Conservativism, Chronicles and Paleoconservativism

The American Conservative Union ^ | 12/30/2003 | Don Devine

[JohnGalt]

ACU is taken it on themselves to re-build a new Conservative consensus in an age of phonycons at the National Review and the Weekly Standard.

Mr. Keene is certainly a Beltway guy, but I agree with his general aesthetics assessment in that I personally like to read Francis but rarely agree with him, and while I lean more libertarian than Fleming, I rarely disagree with his cultural critiques.

What Mr. Keene fails to account for is the re-emergence of the Old Right, of which Chronicles styled Paleoconservatism is only one part of, though by looking at Chronicles on its own, one would miss the entire critique and its relevance to modern American conservatism.

[KantianBurke]

He lost alot of crediability when he opined that Spector was a good conservative.

[JohnGalt]

Keene is doing the yeomen's work to expunge the phonycons and build some consensus on the 'Real Right.' The American Conservative Union's effort is worth following, and I suspect this article will generate some discussion between the paleo-right and the Mainstream Right-- but if you click on the other links, you will see that the American Conservative Union has said 'enough with all that' to the NR and WS editorial board--something we have seen play out on FR.

I post this article not because I agree entirely with Keene's critique, but for the purposes of discussion.

[sauropod]

Well, we'll just see how many Neo-cons there are at CPAC this year.

There were quite a few last year. Aside from the celebrity-worshippers.

[sauropod]

"They poured out in hundreds of e-mail responses and a record number of "hits" to the American Conservative Union web site, demanding we publish a center-line fusionist conservative journal of opinion."

Uh-oh. I was afraid that this is what the ConservativeBattleground.org really was.

[sauropod]

"Paleoconservatism presumably requires a politics not built on the ephemeral abstractions of the later but on the deep social resentments of the shunned European natives, the off-shore displaced industrial workers, and technology-dislocated lower middle class white collar workforce."

Keene has his head up his ass here. He TOTALLY IGNORES the outsourcing of IT and computer engineering (and other engineering disciplines, btw) jobs overseas. This is not "technology-dislocated lower middle class white collar workforce"

[JohnGalt]

LOL

I read this article as a tacit admission that the Beltway Cons are willing to 'discuss' terms.

[steve50]

I read this article as a tacit admission that the Beltway Cons are willing to 'discuss' terms.

I'm sure they're willing to talk, but talk is all. The new conservatives, fusionists, Reagan democrats, FDR republicans, or whatever you wish to call them made it fairly clear at the outset of this difference of opinion that it was their way or the highway. Their attacks on the paleo/libertarian factions were downright vicious.

I see more and more of the old party expressing support for the highway option. Probably not enough to offset the liberal independent crossovers, but hopefully enough to send a message that there's a whole lot of room on the conservative side of the beltway cons.

[junta]

Modern American "conservatism" is gone in any meaningful political sense, last seen wandering the deserts of Iraq looking for WMD. As for cultural "conservatism", that coin has been dropped into the slots at Harrah's, gone as well.

[optimistically_conservative]

Thanks for the ping.

It would be very good for the "right" to have a voice on the non-neocon position that is positive, thoughtful and philosophical instead of accusatory and vindictive.

I have been disappointed in the recent years that the conservatives opposed to neocon influence in foreign policy have been an echo of Democrat criticism.

Certainly, both groups may oppose the current foreign policy, but both were presenting hyperbolic ad hominem arguments on a narrow position.

It is not Wolfowitz or Bolton making domestic policy decisions on the expansion of the welfare state in education, medicare, etc. Demonizing them is a waste of space, demonstrates little intellectualism or credibility.

[ninenot]

Ping!

[ninenot]

Yeah. I think Keene is missing one of the elements of Conservatism--which is an active interest in promoting the well-being of others in Our Land, to manufacture a phrase.

Next he'll be telling all those IT and Mfg guys to get new careers (at age 50) in neuro-surgery. He's smoking the WSJ dope on this one.

[ninenot]

Cute slice at Bill Bennett, who, BTW, was NEVER a solid cultural conservative, although he made a small fortune acting like one. (Notice that his "Virtues" does not include chastity???)

Anyway, I will argue that it is utterly impossible to claim Conservatism without the Judaeo-Christian tradition, IN FULL, as a touchstone.

Of course, that places the responsibility for right actions on all of us---something we'd really prefer not to have.

[ninenot]

For that matter, Sauro, the $75-$125K/year+bonus manufacturing managers, production/inventory control managers, QC managers, purchasing managers, mfg.eng'g managers, and design managers for all those now-outsourced industrial products--they weren't Joe Lunchboxes, either.

But NOW they are. Story in this AM's Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel (already posted by your humble servant) tells about a plastics tool/die maker who employed 12 before the RedChina machine ate him. Now he drives a cab, banko.

[JohnGalt]

Small states don't allow the Wolfowitz's of the world set policies that include debt financed wars fought by teenage girls. The neocons as we know them are simply parasites to power, and cling on to whoever is writing the checks, thus when you say that Wolfowitz and Bolton don't set social policy, you ignore the general critique of the Old Right that warfare always leads to welfare (witness this past year) or vice versa,

But that is beside the point. I posted and pinged you to simply point out that there was someone in the Beltway that was actually sending out a feeler or two to us 'unpatriotic conservatives' in flyover country. ;)

[optimistically_conservative]

I posted and pinged you to simply point out that there was someone in the Beltway that was actually sending out a feeler or two to us 'unpatriotic conservatives' in flyover country. ;)

And I appreciate that.

Small states don't allow the Wolfowitz's of the world set policies that include debt financed wars .... you ignore the general critique of the Old Right that warfare always leads to welfare ....

