[PhiKapMom]

Today while reading a thread that described why someone thought President Bush would not be reelected, I ran across the word paleo -- not in my dictionary! So I took the opportunity to look to see what this word meant. I became shocked while reading David Frum's description of paleoconservatives. All of a sudden, it made sense. Novak hasn't made sense for a long time and neither has Sen Hagel. But they do now!

Not to mention some Freepers on here with their anti-war, anti-everything stance!

The bold and underline are mine for emphasis! Now I know what paleo means and so will you!

[usmc_chris]

Perhaps you should take a look at this piece from The Spectator. http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue=2003-07-26&id=2933&searchText=


There is nothing conservative about war. For at least the last century war has been the herald and handmaid of socialism and state control. It is the excuse for censorship, organised lying, regulation and taxation. It is paradise for the busybody and the nark. It damages family life and wounds the Church. It is, in short, the ally of everything summed up by the ugly word ‘progress’.

So why did the Conservative party support this left-wing war? It has missed a wonderful opportunity to be true to its principles, to be right, and to re-engage with the people of this country. Those who have dismissed it for years as a callous pressure-group motivated by nothing but money might have been forced to reconsider their view. But the Tories have so utterly lost the power of thought that they have become what their cruellest opponents pretend they are. Not since they endorsed the unhinged privatisation of the railways have the Conservatives acted so contrary to their own wisdom, and so exactly as if they were the brainless destroyers that alternative comedians imagine them to be.

This war was always different from those that have gone before. Previous conflicts in the modern age, even if usually caused by failures of deterrence, and even if they extended the power of the state, did at least have the virtue of being in British interests, because if we did not fight them we would be ruined, subjugated or fatally humbled. This one is so hard to justify that its supporters treat their own arguments with scorn, wanly grinding out cant phrases that long ago lost their meaning, trying to frighten us with bogeymen or pretending grotesquely that liberty and civilisation can be imposed on Mesopotamia with explosives.

The idea that naked force can create human freedom is itself a left-wing idea. Even more socialist are the war faction’s contempt for the sovereignty of nations and their unashamed belief that ends justify means. No wonder that the war’s hottest-eyed supporters on both sides of the Atlantic are ex-Marxists who have lost their faith but have yet to lose their Leninist tendency to worship worldly power. Yet ranged alongside them are Tories who are supposed to stand for the gentler and more modest cause of faith and nation, Church and King.

Why aren’t they embarrassed? Why aren’t they suspicious? Why doesn’t the enthusiasm of Mr Blair make them wonder if this is right rather than imagining that there are two, wholly contradictory Mr Blairs in the same body?

Mr Blair doesn’t like Britain. During the Cold War he belonged to CND, which wanted the USSR to be the only nuclear power in Europe. Knowing how important this fact was, he tried very hard to deny his membership until it was proved beyond all doubt. He opposed the retaking of the Falklands. He is even now trying to sell Gibraltar to Spain, and has delivered Northern Ireland, trussed and gagged, to the IRA. So now he’s a patriot? And Mrs Blair is one too, is she? And if they are not, then why should the war they love so much be treated as a patriotic conflict?

And then examine the sheer un-Conservative crudity and bullying intolerance of the war party and of the modern American war machine whose orders we now follow. My affection for the USA and its people, and my readiness to defend it and them against mean-minded foes, are on record in plenty of places. And, as it happened, I really believed (and still believe) the pro-Nato things I used to say during the Cold War, about how deterrence would create real peace, while weakness would bring war. In those days left-wingers called me rude names. Yet now I find myself accused of anti-Americanism and even treachery because I am against this war. My fears for American liberties, following the grotesquely named ‘Patriot Act’ and the founding of the ‘Department of Homeland Security’, are treated not as the warnings of a candid friend but as disloyalty. Disloyalty to what?

