The Paleoconservative Age: They hate W. – from the right. (A paleocon bestiary)

The New Haven Advocate ^ | July 3, 2003 | Joe Miksch

[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-

[jpsb]

Populist

[billbears]

What's so funny about that? Except for the slander heaped upon paleocons by the Republican and Democratic parties both, I have to disagree. I consider myself a paleocon and I support Israel. What I don't support is far reaching wars all over the world that have nothing to do with the defense of this nation of states. The only WMDs that existed in Iraq were in Wolfowitz's mind

[WRhine]

Yup, GWB is in a panic, the day of reckoning is on it's way.

IMO, GWB much like his Dad in 1992, is begging to be defeated in Nov. If he does lose he will have no one to blame but himself.

Any American President that puts the interests of foreign nations and their peoples ahead of the interests of the American People that he is duty bound to serve and represent deserves to lose.

[jpsb]

In other to be just about any "ist" you have to preety much agree with the princibles that the "ist" is founded upon. Paleoconservatism, is pretty much founded upon the old time conservativism which was pretty much found upon the princibled embraced my the founders when they wrote the constitution. Those nations which also embrace those princible (Isreal in this context) will find paleocons pretty much support them too.

[familyop]

We do spend too much on too many social [engineering] programs, and such programs are for socialism. There's nothing conservative about the huge divorce/cohabitation rackets in all three judicial branches of our government.

The rest is distraction propaganda--especially that from the Nazis for the graveyard of Old Europe (who identify with the same religion and regional heritage of the genocidal maniacs of Old Europe) who claim to be "paleo-cons."

There's nothing conservative about legalizations of illegal drugs, prostitution and gambling. Such stupid moves only legitimize organized crime (again by the same gangster identity factions of Old Europe) and put it into our government.

Conservatism is capitalism with traditional values. Such traditionalism does not include the desires of Al Capone or Hitler. We should listen to the tenets of our great-grandparents and stop our hippie inclinations toward helping the Mob.

[AmishDude]

Support for Israel is not a position that is uniform among self-professed Paleocons. In fact, the anti-Israeli positions on the Right can be safely categorized as being in the Paleocon camp.

I consider myself a paleocon and I support Israel.

Fine, but why do you feel the need to undermine it by adding this:

What I don't support is far reaching wars all over the world that have nothing to do with the defense of this nation of states.

But then you continue:

The only WMDs that existed in Iraq were in Wolfowitz's mind

WMDs? Iraq? Wolfowitz??? Where did that come from?

You know what Mark Steyn says about why Europeans hate Wolfowitz, don't you?

[hosepipe]

Paleo-Conservatives vs. Literally ALL others who are progressives..includeing Libertarians.

[international american]

Correct! Buchanan is a populist, NOT a paleocon.

[AmishDude]

I'm not, as far as I'm not, as far as I can tell so far, your posts are just a waste band width.

Ah, but at least it's coherent as "a waste band width."

[international american]

"In other to be just about any "ist" you have to preety much agree with the princibles that the "ist" is founded upon. Paleoconservatism, is pretty much founded upon the old time conservativism which was pretty much found upon the princibled embraced my the founders when they wrote the constitution. Those nations which also embrace those princible (Isreal in this context) will find paleocons pretty much support them too."

Labels are unintellectual crap! That said, I am a Ronald Reagon conservative...in all respects..and RR was NOT anti Jewish..Aside from that I still agree with post 22!!!!!!

[international american]

Reagan that is:)

[international american]

I dont care a rats behind if we EVER find WMD We now have a strategic position in a dangerous place in the world. Wolfowitz is right on!!

[Ohioan]

What silly tripe and cliche's. You wouldn't think this would fly, even in Connecticut.

Perhaps if the writer would get out more among the grass roots in the Midwest, South and West, he would realize just how silly his stereotypes are.

First of all, Conservatives do not hate Bush. We are very sorry that he is turning out to be so easily misled by some very shallow advisers. We took him at his word, when he said he was a "strict constructionist," and he has not proven to be anything of the sort (as witness the Medicare, Educational, and Democracy promotion, programs--everyone clearly headed for disasterous consequences). The saddest part of all, is that he has been persuaded to abandon his own decent instincts, not for anything that can ever prove of real benefit to anyone. The Rovian stupidity, is neither idealistic, pragmatic, or even internally consistent.

Let me recommend to the readers, something from a liberal source, the New Yorker, on Rove: New Yorker Profile: Karl Rove by Nicholas Lemann.

Does Bill Flax agree with the perspective of Lemann? No, I do not. But Lemann, who may be a "Liberal," has gotten Rove talking about Rove; and the things which Rove says, while not fully appreciated by Lemann, absolutely confirm one of my hypotheses in Karl Rove--Dysron, Quack Or Mole?. Rove simply does not understand the context of issues. To take his advice is to risk political suicide.

William Flax

[jpsb]

Not exactly the paleocon view, but I agree, guess I'm not a 100% paleocon.

[international american]

Neither am I. But I am much closer to the paleocon than I am a big government republican!!

Labels are labels...not the individual!

I am voting for Bush with serious reservations, as the alternative is a socialist, giggolo, megalomaniac!!

[billbears]

Undermine it? How is support of Israel undermined by non-support of wars that do not affect the borders of this nation of states? As for my statement of WMDs, I assumed (perhaps wrongly), that a statement would be quickly following telling me about the 'dangers' of Iraq and how it was in defense of this nation of states. When in fact it never was.

[Ohioan]

What's angered, puzzled or discouraged some conservatives is that President Bush's policies seem in some important ways to mirror those of Kennedy and Johnson in the 1960s. There's the same passion for remaking the world, a similar emphasis on removing barriers to the flow of people, goods, and jobs, and the same indifference to big government or even a positive liking for new government programs.

We sometimes disagree on major points; but the above from your post is right on the mark. As one who fought the Kennedy/Johnson Administration at a far more youthful age--even enlisted my Congressman at the time, to help me go after Dean Rusk on our foreign policy in the Third World--you have nailed one aspect of a serious disillusionment with President Bush. The consequences of the Dean Rusk foreign policy--justified at the time in ways not unlike those recently aped by the Administration--are a major part of my essay on Democracy In The Third World--Destructive Egalitarian Myth.

And a rotten, arrogant and self-defeating policy does not improve with age, simply because it is revived 43 years later by those calling themselves Republicans. Nor is the ruthless suppression of local tribal cultures any kindlier, when it is promoted by those calling themselves "compassionate."

William Flax

[international american]

"Undermine it? How is support of Israel undermined by non-support of wars that do not affect the borders of this nation of states? "

How do you feel about the invasion of Mexico?? Just curious??

[international american]

from mexico, that is:)

Brain cramp:)

[billbears]

Why? Has the Mexican government attacked the borders? Other than the standard flood of criminals coming over the border. What needs to be done there is defense of the borders. Mind you, the PNAC and their lackeys don't seem to think so close to home but if Bush were ever to get rid of those advisors (Cheney included unfortunately) maybe he would be thinking more about the US/Mexican border instead of what's going on in the Sunni Triangle