The National Review Institute's Conservative Summit offered a wealth of practical and philosophical insights from leading politicians, scholars, and policy analysts, from across the conservative political spectrum. A report from Steven Warshawsky.
This past weekend, my wife and I attended the National Review Institute's Conservative Summit at the J.W. Marriott in Washington, D.C. This was a fantastic event. Unfortunately, it is not annual. I believe the last Summit was held in 1996. Would that one were held every year.
The Summit offered a wealth of practical and philosophical insights from leading politicians, scholars, and policy analysts, from across the conservative political spectrum (although the "paleo" perspective was under-represented, not surprisingly). The Summit was organized around a stimulating mix of speeches, panel discussions, and debates. The quality of the speakers was consistently high; the choice of topics could not have been more timely; and the conference was run in a crisp and professional manner. (See here for the final agenda.)
Here are the highlights of the conference (there were many!), along with some of my own reactions and observations:
The Summit kicked off on Friday night with a reception honoring former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, who made a few, mostly humorous, remarks. Ambassador Bolton was wildly popular among the Summit attendees. Bolton's popularity obviously stems from his reputation as a no-nonsense, America-first kind of guy, who puts little stock in the ability of transnational organizations, in particular the U.N. and the E.U., to address the world's most serious problems, let alone protect the interests of the United States. Even if the nation's elites disapprove of such "unilateralist" attitudes, more and more Americans are coming to the same conclusion. Public opinion polls show that attitudes towards the United Nations have soured since the 1990s.
The reception was followed by a "night owl" panel session featuring Kate O'Beirne, Mona Charen, Laura Ingraham, Kathryn Jean Lopez (the editor of National Review Online, who moderated the session), and Michelle Malkin. It was an interesting and free-wheeling session, but I think Ingraham and Charen made the most astute points. Ingraham emphasized that, to be successful, the Republican Party "must connect with the average American worker." I think her conception of politics as, in essence, a battle for the hearts and minds of the American worker is far superior to the usual Republican emphasis on the American consumer, which focuses more on what people are able to do with their money than on how they earn their money. While each person in this country wears the hats of both worker and consumer, the two concepts are not identical. Most Americans think of themselves, indeed define themselves, in terms of where they work and how they earn a living, not where they shop and what they buy. Similarly, most Americans are more concerned about higher wages than lower prices, about greater job security than greater consumption. This is why reports of massive layoffs from brand name companies create so much public anxiety. The upshot is that extolling the consumer cornucopia that exists in this country is less compelling politically than promoting policies that redound to the benefit of the average worker. I think there is deep significance, psychological and political, to the paradigm shift urged by Ingraham, which Republicans and conservatives would be wise to contemplate. On a related note, Mona Charen argued that the traditional Republican emphasis on tax cuts is losing its broad-based appeal, paradoxically, because most Americans no longer pay much, if any, federal income taxes. Consequently, while further tax cuts may have a positive macroeconomic impact, they increasingly will be seen as benefiting the well-off and the rich (i.e., those who still pay income taxes). Republicans can rail all they want against the politics of "class warfare," but Charen is right that Republicans are making a mistake if they believe that tax cuts are as politically salient today as they were in 1980.
Saturday began with what I consider the highlight of the entire conference: Newt Gingrich. I have never been a particularly strong admirer of Gingrich, but I am now. His speech was smart, articulate, passionate, and compelling. Almost every line, every paragraph was worth quoting (I didn't take very good notes of Gingrich's speech, however, because I wanted to listen to what he had to say). Like most of the speakers at the Summit, Gingrich does not believe that "conservatism" lost in last year's elections. Rather, he believes the Republican Party lost its way. As he put it, "Republicanism did not make conservatism a majority; conservatism made Republicanism a majority." When the Republican Party moved away from its conservative foundations, it floundered politically. The task is rebuilding the conservative consensus, which Gingrich sees as requiring "a genuine wave of reform [that] has to be across the nation" — meaning at all levels of government (as Gingrich noted, there are 500,000+ elected officials in this country) — not just "in 2 or 3 presidential campaigns." Gingrich also was quite contemptuous of what he called the "political consultant culture" of the Republican Party, which he sees as not only antithetical to conservatism, but politically ineffectual. Although Gingrich stuck to his guns about not announcing his presidential intentions until the fall, his speech clearly was a "campaign speech" — and it was a darn good one. Among the issues Gingrich touched upon was immigration, which I consider the most important domestic issue. Although he did not address the issue in any detail, it sounds like Gingrich will be taking an "enforcement-first" stance, which could boost his candidacy enormously.
The first panel session of the Summit, appropriately, was on the topic, "Is Small Government a Big Joke?" The speakers were Professor Marvin Olasky, the intellectual father of compassionate conservatism; former Congressman Pat Toomey, who now heads the Club for Growth; and Congressman Paul Ryan. Toomey and Ryan were strong advocates for limiting the size of the federal government. As Toomey put it, echoing Ronald Reagan, "almost all bad things in the United States come from big government." It's too bad that Toomey lost his bid to unseat Senator Arlen Specter in 2004, not just because Specter is a RINO, but because Toomey clearly has what it takes to be a strong national leader. However, I confess I am not as confident as Toomey and Ryan in the political effectiveness of the "limited government" message. While public opinion polls show that most Americans like the idea of limited government, they like even better all of the goods and services that government provides. On this point, I think Professor Olasky has important insights to offer Republicans, insights which have been lost in the disdain so many of us feel for the "compassionate conservatism" embodied by President Bush's domestic agenda. Significantly, Olasky counsels that Republicans approach the implementation of their limited government agenda in a pragmatic, incremental manner — the same way pro-life forces have been trying to chip away at the abortion culture in this country, rather than just focusing on overturning Roe v. Wade. Olasky emphasizes a "bottom-up" approach to social policy, intended to increase the scope of local and individual control. Contrary to a common misconception (which I shared), he does not endorse enlarging the welfare-regulatory state as a political strategy for enhancing the Republican Party's political fortunes. If Olasky had named his strategy "pragmatic conservatism," I think it would be better received by the Republican rank-and-file.
The next session was on the role of religious conservatives in the Republican Party, and featured a debate between Ralph Reed and Ryan Sager (the author of The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party). The debate mostly was over gay marriage. Sager argued that Republicans "do not want to be on the losing side of the most important civil rights issue of our time, like they were in the 1960s on race." A ridiculous statement, for so many reasons. Reed very persuasively defended the position that "marriage" is an institution between a man and a woman. I have never heard Reed speak in person. I was very impressed by his eloquence, demeanor, and breadth of knowledge. He completely out-classed Sager.