There seems to be an ideology of ‘Americanism’ in which one is either totally loyal or one is a suspect — another feature of the pro-war cause which perhaps attracts those ex-Marxists. It is based on an idea of America rather than the nation which actually exists. It has little or nothing to do with that good and decent country and its generous citizens in their quiet towns and peaceful suburbs which I love so much. I am reminded not of them but of the terrifying American messianic bore Hector Dexter in Nancy Mitford’s 1951 satire The Blessing, who tells his English hosts that he wishes to see a bottle of Coca-Cola on every table in every country:
When I say a bottle of Coca-Cola I mean it metaphorically speaking, I mean it as an outward and visible sign of something inward and spiritual. I mean it as if each Coca-Cola bottle contained a djinn, as if that djinn was our great American civilisation ready to spring out of each bottle and cover the whole global universe with its great wide wings. That is what I mean.
This juvenile, boastful spirit was epitomised last week by the US navy’s Vice-Admiral Timothy Keating, aboard the USS Constellation. Vice-Admiral Keating waved his arms about and told his ship’s company, ‘It’s hammer time!’ to the accompaniment of Queen’s ‘We will rock you’ played at maximum decibels. Adult cultures think war deserves reflection and seriousness of purpose. This war seems to have been imagined and designed by spiritual teenagers. Will the next begin to the obscene rattle and boom of gangsta rap? I do not know, but there was an ugly hubris about the bombardment of Baghdad which followed soon afterwards.

The city was shaken and blasted by men pushing buttons in almost complete safety hundreds of miles away. Yes, most of the missiles hit their targets and the civilian casualties were few, though that was little comfort to those few. Yes, the bombs were directed at an ugly and despicable tyranny. Yes, the bomb-aimers believed they were doing good. But the thoughtless, yelling anti-culture of hard rock is apt theme music for this thoughtless, reckless and over-confident form of warfare.

What if one day others are in a position to treat us as we have treated Baghdad, and it is our women giving premature birth because they are buffeted by blast waves and petrified by the ‘smart’ explosions, while the ceilings of our neglected hospitals crack and crumble as the palaces and bunkers of our loathed elite are blasted? Do I wish that our casualties had been higher? Of course not. But the ability to ruin someone else’s capital city without much risk to yourself makes you more likely to do so. It reminds me of Robert E. Lee’s truly conservative remark after the carnage of Fredericksburg: ‘It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it.’ For the attacker, war is no longer terrible enough. Some people have grown too fond of it. They are not conservatives in any serious meaning of the word.

Peter Hitchens is a columnist for the Mail on Sunday. His new book, A Brief History of Crime, is published by Atlantic on 10 April.

[Captain Kennit]

It is highly ironic that a Canadian neo-conservative, not even a conservative himself, has the unmitigated gall to defame such conservative stalwarts as Pat Buchanan and Bob Novak. Disgusting, really.

[mr.pink]

Novak hasn't made sense for a long time and neither has Sen Hagel. But they do now!

LOL...you really wanna' pit Canadian David Frum's "patriotism" up against this guys?...a guy who's proven his when it really counts?

Hagel served in Vietnam with his brother Tom in 1968. They served side by side as infantry squad leaders with the U.S. Army's 9th Infantry Division. Hagel earned many military decorations and honors, including two Purple Hearts.

[Captain Kennit]

Bump

[A_perfect_lady]

Well, I guess I'm officially a neocon now. Okay, fine. Now, where was I? Oh yes, going through my list and checking it twice:

X Afghanistan
X Iraq
__ Iran
__ Syria
__ North Korea
__ Cuba
__ China
__ France
__ Berkeley
__ Ithaca
__ Hollywood

[billbears]

The bold and underline are mine for emphasis! Now I know what paleo means and so will you!

Sorry thanks for playing. A slur by a columnist over at NRO is not what I consider an exact definition. I am a paleocon and fully support Israel as do many other Southern paleocons. But thank you for all the work, helps point out FrumFrum's mistakes. He's a hack at best

[RightWhale]

BTW, who is working up the platform for the National Republican Convention next year? You, know, the document that gets rubber-stamped and then ignored by everyone excepting the carping fault-finders from opposition parties?

[boxerblues]

bump for later reading

[x]

I don't see much point in excavating Frum's purge screed. Frum looks pretty opportunistic for trying to ride the controversy to greater prominence for himself. One might say the same of others involved, but the butt-kissing responses to Frum that National Review published in a subsequent issue were particularly laughable. When Frum became the unassailable conservative pope and heresy hunter is beyond me. Scott McConnell's American Conservative response is worth looking at.

There has been and will continue to be much discussion about whether our latest war was wise or prudent or the right thing to do. Global recriminations of paleos and neos are a distraction from real policy questions. One can certainly despise the paleocon mythology and still question whether President Bush made the best choice. One doesn't have to subscribe to loopy theories about Lincoln or Churchill to question the wisdom of administration policy. And charges of disloyalty or lack of patriotism should be indulged in sparingly and only with real proof.

[liberallarry]

later read.

[WFTR]

I generally like David Frum. I recently finished his book The Right Man about the early part of the Bush presidency. I thought it was a very good book that painted the president in a fair and positive light. Likewise, I generally like the president although I disagree strongly with some of his positions on the issues.

