View Comments |  Print This Post |

Labels: Foreign Affairs: Iraq War, Neocons & Paleocons

1. Dan,

   Great post.

   Yes, it drives me nuts when some commentator refers to the American Enterprise Institute as "conservative." Neoconservatism is an ideology dreamed up by Leo Strauss and Irving Kristol. Kristol, an ex-Trotskyite, adopted state capitalism as the preferred economic engine to drive the global revolution after Communism proved itself a failure.

   The key distinction between Neoconservatism and paleoconservatism is universalism. Since Neoconservatism derived from Trotskyite beliefs, both start from abstractions and lead toward particular facts. Thus, since "all" people want "democracy," the people of Iraq want democracy, or so they reasoned.

   Paleoconservatism was best defined by Russell Kirk - see
   http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html

   Paleo, or original conservatism, describes the political practices that grew out of the traditions of Western, Christian civilization, and, as Kirk points out, reveres custom, convention, and continuity. A people's character emerges from their experience, therefore tradition contains the wisdom of many generations — that's why conservatives, such as Edmund Burke condemning the French Revolution, oppose radical change — it is not based on reality, but speculation.

   More important, paleos appreciate variety, and recognize that different cultures hold to different values. That's why a principled conservative would not dream of forcing another people to conform to some universal blueprint, as the Necons did.

   The failure to impose Western political institutions in Iraq is the latest confirmation of the ineptness of universal standards that both leftists and Neocons believe in.

   Comment by mtuggle | January 9, 2007

2. I highly recommend that everyone interested in this subject click on the link "adopted" above. It explains what mtuggle is saying precisely.

   I especially ask that people click on and read it before they post or e-mail something along the lines of: "You paleos are just a bunch of Ostriches burying your heads in the sand. You're a bunch of appeasers, pacifists, wimps, chickens (pick your epithet of choice). Didn't you learn anything from Neville Chamberlain? Blah, blah, blah…”

   If you can read that and still support the current neocon/mainstream conservative strategy and think I am a naïve fool then so be it. But you must do so recognizing that yours is the revolutionary faith.

   Comment by Dan Phillips | January 9, 2007

3. Dan,

   Here's a great article by Steven LaTulippe at

   http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/latulippe76.html

   Check out these two gems:

   "Culture is what people do instead of government (and, conversely, government is what people do instead of culture). Like bad money driving out good, statism advances at the expense of authentic, organic culture."

   And …

   "Genuine, organic culture need not be imposed upon a society, because it sprouts from a particular people, their heritage, and their history. It is a spontaneous and natural expression of who they are, and it arises from the need to cope with the challenges of life and the profound, haunting questions of the human experience. Organic culture encompasses a collection of institutions, such as extended families, churches, fraternal societies, and ethnic associations, which function to insulate individuals from the perils of life and to place it in a coherent moral and philosophical framework."

   The four steps LaTulippe recommends are practical, doable measures that anyone can support and implement in their communities. The only way we can restore humane values is for us to become human again, and that means to renew the personal and social connections that make us what we are. The radical individualism the welfare-warfare state imposes on us is the way of slavery and death.

   Comment by mtuggle | January 9, 2007

4. Once again the "paleo's" have misunderstood (or ignored) the true reasons for the Iraq invasion, labeling neocon ideology (the spread of democracy) the only cause of the war, rather than a required consequence of it.

   We invaded Iraq for a number of reasons: WMD's, 9/11, violations of the cease-fire, support for terrorists, the unravelling of the U.N sanctions regime, to name but a few. However, once the U.S-led coalition (it was not unilateral, Dan) toppled the regime in a matter of weeks, we had a moral and practical obligation to not simply install a new dictator (as Alexander or Napolean would have) to oversee the country but to set up a system of self-government as we did in post-war Germany and Japan.

   The fact that, as Col. Snodgrass and others have pointed out, we did not finish off our enemies as ruthlessly as we should have does not mean the war itself was a mistake; nor does it mean we still can't turn up the heat dramatically and finish the job now. It simply means we made tactical errors in the wars prosecution, partly as a consequence of fierce opposition to the war by liberals and paleo's.

   And what if we had not invaded when we did? By now Hussein may have thrown off the sanctions, developed WMD's, and been in league with the terrorists in using them against the U.S. The paleo's and the liberals would then have demanded "why did the administration not connect the dots sooner?"

   The fact is the paleos do have their heads buried in the sand. As I stated in my article "The Bush Doctrine," the U.S. has attempted to be isolationist since its inception but paradoxically finds herself as the global defender of liberty nevertheless. This is because no one else is equipped to do it and the U.S. cannot survive indefinitely as an island of liberty surrounded by enemies.

   The Barbary wars, the Monroe Doctrine, 1812, the two World Wars, the Cold War, are all examples of wars or diplomatic pronouncements or "saber rattlings" the U.S. entered or issued reluctantly and despite strong and popular isolationist sentiment. This is not folly but leadership.

   The President's mistake was not being too aggressive, but not nearly aggressive enough.

   Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | January 9, 2007

5. Dan,

   Great piece. One thing I find striking is when you go back to look at Free Republic posts from the Clinton years, and you find the exact same arguments made against Clinton's Balkans policy that paleocons still make
   today.