The next panel was on foreign policy. The speakers were John O'Sullivan, Cliff May, and David Rivkin. It was an excellent panel, but O'Sullivan stood out. O'Sullivan argued that the United States is facing three major international challenges: (1) Islamic terrorism, (2) a power grab by transnational organizations (to which O'Sullivan gave the delightful appellation "transies"), and (3) the rise of China and India, and the decline of Russia, as world powers. On the war against terrorism, O'Sullivan was both optimistic and pessimistic. He believes that the United States and its allies can prevail against the forces of Muslim extremism, but that it will take time. In particular, he thinks that Iraq could be stabilized, if we were prepared to stay there for 10+ years. But we aren't. Which brings up O'Sullivan's grim observation that "there is a will to lose in the United States today." More generally, America suffers from "cultural masochism," which O'Sullivan warned hampers our ability to deal with all three international challenges. O'Sullivan also took issue with the econophiles and free traders (many of whom are on the Republican side of the aisle), by emphasizing that American power and influence in the world ultimately depends on our willingness to fight, not just on our economic strength. Hear, hear!
The lunch speaker on Saturday was Jeb Bush. Jeb's presentation was polished and articulate, yet also natural and authentic. He spoke about limited government, about the need to "cut taxes whenever you can," and about giving the President a line-item veto like he had as governor. I know that Jeb is widely popular among Republicans, but like President Bush he is firmly pro-immigration, and believes that all the talk about securing the border and stopping illegal immigration is "sending the wrong message" to Hispanics in this country. Indeed, he became noticeably testy when asked about immigration during the question and answer session. During the Q&A, I asked him how he would define American citizenship, and all he could say was obeying the law, knowing a little history (which he did not specify), and working hard to make a better life for yourself and your family. Hardly Teddy Roosevelt. I, for one, do not lament that Jeb is not running for President.
After lunch, there was an unmemorable session with Republican Congressmen John Boehner and Eric Cantor. Boehner was surprisingly casual, glib, and unimpressive. In my opinion, he is a walking argument for term limits, which, not surprisingly, he said he opposes (despite signing the Contract With America in 1994).
This was followed by a panel session on social issues. Princeton Professor Robert P. George gave a lengthy speech that focused on the importance of healthy, traditional families to limited government and ordered liberty. It was an intellectual tour de force, but rather dry and unengaging. He was followed by Maggie Gallagher, who spoke about the political consequences of accepting gay marriage. In particular, she pointed out that if gay marriage becomes recognized by the law, then any opposition to gay marriage will become against the law. For example, institutions like the Roman Catholic Church will be forced out of the adoption business because they are unwilling to place children into same-sex homes, as already has happened in Massachusetts and Great Britain. More broadly, Gallagher noted that if society accepts the analogy between homosexuality and race (as drawn, e.g., by Sager), then we should expect the same panoply of laws concerning race to be enacted concerning homosexuality. It is a very good point, which "libertarian" and "conservative" supporters of gay marriage should bear in mind.
The next panel was on the Iraq War, and featured a heated debate between Lawrence Korb and Bill Kristol. The Iraq War arguments have been hashed to death, so I won't recount them here. But it was quite telling that Kristol, despite his strong support for the President's policy, could only say that the proposed "surge" has "a decent chance for success," that we have to "take a shot at victory," and that we need to give General Petraeus "a chance to win." In my view, such qualified language reveals either a lack of clarity about what "victory" and "success" means in this context (and Kristol never proposed any operational definitions of these terms), or an implicit recognition that the methods we are employing to achieve this goal (in terms of manpower, materiel, and tactics) are not sufficient. My own view is that our engagement in Iraq suffers from both of these weaknesses.
The last panel on Saturday was titled "Trumping the Race Card." The speakers were Ward Connerly, former Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele, and Manhattan Institute scholar Abigail Thernstrom. This was an excellent panel. Thernstrom sharply criticized the "racial agitators and their allies, especially the Congressional Black Caucus." And she blamed "terrified Republicans" for re-enacting the "emergency provisions" of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which are responsible for the radicalized, racially-gerrymandered districts from which most of the Congressional Black Caucus hails. Steele spoke movingly about "being a student of Ronald Reagan and an adherent to the party of Lincoln." He argued that Republicans need to go into the black community and talk about empowerment, opportunity, and ownership. While Steele was able to attract over 30 percent of the black vote in his bid for Senate in 2006, query whether a white candidate could enjoy similar success with the same message. Connerly then spoke about his efforts to eliminate affirmative action, which he said "is the umbilical cord that connects black people to the view that they need government to take care of them." Connerly argued that the diversity rationale, which is the principal basis for affirmative action today, "is totally antithetical to everything contained in the Declaration of Independence." He said that he and his colleagues are planning a "Super Tuesday for Equality" in 2008, when they will propose their anti-affirmative action initiatives in five states simultaneously. He is confident they will win all five. Connerly is truly a great American, and one of the most important political figures of our time.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was the "keynote" speaker at dinner on Saturday. He was introduced by Mark Steyn, who had the entire audience (approximately 800 attendees) laughing hysterically. This was one of the best moments of the Summit. Steyn is wonderfully charming, witty, and engaging in person. One of the gems of the conservative world. How was Romney? I thought he was just OK. In my opinion, he made too much of his background in private industry, which emphasized his business acumen but also highlighted his privileged background. He offered a reasonably persuasive account of his "flip-flop" from a pro-choice to a pro-life position, which he claimed was triggered by the embryonic stem cell issue which caused him to appreciate that human life begins at conception (duh!). He made a very good point that there should be tax advantages for all forms of savings, not just IRAs and 401ks and the like. He made a reasonable point, in defense of his "universal coverage" health care plan in Massachusetts, that every citizen has a "responsibility" to obtain medical insurance. However, I don't think he sufficiently addressed the political and economic problems that surround trying to define, let alone mandate, what such a responsibility entails in practice. Ultimately, I suspect Romney, if elected President, would acquiesce in the further federalization and bureaucratization of the nation's health care industry, which I strongly oppose. He also said very little in his speech about immigration, which suggests to me that he supports the amnesty/guest worker plan proposed by President Bush. This is another position I strongly oppose. Romney deserves credit for acknowledging that our conflict with militant Islam represents "a large-scale, ideological struggle." But in talking about what he would do about this problem (the specifics of which were unmemorable), he did not strike me as a convincing "war time leader." Overall, my impression of Romney is that he is a solid politician, but I have serious reservations about his policies.
Saturday's dinner was followed by another "night owl" session with Mark Steyn, Rob Long (a Hollywood writer and humorist for National Review), and Jonah Goldberg. Listening to Steyn riff on various topics high and low was worth the price of admission. Long also had some clever and funny things to say. I don't understand the appeal of Jonah Goldberg.
