Paleoconservatism demands substantial alignment with its tenets before one can claim to be a “true” conservative. My fall from grace took mere seconds.
This morning as I shaved the same face I’ve been shaving for the past 45 years (actually, 30 years, since I didn’t start shaving until I was 15), I was forced to look myself in the mirror and admit the shameful truth: I’m a liberal.
This was not some slowly acquired condition, gradually and imperceptibly occurring during the pursuit of some late-in-life college degree – the one where I confess the error of my ways after finally succumbing to the superior intellectual prowess of left-leaning liberal arts professors. (My degree is actually in the hard sciences and I graduated nearly 20 years ago.) No, this was a Damascus Road experience where there was a blinding flash, a pronouncement, and a conversion (more on this in a moment).
The fact that I’m now a liberal will no doubt come as a surprise to my friends, family, pastor, and the Democrats that I’ve argued with over the years – not to mention the pollster who contacted me recently. But in the spirit of full disclosure, I suppose the following list does make my thoroughly liberal leanings pathetically obvious:
– I adamantly oppose abortion.
– I think the ACLU and NEA are bigger threats to our country than Islamic terrorists.
– I whole-heartedly supported the appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court.
– If given the chance, I’d cheerfully vote to impeach Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, and Breyer for violating their oaths to protect the Constitution and failure to observe its separation of powers.
– I’m an evangelical Christian.
– I think affirmative action is just a euphemism for reverse discrimination.
– I admire James Dobson, Phyllis Schlafly, and Robert Bork.
– I enjoy Ann Coulter’s witty ripostes and routinely find her logic unassailable.
– I steadfastly insist the words “separation of church and state” appear nowhere in the text of the United States Constitution.
– I think the GOP has abandoned conservative principles for political expediency.
From this litany of left-wing beliefs, one can quickly ascertain that it was just a matter of time before I graduated to the hard stuff. Today: opposition to amnesty for illegals. Tomorrow: a beret with a red star and Chinese lessons so I can read the selected works of Mao Tse-tung without having to bother with those inferior English translations. It’s a slippery, slippery slope fraught with alienation, destitution, poignant memoirs, and an eventual appearance on Oprah.
It seems, however, that even though I’d slid so fully to the Left that I would soon be praising Ted Kennedy as a moderate Democrat (and a moderate drinker), I had not yet totally crossed the line to pure, unadulterated Marxism. Yes, I was close. Yes, I could at any moment burst into spontaneous recitation of the Communist Manifesto. But I was still not beyond redemption. I could once again enter the ranks of true conservatism by embracing a few simple and self-evident paleoconservative tenets:
1. Abraham Lincoln was, by all possible measures, the worst president in the history of the United States. This usurper of states’ rights was single-handedly responsible for the death of 600,000 American lives – at least 250,000 of which wanted nothing more than to retain the right for one human to enslave another and otherwise live in peace. Indeed, the inherent and inalienable right of secession was denied the brave confederate nation/states and its sons by this thoroughly “leftist dictator.” His unconstitutional actions did not “save the Union,” but rather paved the way for a bloated federal government and correspondingly emasculated state governments.
2. The United States is brazenly defying 6,000 years of recorded history by attempting to base a nation upon a shared ideology alone. Instead, recognize that racial separation is a natural state of affairs, with race absolutely essential to the concept of nationhood and national identity. The foundational underpinnings of our grand American “experiment in democracy” are not simply our political ideology and Judeo-Christian worldview. Instead, those underpinnings necessarily assume and require that the composition of the United States be that of white Europeans. This is historical fact. The notion that race can be dispensed of in the formula for a nation is a modern, leftist notion, more popularly referred to as the “Proposition Nation” (PN) thesis. A United States based on PN thesis is doomed to failure with as much certainty as the only other PN in history: the USSR, a nation which also had nothing more than a shared ideology to artificially hold it together.
Welcome to the world of Paleoconservatism – the only “true” conservatism in existence today according to its adherents. A world where many of the beliefs that are taken for granted as inherently conservative by most of the political spectrum are not conservative at all – they are merely cleverly disguised variations of liberalism.
My sordid tale of transition from the Right to the Left gets complicated — involving time constants, quantum spin, gyroscopics, and Chicago Cubs’ stats. But the guardians of all things conservative have assured me in the most solemn tones that I do indeed have the political equivalent of leprosy, a second opinion is not necessary, and only their paleoconservative ideology can cleanse me from this most hideous of all afflictions.
Now, I must admit to not carrying a stopwatch at the time, so this is unscientific, but the total elapsed time from sharing a portion of my political ideology with a “true” conservative and being consequently branded a liberal was approximately . . . 12 seconds.
Fortunately, unlike the Damascus Road experience, I wasn’t blind afterwards, merely dazed.
How exactly did this come about?
Several months ago on this website an article appeared entitled, "What the Heck is a Paleoconservative and Why You Should Care." The article’s title did it’s job: it caught my attention. Paleoconservative? Hmmm. Never heard the term. This might be interesting.
Suitably curious, I read the article, enjoyed the author’s style, and learned several things.
First, I learned what a neoconservative was. Sure, I’d heard the abbreviated term “neocon” bandied about with regularity, but no one had ever bothered to actually explain some of the basic aspects of the so-called neocon ideology to me.
Second, simpleton that I am, I had always merely considered myself a conservative, blissfully unaware that suffixes and prefixes were now required to properly categorize me. Like a shirt without a logo, the unadorned “conservative” handle had always managed to cover me just fine. Funny how after identifying myself to a liberal as simply a “conservative,” I don’t ever recall a single one staring at me with the look normally reserved for someone who was asked to recite their full legal name and replied, “Max.” The four-syllable version of my political ideology was considered adequate.
Now, however, it seemed as though I was adrift in a veritable ocean of conservative ideologies and movements – Old Right, New Right, Modern Conservative Movement (MCM), and America First Committee (AFC) to name just a few. It was no longer enough to be a Sneech – I needed to be a Star-Bellied Sneech to properly differentiate myself.
Third, since “neo” meant new, it stood to reason there must be a corresponding “old” version of conservatism as well. To help distinguish themselves, some of these “old” conservatives adopted the prefix “paleo.” So we’ve got a minimum of two conservative camps at present – neos and paleos. So far, so good. As the author went on to explain the basic tenets of neocon ideology, the more I read, the less it seemed I had in common with neocons. Pragmatism over principle? Tacit acceptance of a welfare state and big government? This doesn’t sound like my ideology. And with only a few exceptions, the more I read about paleoconservatism, the more it seemed to align with my own beliefs. Principles over pragmatism. Opposition to a bloated federal government. Disgust with a GOP that bears more resemblance to a weathervane than a compass.
What’s not to like?
Well, plenty as it turns out. The author, you see, wasn’t giving us the full version of paleoconservatism – just the lite version. The mass-appeal version if you will. Now normally, I don’t begrudge anyone for withholding the minutiae from the big picture overview. Tell me on the outside of the box if that new razor-thin cellular has a speakerphone feature or not, and I can look on page 372 of the manual to get all the details on how it affects battery life and how many dB it produces at full volume. You get the idea – major points, minor points, and the fine-print legal mumbo jumbo. In this case, however, let me continue with our little story and you can be the judge of whether an omission of a particular belief in the “What the Heck…” essay falls into the “minutiae” category or not.
Shortly after reading the essay, I posted a comment, thanking the author for the primer on the two ideologies, and casually mentioning that – based on the author’s summary – I was probably more aligned with the paleo school of thought than the neo school of thought. All was well until several other posts appeared, mentioning that paleos had a rather – ahem – racial component central to much of their thinking, and I might want to ask the paleos for clarification on the topic before assuming this ideology was a good fit. It was further explained in one of the posts that this racial component of the ideology was often of the white separatist, anti-Semitic sort. Now perhaps it’s just me, but when perusing the menu of political ideologies, I generally like to know if my entrée will be served with or without white separatism and anti-Semitism.