   Yet it would seem that the same Freepers who today bleat about how we have no choice but to set out on a crusade to slay all tyrants everywhere were the same ones who were attacking Clinton's efforts to play global policeman.

   This seems a truism of the Binarythink of modern politics… Republicans can only see a wrong when it is committed by Democrats, Democrats can only see a wrong when committed by Republicans.

   A dogmatic progressive– whether globalist liberal or neoconned Republican– will never admit that "progress" or hegemony is the problem– he will always claim that the problem is that we have not been "progressive" or hegemonic ENOUGH.

   It's a kind of religion:

   If the dogma fails, its obviously because we didn't put enough zeal in it.

   Comment by J.D. | January 9, 2007

6. I mean, obviously if we'd killed more Arabs at the very outset, then by now they'd have all put down their weapons and learned to love us.

   If we had only carpet-bombed Syria from the beginning, we wouldn't be in this mess.

   Comment by J.D. | January 9, 2007

7. Biologists have fought a running battle over the definition of “species” for several decades, with some championing the “inability to interbreed” as defining a unique species while others interject complicating factors such as “geographical isolation”. What constitutes a distinct species is a great argument over a few beers, but ultimately can’t be resolved due to our limited biological knowledge and the complexity of the real world. Personally, I don’t know what species of political Conservative describes my view of reality and frankly find the entire subject of political classification boring.

   However, the author’s remarks regarding isolationism struck a responsive chord. Historically, “isolationist” is one of those ugly terms like “racist” or “homophobe”, thrown around for emotional reasons and to end further debate. The roots of the term isolationist lie in pre-WWII historical events and the current usage of isolationist is based on an historical myth.

   The foundation of the current isolationist myth revolves around Pearl Harbor. We were attacked without warning; caught napping because we wouldn’t or couldn’t appreciate the need to look beyond our own borders for threats to our national security. But, if we look at the actual events leading up to Pearl Harbor, we find that our state department and the President were interventionists, not isolationists, while the American public was of a mixed mind concerning Japan and Germany.

   Throughout 1941, the state department carried out extensive negotiations with the Japanese. For obscure reasons, never fully explained, Washington linked our national security with the fate of the Chinese. The Japanese army had invaded China and this alarmed Cordell Hull and FDR. In our negotiations, we continually pressed Japan to stop military advances in China, withdraw their troops and stop all further aggression in Asia. Their pressure on Vichy France to grant them military and economic access to Indochina (Viet Nam) further exacerbated the diplomatic tension with America.

   Yet, in retrospect, what American national security interest was threatened by the Japanese relative to China? We didn’t have extensive economic interests or holdings in China, other than the normal imperialistic desire to shamelessly exploit China like the British, French and other European powers. We didn’t have close cultural ties to China, only a tiny minority of our citizens were of Chinese origin. Washington appeared concerned with national prestige, an amorphous concept, and alarmed over Japanese expansion into what our government considered an American area of influence (Asia and Southeast Asia).

   General George C. Marshall and Secretary of War Stimson begged Hull and FDR to hold off war with Japan, through negotiation and diplomatic ploys, until spring of 1942. Both Marshall and Stimson had the rather naïve view that we would be ready to take on the Japanese by April, 1942. In 1941, America had the 19th most powerful army in the world with barely 100,000 effective troops (trained and ready for deployment). Our Navy was considered a global power, but it turned out their primary weapons were obsolete or ineffective.

   Starting in July, 1941, the military chiefs issued repeated “war warnings”, relative to Japanese aggression, to U.S. forces scattered throughout the Pacific. We fully expected a Japanese attack, but not on Hawaii, perhaps the Philippines or Singapore. The rest is history, as they say; however, the isolationist myth, awaiting birth, was subsequently blamed on the American public, when in reality, the blame for the Pacific war can be laid at the feet of interventionists who through a combination of incompetence, naiveté and incredible egotism saw a false reality, really an illusion over what constitutes a “national security interest”.

   The facts and motivations have been thoroughly debated for 60 years, but, in the final analysis, a handful of government officials diplomatically blundered and dragged us into a war before we were ready and, as usual, without the consent or understanding of the American public. For those who rationalize the war by pointing to the political structure of the Japanese government or the lack of democracy in Japan as reason enough to go to war, where does that leave us relative to the “democratic” politics of our wartime ally, the Soviet Union?

   Isolationism has gotten a bum rap. However honest and well meaning, a small number, in reality too small a number, of government officials define “national security” and “national interests”, while the American public for reasons of security or just politics is expected to rally to the flag without fully understanding the situation. When the dying is over and the coffins have been sent home, an historical verdict of “oops, we were wrong” just doesn’t cut it.

   Comment by Pat Skurka | January 9, 2007

8. Osonitsch wrote:

   "We invaded Iraq for a number of reasons: WMD’s, 9/11, violations of the cease-fire, support for terrorists, the unravelling of the U.N sanctions regime…"

   Let's look at each of these :

   WMDs - Oh, yes, we just had to launch an aggressive war, putting us in the same league as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, to stop Saddam from zapping us with his Death Star. But even Bush has admitted there were no WMDs. It never even made sense that a Third-World country could develop "some of the deadliest weapons known to man," as Cheney put it.

