Mr. Irving Kristol said, “I regard myself to HAVE BEEN a young Trotskyite…” The language implies a change of mind. The fact that he doesn’t regret his youthful eccentricity doesn’t mean he retains it. And there is no evidence that the younger generation of neoconservatives, who focus more on foreign policy than the elder Kristol ever did, have any connection to Trotsky whatsoever.

Mtuggle, you say you don’t throw around words recklessly. Then do you disassociate yourself from Mr. Dilorenzo’s remark in the article you linked to calling Abraham Lincoln a “Jacobin?”

The Fourth Amendment requires that a search be reasonable. It does not require a warrant in all circumstances, and in fact most searches take place without a warrant. (If the police see you kidnap a child and take her into your house, they don’t need a warrant. They have probable cause. This is just one of several exceptions to the warrant rule). And that was before neoconservatism and the Bush Administration. And the amendment certainly does not, either explicitly or implicity, rule out “sneak and peak” searches. As for habeus corpus, Congress is expressly allowed by the Constitution to deny petitions for it. And they have done so, for a limited variety of cases.

J.D., what I said about Mr. Hitchens, I believe, was that he was not a neoconservative, or any other kind of conservative. His views on religion, therefore, cannot be used to represent those of neoconservatives. Irving Kristol is far more generous in describing religion’s positive influence on society. I can’t explain Hitchens’ placement on IC’s list of conservative writers, but I know Hitchens denies being any kind of conservative, and has simply referred to the neocons as his “temporary allies” whoms he differs with on Israel, the war on drugs, and issues not related to Iraq.

Mr. Phllips, the phrase “secure these rights” appears in the Declaration of Independence as the very purpose of government. If a conservative is someone who stands by and upholds the basic founding principles of this country, there is no way one can dismiss “securing rights” as a leftist French Revolution propoganda. And the belief in a divine mission for American foreign policy (which, by the way, I don’t support) finds its origins in the old “Manifest Destiny” creed of early America. Mr. Phillips is wrong to dismiss these things as inconsistent with conservatism.

“Right wing” is less confusing than conservative? A term that has been used since its inception to refer to constitutionalism and monarchism, libertarianism and fascism, Hamiltonianism and Jeffersonianism, isolationism and imperialism? I’m sorry, I’m pretty sure I didn’t flunk out of Political Science 101, and I am completely unaware that there is a distinction persistent throughout all times and places that defines the difference between right and left wing.

It is also not Political Science 101 that Russell Kirk is the “gold standard” for American conservatism. He may be your favorite philosopher, but that proves nothing. And I don’t understand at all when I read that Russell Kirk rejected “universals.” He most plainly did not. On morality, he writes, “First the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.” I, on the other hand, do not believe in universals. I’m probably a better paleocon than Russell Kirk.

And J.D., I am unfamiliar with the employment histories of the staff at the American Conservative, but I would be interested to know who specifically was fired from National Review for not towing the neoconservative line, and who, instead, resigned because National Review became to welcoming to neoconservatives. I will concede though that some neoconservatives are guilty of the same kind of excommunication tactics as some of the paleos on this site. I don’t think David Frum’s famous article attacking anti-war conservatives was anything other than shoddy. (I should say, for considerations of accuracy, that David Frum does not characterize himself as a neoconservative.)

I’d like to end by quoting Mr. Kirk’s view that “The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata.” I agree completely, and that is why most any sentence that begins, “No conservative can defend what this insane government is doing…” is bound to be wrong.

Thanks again for clearly stating some of the concepts of paleoconservatism. I was not confused at all over the use of the term “Conservative,” I was confused as to what constituted a basic understanding of paleo thought. In these few paragraphs you have done wonders, which is much more than what I have learned in weeks of back and forth with JD and mtuggle. I was beginning to think that paleos couldn’t explain their positions at all.

Ok, now that I have something substantial to deal with, my answer is this: In terms of basic conservative (or, if you will, right wing) philosophy, I cannot see any reason to appeal to a political source more ancient than the Founders. For morality, it must be the Bible. It is the combination of these two things in my view that allow us to arrive at a basic conservative position. As I have said before, all the rest is nit-picking.

It seems that paleos find themselves at odds with the Founders in more than one instance. This strikes me as strange, in that political conservatism in America must find its way according to our founding principles. That’s what conservatives are trying to “conserve,” and that’s what conservatism must be built upon.