It wasn’t long before others joined in the discussion regarding the article and a rather simple question was posed: “What exactly do paleos believe about race?” In most cases, this question wouldn’t strike me as any more unreasonable than asking the manufacturer of a breakfast cereal to fully disclose the ingredients. But the highly evasive non-answers that resulted from this rather simple 7-word inquiry elicited a certain suspicion, shall we say, that the manufacturer would rather not tell me in mixed company what was really in his Toasty O’s.
Fast forward two months, two articles, and more than 450 comments later and one might expect an extensive and thoughtful discussion had ensued, giving us insight into the paleo views on this subject – and that while perhaps one wouldn’t necessarily agree with those views, at least one would know what those views are.
But like I said before. It’s much, much more complicated. Quantum spin. Cubs’ stats.
What actually transpired is something I can only describe as positively Clintonian in its evasiveness. Indeed, for a group that claims to be anti-matter to the atoms of liberalism, one could only surmise that they had instead been discipled by Hillary’s better half in the art of non-answers. To wit, consider the following:
Paleos . . . recognize the importance of kith and kin, blood and soil, and genophilia (instinctive attachment to family and tribe).
Now, if you’re a paleoconservative, the above apparently constitutes all we need to know on the matter of race, and discussion can now progress to matters of more consequence; i.e., the “non-minutiae.” Here’s another illustrative non-answer from amongst our selection of 450 posts:
Why has no one been jumping up and down asking me about where I stand on School Vouchers, the Gold Standard, Tort Reform, the extent of the Commerce Clause, etc., etc., etc? There are thousands of esoteric subjects you could ask me about. Since paleos are known for differing with movement conservatives on trade, why has no one asked me about trade? All you care about is what I and other paleos think about race.
Well, let’s see. Perhaps it’s because we just asked one simple question two months ago and we’re still waiting for an answer. Or perhaps it’s because we’ve been told repeatedly that “race matters” and is fundamental to many paleo beliefs regarding immigration policy, foreign policy, social policy, and national identity, so you’ll have to forgive us for wanting to understand the ways in which race matters. We’re having just a teensy weensy bit of trouble with the “it’s fundamental / it’s minutiae” dyslexia. Earlier, the survival of the United States was at stake because race was absolutely essential and our “Proposition Nation” race-doesn’t-matter thesis was propelling this country to the brink of destruction. But now, – according to the paleo comment above – the topic of race is “esoteric.”
Got it. Quantum spin. Time constants. Cubs’ stats.
At this juncture, a short aside is in order. I don’t consider conservatism in general or paleoconservatism in particular to be an all-or-nothing proposition. It isn’t that I pick and choose my beliefs randomly; it’s just that – aside from my religious faith – I have not found one particular conservative ideology that I agree with 100%. I’m quite certain I’m not alone in this obviousism, and I’ve yet to find one particular group that has a monopoly on all the good ideas. Indeed, in my discussions with paleos I’ve suggested that the overlap between my ideology and theirs probably exceeds 80%, although in some cases I suspect that we hold the same beliefs and arrive at the same policy decisions, but for very different underlying reasons. Consequently, this essay is not intended to dismiss many of the ideas held by paleoconservatives. Nor is it to suggest that its adherents are not thoughtful, studious, well-read, articulate, educated, patriotic, or valid contributors to political discourse. The point is that rather than ideas being categorized as conservative or liberal, my experience thus far with paleoconservatives is that the individual is categorically summarized instead. And this categorization is most often of the simple form non-paleo = liberal.
Today, after 450 back-and-forth exchanges between paleos and non-paleos, can I tell you what paleos believe about race? Not exactly. Remember – it’s complicated. Paleos keep assuring me of this. Indeed, they keep telling me that I want to live in a universe where everything fits on a bumper sticker and is elicited in sound bites – 12-second sound bites to be exact. In contrast, a proper response apparently takes volumes. Tens of thousands of words, centuries of tradition, eons of history. Apparently a response also requires a password and a secret handshake.
So, I’ll make my own attempt to give you a partial answer regarding what paleos believe about race after having been forced to synthesize it from hundreds of non-answers. But bear in mind that I’m doing this only after I and several other frequenters of this website have asked self-professed paleos to do this for us for the past two months. In reply, as one poster so dryly observed, we’ve received little more than the “sound of crickets chirping.” In fairness, we were directed to a single article on a single website where we read – are you ready? – society really needs to purge the R-word (racism) from our dialect. The R-word is so – so inflammatory you see. If we could just use another word, apparently then a scholarly and respectable discussion about race would be forthcoming. But alas, regardless of which word we used to ask the question, we were told that by even asking we’ve been infected by rampant political correctness. This was explained by noting that the word racism was introduced to our dialect by none other than Karl Marx and that to even ask about race was to fall prey to a vast Marxist groupthink trap.
I can tell you what some paleos believe about race, since they’ve given snippets of their beliefs in several of their posts on this website. I can also tell you what several of the paleo’s most influential thinkers have said in their writings, such as Russell Kirk (it isn’t pretty). But I cannot categorically tell you what all paleos believe. Remember? They aren’t telling us. However, depending on what day of the week it is, race may be either of paramount importance or minutiae. And every 4th week is Wacky Wednesday, so that mixes things up a bit too. We’re told there is considerable dissension in their ranks. Apparently not on minutiae such as race, but rather the exact moment at which the United States began its precipitous descent into madness and dissolution. For some paleos, this occurred at the end of the Civil War – er, excuse me, make that War for Southern Independence (I’m still in the process of learning official paleo nomenclature). For others, this descent occurred much earlier when the Articles of Confederation were scrapped for a Constitution instead.
What does appear to be widespread in paleo ranks is the scorn and derision they universally apply to the idea of a “Proposition Nation” discussed earlier in this essay. Namely, that a nation based on shared values and ideology alone will not and cannot work. Racial distinctions are essential and the idea of a “melting pot” is only valid for a select few races. Some, we’re told, will melt. Others simply have to be removed from the mix with a strainer of sorts – also known as an immigration policy that admits only Western Europeans. You get the picture.
So with an answer nowhere in sight after waiting for more than 5,184,000 seconds to get a rational response to the question, “What exactly do paleos believe about race?” I can only offer the observations of the preceding paragraph. What I can tell you with certainty, however, is that it took far less time for paleoconservatives to inform me that I was not really a conservative after all – merely a liberal in disguise. That response required just 12 seconds.
Steve Sabin has previously posted comments on this website using the moniker "nevadamistermom."
stevenjsabin@yahoo.com
Read more articles by Steven J. Sabin
Oh good, I was hoping we could have another "Paleoconservatives are racist xenophobes" and "Neoconservatives are liberal commu-facia-lists" debate. Always so enlightening and constructive. Especially when the debate is framed in such a neutral context.
Let me just point out one thing before the proverbial fit hits the shan: You can criticize Abraham Lincoln and acknowledge that the Civil War was not fought primarily (or secondarily even) because of slavery/racism without being a xenophobic racist white nationalist separatist. Seriously. At the risk of being branded "Paleo xeno-raci-national-ist", I don't think Abraham Lincoln was the veritable incarnation of Christ about whom no criticism can be leveled. And I'm almost positive the Civil War wasn't fought by the righteous North against the Racist South so the slaves could be freed. I believe that the constitutional powers granted to states have been usurped almost entirely by the federal government, and that a good case can be made for validity of secession, especially in historical context. I don't support slavery, and I don't have to in order to hold that opinion. Why is it that any argument that has to do with "Paleos" and "Neos" comes down to what your opinion was on Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War? Oh, and your personal feelings about Russell Kirk, of course. Is it possible that not every person can be classified and categorized based on their opinion of a historical event? That people who believe Lincoln was a good man who acted in the best interest of the United States aren't liberal Marxist fascist globalists, and that those who believe otherwise aren't backwards white nationalist separatists xenophobes who lynch black people? Is it? Do any of you ever wonder what exactly is accomplished in the 150 post rantings that follow articles like this in which people who hold nearly identical beliefs tear into each other like rival gangs in a back alley? And then we sit in wonderment that conservatives can't advance their cause politically. Small wonder.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 12, 2007
Two quotes tell the story —
"[Still waiting] after waiting for more than 5,184,000 seconds to get a rational response to the question, “What exactly do paleos believe about race?”