Sunday began with a heated debate on immigration policy between Tamar Jacoby, who supports the President's amnesty/guest worker plan, and Mark Krikorian, who falls into the "restrictionist" camp. Frankly, this debate was a little disappointing. Not because of Jacoby, who came across as a wealthy, pampered New Yorker who likes having her nails done by Koreans and her lawn mowed by Mexicans. I expected her to say stupid things, and she didn't disappoint (e.g., "Hispanics are natural Republican voters;" "immigration is keeping the Social Security fund afloat;" we need immigrants because Americans are no longer "dropping out of high school to take manual labor jobs;" and so on). But Krikorian, who supports an "attrition through enforcement" strategy and whose columns on immigration are indispensable, did not have as good a command of the numbers and arguments as I expected. As a fellow restrictionist, I was hoping he would offer a more compelling defense of our side of the debate.
We then heard from former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who that day announced the formation of a presidential exploratory committee. Why? Good question. Huckabee needs to hire better advisors, because when he began his speech with that very question, his answer was, "I am still trying to figure that out myself right now." This was meant to be humorous, but it revealed the irrelevance of his candidacy. Although Huckabee received a loud round of applause when he endorsed a flat tax, the rest of his speech was crisis-this and crisis-that, which sounded like he was running for the Democratic nomination. Huckabee seems like a very nice and capable man, but at the Summit he looked foolish and out of his depth.
The next session was a debate between former CIA Director James Woolsey and the Cato Institute's Jerry Taylor over what the federal government should be doing to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil. This was another nasty debate. Woolsey and Taylor had palpable disdain for each other's position (Taylor endorsing a free market approach; Woolsey supporting an interventionist approach). In my opinion, Taylor has the stronger position and was the stronger debater.
The last session of the conference was on domestic policy, with Ramesh Ponnuru, Charles Kesler (of the Claremont Institute), and Charles Murray. It was one of the best. Ponnuru offered a comprehensive set of policy prescriptions, but two points stood out. First, he argued that conservatives should not minimize the anxiety that most Americans feel over the health care system. I think he is correct to identify health care as a major focal point of domestic politics (along with immigration). He also argued that Republicans need to re-think how to apply conservative principles to domestic policy issues in ways that attract independent voters, which is where the political battle is being fought. Another good point, but one that raises the question of how to balance the need to "bring out the base" with the need to appeal to independents. Kesler argued that "entitlements are at the center of our politics like never before" and that this presents a fundamental challenge to the entire conservative project. From a philosophical perspective, he is right. Unfortunately, he did not have much to say in the form of practical political suggestions for reversing this trend. Indeed, Kesler sharply criticized "compassionate conservatism," which, while hardly perfect (and subject to misinterpretation), at least offers a strategy for moving away from the welfare-regulatory state. I suspect that purists like Kesler would rather throw their hands up and say "I told you so," than endorse half-measures that offer the prospect of, at best, incremental improvement. But, in my opinion, Republicans and conservatives are fooling themselves if they think any other kind of improvement is possible on the domestic front. Charles Murray was the last speaker. He gave a stirring presentation that urged Republicans to return to the policies and perspectives that led to such great successes in 1980 and 1994. A staunch libertarian, Murray argued that "the province of government is inherently limited," that "government cannot administer complex human needs," and that "wide swaths of government at all levels could be done away with and it wouldn't make one bit of difference in our lives." I think he is right. Unfortunately, I do not think he is right that the "well spring" of support in this country for such a starkly anti-government perspective is "still as wide and deep as in 1980 and 1994." The country has changed in the last 25 years, demographically, ideologically, economically, and socially, and in ways that lead to greater dependence on and support for big government. That's why government keeps growing. Unless we implement policies, both in the public and private realms, that counteract and reverse these changes, the limited government vision at the heart of American conservatism will continue to grow dimmer and dimmer.
The Summit concluded with a luncheon address by White House Press Secretary Tony Snow. Snow was introduced by Larry Kudlow, who offered his typical, and typically wonderful, paean to capitalism and the American economy ("the greatest story never told"). Kudlow is an excellent public speaker, with an unparalleled ability to describe the philosophical and practical virtues of the free market. His speech was a real treat. I cannot say the same about Tony Snow. Putting aside the fact that he speaks for the Bush Administration and has to defend many policies I do not agree with, I found him to be glib and uncompelling. But in all fairness, he received several rounds of enthusiastic applause, and other attendees told me they really enjoyed his speech. Probably if I were more sympathetic to the substantive points he was making, I would have found Snow's presentation more persuasive.
The overall message I came away with from the Summit was, have faith in the correctness of the conservative philosophy, but think creatively and pragmatically about how to implement that vision in 21st Century America. Sounds like Newt, right? I am going to be giving him a much closer look now than I would have before.
This article first appeared on American Thinker.
If you have not heard, the National Review is no longer very conservative. In fact, it hasn’t been since the 1970s.
William F. Buckley has been quite successful at purging conservatives at NR (Russell Kirk, Sam Francis, Joe Sobran, Ann Coulter, John O’Sullivan, Peter Brimelow, et al.) and replacing them with semi-literate neocons like Goldberg.
Let’s look at the main speakers
John Bolton: neocon (signatory of Project for New American Century), and supporter of the third world invasion of the USA
Newt Gingrich: complete neocon, war monger, and for most of his career has supported the third-world invasion of the USA
Jeb Bush: left-wing neocon, supporter of third-world invasion of the USA, who probably does not have a conservative bone in his entire body
Bill Kristol: left-wing neocon (signatory of PNAC), supporter of the third-world invasion of the USA
Mitt Romney: liberal, although he now pretends to be a conservative. Only recently he was pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and pro-third-world invasion, but now says he is not
Jonah Goldberg: liberal neocon, seems to hate conservatives with a passion (e.g. listen to his semiliterate diatribes against De Maistre), and not too bright.
Mike Huckabee: globalist, and supporter of the third-world invasion of the USA
Ramesh Ponnuru: neocon “moralist” with a strong distrust of anything actually Western
.
Well, Peter, I think what’s great about the National Review Summit is that it is open to a wide variety of perspectives on the conservative ideal, unlike those fanatical, narrow-minded paleos who claim to be the only valid interpreters of the meaning of the word “conservativism”.
After all, the National Review Summit was open enough to debate to include many paleo speakers, such as… er… ah……….
…. Oh, wait.
“….former Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele…”
I wonder if Steele had anything to say about how Maryland’s former conservative Republican Governor fired a Christian for daring to offend the gay lobby?
Yes, a Catholic employee of the state of Maryland politely explained during a debate on “gay marriage” that his religious beliefs teach that homosexuality is unnatural.
The gay lobby howled, and conservative Republican Governor Bob Ehrlich fired this Catholic and issued a statement to condemn such wrong-thinking intolerance.
Now THERE was an administration that stood up for conservative values.
