Posted on 03/13/2004 10:56:05 AM PST by quidnunc
At first blush, the phrase "anti-establishment conservative" doesn't make sense. Aren't the conservatives, especially considering the United States' current political climate, the establishment?
Well, yes. But there are conservatives who consider what passes for a conservative today — George W. Bush, for example — equivalent to the Red under one's bed in the 1950s. These folks are called paleoconservatives and, according to guys such as Jim Libinskas, hold a world-view that champions "an isolationist, 'America First' foreign policy, regional culture and politics versus big government and pop culture, protection for American workers (economic nationalism), a stoppage or large curtailment of immigration and a defense of America's European and Christian identity."
The paleoconservative heyday occurred in the early and mid-1990s with anti-immigration, isolationist, anti-free trade, ultranationalist Pat Buchanan making more than a marginal impact in his runs for the Republican presidential nomination. After fighting a losing ideological battle against neoconservatives — well-connected, well-funded, well-organized leftists in the paleoconservative's eyes — the paleos, to a large degree, went the way of the dinosaur.
Yet they persist. Though few in number, their Web sites are many. At the vanguard in the beginning and toeing the line in the present is Chronicles magazine and its web presence www.chroniclesmagazine.org. Long considered the movement's bible, the mag has dipped in circulation from 20,000 at its peak to less than 5,000.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at newhavenadvocate.com ...
Oi Vey Man! Again...both. The people as well as the land are both chosen by God....if you disagree, fine...prove it wrong. Stop attempting to refine your question in search of a certain answer you can then use in order to speak from the specific to the general. Logical fallacy.
"Also, isn't there something in the bible about god [You mean God] condemning the people of Israel to no longer have a land of their own after the people of Israel broke some commandment or other?"
Condemnation is an eternal judgment. As you've asked your question....No.
That wasn't the quote I was thinking of.
I seem to remember something about God ordaining that the people of Israel will no longer have a land on this earth, because they had commited some sin.
And this would have been said by God after Israel had lost their land.
I could remember wrong, though.
I know it isn't. Look I don't necessarily feel to cast my pearls before swine but I will attempt to enlighten you a bit...
What you're seeking for [in order to justify your false position] is God's warning to the people of Israel that if they disobeyed his commands and worshiped other Gods...then he would scatter them and remove them from the land promised to them...
...with the caveat...
...that if they repented of their ways, sought his face and turned from their wicked ways then he would gather them from the farthest horizon back to their land he originally promised to them as a covenant [as has been done several times throughout history...thus confirming the promise.].
We should be cooperating where we can regardless of what sub-class of conservative we call ourselves.
Not never, but less likely.
It doesn't matter one way or the other. The fact that you brought it up, unsolicited, makes the whole enterprise suspect.
I'm not changing the subject. The subject is neocons.
No it's not. It's Paleocons. Read the title.
Bombing those that disagree with this nation of states into submission? Even if they do not represent a clear and present danger to our nation of states?
Just ask yourself: WWMD? (What would Machiavelli do?)
And I know you're screaming for attention with that ideosyncratic "nation of states" routine, but I don't care. Honestly.
Let me make it perfectly clear for you without stooping to the innuendoes of 'troll-like'.
It isn't an innuendo.
...Wilsonians are calling it today.
Wilsonians? That's 80 years ago! And I thought the Muslims held grudges.
That's not my view. That's the view of the men who founded this nation of states
Yes, I suppose it is safe to say none of them were Wilsonian.Sheesh
Isn't there a simpler word to describe them?"
Yeah -- it's called "RINO".
So what you're saying is conservatives shouldn't expect traditional American culture values to be supported; should expect larger more over-officious government; a more over-officious judiciary; more taxation, more socialism, more immigration; Amnesty-for-illegals; and expect American Armed Forces to police every single skirmish in the world without assessment; and disengage from 'America First' policies?
Maybe Kerry ought to become a hawk -- then he'd qualify as a fellow-RINO.
Then your position is destroyed.
No it's not. It's Paleocons. Read the title
The article is about paleocons. Who but pseudo conservatives craving acceptance use that title about conservatives? The article is written by either a neocon or a liberal. Either way same thing. To discuss paleocons, one must eventually defend the position from pseudo-conservatives. Why don't we just call you guys liberal warhawks?
Just ask yourself: WWMD? (What would Machiavelli do?)
I've got a better one. Ask yourself WWWD (What would Washington do?). Of course if you were to do that, you might see these pseudo-conservatives have stepped far over the line
And I know you're screaming for attention with that ideosyncratic "nation of states" routine, but I don't care. Honestly.
Not screaming for anything. I just choose to accept the fact that this nation of states was established as a voluntary union of separate and sovereign states. It's not 'America'. I don't live in a prepositional phrase. I live in the state of North Carolina that is part of the United States. America denotes not only our nation but Canada, Mexico, etc
It isn't an innuendo.
Oh, a slur, so much better. But what else to expect from psuedo conservative thought processes
Wilsonians? That's 80 years ago! And I thought the Muslims held grudges.
Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat history. Most of what we have faced in the 20th century could be traced back to Wilson's 'spreading democracy' stunt.
Yes, I suppose it is safe to say none of them were Wilsonian.Sheesh
Of course you are more than welcome to find a majority of the Founders that advocated establishment of a strong offensive force capable of establishing our worldview on 3rd world nations 5000 miles away and then using it on them. Good luck though as you won't find any
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.