"All you care about is what I and other paleos think about race. My 'non-answer' above indicts you, not us. You are obsessed with upholding PC standards, and writing off those who don’t. It is so sad and pathetic really."
The new definition of "sad and pathetic": To ask a question a paleo doesn't want to answer, or can't afford to answer publicly.
It is difficult to advance a cause politically when one camp claims that it is the only true representative of that cause, but can't allow a public discussion to take place about what it actually believes. Perhaps it's because it's not a cause, but a religion — and you don't argue about the fundamental tenants of a religious faith. You either accept them without question, or you are excommunicated from the cause.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 12, 2007
I understand and share in your frustration, Steve. While Dan Phillips has been pretty agreeable in his approach, one cannot say this about some other paleos.
Had it been some other paleo saying "Persuasion is not effective," I would have laughed out loud. Some of these self-described paleos have done everything in their power to alienate, name call, and generally just be unpleasant, all the while prattling on endlessly about Aristotle, Russell Kirk, and those evil Jacobins. If that's persuasion, I'm a neo-marxist.
Well, anyway. Maybe it was a good thing you brought it up again as you still search for a paleo who can answer the seven word question I asked months ago. I know that you have some stringent requirements:
It is not an answer to
1) link to various paleo websites
2) use hyphenated words to describe the questioner
3) identify the questioner as Jacobin
4) make lists of various philosophers and political figures in a single sentence
But ultimately, I think you're flogging a dead horse. You aren't going to get what you're after. I suggest that you simply be reassured that your position on most (if not all) issues is conservative, that you really don't need to read Kirk or know who Burke was to be a conservative, and that you can be in favor of the war on terror without being a Bushbot.
Comment by Mountain Man | February 12, 2007
I think Mr. Sabin and his cohorts haven't been entirely up front about what they believe about race either.
We all agree that people are spiritually equal. But that is not the same thing as saying they are absolutely equal in all ways. We know that the races differ in obvious ways - skin, hair, appearance. Forensic experts can determine the likely race of a victim from the skeleton for example.
So we know there are group characteristics for the races. The PC boys would have you believe that the only differences are the obvious ones. That it is not possible that there could be other differences that are related (genetically) to racial group traits. So all those people of West African decent winning the 100 meters every Olympics is just a coincidence. Or the persistent differences in SAT scores are just a coincidence or can be explained solely by environmental factors.
But there is no scientifically valid reason to rule out group racial genetic differences as one factor. In fact, it is the most simple and obvious answer. The only reason to rule out group genetic differences is ideological. The dogma of egalitarianism does not allow it.
So the question I asked on another thread remains unanswered. What do the PC boys think of the science of The Bell Curve and IQ and the Wealth of Nations? Is it good science or bad science? If it is good science, does it impact the Proposition Nation debate in any way? Now it is your turn to dance. I hope you rule out the possibility of group genetic differences at all. Then that will expose you as scientifically illiterate dogma enforcers. Like the radical feminist exposed themselves after Larry Summers made his highly scientifically supportable assertion about gender differences. Do you really want to align yourself with that crowd?
According to IQATWON, continental Africans have an average IQ of 70. Some of that is clearly environmental (nutrition, disease, other factors) and not genetic, but based on the data from African American, some of the gap is very likely genetic. Could that have anything at all to do with why Western Society bloomed in the West instead of in sub-Saharan Africa? Could it have anything to do with why Haiti has proven so hard to govern? Could it have anything to do with the problems the Nation witnessed in New Orleans? Is it something to consider as far as immigration?
Besides the potential genetic issues, there are cultural and religious issues with immigration. But good egalitarian that he is, I’m sure Mr. Sabin thinks a pagan will assimilate in America just as well as a Christian. (That may be true these days.) I’m sure Mr. Sabin also thinks that Western Society could have bloomed just as well in a pagan society as it did in the Christian West.
He must believe that, because if he doesn’t he would violate his stated dedication to the Proposition Nation thesis which does not allow for considering that America might be a product of the template from which it sprung - Christian, Western, European, British, natural resources, climate, multiple other factors – and is not just some bright idea.
Now tackle those tough questions rigorously and scientifically without resorting to PC dogma, and then you can call the paleocons out for "dodging" your questions on race but not before.
Comment by Lawrence Talbot | February 12, 2007
Maybe the ultimate answer is already out there, hiding in the shadows, waiting to jump out and make you realize…
It's becoming a huge waste of time for all of us to try to fit under a label any more and we should start voting our ideals rather than our 'platform'.
Comment by Fistandantalus | February 12, 2007
Dan: Thanks for the link.
Steve: I thought you should know what you are REALLY doing, according to this link: "This author of this piece, like many other neocons, is just a water carrier for the Left, doing the Left’s dirty work for them. His tactics are typical of the Left: 'race baiting.' He proceeds with the question, 'What do you think of race?,' as a way to obstruct any meaningful discourse, and then goes on to attack anyone who deviates from the politically correct strictures of the Left."
I was going to ask you what the temperature was out where you live, but that would be falling into a leftist trap of obstructing meaningful discourse about the weather and "carrying water" on behalf of global warming advocates. Such is the logic of the Defenders of the Faith.
By the way, in case you didn't know it yourself, you are now officially a "Neocon". Stay tuned for other labels to follow.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 12, 2007
Dr. Jackson,
You selected one quote from that Conservative Times website, but another, more aggregious statement was this: "NeoMarxists (Frankfurt School) popularized the term ‘racist’ to use as a conversation-stopper to attack conservatives and to undermine Western Civilization."
This is nearly verbatim from at least half a dozen paleo posts on IC from the past few months. One has to wonder if there is any original thought from the paleo side, or if they simply regurgitate slogans.
More troubling is this encapsulates the entire paleo approach - simply deny this or any question submitted to them is even legitimate, toss out a few glib comments, make a passing reference to a favorite philosopher, and label anyone who deviates from the paleo line as a neo-con.
Comment by Mountain Man | February 12, 2007
Dan,
Of course government has violated the boundaries of the Constitution. This is beyond dispute.
Paleos and generic (not "neo") conservatives agree on quite a lot. However, the subject of the article is on what we possibly do not agree upon.
Comment by Mountain Man | February 12, 2007
Lincoln did what he thought he needed to do. Hindsight is, as they say, 20/20.
One could speculate about where the fault really lies. Is it the Congress of that day, who let Lincoln do what he did? Or how about the Supreme Court, who was already laying the groundwork for the expansion of government, starting with its own power?
There was a complex set of factors which allowed events to transpire as they did. It is simplistic to suggest that Lincoln was the harbringer of unconstutional government.
Comment by Mountain Man | February 12, 2007
Surely Lincoln is not totally responsible for the crossover to unconstitutional federal government, as the states-rights debate had been ongoing even before the formal establishment of this country, but the Lincoln presidency surely was a pivotal point, the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. It is unfortunate that none of us can remember what happened, because historical accounts never seem to be politically neutral in their recitation of events.