   9/11 - Saddam had nothing to do with it — another lie that Bush & Co. have admitted to

   violations of the cease-fire - but these were UN conditions, and the UN has authorized force only twice. Bush & Co. used this as a pretext for war — proven by the fact that other nations, including India, Pakistan, and Israel have ignored the UN without the US invadiing.

   support for terrorists - again, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11

   the unravelling of the U.N sanctions regime - again, so when does the US unilaterally take it upon itself to use force to uphold UN sanctions? Especially when the UN itself has not authorized the use of force?

   "Isolationism" is a smear word for "minding your own business," which was what George Washington counseled as the proper American policy. Pre-emptive war is wrong, period. The US does not possess a divine mandate to murder innocent people for political reasons.

   Comment by mtuggle | January 9, 2007

9. while I would not go so far as to say that we murdered innocents, (no arab/persian muslim is innocent) or deserves to be treated like anything other than the savages they are, we should have let the old fool die a cancerous death and left the Iraqis to decide their fate. Like most ME arabs they are easily content to sit back in their own crap piles and let some fools in to do the sweat work. And we foolishly complied.

   This war was and is a strategic blunder and Bush and Co. are given too much money and power not to have known that.

   Comment by Dean | January 9, 2007

10. J.D. you Neanderthal. You just don't get it.

    Try this. Hold both hands aloft just down from vertical, so maybe at 1 or 2 o'clock. Then rock back and forth in a bowing motion. It works much better if the palms are flattened out as a closed fist symbolizes defiance. As you do this repeat over and over again, "ALL HAIL PROGRESS. ALL HAIL PROGRESS. ALL HAIL PROGRESS. ALL HAIL PROGRESS."

    Do this for a good 10 minutes or so and your eyes will glass over, your mental defenses will drop, and you will then easily believe what you're told like a good little activist.

    J.D. I must be harsh with you, because insolence must be dealt with harshly. You obviously do not "know your role." You have not been commissioned to think. You have not been commissioned to question. At the beneficence of the State, you have been commissioned to listen, accept and regurgitate.

    So let’s get this straight, Sadam was well on his way to creating WMDs. The reason we did not find them is because they were all scuttled off to Iran and Syria who are next on the list to liquidate… err … conquer … err … democratize. Sadam and Iraq were intimately involved in the 9/11 attack. As good little multinational globalists (good, good) America had a stake in enforcing UN mandates. Those Knuckle-dragging isolationists (bad, bad) who suggest otherwise are evil reactionary enemies of progress and/or closeted liberal, pacifist appeasers. It is better to “fight them over there than it is to fight them over here.” We know all this because the Good Leader and his designated surrogates tell us so.

    Now give me 20 more minutes of “ALL HAIL PROGRESS.” While you do this it helps to visualize evil, reactionary enemies of progress like the Arabs getting blown to pieces by freedom bombs. Try not to think of them as fellow human beings. How can we usher in the Progressive New World Order with backwards thinkers like that standing in our way? And try not to worry your little head about all the “collateral damage” like Iraqi women and children, or the dead cannon fodder … err … I mean soldiers, the severed limbs, or the broken marriages from repeated deployments, etc. etc. etc. You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, you know.

    Now go forth but be very wary indeed of anyone who mentions the Old Right,” Washington’s Farewell Address, the America First Committee, Chronicle’s Magazine, or LewRockwell(dot)com favorably. This is a sure sign the individual harbors deep seditious tendencies and is in dire need of re-education. You must shout them down as naïve, appeasers, liberals, pacifists, wimps or disciples of Chamberlain. If that doesn’t shut them up then suggest their must be evil racist motives underlying their rejection of the dogma of progress. This almost always works except on a few intractable ones.

    J.D., be warned, I have been very tolerant with you. Most of your peers figured this out well before you did. Recall your task is to listen, accept and regurgitate. Nothing more. Nothing less. Any more insolence and you will immediately be sent to re-education camp before you can infect any other minds with your less than enthusiastic embrace of the TRUTH.

    Comment by Lawrence Talbot | January 9, 2007

11. Mtuggle, so now we're Nazi's. You sound exactly like the long-haired, hippy-freak communists I have to deal with at anti-war protest marches. Why don't you just say "Bush lied, people died."

    For the 20/20 hindsight brigades, I'll remind you that every intelligence agency in the world stated that the regime had WMD's and they may be in Syria right now. We may not know until one detonates in NYC because paleos and libs have made defending this country almost impossible. Nevertheless, the former Iraqi regime - sworn enemies of the U.S. - retained the capability to develop them once the sanctions collapsed. Then they could (and would) have used them agaist us. By then it would be too late to stop them, hence the need for pre-emptive war. That is why I mentioned the U.N. sanctions, not because I think the U.S. does the bidding of that vile organization.

    There were numerous documented connections between Saddam and various terrorist groups.

    And Isolationism is synonymous with ignorance.

    Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | January 9, 2007

12. actually if we had behaved like the Iraqis do , we would have far less US deaths and the thanks of the rest of the arab world for solving the problem. Publicly the NY times would have condemned us but who cares about a third rate rag not good enough to go between an muslim's legs?

    Comment by Dean | January 9, 2007

13. Mtuggle,

    1. While Iraq never developed nuclear weapons and, as of 2003, did not have large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons, it is in fact true that the Baathist regime developed "some of the deadliest weapons known to man." I'm sorry if this doesn't make sense to you.

