be more accurate to say that conservative politicians support a welfare state, whereas common conservatives are less likely to support it. Thirdly, the number of conservative Jews is still small. Only 20% of American Jews voted for President Bush, actually down from the 35% who voted for Reagan in 1988, and only 8% of Jews consider themselves “conservative,” as opposed to 26% of non-Jews. And although there are a handful of well-known Jewish conservatives, their presence is slight compared to the numbers of non-Jewish conservative leaders. None of the Bush administration’s cabinet-level appointees are Jewish.

What is interesting about this latest split between conservatives is that no longer is the debate between the “moderates” and “right wingers” like it has been frequently in the past. Now it is primarily an ethnic debate, focusing on U.S. attitudes towards ethnic and racial groups within and outside of the U.S. And instead of being sidelined to the pages of history books, Pat Buchanan, former Presidential candidate and leader of the social conservative isolationist right, is leading the paleocons in this attack on what they see as the neocon takeover of conservatism. Buchanan’s new magazine, The American Conservative, claims that conservative organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the magazine National Review, have been taken over by neocons. However, paleocon views have become more popular since 9/11, since Americans are much more fearful of terrorists entering the country, and so are more willing to tighten down on immigration laws and the borders. Furthermore, the paleocons are not completely marginalized, they count among their numbers several respected intellectual heavyweights, including the Rockford Institute, LewRockwell.com, and to some degree, the paleolibertarian Ludwig von Mises Institute.

The future of conservatism depends on how these two factions cooperate. Unlike past divisions between conservatives, this division will only increase, because the ethnic diversity within the U.S. keeps increasing, and Israel’s stability in the Middle East keeps declining. What most conservatives do not realize, and are not prepared to address, is that ethnic-related issues are going to be the crucial problem facing them this decade. At the present moment, conservatism appears unified, because the paleocons were not able to thwart the intervention into Iraq, probably because their numbers are still too few. After all, according to a recent ABC news poll, an overwhelming 81% of Americans believe it was right to go to war with Iraq, and 60% believe that it was right even if no weapons of mass destruction are ever found. But resentment is building, and as long as the paleocons are convinced that conservatism has been hijacked, they will not stop their assault.

Rachel Alexander is an attorney practicing commercial and administrative law in Phoenix, Arizona. She is the editor of IntellectualConservative.com, and writes articles for various e-zines.

This split is far from being significant politically; the isolationist paleocons are very few in number, and most will vote for a GOP neocon come election day.

It is true that 15% who initially supported Buchanan voted for Bush. This together with Naderites being more rigid, prevented landslide victory for Gore.

But next time I would not take such development for granted. Democrats can find someone more palatable for Naderites and paleocons can stay home. It is economy stupid.

exactly zero percent of American Jews voted for Reagan in 1988.

Read the 8th paragraph from the bottom, starting with the word "Historically."

And this article just happened to be the first source that came up on Google; there are a lot more sources confirming this. As painful as it may be to you, around one third of American Jews voted for Reagan in '88. Deal with it.

"Only 20% of American Jews voted for President Bush, actually down from the 35% who voted for Reagan in 1988,"

Pretty good showing for a guy who wasn't running...

Secondly, the author uses the absurd term anti-Israel which is ridiculous. There are plenty of paleoconservatives who are anti-extreme rightwing of Israel, but I have yet to come across a paleo-conservative who was anti-Israel.

I don't care much for labels, but most certainly AM interested in "dismantling the entrenched programs of the New Deal." (See article.) If "neocons" are not interested in ridding this country of socialistic programs, they may be "neo" but they surely are not conservative. There may be those who want to return the federal government to its constitutional limits who hate blacks and/or Jews. If so, they should renounce such hatred. By the same token, any neocons who believe our great presidents are Lincoln, Wilson, F. Roosevelt, and Johnson should renounce their big central government views and adopt conservatism.

Why this obsession on labels?