What would be the point in conserving Aristotle? Though an influential thinker, he was not a founder. Or Russell Kirk? He was born in 1918. He obviously has something to contribute to conservative thought, but he is not part of the formative stage of American founding philosophy.

I wonder, does that makes me more accurately paleo than paleos, because I agree with Founders? The Founders believed that Divine intervention was instrumental in America’s beginnings. The Declaration asserts that “all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” These are foundational understandings. But paleos appear to reject these things, preferring to make conservatism into their own image according to their own heros. And based on JD and mtuggle’s posts, anyone who deviates is a reprobate.

So the argument boils down to, what is a “real” conservative? According to what criteria? By what yardstick? And is 100% compliance required?

It seems to me that it is relatively easy to reduce conservatism down to a few concepts. But it is the Left that requires lockstep orthodoxy. If I may borrow a value from leftists, true “diversity” is found on the Right, where we welcome a debate, where we discuss ideas, and we don’t demand perfect conservative doctrine. We even exchange ideas with leftists. If they are willing to be civil, we consider what they are saying and offer our respectful rebuttals. And we require that they prove their assertions.

That’s what has troubled me about some of the paleo debate. It took so long to get to the point of exchanging ideas. The debate up until recently was exactly like the way leftists debate. Leftists name-call, throw out slogans, and pretend to be intellectual by dropping philosphical bombs. Leftists are
too often intellectually vapid, but they sure love to sound smart.

I was beginning to wonder if paleos were any different. Dan, thanks for putting that worry to rest, at least in your case.

http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_10/article3.html

I realize posting links annoys some people, so in summary the article notes the oddity of identifying as conservative a man who spent the Cold War attacking the Reagan Administration for its opposition to teh Soviet Empire, who wrote frequent articles extolling the virtues of Leon Trotsky and of various Marxist regimes throughout the world.

Katzen, if I remember rightly you said on another thread that National Review would probably repudiate Hitchens… well, they do not, but we need not consult National Review.

Again, for emphasis, this very website, Intellectual Conservative, puts Hitchens at 3rd billing on a list of conservative writers. A Marxist atheist who cheered for the other side during the Cold War is now dubbed an ally for conservativism.

If it comes to ideological purity, I would point out that although there were conservatives opposed to IRaq from the get-go, none of them are featured on this site.

That is, the Republican establishment is the real cult, here. How you stand on issues like limited vs. unlimited government, the role of faith in society, the bloated power of the judiciary, abortion, the gay agenda, etc. etc. is irrelevant. If you support America assuming the role of global policeman, then you are in the club– if not, then you’re out.

Upon reflection, Katzen makes a good point about conservativism expressing itself differently in different places and times; but what this amounts to is that neoconservativism is conservative in the exact same sense that a Soviet politician who wanted to maintain and conserve the expansion of the Soviet empire is conservative.

The problem is that neocons actually HAVE purged people. Most of the writers from the magazine Ameican Conservative were formerly of National Review– until they were booted out, one by one, as the neocons moved in.

” So, Mountain Man, let’s make a note: whenever we read a paleocon pontificating absurdly about similarities between neocons and Trotskyites, let us not hesitate to point out the “well-established” paleocon-Stalinist connection.”

The difference is that there is a literal, real connection between neocons and Trotsykyites. That is, many of the “founders” of the neoconservative movement were in fact Trotsykyites.

“If I favor Plato and someone else favors Aristotle, that doesn’t automatically mean that one of us is not a conservative.”

True, but that’s not an accurate analogy. We’re not talking about nuances, we’re talking about something meaning the opposite of what it used to mean– from representing small-government conservativism to “Big Government Conservativism”. For example, if you’re a small-government conservative why should you have any more enthusiasm for a “Big Government Conservative” when you believe ultimately that his road will lead to the exact same place as Bill Clinton’s?

That is, we’re not talking about someone being a fan of Plato vs. someone else being a fan of Aristotle, we’re talking about someone being a fan of Aristotle vs. someone being a fan of Leon Trotsky.

Christopher Hitchens– who, by the way, is one of the authors listed as conservative by this very website, Intellectual Conservative– is an unrepentant fan of Leon Trotsky who speaks contemptuously of anyone foolish enough to espouse a belief in God.

Is Trotsky– a totalitarian Marxist butcher who only failed to impose his own regime because Stalin beat him out of it– an acceptable conservative icon?

“JD, this isn’t hard to figure out, unless you want 100% conformity in ideology before you pronounce someone conservative.”

Mountain Man, my point is not about my wanting conformity, it’s about Bob Ehrlich using his power to enforce conformity.