Gee, it’s too bad they got thrown out of the statehouse. That really breaks my heart.
Peter treats us to yet another inane and useless paleo attack on conservatives with whom he disagrees by labeling them rather than saying anything intelligent or meaningful. But hey this tactic may be fun, Let me try: (for this exercise ‘paleo-cons’ refers to the self-described paleos who have been attacking fellow conservatives on this web-site of late, not true paleo’s of good-faith)
Paleo-cons: fatuous, ignorant, creepy (neo-Kaczynski) dinosaurs; supporters of third-world tyrants and enemies of the United States and (by implication) enemies themselves of the same; latter-day Chamberlain type’s whose primary means of defending the Western ideal is by criticizing any attempt to promote it while appeasing or defending those nation’s most hostile to its survival; hypocritical moralizers whose world-view is inherently immoral. Rigid ideologues who claim to be conservative and often quote Kirk while ignoring Kirk’s own thought’s on conservatism:
The Coservative Mind, page 7: “Conservatism is not a fixed and immutable body of dogmata; conservatives inherit from Burke a talent for re-expressing their convictions to fit the time.”
T.C.M., page 8: “Any informed conservative is reluctant to condense profound and intricate intellectual systems to a few pretentious phrases; he prefers to leave that technique to the enthusiasm of radicals.”
From the essay “Ten Conservative Principles:” “The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata…The body of conservative opinion can accomodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects.”
I don’t think Peter has actually read anything by any of the people he attacks. I think he read a couple articles about conservatism on VDARE (by disgruntled rejects like Paul Gottfried) and lewrockwell.com and took very good notes.
Jeff,
You are wrong. I’ve read much of the left-wing / neocon literature, such a Strauss, especially his attacks upon tradition and upon the Burkean “ancestral.”
Regarding Kirk, you obviously did not read any of Kirk’s writings from the early 1990s. You should get some back issues of Chronicles from the early 90s and read his essays, especially where he:
(1) condemned the first Iraq War as the “carpet bombing of the cradle of civilization”
(2) condemned neocons as liberals in disguise and those who have “mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States”
and
(3) states that paleoconservatives are the only true conservatives left in the USA
Katzen,
Haec legi, sed turpia legere non malo. Tamquam bonus nobilis, litteras antiquas
legere malo. Neocons, sunt barbari, et optimates malo.
Katzen,
Here are some great articles showing how neocons hold the same philosophical views of the Left:
The Real Cabal
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/September2003/0903Francis.html
For “Jacobin” read “neocon.”
Where in the World are we Going
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/ryn2.html
Jacobin In Chief
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_04_11/article2.html
Peter,
I do not deny that Kirk was a reflexive pacifist. He not only opposed Desert Storm but also the US Civil War (not because he supported “that peculiar institution” but because he felt slavery could be ended peacefully over time) and WWII as well. That he failed to acknowledge the existential threat posed by the Axis powers to our way of life leads me to conclude he would likewise oppose our current war on terror as well. I have always been (and remain) a fan and admirer of Dr. Kirk’s, however with this aspect of his philosophy I reserve the right to respectfully disagree; a right he would most certainly have respected, not mocked.
The fact that in his twilight years he engaged in the very “pretentious phrases” and ideological bombast he had always opposed does not negate the manifest contributions he has made to the modern conservative movement.
You still have not made a single argument in support of your obvious preference for the U.S. to slowly commit suicide by passively ignoring threats to our very existence. You prefer to call it “war-mongering.”
You (and the rest of IC’s paleo-cabal) like to consider yourselves “real” conservatives and I’d have to agree: after all your slogans, labels, and arguments parrot those of other notable conservatives; to wit: Ramsey Clark, Lynn Stewert, Noam Chomsky, Ward Connerly, John Kerry, George Soros, and the NY Times editorial board – just to name a few.
Er, I meant Ward Churchill, not Connerly. My bad.
Jeff,
Most on the Left, although they may now oppose the war in Iraq, are not non-interventionists. Almost all on the Left supported the war in Kosovo, and many now want to go into Darfur. Most of the greatest pro-war monsters of the last 150 years (Lincoln, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) have all been Leftists.
Only paleos are authentic non-interventionists.
Furthermore, I didn’t know that Kerry and Chomsky
- opposed the third-world invasion of the USA
- want to return almost all federal authority to the states
- oppose affirmative action
- oppose secularism and think that the “establishment clause” only means that there can be no official religion at the national level
- reject the “universalism” and “rights” of the Enlightenment
- reject the proposition nation, and support a conservative concept of a nation (blood and soil, kith and kin, genophilia)
etc.
BTW,
Paleos are not “pacifists.” Like the Spartans, they believe in creating militias to defend themselves if attacked. But most paleos recognize the importance of classical just-war theory, in that there must be (1) an attack or (2) or immanent threat of attack to justify war.
And, liberal nation building, interventionism, and the Jacobin transformation of the Middle East to democracy do not fall under these rubrics.
American Paleo’s and Libs are pacifists who reject the right of the U.S to make war on her enemies.
American Libs are interventionists only where no US interests hang in the balance (Bosnia, Kosovo, etc.) They are Cosmopolitans and levellers. Paleo’s (of the IC stripe) are rigid ideologues of the other extreme (many oppose the very concept of the nation-state, let alone one world government), but whose anti-war views and rhetoric match exactly those of the extreme left. Traditional conservatives, on the other hand recognize the need, in certain times and under certain conditions for use of US power to protect US interests. We are not engaged in some Napoleanic exercise in exporting the revolution, we are defending our very right to exist.
The paleo-creeps continue to misrepresent the facts to fit in their neat little ideological boxes. Allow me to dispel a few paleo myths:
Myth: The war in Iraq is a neo-con adventure in exporting democracy at the point of a gun.
Fact: The Iraq war is part of the global war on the Islamic barbarians who would destroy our way of life. Democracy building is entirely incidental – a necessary if unpleasant responsibility of the victors. And paleo’s can be charitably described as useful idiots who strengthen the hand of our enemies. I prefer the uncharitable term traitors.
Myth: All supporters of the war are neo-cons who beleive in some mystical utopian one-world order or the Marxist inspired belief in the historical inevitibility of the global triumph of democracy.
Fact: Most of the wars supporters are traditional patriotic conservatives such as Newt Gingrich, Victor Davis Hanson, Tom Tancredo, etc. (the list, unlike the list of paleo opponents of the war, is nearly endless.) Our support is based on the recognition of both the threat posed by the enemies of the West and the cost of rolling that threat back. We, unlike you have our heads out of the sand and see the world for what it is: a dangerous place wherein freedom must occassionaly be defended.