    2. "Bush & Co." never claimed that Saddam was behind 9/11. They certainly did not "admit" to a "lie" they did not tell.

    3. I note that you do not deny that Iraq violated the terms of the 1991 ceasefire.

    4. Saying "Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11" is not an answer to "Did Saddam provide material support for terrorists?" The answer to that question is emphatically "yes," and I don't believe any serious person disputes this.

    5. As for the unraveling of the UN sanctions regime, could the case not be made that the success of that regime had important implications for American interests? I

    You're free to argue that pre-emptive warfare is "wrong, period," but this is not a conservative position in any sense. Centuries of precedent stand behind the use of pre-emptive warfare, and, for that matter, preventative warfare. As for General Washington's advice, the man was clearly giving a foreign policy for a country facing a specific situation. He was not proclaiming the one true correct foreign policy for all times and circumstances.

    Comment by Katzen | January 9, 2007

14. Mr. Talbot,

    We are having a free and open discussion, and nobody has been persecuted for opposing the Bush Administration. Your pretence to be threatened by censorship and re-education is a hysterical martyr's pose, and you need to get a grip.

    Comment by Katzen | January 9, 2007

15. neo or paleo, whatever, Bush and this strategic blunder of a war will be the noose around most Republican candidates necks come 08. Sad but true.

    Comment by Dean | January 9, 2007

16. You wrote: "Bush & Co. never claimed that Saddam was behind 9/11. They certainly did not “admit” to a “lie” they did not tell."

    C'mon, fellas. The Busheviks used the media to spread their position repeatedly. Here are a few examples:

    "Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."

    President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2003. He made these comments in the context of the links he perceived between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

    "The terrorists have lost a sponsor in Iraq. And no terrorist networks will ever gain weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's regime."

    President Bush in his speech to the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, September, 2003.

    "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after 11 September, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

    Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of 11 September."

    US Secretary of State Colin Powell in a presentation to the UN Security Council, setting out the US case against the Iraqi regime, February 2003.

    "We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

    Vice-President Dick Cheney when pressed on whether there was a link between Iraq and 11 September during a TV interview, September 2003.

    "[Saddam Hussein posed a risk in] a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged."

    National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice defending the reasons why the US went to war against Iraq, September, 2003.

    Those dire assertions explain why even today, a majority of Americans believe Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks. But, as evidence mounted against him, Bush had to admit in September, 2003:

    "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks."

    Face it — this country attacked an innocent country on a lie.

    And let's not forget the "global democratic revolution" this war was meant to support — a bizarre cause that no conservative can support. Trotskyites and Neocons, maybe, but not believers in limited government and Christian morality.

    Comment by mtuggle | January 10, 2007

17. Mr. Osonitsch said: “And Isolationism is synonymous with ignorance.”

    Well that settles it then. Glad you set me straight on that.

    ” You sound exactly like the long-haired, hippy-freak communists I have to deal with at anti-war protest marches.”

    We call that guilt by association. I have met mtuggle. I can assure you he looks like a clean cut businessman/everyman.”

    "Saying “Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11″ is not an answer to “Did Saddam provide material support for terrorists?” The answer to that question is emphatically “yes,” and I don’t believe any serious person disputes this.”

    A lot of people/States have provided material support for terrorists and we have not attacked all of them. Why was Sadam singled out? I’m asking. There has been much speculation, but I’m not sure I know.

    Katzen said: "You’re free to argue that pre-emptive warfare is “wrong, period,” but this is not a conservative position in any sense.”

    I don't agree with that. How is attacking someone who hasn't attacked you and poses no reasonable imminent threat conservative? (An essential question here is whether the pre-war intelligence was just bad or if it was intentionally spun to support an invasion. I highly suspect the latter and there is much evidence to support that. Lt Col Karen Kwiatkowski’s experience in the Pentagon “Office of Special Plans” [Could you get any more Orwellian if you tried?] comes to mind.) For those who will protest, I do not consider Iraq shooting at our planes enforcing the No Fly Zone as attacking us because we should not have been enforcing illegitimate UN mandates to begin with. The one unambiguous positive outcome of this war has been that it allowed us to abandon our airbase in Saudi Arabia (Prince Sultan Air Base) which we were using to enforce the southern No Fly Zone. Our presence in Saudi Arabia was a particular sore spot with the jihadists and was sited by OBL and others as a reason for their animosity toward us. But whether it is “conservative” or not, it is certainly not Christian. This war and pre-emptive war in general is contrary to long held Christian Just War Doctrine.

    "As for General Washington’s advice, the man was clearly giving a foreign policy for a country facing a specific situation. He was not proclaiming the one true correct foreign policy for all times and circumstances.”

    As a paleo I agree that different times and circumstances call for different actions. This is part of the reason the paleos have warned in other threads of the problem with invoking universalist rhetoric (“all men want democracy”) and universal moral codes. But similarly, modern conservatives are still fighting the Cold War and have a Cold War mentality. Their desire to pre-empt and Neville Chamberlain references are hind sight looking at pre- WWII times. Conservatism dictates that the wisdom of the Founders be highly considered. Interventionism is a strategy that is based on certain assumptions. Non-intervention and non-entanglement is a strategy that is based on certain assumptions. I believe the latter assumptions are more realistic, less burdened by dogma and ideology, and in fact, more conservative.