The left practicing the politics of personal destruction as usual, the deceitful, name-calling Clymer-Rat-Wankers.

What would be the opposite of "Neo-cons":
"Hoary Marxists",
"Moldering Marxists",
"Senile Socialists",
"Antediluvian Dems"?

Just wondering.

I figger the Democrats got hijacked by left wing extremists years ago and the real Democrats had to go somewhere else. "POOF" neo-conservatives. I used to be a Democrat, but they moved on me and someone else started using their name. Makes me wonder if the government/alien conspiracys aren't true after all.......

Anymore when I compare myself to Democrats, I find I'm a little right of center, when I used to be considered more of a 'liberal'. I didn't change anything about what I believed politically!

Actually, I'm sometimes quite confused. The way Democrats are today, I think I need a lawn chair, a case of beer and a reservation at a certain mailbox out in the desert.....Where I discuss government conspiracy theories with Bubba and his old lady. In today's world, I would be consiodered a 'moderate' but if the left gets too much worse, I may have to move to Idaho and build a plywood compound...and never have to change where I'm at politically!!

I wonder if the FBI will sell me any illegal firearms when I get there.....

Neo-cons are not conservative.

Jean Kirkpatrick, Reagan's top foreign policy advisor, is not conservative?
Charles Krauthammer is not conservative?
Richard Perle is not conservative?

One could even argue that Ronald Reagan himself was a neocon (although he left the Democratic Party earlier than most historical neocons).

However, paleocon views have become more popular since 9/11,...

Oh, bunk. If anything, it's the neo-cons who have triumphed overwhelmingly. And a good thing too.

Furthermore, the paleocons are not completely marginalized, they count among their numbers several respected intellectual heavyweights, including the Rockford Institute, LewRockwell.com, and to some degree, the paleolibertarian Ludwig von Mises Institute.

LewRockwell.com is an intellectual heavyweight? Rockford who no one has ever heard of? I suppose some people have heard of von Mises but it's pretty limited in influence even now. To compare any of them to, say, Heritage or the other big think tanks is just ridiculous.

The author went looking for a controversy and failed to find one so one had to be manufactured, I think.

Whatever happened to just being "conservative"? What happened to "moderates" or "moderately conservatives"? Why do we have to have neo-con and paleo-con labels?

I think the media is the one promoting the "paleo" and "neo" labels, to try to "divide and conquer" the conservatives.

As for quoting the dictionary definition of paleoconservatives is ridiculous. Look up the dictionary definition of the liberals, and you'll find there is no relationship between today's liberals and the dictionary definion of the word. And neither is between the dictionary definitions of conservatives and political conservatives.

The Old Right scholar M.E. Bradford discusses the Left's infiltration of the conservative movement (as "neocons") in his book, _The Reactionary Imperative_.

Here's a key excerpt:

"There are, to be sure, certain groups who have recently attached the conservative label to themselves…because it allows them to so redefine our position that we can no longer hold it for our own—allows them to steal our identity and put it to uses at variance with its origins: to invert it into something foreign to itself, leaving those who are still conservatives in the familiar sense of the term with no ground on which to stand. These interlopers want to get their agenda defined as axiomatic by leaving no useful space to their right; and they want all the persuasive advantages that come, in a post-liberal era, of calling their view conservative regardless of its essentially statist…and coercively egalitarian implications…. Our first priority is to refuse firmly and vigorously to surrender our hard-won identity to those who would use it as a cloak for policies contrary to what we intend. Lines of demarcation must be drawn, and swiftly."

And another:

"Conservatives who worry about the craft of governing are often paralyzed with the fear of being disreputable. Their primary nightmare is that of being accused of bigotry, war-mongering, insensitivity, and indifference to suffering, of being identified as persons without ordinary human fellow-feeling. And thus they are diverted from their first order of business--to preserve, protect, and defend--by being put on the defensive, able to make only arguments which object to the labels, not analyses which discredit their opponents."

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.