Jeff you are also wrong on another point. Paleos are not “pacifists.” Like the Spartans, they believe in creating militias to defend themselves if attacked. But most paleos recognize the importance of classical just-war theory, in that there must be (1) an attack or (2) or immanent threat of attack to justify war.
And, liberal nation building, interventionism, and the Jacobin transformation of the Middle East to democracy do not fall under these rubrics.
Paleos are not anti-war, but they also think that nations should mind their own business, as did Washington, Adams, and Jefferson.
Paleos recognize the need, in certain times and under certain conditions for use of US power to protect US interests
Jeff,
I have never met a paleo “pacifist” in my entire life. In fact, pacifism is the antithesis of paleoconservatism. Paleos are non-interventionists, not pacifists.
You perhaps should read some of the issues of Chronicles how to end terrorism in the west, where we should (1) withdraw from the Middle East but (2) deport (using military force) every Muslim from the West.
Jeff,
Furthermore, regarding military force, paleos support citizen militias and citizens owning many guys. Paleos are not at all afraid of battle, so long as it is the right battle. Many of the paleos I know support using heavily-armed citizens militias to deport all illegals from the West.
OK, I get it. Some of you can speak foreign languages.
Doesn’t citing three paleoconservative articles on neoconservatism, rather than the specific works of any neoconservatives, demonstrate my point?
Dan, I do not support purging people. Professor Gottfried was passed over for a job, and has ever since been condescending not only to the people who rejected him, but to people whose views remind him of those who rejected him. I find his attacks on Jonah Goldberg particularly baseless. I have no desire to purge him or people who are philosophically aligned with him. I just wish he and other paleoconservatives would give a correct and balanced accounting of their opponents positions.
Peter,
I dont know what you define as an “attack” or “imminent threat” but two of my friends were incinerated a little over five years ago when a certain group of our enemies dropped buildings on their heads. On that day the war began (or more properly we finally decided to fight back) and no amount of nail-biting, America-bashing, candy-ass, ideological garbage is going to convince this conservative our cause is unjust or that we are part of a war-mongering neo-con plot.
The paleo-creeps vitriol and ideological preening is getting a little tiresome.
Old Republic,
You, like the rest of the paleo’s say nothing of consequence; your rhetoric is typical bumper-sticker sloganeering. The paleo creed (as described on these pages) is a kind of right-wing Unabomber mentality where reality and modernity are raged against in favor of some cloistered and racially-pure utopian fantasy world. This isn’t conservative, its vile and anachronistic.
We dont belong in the Middle East? We didn’t belong in Europe in the two world wars either, but sometimes our might is required to prevent the meltdown of civilization. Are we to sit back and let Iraq, Iran and the rest of the tyrants in the region build nukes, destroy cities, and strangle the worlds oil supply? Why dont you come join us in the real world?
And why do you keep bringing up neo-cons?
Neocons like Jeff crack me up. They want to dust off the old Jacobin decrees, attempt to spread liberal democracy throughout the Middle East, call anyone a “traitor” who disagrees with the Jacobin project, denounce anyone who questions Modernity, and happily keep marching to the beat of the internationalist Left.
Sorry, Jeff, but real conservatives like myself, anti-utopianists like myself, refuse to succumb to your utopian dreams of Jacobin nation building.
O.R.,
You keep railing against this neo-con boogey-man, yet nearly every main-stream conservative in the country (including this one) supports our efforts to win this war. The democracy building, as I’ve explained ad-nauseum, is but a consequence of the war – not its cause – yet you continue this jacobin transformation crap. This war is an effort to destroy the enemies who would destroy our cities (in all likelihood starting with the one in which I’m raising my children) and our way of life, not a Wilsonian, Napoleanic, or even Jacobin expedition to spread democracy.
We are at war!!! Stop your belly-aching and your ideological hissy-fits and choose sides – us or them.
Well, I knew it would take mere seconds for an article like this to bring out paleo versus neocon bickering. Paleos – the maligned, forgotten child, blaming their woes on neocons – a foe more wicked and vile than Bin Laden.
I realize the rhetoric has ratcheted up as many of us conservatives (who prefer to just be conservatives without the necessity for a prefix) have asked the paleos to answer questions which they steadfastly refuse to answer in mixed company, but paleos, could you *please* stop your whining?
What exactly is your beef with everyone and everthing non-paleo? Is it the fact that the Civil War doesn’t get to be a “do over?” Is it the fact that we have a Constitution instead of Articles of Confederation?
And could we perhaps agree that while there are some viewpoints that are further to the right than others, that paleos don’t “own” the language of conservatism? To paleos, conservative belief is a one-dimensional point in space. You either occupy that exact same point with your ideology, or you are liberal. Is it any wonder that you can’t get more conservatives to take your ideas seriously?
O.R.,
You’ve provided a very nice demonstration of the liberal/paleo debate playbook: Use single-sentence, bumper sticker paragraphs wherein the same 3 or 4 buzz-words are recycled or re-arranged. Allow me to be so bold as to write O.R.’s next few posts for him:
Jeff, you are a war-mongering, neocon liberal globalist.
Jeff, you are a neo-con, globalist, jacobin.
Jeff, you are marxist, neocon, jacobin globalist.
Jeff, you are a left-wing, jacobin, neo-con.
EXTRA, EXTRA!
This just in: Old Republic has dug up a peice of intel that exposes all war supporters as the Jacobin, neocon, globalists that they are:
O.R. said “David Frum said the purpose of the war was regime change.” I have some news for you: the purpose of nearly every war in the annals of human history has been regime change on one level or another. The real question is what factors led the invader to desire regime change in the first place. Was it an egalitarian desire to spread democracy to the oppressed or because the regime in question was shooting at our aircraft, financing terrorists, and developing WMD’s (either then or after the sanctions collapsed.) In the case of Iraq we were in a state of war with the regime for 12 years by the time we attacked again in 2003. The only reason we had to was because realists insisted we leave the regime in place at the end of Desert Storm.
9/11 changed everything. The Administration was, thankfully, unwilling to allow sworn enemies of the U.S. to develop the weapons with which they can destroy U.S. cities simply to comply with the paleo concept of just war (and make no mistake, the paleo concept has nothing to do with St Augustine.)
Why do you keep bringing up immigration? Every war supporter that you’ve “debated” on this site is in favor of strict border and interior enforcement. On this topic we are in agreement so leave it alone.
You have said exactly nothing of any substance since this debate began. You set up straw men (such as the neocons) whom you attack while ignoring every shred of evidence, every fact, and every question we propose. Let me try the Socratic method:
1) Do you support our side in this war?
2) Do you agree that our enemies’ (in Iraq specifically) primary goal (borrowed from Giap in Vietnam) is to wage a media-driven campaign of spilling just enough American blood to turn U.S. public opinion against the war?