    Comment by Dan Phillips | January 10, 2007

18. "We are having a free and open discussion, and nobody has been persecuted for opposing the Bush Administration. Your pretense to be threatened by censorship and re-education is a hysterical martyr’s pose, and you need to get a grip."

    Well I was of course being sarcastic. I was referencing the intellectual climate at many pro-war, pro-GOP conservative sites. IC, much to their credit, seems to tolerate quite a bit of dissent and diversity of opinion.

    Although there were some on the pro-war right who spoke of "sedition" and "treason, " especially when opinion was more unified in the early days. (Ben Shapiro (sp?) comes to mind.)

    But lets test the assumption of free and open discussion. Someone post this article at Free Republic and a.) see how long it lasts, or b.) see how long it is before Dan is called names for diverging from the approved group think.

    Comment by Lawrence Talbot | January 10, 2007

19. Katzen,

    You're wasting your time. Paleos have their template, and nothing you can say will change that.

    Give them a few more posts and they will start babbling about neocons and Russell Kirk. For them, you are not a conservative unless you agree with them.

    Comment by Mountain Man | January 10, 2007

20. All right, I surrender. A conservative is anyone who says he's a conservative. If he's for socialized medicine, scrapping our traditional rights, affirmative action, gay marriage, and multiculturalism, those are all legitimate conservative goals.

    I suppose it was the English major in me that made me argue that words have actual meanings. I should have remembered Lewis Carroll when he wrote:

    "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

    'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

    'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.' "

    Carroll was right — a contradiction is perfectly fine if the powers that be say it's ok. I see how dogmatic I was: War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

    I've joined the team.

    Comment by mtuggle | January 10, 2007

21. Mr. Talbot,

    I have tried the New World Order spiritual exercises you have recommended, yet I fear I am still troubled by doubts… I tried bathing my brain in the gentle rays of Faux News, but unfortunately I'm allergic to jingoism so I broke out in hives.

    And so I still have doubts. For one thing, I'm trying to figure out how anyone can hop up and down with self-righteous glee over the death of the Demon Saddam when the U.S. in fact gave him a boost up and provided him with financial aid and military hardware — including bioweapons technology– while he was perpetrating his dire villainy.

    I am perplexed. Perhaps it is, as Mountain Man says, that I am brainwashed into a template… perhaps that is why I cannot bring myself to agree wholeheartedly with the received Gospel of National Review.

    Now, remember class– if you disagree with an expansionist foreign policy, you’re a coward and a ninny and you won’t be welcome at any Republican bigwig cocktail parties—but also remember that I’M the one who can’t bear to be disagreed with here.

    When National Review pundits say, "We must invade Iraq to get Saddam’s WMD’s, smoking-gun, mushroom-cloud," I should say, "Amen."

    When they say, "Woops, no WMD’s– but hey, it was really all about democracy, Islamofascism," I should say, "Hallelujah!"

    When they say, "Woops, looks like ‘democracy’ means an Iranian-friendly Sh’ia government, Bush screwed it up the execution of an otherwise brilliant idea," I should say, "Yea, verily!"

    I should but I can’t. Maybe I’m a skeptic, I dunno. Perhaps my distaste for "pre-emptive war" – that is, striking down another nation and overthrowing their government not because they’ve actually done anything but, well, just to be ‘on the safe side’—makes me an ignorant isolationist, just like George Washington, I dunno.

    But I get confused by the National Review crowd. Over at the Corner—the NRO blog—Neocon leader and Republican pundit Michael Ledeen has denied any and all responsibility for the Iraq fiasco:

    "I do not feel ‘remorseful,’ since I had and have no involvement with our Iraq policy. I opposed the military invasion of Iraq before it took place."

    Hmm. Now this is confusing. So if Michael Ledeen was opposed to the Iraq invasion all along, then who was it who attacked and sneered at former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft (another one o’ them paleo-cultists, fer shore) with the following remark in a National Review article in 2002?

    SOMEBODY said:

    "It’s always reassuring to hear Brent Scowcroft attack one’s cherished convictions; it makes one cherish them all the more. … So it’s good news when Scowcroft comes out against the desperately-needed and long overdue war against Saddam Hussein and the rest of the terror masters."

    Perhaps we need to warn the good, anti-Iraq Michael Ledeen that there is an evil Ledeen-impersonator running about penning articles under his name.

    Man, wow, what a whopper. These boys have cojones of a sort, you gotta give ‘em that.

    Anybody? Any of the GOP-faithful care to defend their boy Ledeen? This is one of YOUR people, after all. Perhaps he was quoted out of context?

    Mountain Man:

    "For them, you are not a conservative unless you agree with them. "

    I could care less whether you are conservative or not. What I care about is that you are wrong.

    Oh, wait—I’m sorry. I wouldn’t want to hurt your feelings by using the "W" word.

    After all, there’s one truth that’s good for you, and another truth that’s good for me. Bringing in facts and arguments is all fun and games… but then somebody’s self-esteem might get bruised. My mistake.

    I wouldn’t want to… you know… "babble"—which as near as I can tell is a verb defined as saying something that you don’t wish to hear about. Details about how Saddam Hussein liked drowning kittens would be admissable, discussions of the writings of Russell Kirk are not.

