I have read previous examples of false dichotomies, but this one takes the cake. Meanwhile, Sobran, if taken seriously, which he is not, because he is a lightweight, would in my mind be exhibit "A" for the intellectual bankruptcy of conservatism.
By the way, is Sobran an economic protectionist, both vis a vis imports, and propping up sunset domestic industries? Just curious, if he has swallowed whole the entirety of the paleo package.
I'll take that as a vote for Bill.
Friend Torie:
In the first place, Sobran should certainly be taken seriously, on at least two counts.
Of course, I suppose that it is possible that William Shakespeare himself penned the "Shakespeare" Plays (a Peasant whom could barely write his own Name -- and lest you think me an Elitist, remember that I am Social Trash myself); but we should remember that if the Authorship of the Gospels were so utterly suspect, it is perhaps dubious that there ever would have been such a thing as Christianity.
By contrast, in terms of his education, experience, habits, and even sexual proclivities (a line of criticism quite favored by modern Freudians) -- Sobran makes his Alias, Shakespeare case in favor of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford quite compellingly, I think.
Of course, if you should prefer, I won't deny the possibility that Bill Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the greatest Plays in the English Language... despite the fact that he could scarcely sign his own name.
Beyond his purely historical talents, however, I daresay that if you were to combine Joseph Sobran's writings with those of PJ O'Rourke, you'd end up with the closest approximation of HL Mencken that the latter 20th Century has to offer.
"Influential"? No.
But a "Lightweight"? Certainly not. Were he a lightweight, he'd indubitably go much further in terms of Mass Audiences. Perhaps if he had the looks of Brad Pitt?
No, Sobran (for all his lack of Zionism... a distasteful quality to a convinced Zionist like myself) is simply a curmudgeon. And with that I can empathize.
What is more... Sobran never endorsed Economic Protectionism, I'll have you to know; his endorsement of Buchanan was always a matter of Personal Friendship, not Economic Agreement. He has always been a consummate Free Trader; perhaps now more than ever. Sobran's more-or-less given up on the State entirely:
It’s hard for me to get very interested in today’s political squabbles. I don’t have a dog in these fights; my dog died a long time ago. You know you’re politically homeless when you go to a John Birch Society dinner and you feel you’re surrounded by well-meaning liberals. Am I a libertarian? Sort of. An anarchist? Anarchy might be great, if only it could be enforced.
I guess the label that suits me best is "reactionary utopian". I want to go back to a better world... that never quite existed."
To which I can only say... good for him.
I occasionally encounter FReepers who are still worried about "Christian Reconstructionism". Such folks seem to have missed the fact that RJ Rushdoony is dead.
The Christian Reconstructionists have all become Libertarians. Joseph Sobran (the most "fundamentalist" of all Roman Catholic pundits) is now a Libertarian too... if we can even constrain him to Libertarianism; he's practically a Natural-Order Anarchist now ("Family, Church, Contract... who needs the State?")
Paleos?
Truth is, with the Union-pandering exception of Pat Buchanan (whose Economic Foolishness doesn't even enjoy the support of his friends), there isn't a single "Paleo-Economic Conservative" around today.
Closest you'll get is a Libertarian Free-Trader who favors limits on massive immigration and who prefers (but is not so stupid as to enforce) Traditional Mores (i.e., Joseph Sobran).
best, OP