3) Are you liberal/paleo’s not playing directly into their hands, becoming their ‘useful idiots’?
4) Do you feel any remorse about this?
5) Would the Bush administration have been more philosophically pure had they waited for the Islamic hordes to detonate a nuke in an American city before going to war?
6) Which American city would you cede to them to destroy in order to satisfy your own warped defintion of a ‘just war?’
I can only assume, based on your past posts you will ignore these questions and call me names instead. But, in so doing you will have proved my point for me.
OR,
Your French may be excellent, but your English vocabulary is limited it seems to “Jacobin,” “Trotskyite,” “neocon,” “left-wing,” and “treason.”
Your posts have become boring. Think of something new to say.
Katzen,
I’m pretty sure that the list I posted elsewhere summarizing languages essential for a debate included Latin.
“9/11 changed everything.”
Yeah. So did the Reichstag fire.
Blind obedience is simply not the American way.
We need more of the Spirit of ’76 in this country, and less of 1984.
With all due respect, it is ridiculous to debate supposed “schools” of thought, instead of the substance of the issues facing the country. The speakers who appeared at the NR Summit are serious, thoughtful people, whether or not one agrees with all of their views. I certainly don’t. But their positions cannot be dismissed simply, and dogmatically, by slapping a label on them. (I read both NR and VDARE; enjoy both Mark Steyn and Steve Sailor; the world, and most people in it, aren’t so black and white, no pun intended.) I had hoped for a little more insight to be found in the 50+ comments above. What a waste.
Well, at the risk of being sucked into the very debate I was objecting to, let me just say that I don’t think someone is a bad American just because they don’t agree with me on important issues. It takes more than that in my mind before I am willing to throw them off the good ship USA.
Personally, I am a strong believer in restricting immigration (illegal and legal), and think that Buchanan’s “State of Emergency” is the last word on the subject. It drives me nuts to know that the powers that be in this country are willingly flushing our national future down the toilet through an open borders policy. But even though they are deeply mistaken about this very critical issue, I cannot conclude they are “traitors” for this reason alone. Same for the idiots who want more and more socialism in this country. Of course, many of these people actually are traitors, because they consciously reject allegiance to the USA, but not because they ignorantly support policies that in my opinion undermine our national sovereignty.
With respect to foreign policy, as my own published writings make clear, I am a strong supporter of a pre-emptive strategy (political, cultural, and military) to combat Islamic expansionism — as I see it, the real threat here is not isolated acts of terrorism (although a few well-placed nukes could ruin our country), but a hostile civilization that has made its anti-Western intentions perfectly clear. Mind you, I am not keen on the Bush Administration’s present approach in Iraq. I think the “seeds of democracy” strategy is utterly foolish.
Personally, I support a “massive, disproportionate response” strategy. Remember the palpable fear in the Arab world in the aftermath of 9/11? Yes, the Palestinians were dancing in the streets, but that scumbag Arafat was visibly shaking on TV — he obviously feared that his cronies in Al Qaeda had gone too far and that the mighty USA was about to squash them all. And then Kaddafi gave up his nuke program, because he feared being deposed like the Taliban and Saddam (he must feel like a chump in hindsight). This fear of American power — which has to be backed up by determined, violent action — is a very salutary thing. We need to restore that fear in the Arab world, which unfortuantely has been dispelled by our present dithering in Iraq. My thinking on this issue is along the lines of that expressed by John Derbyshire (who explained a few years back on VDARE how he could support both immigration restriction and a preemptive military policy).
As for Israel, I have no problem recognizing Israel as an important part of the West that needs to be defended against Islam. I certainly don’t see American support for Israel as the “source” of our problems with the Arab world, anymore than our support for Europe was the source of problems with the Soviet Union, or our support for Taiwan and South Korea is the source of our problems with China, etc. In all these cases, the problem is a foreign, expansionistic power that is fundamentally hostile to our way of life. In international relations, no different than in conflicts at home, when one’s way of life is challenged, you have to stand up and fight back.
To answer your specific question, I am not a fan of either Goldberg or Kristol. With my limited time, I prefer to read other commentators. But I certainly don’t think they are unserious, let alone unpatriotic.
Dear Paleos,
Since you guys have nothing intelligent to say and refuse to answer the simple questions I posed above (post 44), I can only conclude that you do not support U.S. victory in this war. And since your primary ‘debate’ tactic is to compare those with whom you disagree to the usual neocon suspects (ie Kristol, Frum, etc.) allow me to compare you to two prominent paleo’s whose names may be familiar to you:
Tim Mcveigh
Terry Nichols
And guess who their allies were in planning the attack on Oklahoma City? That’s correct -Islamic terrorists with whom they trained in the Philipines. Paleo’s, Libs, and Islamic terrorists, politics does indeed make strange bed-fellows.
Paleo’s make Jane Fonda look like a great patriot.
I’ll try this one last time. Let’s see if any of you paleo’s have the guts to answer these simple questions:
1) Do you support U.S. victory in this war?
2) Do you agree that our enemies primary strategy (borrowed from Giap in Vietnam) is to wage a media campaign focused on spilling enough American blood to cause a loss of resolve to wage war among the American public?
3) Are you liberals/paleo’s playing directly into their hands, becoming their useful idiots, thus costing American lives?
4) Do you feel any remorse about this?
5) Would you respect the administration more had they waited for the Islamic radicals to detonate a nuclear device in an American city before going to war?
6) Which American city would you be willing to sacrifice to anihilation in order to satisfy your own warped definition of a ‘just war?’ And do you or anyone you love live in said City?
7) How many of your friends had buildings dropped on their heads on 9/11 while trying to rescue innocent American citizens?
Your silence in response to these questions speaks as loudly about your world-view as did your silence when asked about your views on race.
Why has the thoughtful, detailed, and impersonal narrative entitled “Reflections on the National Review Institute Conservative Summit” been followed by 58 accusations, each one angrier and more exaggerated than the one before ?
OK, I’ll give it a shot:
“1) Do you support U.S. victory in this war?”
No. It was an unwinnable war to begin with, and I didn’t want to see our fine military wasted.
“2) Do you agree that our enemies primary strategy (borrowed from Giap in Vietnam) is to wage a media campaign focused on spilling enough American blood to cause a loss of resolve to wage war among the American public?”
No doubt. But that’s how 4G warfare is waged. Check out paleo William Lind on 4GW to see why the US cannot win.
“3) Are you liberals/paleo’s playing directly into their hands, becoming their useful idiots, thus costing American lives?”
1 – I’m not a liberal
2 – That’s “paleos” rather than “paleo’s”
3 – I’m not a useful idiot. I’m not even all that useful.
4 – The madmen who sent our troops to fight a no-win war are the ones to blame for the obscene loss of life, not only including the 3,100 US troops, but the 35,000+ innocent Iraqis.