In spite of some good feelings, I'd recommend against taking David Frum's word as the final opinion on what a "paleoconservative" is. Much of the paleo versus neo conservative rhetoric is little more than the immature sniping of people in opposite political cliques. The stupidity comes from both sides, and I've seen in from both sides on Free Republic just as I've seen it from more nationally known figures.

I'll offer my own definition based on the big issues and leave it to others to decide where they fall.

Immigration:

Paleoconservatives believe in limited immigration geared towards what is best for The United States as a whole. Paleos don't believe that immigration policy should be dictated by some people's guilt over the fact that America is prosperous and other countries are not. We don't believe that immigration policy should exist to give some employers cheap labor. We don't believe that immigration policy should exist to increase America's racial and cultural diversity.

Yes, we are a nation of immigrants, and we became strong because we allowed people to come to this country to become Americans and fill the land for America. In case proponents of more immigration haven't been watching, America is quite well populated these days, and we don't need to bring in large numbers of people to stake our claim to our land. Paleos believe in a selection process that brings people here because they would be good Americans. Admittedly, some Paleos have racial prejudices and mistakenly believe that only Caucasions will become good Americans. I disagree with the movement on this point. However, I agree that racial diversity just for the sake of racial diversity is not a good thing. Instead, we should look for people of all races who will believe in the things that made America great, and we should accept them at a rate that allows us to assimilate them into our culture.

Free Trade:

Paleoconservatives agree with the Founding Fathers that tariffs are the most non-intrusive way for the federal government to make money and that their protection of American manufacturers is a good thing. We look at history and see how the South wanted free trade and wanted to import all of its manufactured goods from Britain and France. When the lead started flying in the War Between the States, the South had big problems meeting its own needs for manufactured goods. A country that must import many of is manufactured goods is a country that has a major weakness.

I depart from some Paleos in the extent to which I support protectionism. I don't think we should promote policies that encourage too much of our manufacturing to go overseas, but I see the advantage to some competition to keep unions from becoming too strong.

Regulation:

The neoconservatives accusation that paleos favor regulation is simply a lie. Paleos favor reduced government regulation of American businesses. We favor repeal of many of the laws that have driven companies to move their manufacturing elsewhere. People who are too stupid to understand the difference between a tariff and a regulation are too stupid to be taken seriously.

Foreign Policy:

Paleoconservatives oppose an activist foreign policy. We believe in becoming involved only when our interests are at stake. Unfortunately, it often seems that each side in this debate follows their position without thought. I disagree with those paleos who think that we were wrong to be involved in the War on Terror or the war against Saddam Hussein. On the other hand, neo support for the Kosovo war was just as stupid as paleo opposition to this one. The KLA that the neos supported in Kosovo was affiliated with Al Qaeda. In effect, Clinton provided an Al Qaeda ally with an Air Force to use in their terrorist war against the Serbs, and neos cheered him forward at every moment. One dishonest point in the David Frum article was his failure to point out that the anti-military quote from L. Rockwell was in regards to the Kosovo campaign.

Abortion:

Paleos and neos both oppose abortion, but some paleos tend to be louder and less thoughtful about it. Most of these paleos don't like me and get mad when I suggest that I'm a paleo.

Guns:

Paleos and neos both oppose drastic gun control, but some neos support some additional restrictions on gun ownership. I oppose all new gun control and most existing gun control. On this point, I am most closely aligned with the paleos.

Taxes:

Paleos and neos both oppose high taxes. Neos like to accuse paleos of supporting taxes, but their accusations just aren't true. The argument is about how much to take in each kind of tax.

Many of the neos like to pretend that all paleos hate the president and want to see him fail. That accusation simply isn't true. For the most part, I'm a paleo, and I like the president very much. There are some national figures that are stuck in perpetual pissing contests with each other, and they line up as "neos" versus "paleos." We see the same silliness here at Free Republic. We have strong differences on some issues, but the notion that paleos aren't patriotic is silly.

WFTR
Bill

[junta]

Save this kooks crap and put it where it would do the most harm.

[Tauzero]

Cool. Glad to see this.

Nobody bothers to attack a group not perceived as a threat.

[Pelham]

More slander from the carpet bagging Canadian wonderboy. Didn't he violate the President's trust by bragging about his role in the State of the Union speech? Thought so.

[eyespysomething]

bump to read later and finally figger out what paleoconservatives are...