That a Republican governor fired a man for his Christian beliefs should, IMO, bother you and cause you some degree of concern re/ the state of the Republican Party. It is not simply that Ehrlich “is not conservative regarding homosexuality”, it is that he went out of his way to be an agent of politically-correct censorship of Christianity. That is, a tool for a kinder, gentler police state.

If you were a believing Christian under Ehrlich’s rule, then the lesson is to keep your mouth shut if you want to keep your job. Serious Christians need not apply for jobs in the public square. Ehrlich made a public example of hostility toward Christian belief as any made by any left-wing gay-rights kook. A much more powerful example, in fact– you can usually ignore the kook because he doesn’t have as much power as a state governor.

The case that I and Mr. Tuggle would make is that Ehrlich is #2, and that he and Mitt Romney represent the norm rather than the exception for the Republican Party leadership.

You’d probably disagree with that second assertion, and I’m admitting here that it’s not instantly obvious. I’m only clarifying it in the hopes of establishing where we’re coming from. It’s not a matter of ideological “purging”, but the conviction that the foxes have taken over the henhouse.

Maybe that conviction is rubbish, maybe it ain’t, but that’s our point, rather than some intolerant paleo desire to set up a rigid system that demands 100% devotion on all counts.

For example, paleos tend to get along with certain types of libertarians quite well, in fact– and I think those interactions really have more to do with personality, character, and faith rather than some calculated truce among political tenets.

And personally I have considerable admiration for the novelist (and Republican) Tom Clancy, ever since hearing of his opposition to the Iraq invasion and his dislike for Richard Perle. Whatever we may think of Clancy’s work or competence to talk about foreign policy, I assume everybody here realizes he’s far, far from being some “paleo cultist” looney.

I do not carelessly throw around words. Trotsky is acknowledged as the intellectual founder of Neoconservatism.
Irving Kristol, the “godfather of Neoconservatism,” once stated, “I regard myself to have been a young Trostkyite and I have not a single bitter memory.”

Here’s what Neocon Seymour Martin Lipset wrote about his ideology’s roots:

“From the anti-Stalinists who became conservatives – including James Burnham, Whittaker Chambers, and Irving Kristol – the Right gained a political education and, in some cases, an injection of passion. The ex-radicals brought with them the knowledge that ideological movements must have journals and magazines to articulate their perspectives. In 1955, for example, William F. Buckley, Jr., launched National Review at the urging of Willi Schlamm, a former German Communist. In its early years, National Review was largely written and edited by the Buckley family and a handful of former Communists, Trotskyists, and socialists, such as Burnham and Chambers.”

Why is it important to recognize the Neocons’ intellectual ties to Trotsky? Trotsky argued that there could not be “socialism in one country” but rather that the revolution had to be truly international. Similarly, Neocons advocate a “global democratic revolution” to ensure “democracy” here at home, but in reality it’s just a cover for intervention abroad and perpetual war — just as Trotsky called for “permanent revolution.”

Anyone who cares about liberty cannot support the endless war the Neocons envision. As James Madison recognized, “Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.”

Katzen asked, “what traditional rights have the neocons collectively declared war upon?” Bush & Co. have used the unprovoked war in Iraq to justify “sneak and peek” warrantless searches in direct violation of the 4th amendment. They have claimed the right to declare anyone an “unlawful combatant” outside of the protections of habeas corpus. No conservative can defend what this insane government is doing to Jose Padilla, an American citizen.

Solzhenitsyn, when he invoked the Soviet Union’s guarantee of free speech, was informed that his disloyal actions –criticizing Stalin– had made him a “non-citizen” who could not claim the rights of a Soviet citizen. This country is headed down the same path – largely because conservatives are being hoodwinked into accepting the Neocons’ actions as conservative. It’s time to wake up and realize what’s really going on.

“The governor is likely pretty conservative in some ways…” Very well put. I would add also that most everyone is conservative in some ways. Many Democrats, for instance, are “conservative” about Social Security in the sense that they want to preserve it in its original form. They are conservatives within the New Deal political order. Republicans, who tend to be more libertarian on this issue, are conservatives within a different political order. In other words, some Democrats and Republicans can approach the issue from equally conservative standpoints, and nonetheless arrive at different conclusions.