“4) Do you feel any remorse about this?”
Yes — I wish we could’ve stopped this insane war from happening.
“5) Would you respect the administration more had they waited for the Islamic radicals to detonate a nuclear device in an American city before going to war?”
Hold it – non sequitur! Neither the Iraqi nation nor its leaders had anything to do with 9/11 — even Bush was finally forced to admit that (even though he, Cheney, and their Diplomatrix hinted they were)
“6) Which American city would you be willing to sacrifice to anihilation in order to satisfy your own warped definition of a ‘just war?’ And do you or anyone you love live in said City?”
If a nation threatened us, and/or had the means to pose a legitimate threat, I would fully support a defensive war. Only a fool would wait for the enemy to make the first move. But again, Iraq had neither the means nor the motivation to attack us.
7) How many of your friends had buildings dropped on their heads on 9/11 while trying to rescue innocent American citizens?
What is the purpose of this question? It sounds like blatant sensationalism rather than an arguement. However, to answer your question, I had none. But again, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
If we want to stop Islamic terrorists from acting in this country, we can take two preventive measures certain to succeed:
1 – stop intervening in other countries and start minding our own business
2 – rescinding the 1965 Immigration Act inviting the Third World to colonize us, including Muslim extremists.
No further questions your Honor, the prosecution rests.
OR,
I see you still dont have the guts to answer the simple questions I have asked repeatedly. This is because paleos come in but two varieties: 1) spineless windbags who will not go on the record when confronted with the logical conclusions of their warped world-view; 2) and the rage-filled bigots who cant help but expose themselves as the America hating crackpots they are with just a little nudge. Its good to see you and Tuggle are out of the closet.
Tuggle,
question #7 was meant to demonstrate that there is a real world outside the cloistered little ideological fantasy world paleos have constructed for themselves.
Kindly explain how wanting to extract our troops from being pointlessly sacrificed in a no-win war makes me “America-hating.”
And I cannot wait to hear how my observation in your question #7 that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 somehow shows that I’m the one who’s cloistered in a “little ideological fantasy world.”
This better be good.
You are actively rooting for our country to lose a war. And doing your level best to undermine the morale and confidence of our armed forces. Or did you perhaps go to the Adrian Balboa school of ‘supporting the troops?’ Do you actually have the balls to personally approach a soldier or marine about to march off to war and yell “You cant win!” or do you confine that crap to anonymous blog rants?
Iraq may or may not have been actively involved in the 9/11 plot. What is clear is the following:
1) Iraq actively supported numerous terrorist groups including Hamas.
2) Iraq had high-level contacts with al-queda, whether or not they helped plan 9/11.
3) Hussein has used and retained the ability to develop WMD’s once the UN sanctions inevitably collapsed. He most certainly would have used them on us (himself or through a proxy like al-queda) once he had them in hand.
4) He was an avowed enemy of the U.S.
5) He continued to attack U.S. personnel in the Middle East for 12 years during the cease fire. (note: a cease fire is not a peace treaty, ie. we have been in a technical state of war since 1991. )
6) Top al-queda leaders have made no secret of the fact that they consider Iraq ‘the central front’ in the war on terror.
7) The U.S has been actively involved in the Middle East since its inception: Have you heard of the Barbary Wars?
After 9/11 it would have been suicidal to allow thug regimes with connections to Islamic terrorists to develop and deploy WMD’s. We no longer live in the era where vast oceans and the threat of massive retaliation can protect us or dissuade enemies from attacking. We simply must be proactive in eliminating the worst threats BEFORE we lose a city or two.
Since our paleo friends may be unable to put down their copies of Mein Kamph long enough to read a newspaper article, I thought I’d share a few excerpts from an article written by Andrew Klavan that was published in todays NY Post. It sums up the liberal/paleo mindset with respect to the war on Islamic terrorists better than I ever could:
“The outcome of our battle against the demographic, political, and military upsurge of a hateful theology and its oppressive political vision will determine the fate of freedom in this century…But the notion that this war is about our moral failings is comfort fantasy, pure and simple. It soothes us with the false idea that, if we but mend ourselves, the scary people will leave us alone. The real world is both darker than that and lighted brighter in places by surprising fires of nobility. Its darker because our enemies were not created by the peccadilloes of free people and will not melt away before a moral perfection that we can never achieve. Its brighter because there are heroes like the FBI, the military, and the cop on the corner who will give up everything, even their lives to stop these madmen…We’ve become uncomfortable to the point of paralysis when reality draws the limits of tolerance and survival demands pride in our traditions and ferocity in their defense.”
Liberals and paleos alike not only blame us for the current state of affairs in the world, but also try to prevent us from setting things right. For shame.
Jeff,
I invited you to step up to the plate and show us what you had — and all you could do was accuse us of reading Mein Kampf, which is a sad cop-out of the left, and then you quote yet another “Kill the Muslims!” neocon screed. I have been let down. We all have.
Do you really believe these Muslims want to strike at the West because they’re just inherently evil?
Sounds like the perfect example of hate to me — real hate, the irrational desire to kill people because of who they are.
Then you take another turn at the plate and explain why Muslims are angry at the US and Britain.
For what it’s worth, Ayatollah Khomeni was on record thanking Allah for Mossadeq’s downfall. I don’t think our “current row” with the Mullahs is significantly tied to the 1953 coup (which is not to defend the coup).
I suspect different Muslims are angry at the United States for different reasons. I also think that the hatred is so deep by this point that, even if we were to rectify all the things that initally “caused” the hatred, not much would change. For whatever reasons Muslims were originally angry at us, an Islamist ideology of jihad against the West has rooted itself in the mindsets of millions of Muslims. As a practical matter, addressing the reasons for the hatred will get us nowhere.
Jihadist ideology directs its hatred at the US in particular because this country represents the dominant military, political, cultural, and economic power of Western Civilization, which the jihadists believe has wrongly and temporarily eclipsed Islamic Civilization. They seek to reverse this, and no amount of Western apologizing for past wrongs (real or imagined) will change a thing.
Rather than apologizing, I think the West should simply stop meddling in other countries’ affairs. Repeated coups against their elected governments, as well as DC’s one-sided support for Israel against the Palestinians, and the embargo of Iraq, are other valid reasons for hating US policy. That’s what they hate — our interventions in their lives and affairs, rather than us.
At the very least, we should all agree that, whatever reason so many Muslims hate the US, we should immediately stop letting them immigrate here. As Samuel Huntington discussed in The Clash of Civilizations, Muslim communities are at war with their non-Muslim neighbors in every continent where they have massed in significant numbers. Maybe we should learn from their experience and not repeat their mistakes.
OR,
I explicitly stated before (post 13) that liberals are interventionists only when no US interests are at stake while paleos are pacifists.