Comment by drive55 | February 12, 2007
Boy, this topic just never gets old does it. When is OldRepublic going to show up to tell Mountain Man that he's a neo-Marxist, and how long will it take for Dr. Phil to quote a year old discussion about "Pure white, European noble ancestry"? Oh the suspense. You all must be NASCAR fans, eh? Who else could possibly still enjoy watching the same thing happen in a circle 500 times? You know what both sides of this issue are suffering from? Ego-conservatism. You just can't stand to let anybody else have the last word on anything and leave it at that. Just when you thought Dr. Jackson might be growing weary of posting entire articles full of racist quotes of Paleoconservatives "in their own words", somebody else picks up the torch. Reading this same drivel week after week after week is getting nauseatingly tiresome. It is completely non-constructive and lowers the tone for this entire website. Dear editor: Could we have a temporary moratorium? Like, say, the next hundred of these that get submitted don't get published? Then we can pick right back up again a couple weeks from now. It'll at least give you all time to find new web links and quotations.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 12, 2007
Please check back to post # 6. It took a long time to appear after I posted it. I don't want all the brave, straight-talking PC boys to miss this opportunity to serve up the straight answers they say they don't get from the paleocons.
Comment by Lawrence Talbot | February 13, 2007
Dan,
What "behavior" are you referring to in #18?
Comment by Katzen | February 13, 2007
I had originally intended to refrain from commenting to my own column. However, I think some clarification is in order. I will not attempt to answer every question that his been asked of me, but I do think that post #6 merits a reply.
I will also note here that I am working on a future essay that critiques the paleo contention that a “proposition nation” is a relatively new concept, cannot be made to work, and cannot be traced to the Founders. I expect the essay to be complete in a few weeks and I will submit it to IC at that time for their consideration.
1. Racial differences.
I have never asserted, nor do I believe anyone else on this site has asserted, that there are no differences between races. In short, I do not dispute the data that has been presented in the book “The Bell Curve” suggesting statistically meaningful differences between various races that go beyond the obvious physical attributes. However, since I have not read the book, I cannot say anything about conclusions the author(s) may have made. Racialism or racism is not about noting differences – it is about how we conduct ourselves in light of those differences. In other words, the question is not, nor has it ever been, “are there differences?” The question is, regardless of differences, what should our response be as a nation to those differences.
It seems to me that paleo thought thus reasons as follows:
A. Biologically, we can demonstrate differences between races related to physical attributes. Statistically, we can demonstrate differences between races related to intellectual attributes.
B. Historically races have tended to remain segregated and national identity has always been nearly synonymous with racial distinctions.
C. THEREFORE because we can objectively quantify differences, and because the majority of history has favored and enforced racial distinctions, we are defying both science and history to attempt to construct a nation that attempts to be “colorblind.”
I am not disputing A or B. What I am disputing is C. For paleos, C seems to be an imperative. However, I am quite certain that I am not alone in my belief that C is a choice, not an imperative. It simply does not follow for me that differences OTHER THAN DIFFERENCES IN IDEOLOGY must necessarily be woven into the fabric of our political and social structures in this nation, or any nation for that matter.
2. Political Correctness
The assumption, both implicit and explicit, in nearly every paleo response to my questions about race is that my posture on race can only be driven by one thing: political correctness. In other words, that I have succumbed to cultural demands that place appearance and conformity over principle. There is some interesting reverse psychology behind this position. It assumes that if an individual’s views on a particular topic happen to coincide with the “PC” view, then they hold that view BECAUSE it is politically correct. And that those who hold views outside the “mainstream” do so because they are a courageous remnant that are willing to hold to historical and immutable truth regardless of societal consternation.
May I suggest another option here? What if one holds a particular view because they understand it to be a moral requirement of their underlying faith? It is my understanding of the Bible’s imperatives regarding the equality of all human beings in terms of worth that I cannot discriminate against them based on race. Can I discriminate based on ideology? Yes. Behavior? Yes. Color of skin or ethnicity? No. I do not draw my political, social, or moral ideology from man’s reason or man’s history. I draw it from my understanding of the Bible, which I believe to be the basis of law, government, and society. As such, unless someone can show me conclusively from the scriptures that my understanding is in error, I am not likely to change my posture. It does not matter to me what Burke, Plato, Kirk, Weaver, Rockwell, Brimelow, Fleming, or any other individual may assert. I make no apologies for drawing my worldview and my moral code from the Bible.
3. Immigration
The simplest way I know to convey the paleo position on this matter is that they do not believe in adoption. They cannot reconcile the fact that a person of a race different than the composition of colonial America could adopt the religious, cultural, social, and political ideologies of America and thereby be “adopted” into this nation and that common ideology alone – not common genetics + common ideology – can make it work. I realize that paleos believe ideology matters. But they also believe race matters. My contention is that ideology alone matters, race does not. I do not understand why an immigration policy that categorically excludes people based on their race makes sense. It makes far more sense to me to have an immigration policy based on ideology. But that is admittedly extremely hard to implement in terms of policy. Frankly, I do not understand why we need to admit any immigrants into this country, with the exception of “exempt” categories such as an American marrying the citizen of another country and wishing to bring them into this country. I do not have all the answers in terms of policy for the immigration debacle we face as a nation. I would start with deporting all illegals, immediately. I would follow with a genuine, defensible border along our southern boundary. I would then suggest greatly curtailed immigration as a whole, perhaps limiting it only to so-called “exempt” categories. This is not Canada in the middle of the 20th century where immigrants were needed for the country to grow economically, not are we the America of the Ellis Island era. We are a country with sufficient indigenous population and we do not “owe” anyone in the rest of the world the right to come here. We can close the gates and not feel guilty about it.
4. Attacks
Nobody here is “attacking” paleos. We asked a simple question: what do you believe about race. This was important to me not because I wanted to ridicule and humiliate, but simply because where a particular ideology stands on the question of race tells me a lot about its worldview and its moral framework. For example, it tells me WHY someone opposes affirmative action. Thus, while both I and a paleo might have an identical posture in terms of policy on reverse discrimination, we might hold that same position for very different underlying reasons. Similar comments can be made regarding immigration, segregation, and other topics. My essay reflects a very real frustration with the fact that paleos are unwilling to use this forum, where there is a distinct likelihood that their views will not be readily embraced by all, as a vehicle to tell us what they believe about race. It is ludicrous for paleos to suggest on the one hand that views on race are extremely important, and indeed threaten to dissolve the very fabric of the nation, and then on the other hand insist that it is unreasonable for non-paleos to demand a straightforward explanation. As I said in the essay, paleos continue to insist that race matters. Yet they will not explicitly spell out in what ways it matters and what types of policies we should adopt as a result.
5. Pagan egalitarianism
It is my belief that the country cannot work when there are not certain shared ideologies, and that includes a Judeo-Christian worldview. One does not necessarily need to practice Christianity or Judaism, but if they completely reject the moral framework of those belief systems, they are essentially rejecting the history of this country and principles upon which it was built. So, we are back to my original premise: shared ideology within a certain set of “core” beliefs is essential. Shared genetics is not.
Comment by nevadamistermom | February 13, 2007
Regarding a person's self-categorization: You know, you can beat anything with a hammer and cause it to lose its shape.
This is the first encounter I've had with the blog debate on "paleo" vs "neo" conservatism and I'd like to offer an observation or two. Debate minutae if you want, but as a "pragmatic" conservative with a disdain for losing, I want to challenge intellectual and non-intellectual conservatives alike to consider this:
The whole "NEO" conservative term really came into national usage, when Pat Buchanan decided he didn't like the path of the GOP in the late 1980's and ran against an incumbent President, George HW Bush. SINCE THEN: "Neo" conservativism has been raised as a spectre whenever anyone wants to start a new fight to split the party. The GOP has to do again what it did in 1994, and what the Democrats did last year:
Concoct a short-list of GOP points of agreement, on which WON'T be found abortion-bans, inheritance-tax-repeal, or any number of other splinter issues, and rebuild the big tent.
I know I'm just not getting into the spirit of minutae-oriented conservativism debate, and I apologize. I'll immediately go find a nearby Libertarian or Constitution Partisan to accost.
Comment by Optigrab | February 14, 2007
Lawrence Talbot's post #6 was probably delayed because of its patent absurdity.