This can be a valid position if you can articulate the risks and costs of when war is necessary and not going to war. Articulating a Canadian policy of military readiness and isolationism is a loser.

fought by teenage girls

This is always a loser.

The neocons as we know them are simply parasites to power, and cling on to whoever is writing the checks, thus when you say that Wolfowitz and Bolton don't set social policy,

It is easy to label anyone involved in politics as a parasite to power. Again, ad hominem and irrelevant. fought by teenage girls.

[Publius Maximus]

I have been disappointed in the recent years that the conservatives opposed to neocon influence in foreign policy have been an echo of Democrat criticism.

Certainly, both groups may oppose the current foreign policy, but both were presenting hyperbolic ad hominem arguments on a narrow position.

It is not Wolfowitz or Bolton making domestic policy decisions on the expansion of the welfare state in education, medicare, etc. Demonizing them is a waste of space, demonstrates little intellectualism or credibility.

As a "paleo-conservative" who resents having to describe himself thus (I'm just conservative, if you ask me), I tend to agree with your sentiment. There are positive ways to frame the intellectual debate - for instance, Republican support of free trade is based on a simple but profound misunderstanding of the difference between trade and division of labor; for certainly, the neo-cons don't desire the erosion of our capital supply - they are just confused into supporting policies that have that effect.

The problem is that this difference cannot be misunderstood by the intellectuals who promote free trade: they are without excuse, and they need to be challenged. I don't think, however, that obsessing on the relationship between neo-cons and Israel, as some on the paleo side for some reason do, is particularly productive in terms of overcoming neo-con ideology. Which, let's face is, is rooted in a hybrid between Jeffersonian radicalism and libertarian utopianism. I say that meaning no ill-will towards fans of Jefferson or Ayn Rand: I note merely that their philosophies (particularly the libertarians) are cut of a different mold than the conservatism upon which our entire system was built.

And with regard to Israel, it is not inconsequential that one of the cornerstones of neoconservative thought is the fundamental assumption that somehow, we owe the current state of Israel billions of US Taxpayer dollars and the full support of our military, just because Judaism gave birth to Christianity. Having noted that however I don't see much point in making it a Jewish conspiracy issue - here I think otherwise sensible conservatives like Pat Buchanan maybe need to hit the reset button and focus on the economic issues. For here I think there is an tremendous opportunity for "paleo" cons to bring to light some general principles of political economy that have been forgotten, to our detriment. Nothing short of a treatise challenging conventional wisdom is needed: but again, this need not be an antagonistic thing. Let us assume all who call themselves conservative believe themselves to be earnestly defending something worth conserving, and sort it out like gentlemen (and gentlewomen).

I think there are so many misunderstandings between conservativism's various factions - economic, political, social, etc. - on so many levels, a good, old-fashioned, duke-em-out debate really is needed in the "conservative movement" such as it is.

[JohnGalt]

A centrist or a moderate in politics is a parasite to power. The neocons are radical, but part of the radical center; the neocons on the right favor bombing countries in the Middle East (see Weekly Standard), where as the neocons on the left (see New Republic) favor bombing Europeans.

While debating the benefits of attacking Ebuiqusitan versus Elrabia can be debated, debt financing and a feminized armed forces cannot be simply set aside simply because you don't wish to debate in the big picture-- If the merits of human calculus one way or the other are the only basis of making a decision I dare say that a single American life cannot be risked to play out the fantasy's some elite university egghead discussion group that treats the world as a Risk board, simply because they were too skinny and girlish to play football or hockey.

Until the Beltway Right owns up to their responsibility in the current mess (be it women on the front line, or welfare that always follows warfare) the paleo-right will continue to see the Mainstream Right as intellectually dishonest--you can dislike the aesthetics of my critique all you like, but the point stands.


Now, I posted this article, I gave a little ground, and the best I got from you was a mild critique on the neo's?

Your team will have to do better to play in our sandbox, something less than a formal apology for the Medicare disaster, but more than a 'ah shucks.'

[optimistically_conservative]

Thank you. I agree with much of that. The battleground really is for what JohnGalt describes as the MainStream Right. There are non-neocon ideals that can appeal to these conservatives, and should be presented to them in a non-fanatic way.

Criticizing support for a state under seige by Islamic fanatics is probably a good way to confuse, if not turn off, the MainStream Right.

Telling the MainStream Right they are traitors to conservatism is also not a good way to reach out to them.

The targets of conservatives within the MainStream Right are the size of the entitlement programs, the over-federalization of crime, the seperation and balance of our branches of government (power of the judiciary and what to do about it), balance of federalism as a global superpower/hegemon.

We should certainly point out historical context for the values, and restraints, underlying our Constitution - but they must be provided with application to current context.

Oh well, I'm really more interested in being a consumer of this debate than a provider.

[optimistically_conservative]

If the merits of human calculus one way or the other are the only basis of making a decision I dare say that a single American life cannot be risked to play out the fantasy's some elite university egghead discussion group that treats the world as a Risk board, simply because they were too skinny and girlish to play football or hockey.

Again, more ad hominem - Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

One of the main problems you have debating using ad hominem concerning military issues is that I don't fit your neocon chickenhawk pigeon-holed categorization. Therefore, your position lacks any credibility from my view and many others. You are welcome to continue using it, but it is dishonest and met with complete dismissal because of my personal experience over a long period of time. If you want to debate without the ad hominem, I will gladly participate.

Now, I posted this article, I gave a little ground, and the best I got from you was a mild critique on the neo's?

You got what was relevant to the arguments you presented. In fact, I offered more than was relevant as a cheerleader for a more thoughtful and positive conservative critique of "neoconservatism."

Your team will have to do better to play in our sandbox, something less than a formal apology for the Medicare disaster, but more than a 'ah shucks.'

I don't have a team except for the one that is sworn to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I owe you nothing more, or less.