Since you think a US withdrawl from the Middle East will spare us further attack, one may deduce that you think 9/11 was our fault. That sounds like Ward Churchill and George Soros, not Rush Limbaugh. Who’s the leftist?
I have news for you, Jefferson sent the US Navy and Marines to North Africa to battle jihadist pirates and their state sponsors during his presidency – they are called the Barbary Wars and the US then, as now, was fighting a defensive war.
I know a little bit about political philosophy; I’ve even read Scruton and Kirk. Maybe you should follow Kirks advice and back off from the ideological/philosophical ruminating for a moment and look at the real world.
Tuggle,
If you want to understand the real reason the Muslim extremists are attacking us you can read any of my articles on this web-site; you can read anything by Robert Spencer, Serge Trifcovic, Andrew Bostum, etc.; or to make it simple, just read Katzen’s post (67) above. He explains it quite concisely. The bottom line is we are not to blame for this war, and the sooner you come to terms with this truth, the sooner you’ll re-join our side.
Jeff,
Do you not know basic terminology?
Paleos are in no way pacifists. Pacifism means that you do not believe one should fight under any circumstances.
Paleos, by and large, like Washington, Adams, and Jefferson, believe in just war theory. If there is (1) an attack or (2) an immanent threat of attack, then one is justified in going to war. (Pacifists reject just war theory.)
Paleos, like Washington, Adams and Jefferson, are non-interventionists. They think countries should mind their own business and that they should not intervene in others’ affairs.
Paleos are in no way pacifists. Pacifism means that you do not believe one should fight under any circumstances.
Paleos, by and large, like Washington, Adams, and Jefferson, believe in just war theory. If there is (1) an attack or (2) an immanent threat of attack, then one is justified in going to war. (Pacifists reject just war theory.)
Paleos, like Washington, Adams and Jefferson, are non-interventionists. They think countries should mind their own business and that they should not intervene in others’ affairs.
O.R.,
That’s “president,” not “presidntt.”
By the way, now that you’re on the receiving end, do you think it’s time that you grow up?
“That’s what they hate–our interventions in their lives and affairs, rather than us.”
“Muslim communities are at war with their non-Muslim neighbors in every continent where they have massed in significant numbers.”
How does one reconcile these two statements?
Dan,
You may be unfamiliar with the new-fangled literary device called sarcasm; its quite effective in getting under the skin of unreasonable, rigid, ideologues. It often draws them out and helps to clarify their true viewpoints. For example, see the answers Tuggle provided to my questions above – he came unhinged and exposed himself as an opponent of US victory in this war. Why dont you take the plunge, Dan? Why dont you answer the questions? Or are you more like O.R. – afraid to step up to the plate?
As far as Oklahoma City is concerned, look up their list of grievances and compare them to your own; it matters not at all whether or not they knew the term ‘paleo.’ And I am only stooping to the paleo level, using your own guilt-by-association tactics against you; it sucks, doesn’t it?
Dan,
I think post 77 is generally excellent, and yes, I will concede that many positions neoconservatives and others on the mainstream Right take are historically positions of the Left. When it is put like that, I have no objection. I’ll even say that the advent of neoconservatism moved the Right leftward (though that cost probably enabled the Right to enjoy more electoral success).
But then I also have to ask, how do we classify Bismarck, Disraeli, and Metternich? None of these guys were anti-authoritarian. None of them believed in the right to bear arms. None of them opposed the welfare state–indeed, they invented the modern welfare state. And yet, we can’t call them leftists or Jacobins. They were clearly conservatives, and no one in their times would have doubted that they were members of the Right.
My point is simply that these left/right distinctions (if applicable today, which I doubt) cannot be based on a constant adherence to certain political opinions.
Paleoconservatives like to call neoconservatives “leftists” because (I agree) neocons are to the left of palecons. But this is like Noam Chomsky calling the New York Times “right-wing” because NYT is, in fact, to the right of Chomsky. Everybody thinks that anybody to his right is a “rightist” and anybody to his left is a “leftist.” It’s that outlook that I object to.
Dan,
First of all thank you for steering this conversation back to where it belongs – a dialectic of ideas and principles, not a tit-for-tat game of labels and associations.
I agree completely that the federal government, thanks to the leftist-egalitarian tendencies of the Supreme Court, the New Deal, the Great Society, and more recently ‘compassionate conservatism’ has grown out of any proportion recognizable to the framers. Of course, as you know they did fear this very consolidation of federal power early on (Tocqueville and Jefferson’s writing comes to mind.) For this reason the Bill of Rights were added to the constitution. The violence done to the 1st, 2nd, and 10th ammendments, in particular must be redressed.
The divergence between good faith conservatives seems to be how to go about restoring the republic to something closer to its founding principles. I would argue, and I think Kirk would agree, that the restoritive changes must be gradual and conducted within the current legal framework, not by revolution or national division.
This drift can begin to be reversed by a prudent and judicious application of Reagan conservatism and one or two more solid Supreme Court picks (and our President deserves credit from all conservatives for Alito and Roberts). The change will take generations to complete but it is possible.
Katzen,
Thank you for your comments. This is my perspective on the paleocon/neocon polarization as well, but you have stated it particularly eloquently.
One further thing I would add is that rather than merely categorizing viewpoints, it has been my experience that paloes take great pains to categorize/generalize the holders of those viewpoints as well. Thus, it is never sufficient for them to say “your viewpoint is to the left of mine” or “that view would have been considered left-wing in 1865,” but instead to categorize the entire belief system of an individual as Leftist/Jacobin/Liberal/Marxist/Modernist/Progressive.
As such, I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that the paleo worldview bears more similarity in its appeals to that of a religion than to that of a philosophy.
Consider this analogy: If someone claims to be a Christian and yet denies several absolute tenets of the Christian faith such as:
- Belief in the Bible as the inerrant, inspired Word of God
- Belief in the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ
- Belief in Christ as man’s only hope of salvation
Then one no longer holds views that are just a bit perculiar but otherwise Christian, one has by their views shown themself to be quite non-Christian. Paleoconservatism appears to have similar tenets that which, if not embraced, make one a heretic of the true conservative faith.
Paleos have not clearly spelled these things out for me in many cases, but they have been rather quick to assure me that I am indeed a heretic.
When I view paleoconservatives in light of a religous belief system, then the absolutism of their posture makes more sense to me. There are certain tenets that, in paleo eyes, make one not just the holder of one or two ideas that are to the left of theirs, but a heretic to the true faith.
Understanding the paleo perspective does not mean that I agree with their perspective. It simply means that it makes a certain sense when viewed as a quasi religion. It also does not necessarily make me a heretic in the eyes of all conservatism – merely in the eyes of paleos.