His first problem is that the words "equal" and "same" are not synonymous. He appears to argue that because people are not the same that they cannot be equal. But it is leftists who confuse sameness with equality, and bring to bear the force of government to achieve their equal outcomes. Talbot appears to take the leftist premise of sameness and simply apply it differently.
His second problem is a leap of logic. He cites statistical differences in IQ of certain races, but then he makes the same mistake that leftists do in that "the racial issue" ought to be dealt with on the level of the entire group.
However, America is founded and built on the individual and his liberty, not on classifications of groups of people. Again this is a leftist approach to people; classes, not individuals.
It seems that Talbot would dismiss a black man by saying to him, "Sorry, I have no part with you, your race is intellectually inferior." The man's classification would be more important to Talbot than his status as an individual. Talbot acknowledges the "spiritual worth" of people (how magnanimous!), but artificially bifurcates the spiritual nature from the racial/physical nature.
But real conservatives acknowledge the inherent worth of every man (equality before the law and before our Creator), regardless of lack of sameness. They do not find reason to pay particular notice to racial differences, because they do not use those differences as a weapon, or as an excuse.
There is no justification for Talbot to do this, except to the extent that it supplies him with the excuses he needs. He can then pretend to embrace God's commandment to love one another by relegating it to a manufactured "spiritual" component.
Talbot never does say what he would do because of these statistical differences. Does he want inferiors rounded up and sent to Gitmo? Does he want them shipped out, executed, or segregated? Or perhaps he just wants to stay away from them or have them be kept away from him so that he can hang out only with kith and kin.
It's one thing to bring up the issue of low average IQ, it is quite another to apply this to how he wants it to be implemented in society. That is a complaint I have heard before in these pages. Where does paleo theory meet real world situations, and how does that play out in America?
Comment by Mountain Man | February 14, 2007
If the IQ issue among other things is a valid group trait, then it must be taken into consideration. For example, one reason Africa is such a perpetual basket case (and by implication Haiti and New Orleans) may well be because it is inhabited by Africans. If that is the case then the proposition nation thesis is invalid on its face. It does matter the race/ethnicity of the nation. In the same manner, Western Society can not be separated from the genetic endowments of Westerners among other things. To pretend that is untrue because it violates someone's sensibilities is foolish and dangerous.
So how does this play out policy wise? For example, No Child Left Behind is based on the foolish and demonstrably untrue egalitarian assumption that the ethnic/racial makeup of the school doesn't matter. But of course it does. It matters profoundly. So a rational policy would take demographic make-up into account when determining whether or not a school is performing well. (Of course there should be no federal education policy.)
Look at immigration for example. Most Mexicans are not westerners/Euros. Most are mixed (Mestizo) or largely Amer-Indian. They realize this. That is why they speak of La Raza (the Race) and carry signs saying Euros back to Europe. The ethnic mix of the immigrants matters. Why do they perpetually take the unskilled jobs and do almost as poorly on standardized tests as Blacks.
"But real conservatives acknowledge the inherent worth of every man…" I agree. But nothing except Political Correctness requires that we ignore obvious truth. On a one to one human scale I agree with much of what you said. That guides how we should treat people. But the real "leap" is to then dogmatically demand that reality be suspended. The PC crowd both left and right makes utterly foolish assertions like ethnicity/race is a totally superficial issue and all that matters in a nation is its bright ideas. Put Thomas Jefferson and all the bright ideas you can muster in Haiti and a mini-America will not bloom.
"However, America is founded and built on the individual and his liberty, not on classifications of groups of people. Again this is a leftist approach to people; classes, not individuals."
Individualism and individual liberty is the very hallmark of liberalism. Conservatism is traditionally about the family and the group/community.
Elements of classical liberalism are good, but it must be tempered by elements of classical conservatism.
Comment by Lawrence Talbot | February 14, 2007
There is no such thing as a "valid group trait," because individuals make up the group. The "group" is a construct based on Talbot's criteria in order to further an agenda that allows him to avoid considering the merit of individuals.
In the case of the left, race is a tool to advance their concept of society, via unconstitutional goverment programs like No Child Left Behind and Affirmative action.
In the case of the paleos, race is a tool to further their agenda as well, but we are left wonder what that agenda specifically is. Talbot gives an activity of unconstitutional government as a reason, but unconstitutional government is its own issue that manifests regardless of racial average IQ or other excuses advanced by Talbot.
No one here is interested in pretending things about race or any other matter, no one cares about violating sensibilities. No one is ignoring obvious truth. That's smokescreen rhetoric. Talbot simply wants to be able to categorize and dismiss classes of people according to his criteria.
Let's illustrate with an example. People who have Down's Syndrome are invariably lower in IQ, require large amounts of healthcare, have shorter lifespans, and contribute little to society. I've just created a class of people with valid, verifiable characteristics. What would talbot do with these people that would be different than those subject to his race-based criteria?
There is no family without individuals comprising the family. There are no characteristics unique to the group/community that are highers expressions of worth as imputed by our Creator. Groups and communities are simply organized individuals, which is an expression of government. Talbot is once again using a technique of leftists.
I do not use the term "liberal." It is meaningless. Those who look at people as groups and not individuals, those who want government to solve the problems of society, those who believe that some people are more qualified to be in charge are exhibiting leftist tendencies.
Comment by Mountain Man | February 14, 2007
Regarding Larry Talbot's comments —
Hey, look on the bright side. After five months we finally got a paleo to answer the question "Do you think that white people are inherently superior?" If Larry can answer it, why is it so hard for Dan, OR and the others to do so?
The fact that it was a stupid answer with insipid reasoning is beside the point. Larry Talbot has proven that the question can indeed be recognized by a paleoconservative, and a reply can be given. For this he is owed a debt of gratitude for stepping up to the plate and saying fearlessly what other paleos have tried hard to avoid admitting is a part of their philosophy: If you’re the wrong color, you are by definition an inferior human being.
Kind of puts all the “some kinds of slavery are okay” and “it’s not murder if you kill someone outside your tribe” comments in perspective.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 14, 2007
I had originally intended to refrain from commenting to my own column. However, I think some clarification is in order. I will not attempt to answer every question that has been asked of me, but I do think that post #6 merits a reply.
I will also note here that I am working on a future essay that critiques the paleo contention that a “proposition nation” is a relatively new concept, cannot be made to work, and cannot be traced to the Founders. I expect the essay to be complete in a few weeks and I will submit it to IC at that time for their consideration.
1. Racial differences.
I have never asserted, nor do I believe anyone else on this site has asserted, that there are no differences between races. In short, I do not dispute the data that has been presented in the book “The Bell Curve” suggesting statistically meaningful differences between various races that go beyond the obvious physical attributes. However, since I have not read the book, I cannot say anything about conclusions the author(s) may have made. Racialism or racism is not about noting differences – it is about how we conduct ourselves in light of those differences. In other words, the question is not, nor has it ever been, “are there differences?” The question is, regardless of differences, what should our response be as a nation to those differences.
It seems to me that paleo thought thus reasons as follows:
A. Biologically, we can demonstrate differences between races related to physical attributes. Statistically, we can demonstrate differences between races related to intellectual attributes.
B. Historically races have tended to remain segregated and national identity has always been nearly synonymous with racial distinctions.
C. THEREFORE because we can objectively quantify differences, and because the majority of history has favored and enforced racial distinctions, we are defying both science and history to attempt to construct a nation that attempts to be “colorblind.”
I am not disputing A or B. What I am disputing is C. For paleos, C seems to be an imperative. However, I am quite certain that I am not alone in my belief that C is a choice, not an imperative. It simply does not follow for me that differences OTHER THAN DIFFERENCES IN IDEOLOGY must necessarily be woven into the fabric of our political and social structures in this nation, or any nation for that matter.