That said, there is such a thing as not thinking conservatively. Murray Rothbard argued from one un-conservative standpoint, and Bernie Sanders argues from another. To the extent that either of these august persons favor conserving something, it is incidental and not an integral part of their thinking about the issue. The distinction, to be sure, is subtle, and that is why many people have been able to argue somewhat persuasively that “conservative” is a lazy description when it comes to political philosophy. I don’t go this far, but I think to be truly descriptive the term needs some supplemental adjectives (such as “fiscal” or “historical” or “religious”).

I would also like to note, for the benefit of our antagonists, that there are important and recognized distinctions between Plato and Aristotle and Machiavelli and Hume and Burke, yet all of them have high esteem among various conservatives. If I favor Plato and someone else favors Aristotle, that doesn’t automatically mean that one of us is not a conservative.

Neoconservatives want to “conserve” this country’s ability to exercise a determining influence in international politics. Paleoconservatives want to return this country to the modest role it had in 1797. If I were as rigid as mtuggle, I would expel paleocons from the conservative movement for wanting to overthrow, in a Jacobin manner, American hegemony.

I don’t think anyone should have to listen to tedious lectures about how “conservatives” want to “conserve” from a conservative whose website is filled with celebration of a rebellion against those who sought to conserve the Union.

I don’t think you are a Bolshevik, mtuggle. As least, no more than I think Irving Kristol is a Bolshevik. I was merely pointing out that ideological rigidity is a characteristic you and Stalin share, and that you might want to consider this before you throw around the word “Trotskyite.”

The fact remains that no ideology that talks about “benevolent global hegemony,” “American empire,” and “creative destruction” really intends to conserve anything — so there goes the argument that it all depends on context. Instead of buying the marketing ploy these big-government ideologues use to deceive you, actually read the analyis I linked to earlier, and you’ll see what an alien philosophy these people are peddling. They are free to promote authoritarian government all they want, but they do not have the right to call themselves “conservative.” Conservatives do not call for open borders, the nullification of the Bill of Rights, or global democratic revolution.

When it comes to preserving our Constitutional rights, there is “no room for compromise.” The Neocons have declared war on our tradtional rights, and have suckered too many into accepting these betrayals as conservative. That’s why it’s vital to expose them for what they are.

1) he’s not a conservative,
2) he’s an appeaser who values his position and image more than his convictions,
3) he’s not conservative regarding homosexuality, but conservative otherwise, or
4) there’s something about the incident we don’t know about.

JD, this isn’t hard to figure out, unless you want 100% conformity in ideology before you pronounce someone conservative. This governor is likely pretty conservative in some ways, and not in others. Of course, if he is #2, his conservatism is of little value if it does not manifest in his principles.

Depends, I guess, on how much you want to nit-pick.

No. Words do have an enduring meaning. Various political opinions, however, may or may not be “conservative” depending on the historical context in which those positions are considered. A sentence ratified into law in 1789, however, has the exact same meaning now as it did then.

Conservative philosophy is enduring. The political positions a conservative would take, however, are not. A conservative in the United States is–in actual political practice–a very different thing than a conservative in Saudi Arabia, or a conservative in China.

Again, mtuggle’s idea of what a conservative must be necessarily excludes not only most of the Republican Party, but also many, many historical figures who, in their time, were widely thought of as “conservatives.” His is a very un-conservative conception of “conservative.”

So, again, I reject that the word “conservative” has been “re-defined to mean something entirely alien to its former usage.” Both paleoconservatives and neoconservatives, as well as other conservatives, are conservative thinkers in their own right. At no point in political history did the term “conservatism” refer to an inflexible doctrine with no room for compromise, wiggle-room, and reasonable disagreement.

I think our trouble here is a misunderstanding with respect to the nature of definitions. The political positions of a conservative are, in a sense, the components of that conservative, but a definition does not consist of a list of components. The definition of “alphabet” is not “A, B, C, D, etc.” Similarly, the definiton of “conservative” is not “opposes free trade, multiculturalism, inteventionism, empire, etc.”

No, I don’t think the analogy is perfect. Its greatest imperfection is that there is not one single list of components for conservatives at this time, whereas there is one single list of components for the alphabet at this time. “Conservative,” in my view, refers more to thinking’s process than outcome. If one thinks “conservatively,” one can make cases for or against most issues.

While I said earlier that I think paleoconservatism is conservative in its own right, I don’t get the impression that mtuggle writes like a conservative. If anything, he writes, ironically enough, like a Stalinst purging his Trotskyite rivals from the party. So, Mountain Man, let’s make a note: whenever we read a paleocon pontificating absurdly about similarities between neocons and Trotskyites, let us not hesitate to point out the “well-established” paleocon-Stalinist connection.