The New Conservative Divide: Paleocons versus Neocons

AmericanDaily.com ^ | Mon Apr 21, 2003 | Rachel Alexander

[new cruelty]

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.

[justshe]

The left has so hijacked the American mindset that the "conservatives" are battling each other...my bippy!!!!

---

I disagree--if "my bippy" means you think there is no battle. Have you observed the 'wars' between the so=called "Bush-Bots" and the "True Conservatives" on this forum? Or did I miss your point?

[William McKinley]

Somehow, paleos have decided that the 'us versus them' mindset suits their goals, and have taken it to the absurd extreme where Dick Cheney is considered by them to be a leading neoconservative. Talk about redefining language to where words have little link to their real meaning!

[William McKinley]

By the way, I wish that the author had provided a basis for this claim:

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

If this is true, I have not seen any evidence that it is true.

[billbears]

absurd extreme where Dick Cheney is considered by them to be a leading neoconservative

LOL!! Perhaps you haven't checked out the New American Century website run by the Kristolites of which Cheney was a part of up until 1998. It's not absurd, it's fact

[Darheel]

Arch-Con bump.

[justshe]

I wondered about the 9/11 reference too. The only thing I could figure was that 'closing the borders' and the broad-brush 'muslim bashing' came down, in this author's view, as in the Paleo column.

[katana]

I believe you're right that the politics of the "paleocons" resembles and traces its roots to the "America First" movement of the 30's and early 40's of which Charles Lindberg was a leader with notable anti-semitic leanings. That movement was all but entirely discredited by WWII, but a strain of it has continued to this day under leaders like Taft and Buchanan.

The term "neocon", as far as I can tell, is more often than not used as a code word for "conservative Jew", and my personal reaction to anyone who uses the term is suspicion and a bit of revulsion.

Where this author really lost me, however, was his assertion that the Christian conservatives tend to be anti-Israel and therefore in the "paleoconservative" camp. If this were the case, you'd have to lump Robert Novak and Pat Buchanan in with conservative born-again Christians and that just doesn't work. If anything, conservative Christians are as or more supportive of Israel than many or most American Jews!

[johnb838]

I see the neoconservative movement as being composed of those whom thirty years ago would have been considered to be conservative democrats. As the democrapic party lurched further and further to the left, these voters switched affiliation to the republican party. Here in Texas I would consider Senator Phil Gramm as one of the original neocons. Obviously these people were conservative before leaving the dims. But today there is no such thing as a conservative democrat. Ergo, all conservatives are republican. The dimboz would argue with that, but (almost) all demons who claim to be conservative are liars.

[William McKinley]

As I said- it is a redefinition of terms that renders the term neoconservative meaningless.

Bill Bennett, neocon?

Steve Forbes, neocon?

Gary Bauer, neocon?

Francis Fukuyama, neocon?

Only one definition seems consistent in the paleo lingo- anyone claiming to be a conservative, or labelled as a conservative by the media, who is not a paleoconservative, must be a neoconservative.

[goldstategop]

The conservative movement was never hijacked. To an increasing extent it has evolved from the days when it was a minority intellectual movement to being a mainstream philosophy that makes itself felt in the corridors of power. Conservatism has succeeded in America by shaking off the tendency to define America in terms of an ethnic nativist ideal that never was and also by rejecting the isolationist view that if America shuts itself out from the world its problems won't come here to endanger us. Both positions are held by paleo-cons and to a lesser extent by some libertarians. The problem the paleos see with American diversity is actually the country's greatest source of strength thanks to the contributions made by people from all over the world to America's prosperity and security. And with 9-11 its not simply possible to avoid dealing with danger at it source. This is where pre-emptive intervention abroad actually enhances American well-being in way that pulling down the window shades on the train and pretending the Indians aren't shooting at us doesn't. Mainstream conservatives are cognizant of political reality and fervently embrace Ronald Reagan's admonition America is a country too great to be constrained by limits. Paleo-cons suffer from being handicapped by idealizing that America's glory is all behind her and the country in decline. In contrast most conservatives believe America's best days are yet to come and this country has yet to achieve its full potential. Instead of fighting a battle to preserve an America that never was and won't come to existence and fighting to limit America's place in the world, paleo cons should join mainstream conservatives to make America a country better in law and spirit and to make this century another American Century.

[FairOpinion]

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

Exactly -- these are NOT conservatives, they are leftists calling themselves conservatives.

But we have to keep in mind, that, as they say: "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, even if it calls itself a flamingo, it's still a duck"

I have noticed even here at FR people who claim they are conservatives, but curiously enough they come down on the same side as the leftists on every issue.

Maybe we should call them "pretenders" or "pretend-conservatives", or "LPC"s ( Leftists Pretending to be conservatives") or "LMAC"s ( Leftists Masquarading As Conservatives. What the heck, let's create a few more labels.

[k2blader]

Just for the purpose of personal amusement, is there a "neocon, paleocon, or whatevercon?" quizlet available anywhere?

[goldstategop]

hehehe... that's why liberals get so batty. Just cause you dress like a 60s counterculture dude doesn't necessarily mean you follow Tom Hayden and the New Left. Some of us tuned out, dropped out, and turned to conservative acid early on and man we learned to love it. If that makes us conspirators so be it.

[ampat]

That's new neo-nouveau.

[Lysander]

We need "labels", "names" and "notions" to be able to think and to see the world around us.

Ben is that you? The Whorfian Hypothesis

[FirstTomato]

I do believe that the left is behind all this debate between conservatives.

They want to divide us because they themselves are so divided. They want to spread the joy.

And I don't know who the libertarians think they're kidding, but they don't fool me.

[Hoppean]

I have noticed even here at FR people who claim they are conservatives, but curiously enough they come down on the same side as the leftists on every issue.

You're right, and I don't mean to provoke or upset those people or accuse them of bad faith. I understand the situation and know exactly why it's the case. Liberalism, its values and philosophy, have so pervaded every aspect of American society since at least the 1930s, that even many of those who say they oppose liberals have absorbed liberal thought patterns.

[FirstTomato]

Sorry, my quip about the Libertarians in #76 wasn't meant as a personal slight, but simply that I have a healthy mistrust of Libertarianism. Sorry. Nothing personal.

[goldstategop]

If Pat Buchanan wants to join Leonara Fulani and the Marxist Left in seeing America as all messed up due to the Jews and Israel he's welcome to it, but he and crew should stop trying to make it appear as though the only thing left to do is to switch off the last light in America. Our 200 odd year old national party is far from over.

[Hoppean]

Yes, there is an online quiz you can take that asks you your position on different issues and then can tell you whether you lean more neo or paleo. I've found it pretty accurate. Here it is:

http://www.selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client=zeron