2. Political Correctness
The assumption, both implicit and explicit, in nearly every paleo response to my questions about race is that my posture on race can only be driven by one thing: political correctness. In other words, that I have succumbed to cultural demands that place appearance and conformity over principle. There is some interesting reverse psychology behind this position. It assumes that if an individual’s views on a particular topic happen to coincide with the “PC” view, then they hold that view BECAUSE it is politically correct. And that those who hold views outside the “mainstream” do so because they are a courageous remnant that are willing to hold to historical and immutable truth regardless of societal consternation.
May I suggest another option here? What if one holds a particular view because they understand it to be a moral requirement of their underlying faith? It is my understanding of the Bible’s imperatives regarding the equality of all human beings in terms of worth that I cannot discriminate against them based on race. Can I discriminate based on ideology? Yes. Behavior? Yes. Color of skin or ethnicity? No. I do not draw my political, social, or moral ideology from man’s reason or man’s history. I draw it from my understanding of the Bible, which I believe to be the basis of law, government, and society. As such, unless someone can show me conclusively from the scriptures that my understanding is in error, I am not likely to change my posture. It does not matter to me what Burke, Plato, Kirk, Weaver, Rockwell, Brimelow, Fleming, or any other individual may assert. I make no apologies for drawing my worldview and my moral code from the Bible.
3. Immigration
The simplest way I know to convey the paleo position on this matter is that they do not believe in adoption. They cannot reconcile the fact that a person of a race different than the composition of colonial America could adopt the religious, cultural, social, and political ideologies of America and thereby be “adopted” into this nation and that common ideology alone – not common genetics + common ideology – can make it work. I realize that paleos believe ideology matters. But they also believe race matters. My contention is that ideology alone matters, race does not. I do not understand why an immigration policy that categorically excludes people based on their race makes sense. It makes far more sense to me to have an immigration policy based on ideology. But that is admittedly extremely hard to implement in terms of policy. Frankly, I do not understand why we need to admit any immigrants into this country, with the exception of “exempt” categories such as an American marrying the citizen of another country and wishing to bring them into this country. I do not have all the answers in terms of policy for the immigration debacle we face as a nation. I would start with deporting all illegals, immediately. I would follow with a genuine, defensible border along our southern boundary. I would then suggest greatly curtailed immigration as a whole, perhaps limiting it only to so-called “exempt” categories. This is not Canada in the middle of the 20th century where immigrants were needed for the country to grow economically, not are we the America of the Ellis Island era. We are a country with sufficient indigenous population and we do not “owe” anyone in the rest of the world the right to come here. We can close the gates and not feel guilty about it.
4. Attacks
Nobody here is “attacking” paleos. We asked a simple question: what do you believe about race. This was important to me not because I wanted to ridicule and humiliate, but simply because where a particular ideology stands on the question of race tells me a lot about its worldview and its moral framework. For example, it tells me WHY someone opposes affirmative action. Thus, while both I and a paleo might have an identical posture in terms of policy on reverse discrimination, we might hold that same position for very different underlying reasons. Similar comments can be made regarding immigration, segregation, and other topics. My essay reflects a very real frustration with the fact that paleos are unwilling to use this forum, where there is a distinct likelihood that their views will not be readily embraced by all, as a vehicle to tell us what they believe about race. It is ludicrous for paleos to suggest on the one hand that views on race are extremely important, and indeed threaten to dissolve the very fabric of the nation, and then on the other hand insist that it is unreasonable for non-paleos to demand a straightforward explanation. As I said in the essay, paleos continue to insist that race matters. Yet they will not explicitly spell out in what ways it matters and what types of policies we should adopt as a result.
5. Pagan egalitarianism
It is my belief that the country cannot work when there are not certain shared ideologies, and that includes a Judeo-Christian worldview. One does not necessarily need to practice Christianity or Judaism, but if they completely reject the moral framework of those belief systems, they are essentially rejecting the history of this country and principles upon which it was built. So, we are back to my original premise: shared ideology within a certain set of “core” beliefs is essential. Shared genetics is not.
Comment by Steve Sabin | February 15, 2007
"There is no such thing as a “valid group trait,” because individuals make up the group."
That is pure sophistry, and you know it. You can't have it both ways. You did not reject the science because to do so would expose you. But then you want to say that that science can't tell us anything. So we can't say for example that one reason that men dominate in math and science is very likely because there are inherent difference between the sexes because there are no group traits, only individual females. Whatever, buddy. Did you support the PC Jihad against Larry Summers?
If you accept the science of group differences then that invalidates the proposition nation thesis. Because the underlying template that gives rise to the society DOES MATTER. How could it not?
This has nothing at all to do with how you treat individuals. Christian love and charity is required of all and too all. But nothing in the Bible requires willful ignorance. You can not base good public policy on the assumption of equality (real equality, not legal equality) if in fact equality is a myth. My No Child Left Behind example is perfect. A large part of the problem with "underperforming" or "failing" schools can be explained by demographics. To pretend that doesn't exist or that it can be made to go away makes for bad public policy.
Comment by Lawrence Talbot | February 15, 2007
"They are making sport of y’all at Conservative Times."
If a fool calls you a fool, what does that make you?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 15, 2007
"That is pure sophistry, and you know it." It is not, sir. You are making a construct out of a group of people based on an arbitrary criteria, and claiming that as justification for your as yet unnamed agenda.
Within that group there are geniuses and idiots, just as if you walked into a party and administered an IQ test to everyone there. What kind of generalizations could we make there? "All party goers are dunken fools." Or, "All party goers are neglecting their children."
I notice that you did not address my arbitrary group of Down's Syndrome sufferers. Would another group pique your interest, perhaps blonde women?
Casting people into groups gives you the opportunity to depersonalize them, homogenizing them into an entity you can categorically dismiss or manipulate at will. A leftist tactic.
A group of nameless, faceless, homogenized people is a very useful tool for those who want to, say, create a government program for (victimhood), or round up and send to gas chambers (persecution), or dismiss as inferior, irrelevant, or not worthy of one's attention.
You can say whatever you want about math skills of men, or any characteristic of any group you choose to assemble for whatever agenda you intend to push. Fine with me. Just know that because I happen to take people one at a time on their merits does not make me a PC enforcer.
Comment by Mountain Man | February 16, 2007
…you said “There is no such thing as a “valid group trait,” because individuals make up the group. The “group” is a construct based on Talbot’s criteria…”
That is patently false. The only way you can say that is if you say that groups don’t have traits, only individuals do in the most pedantic sense. (Groups don't have curly hair, for example, people do.) But in the plain “you know what I mean” sense, groups do have traits. On average Japanese are short. On average black people have more melanin. Biologists speak of group (or class) traits all the time. Zoological nomenclature as we know it would be impossible if there were no group traits. The AKC could not exist if there were no group traits.
The funny thing is that that argument is exactly the argument used by the liberals to muck up the discussion on The Bell Curve or by the militant feminists when they were attacking Larry Summers.
“Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment, but the term has taken on different meanings in different time periods (for example now in the United States generally it means new liberalism while in the rest of the world has the meaning of classical liberalism).
Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.[2] In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.[3]”
Some classical liberalism is good such as limited government, but clearly the focus on the individual is a product of liberalism, not classical conservatism which focused on the maintenance of society and the social order.
These two simple paragraphs also illustrate that focusing on “equality” is a liberal value.
Here is a paragraph that is also helpful.
“Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property.”
I don’t think many paleos want to re-establish a monarchy, but does this help clear up some of where we are coming from? And why what you are pushing is playing for the wrong team.
Comment by Lawrence Talbot | February 16, 2007
“… but clearly the focus on the individual is a product of liberalism, not classical conservatism which focused on the maintenance of society and the social order.”
The following political systems decried the notion of individual rights in favor of “the maintenance of society and the social order”: Soviet Russia, Communist China, and Nazi Germany. These are the “classical conservative” models paleoconservatism aspires to emulate?