    Is Washington's Farewell Address admissable?

    Come to think of it, the novelist Tom Clancy actually was against the war all along. Perhaps he is a foolish isolationist? Or a peacenik? Yes, that's it, a peacenik who has never bothered to take a look at international affairs or military policy, that's it.

    Ah, wait– but Clancy described his opposition to the war as being based on it having no "causus belli". That is, no justification.

    But he went and used Latin, so obviously he's one of them hoity-toity paleos.

    Yeah… I realize that Russell Kirk and discussions of the historical roots of neoconservative ideology lack the intellectual depth and breadth of "If you're not with us, you're against us," and "Bring it on!", so I truly do sympathize with your patience in trying to put up with all our nonsense, with the casual shallowness of our learning, with our lack of real-world experience, with our lack of reasoning. After all, I've only deployed to the Gulf once, myself.

    And, I mean… a quick look at Philipps' article should show anybody what a superficial thinker he is. Why, Philipps hasn't even put in enough scholarship on the issue to dig up quotes from anonymous random Internet ding-a-lings from obscure websites that nobody ever heard of…….. a la the illustrious and sage Dr. Jackson.

    But try to hang in there.

    BTW, Mountain Man, if we CAN pull off a miracle and make Iraq work as a Western-style democracy, I'm wondering when can start setting up abortion clinics in Bagdhad?

    Oh, bright day!

    Oh, Brave New World, that has such people in it!

    Comment by J.D. | January 10, 2007

22. Classic misdirection from mtuggle.

    He says, "If he’s for socialized medicine, scrapping our traditional rights, affirmative action, gay marriage, and multiculturalism, those are all legitimate conservative goals." Excuse me, sir, no real conservative finds a home in these issues, and you know it. And I never claimed that anyone who calls themself a conservative is one. But of course, this is what passes for a debate with you.

    Leftists do this all the time. Like mtuggle, they will try define the debate using non sequiturs as if those prove their point. Then toss out a few "big brotherisms" and the case is made: Anyone who disagrees is a liberal employing double-think.

    Once again, here's my definition of a conservative as posted elsewhere on this site: "If a person believes in constitutionally limited government, liberty exercised in a biblically moral context, and free market capitalism, then they have exhibited sufficient credentials for me to consider them a conservative. All the rest is pretty much just nit-picking."

    So, mtuggle, what misdirection do you wish to employ next? And what names shall you call me?

    Comment by Mountain Man | January 10, 2007

23. Mtuggle,

    None of the quotes you provided claim that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Some of them claim Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda. That assertion has never been disproven. In fact, an al-Qaeda affiliate, Ansar al Islam, conducted terrorist warfare in northern Iraq with the consent and financial support of Saddam Hussein.

    I also have trouble thinking of Baathist Iraq as "an innocent country."

    Allow me, lastly, to go back to one of your earlier posts, since you insist on repeating the paranoid nonsense about Trotskyites. Irving Kristol was a Trotskyite for one year (when he was 19, no less) and was an anti-Communist from the beginning to end of the Cold War. As for this made-up stuff about Trotskyism and neoconservatism and their shared "universality" versus Kirk and the paleos more modest approach, I wonder how one can read Kirk's principle concerning a transcendent morality and believe that he rejected "universality" and "abstraction."

    Mr. Phillips,

    We should distinguish between "pre-emptive," which implies an imminent threat, and "preventative," which does not. The Iraq war was clearly preventative, as administration officials even before the war agreed that the threat posed by Iraq did not rise to the level of "imminent." It would be a radical position, from a historical standpoint, to denounce pre-emptive war. Preventative war has traditionally been more questioned.

    I think more interesting than the question of whether it is "conservative" is the question of whether preventative war is "defensive" or "offensive." The traditional view (and mine) is that it is a form of defensive warfare. Its aim is to prevent an attack, not to conquer. I'm unfamiliar with the details of Christian Just War Doctrine, but I think judging wars as either "offensive" (or "aggressive") or "defensive" is a sufficient doctrine.

    I have no idea what you mean when you call the No Fly Zone "illegitimate." It was accepted as a fact of international law, not only by the United States and the United Nations, but by the Iraqi government when it agreed to the ceasefire in 1991. It was not illegitimate legally, and I don't think it was illegitimate morally? What, exactly, did you mean?

    It is also worth noting that we had a base in Saudi Arabia with the full consent of that country's government. That one of its billionaire nut-bag former citizens got ticked-off about it does not prove that we did something wrong.

    Comment by Katzen | January 10, 2007

24. Mountain Man:

    "If a person believes in constitutionally limited government…"

    I couldn't agree more. Problem is that foreign interventionism is not a constitutionally authorized function of the federal government. There is nothing in the Constitution about America toppling dictators, enforcing UN resolutions, democratizing the Middle East, or any other such nonsense. From what I can tell from the Founders they expected the authorized function of the military to be the defense of our homeland and shores. If Canada invades Maine, then fight. Otherwise mind our own business. Madison and many others didn't even want a standing army. They figured it would be too inclined to make mischief.

    Also, prior to the Iraq invasion Congress forgot to bother with that little constitutionally required nicety of declaring war. A resolution to use force does not a declaration of war make. Congress can no more delegate to the President the authority to invade a country than they can delegate the authority to the President to raise taxes or initiate spending bills.

