[Red Phillips]

Alright, I'm a self described paleo and I'll take the bait. When you are on the outside and in the minority as the antiwar movement is within establishment conservatism, you often find that folks that agree with you are outside the mainstream in many ways, if you know what I mean. Cranky, oppositional just for the sake of being oppositional, conspiracy minded, etc. (I don't agree with arm chair psychoanalysis though as the writer does because that is a dangerous road to go down. You believe what you believe because you hate your mother. That kind of junk is not acceptable because it is not falsifiable and can be thrown around recklessly, as it has been by the left.) It is a fine line to walk, if you ask me. Posting and promoting people and organizations that may be unsavory in some way because they are with you on a particular issue. People like antiwar.com and lewrockwell.com I think tend toward allowing a lot of input from people we do not really agree with on much else and American Conservative and Chronicles I think plays it closer to the vest. But posting a certain author does not mean unquestioning endorsement of all their stuff.

Re. Sobran. I believe he has become an anarcho-capitalist. That is not my view, but I am definitely an anti-federalist. To suggest that being an anti-federalist is somehow unpatriotic is a joke. That would mean Patrick Henry and George Mason were not patriots. If you look back at the great debate we had between the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist, and then you survey the current situation, it is almost unarguable that the anti-federalist were closer to right. They said the Constitution would not be able to contain the growth of the federal government, and they were absolutely right. Paradoxically, however, the anti-federalist, are the most outspoken in insisting on sticking with the Constitution as originally understood, esp. not doing anything that the Constitution does not specifically authorize.

Re. the Cold War. The Reagan military buildup certainly contributed to the fall of Communism, but Communism HAD to fall with or without it. It was economically unsustainable. Funny how all the conservative Cold Warriors who supposedly believe in the free-market seemed to feel that the laws of economics could be suspended indefinitely in the case of the Soviet Union.

My own opinion is that the pro-war folks need to quit making allegations of unamericanism as the author did although somewhat more subtly than Frum and others. The paleos need to deemphasize their tendency to question motivations and make accusations of dual loyalty. This does not advance true argument for either side. The fundamental issue is what is a conservative foreign policy. I say it is unequivocally nonintervention.

That said. I will throw my hat in with cranky, oppositional, conspiratorial small government types long before I would throw my hat in with big government "conservatives." If the anti-war right is supposed to answer for it's conspiracy theorist and denounce them, then the pro-war folks need to answer for and denounce the big government conservatives such as Brookes. I believe we should mostly let people stand and fall on their own. Purges such as Buckley tried, not only get rid of your unsavory elements it also gets rid of your ideological hard edge, which we need. And we are left with weak liberalism calling itself conservative.

[Commie Basher]

Ironic thing about Sobran is that, around 1985 or 1986, he published a massive article called "Pensées" (spell?) in National Review. Buckely hailed it as the Conservative Manifesto, as the culmination and summary of all of conservative wisdom and philosophy.

Does anyone remember Sobran's "Pensées"? I subscribed to NR at the time, but didn't read the article in its entirety. My impression, based on what I did read, was: "This is real boring."

And then, just a few years later, conservatism's new "official philosopher" was booted out of the movement.

[ijcr]

While I value your opinion....for your own sake ensure that no one in your family gives you a labelling machine for Christmas.

Consider your health and time lost as you huddle under a lamp at night muttering to yourself and crank out such classics as; "paleo-libertarian,anarcho-capitalist,anti-federalist,"conservatives."perhaps even Arabophobic"

[Iris7]

In the past I was very much in your philosophical camp. Loved Patrick Henry even as a young boy, read Chronicles religiously and contributed money to them as I could. I know Chis Check pretty well, and have talked to Tom Flemming for some hours. Enjoyed Lew Rockwell.

The problem is that humans do not behave that way. Those that find Liberty worth the sacrifice are a minority. People will not defend the Constitution, as Alexander Hamilton predicted.

Any more I see the whole enterprise of the Republic as another well fitted piece in the mosaic of human events, a first half of the 18th Century Whiggishness. Been doomed since "judicial review" or even earlier with Charles River Bridge and the end of the "abridgment of contracts" clause.

[Destro]

Bravo. For the record - for the Iraq war but hate how it was fought and feel nation changing is folly.

Not I wrote nation changing - nation building would involve building up what was there before such as a republican Germany and Japan before the Nazis and Jap Generals.

Nation changing involves importing and creating new institutions and ways of thinking into nations that have never known such things such as Iraq.

Example: Maybe Iraq would have been better off as a strong man centralized constitutional monarchy like they had before Saddam and not the system put into place now?