This is what happens when you take the lofty, abstract notions of “family”, “kin”, “tribe”, etc. and apply them to the real world, and in doing so expressly reject the concept that individual people should be seen and judged as, well, individual people. The philosophical foundation of paleoconservatism ends up creating and/or endorsing these kinds of political systems by the very logic of its own defenders’ words.
As for “valid group traits”, the point wasn’t to dispute that “on average black people have more melanin,” etc. The point is, SO WHAT? Exactly why is this an issue with regard to assigning blanket social status to an entire group of people without making any allowance for individual actions, values or differences.
I asked the question before and I’ll ask it again. If a black man shared 100% of the values and held the exact, identical beliefs of a white man regarding illegal immigration, the need to abandon the Constitution and return to the Articles of Confederation, etc., under the logic of paleoconservatism could/should these two people form a common political union?
The answer we’ve been told is NO. Because kith and kin and family are supremely important, the black man would have to form his own “tribe” and/or country. Why? Because he has more melanin in his body than the white man does.
Values and beliefs are not the foundation of paleoconservatism. Genetics (ancestry, skin color, individual genetic family ties, etc.) ARE the fundamental issues for paleoconservatives. It’s why we’ve been told repeatedly that “Race matters”.
You can dress the pig in any costume you want, and call it whatever name you wish, but at the end of the day it’s still a pig. Like any political philosophy, paleoconservatism should be judged by what it does (and doesn’t do), rather than what it says it is.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 16, 2007
The most famous modern book arguing that the Founding
Fathers supported a proposition nation is Howard
Zinn's A People's History of the United States.
He argues that the Founding Fathers created a
proposition nation, whereby we are truly a secular,
centralist society, and the federal government has the
right to break up and stamp out older allegiances,
like those to one's family, etc.
Comment by Tom | February 17, 2007
I have never met a single paleo who is a "racist." Paleos reject this Marxist classification.
And "racism" invokes hatred. Paleos preach not hatred, but to love all the races in their diversity.
Some paleos are racialists, but this is a different concept. It does not make a value judgement that one race is necessarily better than another. It - like Aristotle and Edmund Burke - just makes the observation that different ethnicities tend to behave in different ways. Nevertheless, it says that people of different races can still be friends.
Comment by Donald | February 17, 2007
I was not aware that "racism" was a Marxist classification. You learn something new every day!
And I always thought that Aristotle "justified" slavery (along with the Bible, which says it's only murder if you kill another white person). Now we know all Aristotle meant was that black people act differently than white people.
Thanks for clearing everything up!
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 17, 2007
Oh, and we now also know what Richard M. Weaver meant by “Some of the means, for example the Ku Klux Klan, were irregular, but essentially it was the political genius of Jefferson, of Washington, of Madison, and of Pinckney expressing itself in times of trouble and oppression.”
The KKK wasn't trying to terrorize black people. They were just trying to be "friends", like the little boy dipping the pigtails of a girl he liked in the inkwell of his desk. Only, instead of pigtails and an inkwell, the KKK used rope and a tree branch to express their friendship.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 17, 2007
No Dan, they are not "classical conservative systems” — as paleos define all things conservative and classical. They are intolerant regimes built on the notion of a superior genetic ancestry (the Nazis) and/or the absence of individual rights in favor of “the maintenance of society and the social order” (Soviet Russia, Communist China, and Nazi Germany again).
But then again, Weaver said that the KKK was just the modern day expression of Thomas Jefferson.
When we take the paleos own words about kith, kin, tribe and ancestry — or in the case of this dufus I quoted who entered the discussion — and apply them to real world situations, we come up with a political system much closer to the three I named above than the country we live in today (pre or post Constitution). This debate has always been about the policies and political practices that flow from paleoconservatism by virtue of the way you guys view the world, not the abstract notions of “love of one’s family” that everyone can relate to.
And thanks for acknowledging this one time that I actually have some training and education in this discipline.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 17, 2007
Phil,
A basic tenant of logic is that you can't predicate a characteristic, say x, of a group, say G, unless every member has it.
You are just creating a strawman, not fact. (BTW, many of your quotes are in error and not by the authors you say they are by.)
I am a paleoconservative. And I certainly am friends of people of different races. I have a number of black and Japanese friends. In fact, all the paleos I know have friends from different races.
Like Aristotle and Burke, I recognize that there are differences among ethnicities, but I am not guilty of the NeoMarxist charge of "racism." And like all paleos, I do not at all preach or praise "hatred" of different races.
Out of curiosity, is this forum even for discussion or is it for the enforcement of the doctrine of political correctness?
Comment by Donald | February 18, 2007
I find it quite amusing that paleoconservatives find it difficult to comment on this topic without continually brining up the idea of "political correctness" or "enforcement" of a particular ideology. I should think the fact that this forum actually allows all points of view to be presented, and only edits posts when the language becomes that of personal attacks, to be sufficient evidence that there is nobody pushing a particular train of thought at the administration of moderator level at IC.
For those who are just tuning in, let me repeat once again: the reason you aren't finding the "non-PC" version of idelogies regarding race IS BECAUSE PALEOS REFUSE TO SUBMIT THEM TO THIS SITE AS ESSAYS.
I posted the above essay that paleos found disagreeable, and a few non-paleo readers perhaps found to be disagreeable because they don't think conservatives should be having a "family feud" in a public forum, but should instead keep their disagreements to be worked out in private.
However, I consider my essay to be written and submitted in the public service, lest other unsuspecting souls wander ignorantly into paleoconservative ideology without realizing they are necessarily subscribing to a school of thought that makes racial separatism absolutely foundational to their premises about government, rights, national identity, and national stability.
Readers will note that paleos still continue to refuse to actually delineate their posture on this matter. It is easier to sling arrows. I also note that they choose to publish their views in forums where they know they will find only like-minded readers and favorable comments.
Paleos hang out here only to make endless repetition of the following:
1. Paleo's view about race is the only "true" conservative view. All other views are historically associated with the left. I.e., racialism is an ABSOLUTE of conservative thought. Any disagreement is necessarily Marxist, liberal, and leftist. Any understanding of the Bible or history that does not embrace racial separatism is misguided at best, willfully ignorant at worst.
2. Don't allow divergence. Insist that those who reject #1 are motivated purely from a desire to "fit in" with the PC crowd. Or that they reject history, have low IQs, or both.
3. A country cannot be based on shared ideology, shared values, and shared beliefs. It MUST include shared race. One need look no further than the former Soviet Union to see what happens when a country is artificially constructed of a shared ideology.
My essay here remains as a challenge to paleos to stop hiding behind comments that reveal only part of their worldview regarding race and be courageous enough to generate their own essays on this topic and submit them to this forum. If IC indeed rejects the essay(s) because they are racist, then perhaps the claims of "PC enforcers" might be merited. As it stands, however, they are just so much confetti designed to jam the radar of those who might otherwise understand that we are dealing with a group of individuals who are, at heart, white separatists, and in some cases, white supremacists. They love - and indeed find their identity - in a sort of cultural martyrdom…that they are some sort of disenfranchised branch of conservatism that gets no respect, is continually maligned by the PC crowd, and is on a soapbox preaching a message that can alone save the country - so that when it fails, they can point and say "told you so."
If this is the type of conservatism that the reader wishes to align with, by all means go ahead. Read Plato and adopt his ideas about infanticide and women and slavery. Lament over the equally sad days in which the Articles of Confederation were traded in for a Constitution and later the ratification of Amendments XIII, XIV, and XV. In short, spend your days wishing we could go back to 1787 or at least 1860-1865 and push the "do-over" button.
And be sure to send e-mails to people like me in private because you are too timid to publish your views where all can see them and respond to them. After all, it's the "courageous" approach.
Comment by nevadamistermom | February 18, 2007
"is this forum even for discussion?"
Donald –
I will take you at your word, and in so doing I owe you a sincere apology. You seem like a reasonable fellow and I've automatically lumped you in with others who I've previously corresponded with.