    Comment by Dan Phillips | January 10, 2007

25. Mr. Man,

    Yep, pointing directly at something to illustrate what it is is actually misdirection. We can add that to "Freedom is slavery" and all the other Orwellian stuff.

    We have a president who indeed says that multiculturalism, the surrender of our freedoms, and affirmative action promote conservative values. Andrew Sullivan calls himself a conservative, and he's for "gay" marriage.

    Read what the Neocons say about their ideology: they're for big government, they're for empire, they're for open borders. I point this out, and you accuse me of misdirection. The Neocon agenda is the exact oppostite of conservatism. How can you deny that?

    So I ask you again: do words mean whatever you want them to? Can we simply assign whatever meanings we wish to disputed terms and claim we're being consistent?

    Comment by mtuggle | January 11, 2007

26. Dan,

    Thank you for actually engaging the debate with reasoned tones and to-the-point responses. It is quite refreshing.

    I agree with you, there is no constitutional authority to intervene in the affairs of other countries. However, I do not believe this precludes us from attacking our enemies on foreign soil when our future survival is at stake.

    But speaking to our present situation in Iraq, I was not in favor of us going over there to topple Saddam, in spite of what JD and mtuggle have insinuated. The pros and cons of Bush's decision to go into Iraq is now old news, and it has been the left that continually recycles all his supposed evils. It is somewhat confounding to me to see some supposed conservatives standing elbow to elbow with leftists using their arguments and rhetoric.

    Whether or not we should have went into Iraq is no longer the issue. We are there, and our only option in my view is to finish the job and quit dancing with low-impact war strategies. If we are sent home with our tail between our legs, terrorists will be emboldened, and Americans will be at risjh everywhere in the world.

    We can fight them there, or we can fight them here. I'd rather fight them there. When it comes to terrorism, there is no such thing as isolationism.

    Comment by Mountain Man | January 11, 2007

27. You can change the paragraph in the article about Presidential candidates. RON PAUL IS RUNNING! That is the best political news in recent memory. A man running who actually votes against unconstitutional spending. He will appeal to paleos, but he should also appeal to all conservatives who are tired of the constant leftward drift of the GOP. Here is the story below.

    http://www.kristv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5927748

    Comment by Dan Phillips | January 12, 2007

28. mtuggle,

    Can I call 'em or what? It didn't take long for my prediction to come true: "Give them a few more posts and they will start babbling about neocons and Russell Kirk. For them, you are not a conservative unless you agree with them."

    You will note, sir, that I have never defended Bush, never called Bush a conservative, never defended Bush's Iraq strategy, never claimed that anyone who claimed to be a conservative was one, never have said that I am in favor of "socialized medicine, scrapping our traditional rights, affirmative action, gay marriage, and multiculturalism (and in fact have said just the opposite)," yet you persist in calling me names and accusing me of being an Orwellian neocon.

    I can only conclude, mtuggle, that you are a kook who cannot understand the plain English that appears on your screen. You don't bother to actually read what I write so as to understand what I am saying and then comment on it. In fact, you have yet to address any point I have ever raised. All you ever do is spout quasi-intellectual slogans and then slam me for things I have never said.

    When you get out of high school, maybe you can come back to this website and contribute something substantial and meaningful to the debate at hand.

    Comment by Mountain Man | January 12, 2007

29. Dear Mr. Man,

    Mountain, someone is obviously stealing your screen name. Check out post # 22:

    "He says, 'If he’s for socialized medicine, scrapping our traditional rights, affirmative action, gay marriage, and multiculturalism, those are all legitimate conservative goals.' Excuse me, sir, no real conservative finds a home in these issues, and you know it.

    Sorry I blamed you for saying something so obviously incorrect, as there are some prominent "conservatives" who do promote "same-sex" marriage, open borders, and big government. See my previous post.

    My point remains the same: conservatism refers to the beliefs and attutudes first described by Edmund Burke and fleshed out by other prominent writers, such as Kirk. They describe specific beliefs and values that define conservatism. If someone pushes big-government leftism and calls for a benevolent, democratic empire in the name of conservatism, they are talking trash, and I will continue to call it such.

    When you (or your doppelganger) accuse me of "making up" the Neocons' roots in Trotskyism, you (or he — or maybe it) are embarrassing yourself by exposing your ignorance.

    I suggest this as an introduction:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo101.html

    One more time: true conservatives do not support multiculturalism, open borders, big government, or empire. When someone promotes such an agenda and calls himself a conservative, he's either confused or trying to fool you.

    Don't be fooled.

    Comment by mtuggle | January 12, 2007

30. Mountain Man,

    Cease your babbling! Can't you see that the authority of lewrockwell.com has been invoked! The definitive internet source of reasoned and measured criticism of all things neoconservative.

    Leo Strauss–Jacobin. Abraham Lincoln–Jacobin. In Dilorenzo's world, there are more Jacobins than Chinese.

    Mtuggle,

    The word "conservative" is completely dependent on context. There was a time when opposition to big government was considered radical and strong central authority conservative. Bismarck's contemporaries considered him a conservative. Same goes for Disraeli. Same goes for Metternich.

