Anyone who studies the history of the conservative movement, will quickly learn it's not a movement of ideological purity. Conservatives have always come in a variety of different flavors, and each flavor has had much at odds with each other from the start. In other words, the infighting that beltway-types claim to be a problem, has perhaps, been the movement's greatest strength!Be sure the check out the whole post (it's fairly academic). The Classical Liberal names names, including the "prominent paleoconservative," Patrick Buchanan. Not mentioned is America-basher Daniel Larison. E.D. Kain seems to be taking up the paleocon banner as well. And don't miss the boys at Conservative Heritage Times.
These are the least pro-American of conservatives, folks often in bed with the fringes of both the radical left and reactionary right (see, "The Old Right/New Left/Neo-Nazi Alliance"). For my related commentary on this, see "Noxious Anti-Americanism and New Secessionist Theories." Also, "Patrick J. Buchanan and the Jews,," and "Ron Paul’s Real Politics: The Case of Daniel Larison."
4 comments:
I wasn't surprised to confirm once again in reading all the definitions at length of “conservative,” that I closely relate to “neocon.” I came from the 1960s and 70s left, and was also, “mugged by reality’ of the “liberal failures of social welfare, state and foreign policies.” I am proud to be associated with its intellectual proponents: Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Daniel Pipes, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Perle, Robert Kagan, Christopher Hitchens, David Brooks, Stephen Schwartz, Elliott Abrams, Ben Wattenberg, Carl Gershman and Donald Douglas.
How ironic that the paleos think of us as leftists.
I've got this radical idea.
Instead of permitting those Not Our Friends to frame and subdivide with terminology, why not just ask for straight Constitutional interpretations of events (particularly in the realm of domestic policy).
I don't care whether you think me a social-, fiscal-, neo- or paleo-conservative: how does the Obama agenda square with Amendment 10?
Rusty Walker said, "How ironic that the paleos think of us as leftists."
Well, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and has the DNA of a duck, you call it a duck, not a conservative.
James Kirchick, in his Commentary piece "Ron Paul’s Real Politics: The Case of Daniel Larison," makes a common, yet critical error (IMHO). I won't detail it here, but to label Ron Paul a paleocon, is to render the word meaningless. We might as well label me a communist while we're at it, if words have such little meaning.
The Old Right was every bit as much divided as the Right is today.
Rusty,
I'm holding my personal opinions on all this until I'm done with the series, so I'm not in any way "defending" paleocons, nor should my lack of defense be construed as an attack. Vice versa too!
(God, it's pathetic we have to disclaim ourselves so much today!)
Paleocons consider neocons on the Left, because they're considered New Deal apologists and aren't as skeptical of the State as traditional conservatives.
I don't know if that definition fits anymore, that's why I'm doing the series. Theoretically, GWB was the ideal neocon becase a) his willingness to fight a foreign war, and b) because he increased the size and scope of government domestically, more than any president since FDR!
But this is where it all gets confusing (to me) ... most people I know who call themselves neocon, were opposed to Bush's disasterous domestic policies.
So who knows?
In the end ... I don't find it problematic that folks who are rivals in some areas, can be allies in others just as well. Ultimately, I agree with smitty ... is it permitted by the Constitution, or not?
Post a Comment