Have a look at the author index under my name, and go to the article "Off to the Races". Read the article, and then the comments section. Then go to the essay "Paleo Bilge". Also, look at the comments to the essay I wrote on "The President is an Idiot".
This has been the sum total of my experience at dialogue with self-described paleoconservatives — who have given me the paleo quotes I used above.
I (and others) have wanted for some time now to engage in a discussion about what paleoconservatives actually believe from a practical policy perspective, rather than listen to an endless laundry list of quotes about kith, kin, tribe, etc. while never answering any of the questions we ask. We are not trying to "trap" anyone. We're simply concerned that every time we hear a paleo express their beliefs, it somehow leads back to a foundation built on white supremacy.
You do not appear to be cut from this same cloth, so I apologize for automatically assuming that you were and treating you the way I did. I'm prepared now to sit back and listen if you will comment on the exchanges I cited above, and tell us whether what these self-identified paleos say is an integral part of paleoconservative philosophy, or just the work of small minds with a hidden agenda.
As an FYI, neither I nor the other people asking questions of the paleos are "liberals" in any sense of the word, despite being repeatedly subjected to this characterization for asking our questions. Have a look at a couple of my "Looney Liberal Chronicles" (particularly the ones dealing with race) and you'll understand better how I, at least, view the world.
Regards,
Phil Jackson
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 18, 2007
Hmmm. Just as I accepted the olive branch from Donald who said that paleos are simple, misunderstood people who get along with people of all color, up pops a few emails to me on my hotmail account from other paleos who say EXACTLY the same thing.
Here’s John rightwingrealists
“Most of the stuff you are saying about paleoconservatives is completely false. By and large, paleoconservatives are just academics. I'm a paleo, and I have no hatred. I'm friends with people from all races. I'm friends with blacks, Mexicans, Asians, etc. I have been in paleo circles for about 15 years, and all the paleos I know are extremely accepting of other races. I've never met a single ‘racist’ paleo.
“Did you even read the Wikipedia entry? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism I'm sorry, but your hyperbole is juvenile at best. You should enroll at a Fundamentals of Research class at your local college.”
Then came Pete Green howtopetegreen
“You are completely wrong about paleos. They may not agree with your liberal views on race, but they are certainly not ‘racist.’ I'm a paleo and I am friends with people of many races. Also, many of my (white) paleo friends in Alabama recently started charity for poor blacks. How's that for your liberal stereotypes?”
And of course there was Donald’s original comment on February 17 (which he also sent to me):
“I have never met a single paleo who is a ‘racist.’ Paleos reject this Marxist classification. And ‘racism’ invokes hatred. Paleos preach not hatred, but to love all the races in their diversity.
“Some paleos are racialists, but this is a different concept. It does not make a value judgement that one race is necessarily better than another. It - like Aristotle and Edmund Burke - just makes the observation that different ethnicities tend to behave in different ways. Nevertheless, it says that people of different races can still be friends.”
For those of you who have been following the evolution of paleo-speak these past several months, remember this originally started with paleo claims that “race matters” and that white people are genetically superior to other colors.
When this provoked an outcry, they switched to ‘hey, it was all just a joke.’ But the funny thing was, when I asked, no one would say which specific statements were the alleged “jokes”.
This returned us to even more perverse claims that not only are whites are in fact superior to all other races, it’s only murder if you kill a member of your own tribe, and that “most” (but not all???) forms of slavery are no longer acceptable today — even though Aristotle (the paleo lawgiver) thought it was a good idea because that’s the natural way of life.
Throw in throughout all this the liberal (no pun intended) use of labels such as Marxist, leftist, neocon, etc. to brand anyone who disagrees that kith kin tribe aren’t the only things that really matter, even though not a single a paleo could (or would) explain what this REALLY means in the 21st century insofar as racial politics are concerned. Can blacks join a white country, or must they start their own simply because they are black — “friendship” notwithstanding?
So now, after Mr. Sabin writes his essay, the paleos try explanation #4: paleos LOVE EVERYBODY. Some of their best friends are even black, so that shows they’re not "racists" — which is a word that must always appear in quotation marks because it really doesn’t exist anyway.
Unfortunately, someone didn’t get the memo, and also sent me a private email that said “Article about Phil ‘Herbert Marcuse’ Jackson http://conservativetimes.org/?p=68”. Please do wander on over to that website and feel the same love you see expressed at this website for all people, of all races. And while you’re at it, stop by the other paleo websites American Renaissance and Vanguard News Network. The paleo “love” is even stronger there.
Do these people seriously think they’re fooling anybody?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 19, 2007
I strongly encourage you to read the article by Bede (not sure if that is a username or a real last name) critiquing my essay and the numerous comments to his article. It can be found here:
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=68
I made the not-unreasonable assumption that since the site did nothing to clarify its posture on race and instead merely repeats the tired assertions that I'm a "PC Enforcer", that it was both a paleoconservative site and frequented by those who support white separatism. I posted comments to this effect in post #40 above. I remain of that opinion.
However, I have now been contacted by conservativetimes.org and informed that they are a "mainstream" conservative site, and not associated with either paleoconservatism or white separatism.
Accordingly, I have asked the moderator here at IC to edit my post #40 and remove reference to conservativetimes.org that might infer it is associated with paleoconservatives or white separatists.
The interested reader may wish to visit the link referenced above for Conservative Times and form their own conclusions.
Comment by nevadamistermom | February 19, 2007
Nevadamistermom —
Regarding your comments on February 17 that the editors of conservativetimes contacted you to say that that they are a “mainstream” conservative site, and not associated with either paleoconservatism or white separatism, I was also contacted by them. (They wrote the same message to everyone who has posted an essay at Intellectual Conservative). This was their exact message:
“We have started a new multiuser ezine, and we are always looking for fresh talent. We are a mainstream conservative publication, with a paleoconservative slant.”
I’ll let you draw their own conclusions about whether their latest message was a sincere way to re-state their original intentions, or a less than an honest way to state their affinity with paleoconservatives thought. I can’t say for sure because a third possibility also exists. After reading what self-identified paleos wrote, they may have been so profoundly embarrassed by any association with paleoconservatives thought that they’ve chosen to distance themselves from all things paleo.
By the way, one other interesting thing regarding my comment from yesterday. I thought that I mistakenly stated that Donald had also sent me a private message, when it actually came from another yahoo emailer Daniel Rogers paleoconservative1776.
I was momentarily confused because when I looked back at the message again, the language was not only similar — it was identical! “Daniel Roger’s” email said:
“I have never met a single paleo who is a ‘racist.’ Paleos reject this Marxist classification. And "racism" invokes hatred. Paleos preach not hatred, but to love all the races in their diversity.
“Some paleos are racialists, but this is a different concept. It does not make a value judgement that one race is necessarily better than another. It – like Aristotle and Edmund Burke - just makes the observation that different ethnicities tend to behave in different ways. Nevertheless, it says that people of different races can still be friends.”
Now here’s Donald’s original February 17 IC post again:
“I have never met a single paleo who is a ‘racist.’ Paleos reject this Marxist classification. And ‘racism’ invokes hatred. Paleos preach not hatred, but to love all the races in their diversity.
“Some paleos are racialists, but this is a different concept. It does not make a value judgement that one race is necessarily better than another. It - like Aristotle and Edmund Burke - just makes the observation that different ethnicities tend to behave in different ways. Nevertheless, it says that people of different races can still be friends.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if Daniel/Donald wrote ALL the emails I referenced in my last comment.
NOT ONLY ARE THESE PALEOS DISHONEST ABOUT WHAT THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE, THEY INVENT MULTIPLE PERSONALITIES TO EXPRESS THEIR THOUGHTS.
And they wonder why no one takes them seriously?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 20, 2007
General note: Any further comments I have will be found in my new essay "Who Are You?" Phil Jackson
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 21, 2007