    An inflexible, dogmatic opposition to big government and empire may be libertarian. They may be admirable. But they are not necessarily conservative. There is plenty more latitude respecting political issues within conservative thought than you allow for.

    Comment by Katzen | January 12, 2007

31. mtuggle,

    I used the word "real," as in "…no REAL conservative finds a home in these issues," and you know it." You used the word "true," as in "…true conservatives do not support multiculturalism, open borders, big government, or empire."

    I guess there is a big difference as to the meaning of these two words, perhaps you can explain it so that I can be a real (excuse me, true) conservative.

    Oh, and let's see, I said that "if a person believes in constitutionally limited government…" Again, mtuggle, does "constitutionally limited government" differ in any substantial way from "true conservatives do not support… big government?"

    No one is trying to fool me about their conservative credentials, except perhaps you.

    Katzen, you are fast becoming my hero. Thanks for your wise words. This hair-splitting with mtuggle is becoming tiresome, so you'r a breath of fresh air. I'm glad to see that you also refuse to be strong-armed into "correct" conservative doctrine.

    Comment by Mountain Man | January 12, 2007

32. "We can fight them there, or we can fight them here. I’d rather fight them there. When it comes to terrorism, there is no such thing as isolationism."

    As near as I can tell we are bombing Muslims in the Middle East so that they might have the freedom to build enclaves in Detroit.

    "The word 'conservative' is completely dependent on context."

    But isn't that sort of how Democrats & liberal court justices view the Constitution? It's a "living document" that changes to mean whatever they want it to mean, as time passes?

    Do words have definitions, or do they just mean whatever we feel like whenever we feel like?

    "The word 'conservative' is completely dependent on context."

    Oh. Apparently, that answers that.

    That's the point Mr. Tuggle has been trying to make, that the word "conservative" has been redefined to make it mean something utterly, completely alien to the definition as understood by those attached to the traditional definition of the word.

    That is, Katzen has just made the point for which Mr. Tuggle has been condemned as a fanatical cultist.
    All he is saying is that when people use the word "conservative" today, it doesn't mean what it meant even 20 years ago.

    Mountain Man: “He says, ‘If he’s for socialized medicine, scrapping our traditional rights, affirmative action, gay marriage, and multiculturalism, those are all legitimate conservative goals.’ Excuse me, sir, no real conservative finds a home in these issues, and you know it. "

    To repeat Mr. Tuggle's point, Mr. Man– there ARE many "real conservatives" (whatever the word "conservative" means, it's dependent on context after all, wink-wink) who very much do feel at home on these issues.

    As but one example, the Republican conservative Governor of Maryland, Bob Ehrlich, fired a man for expressing his view that homosexuality is a sin. Ehrlich got booted out of office– as he should have for betraying his constitutuency– but there's plenty more where he came from.

    Katzen, where do you stand on cultural issues? Abortion, gay-marriage, the 10 Commandments courthouse monument brou-ha-ha in Alabama, etc.

    Just curious.

    Comment by J.D. | January 13, 2007

33. "…no REAL conservative finds a home in these issues…"

    So what about Republican Governor of Maryland Bob Ehrlich, who fired one of his employees for stating his belief that homosexuality is a sin?

    "The word “conservative” is completely dependent on context."

    So… words have no enduring meaning, and change with the times. Much as the Constitution changes with the times. Good to know.

    This point was, BTW, the entire thrust of Mr. Tuggle's strong-arming tactics: The word "conservative" does not mean what it used to, and has been re-defined to mean something entirely alien to its former usage.

    Comment by J.D. | January 14, 2007

34. J.D.,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Comment by Katzen | January 14, 2007

35. "So what about Republican Governor of Maryland Bob Ehrlich, who fired one of his employees for stating his belief that homosexuality is a sin?"

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

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

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

    Comment by Mountain Man | January 15, 2007

36. Well, that's me, just a chip off the ol' Bolshevik block.

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

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

    Comment by mtuggle | January 15, 2007

37. I'm curious…what traditional rights have the neocons collectively declared war upon?

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

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

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

    Comment by Katzen | January 15, 2007

38. Mountain Man,

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

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

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

    Comment by Katzen | January 15, 2007

39. Katzen wrote: “you might want to consider this before you throw around the word ‘Trotskyite.’”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Comment by mtuggle | January 16, 2007

40. "While I said earlier that I think paleoconservatism is conservative in its own right, I don’t get the impression that mtuggle writes like a conservative. If anything, he writes, ironically enough, like a Stalinst purging his Trotskyite rivals from the party."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Comment by J.D. | January 16, 2007

41. Here is a piece from The American Conservative on Christopher Hitchens:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Comment by J.D. | January 16, 2007

42. Dan,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Comment by Mountain Man | January 16, 2007

43. I don't accept the characterization of neoconservatism as wanting "to destroy spontaneously ordered societies and replace them with universals." They simply see it to be in the interest of the US to establish, in areas of key strategic interest, regimes similar to our own. This is modeled not on the practice of the Jacobins, but on the practice of Athens and Sparta, as recounted by Thucydides. I think a major source of disagreement here is the inability by some on this site to give a fair accounting for the positions of those with whom they disagree. Picking one or two sentences of an article or a speech by a particular individual who may or may not be a neoconservative does not constitute a fair accounting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Comment by Katzen | January 16, 2007

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.