[ProCivitas]

"Paleos generally reject the Enlightenment in whole or in part. They reject Lockean “contract theory” and the concept of “natural rights” out right."

This just seems false. I don't think I've ever run across a paleoconservative who didn't acknowledge "natural rights" (perhaps God-given etc.), i.e. not merely posited and arbitrary to be dispensed as public employees wish. And as for John Locke's hypotheses about 'the social contract' etc. most paleoconservatives I think would find those ideas about ethically binding implied consent to be at least as tenable as anything to the contrary. Am I overlooking something about "Lockean contract theory"?

[petitfour]

Forrest McDonald's "Novus Ordo Seclorum" would refute this. The first time I heard anyone called a paleoconservative was when husband and Dr. McDonald were joking about his age and his conservatism. That was in the early 1990s. Then Dr. McDonald called himself a paleocon on Booknotes. It was a joke. Anywho, I read a whole lot of Enlightenment literature in a Forrest McDonald course. And we were specifically looking for connections between the philosophies of the Founding Fathers and Enlightenment philosophers.

[Ohioan]

While I totally reject the idea that true Conservatism should be qualified with any adjective--the only function of doing that seems to me to be provide a measure of comfort for those who are only Conservative on particular issues that reflect their personal likes and dislikes--I would agree with your comments, as to those generally labelled as Paleo-Conservative. As one who has fought for traditional values for over half a century, and worked with a wide spectrum of Conservative movements, I do speak with some familiarity as to how American Conservatives are "wrapped."

But note, also, the absurdity of even trying to fit the false Conservative--such as the Trotskyite "Neocons"--under a Conservative umbrella! They are diametrically opposed to the concepts that led to settlement, development, the Conservative American Revolution, and the Conservative Federal Constitution. Even in the last 24 hours, we have seen how obviously non-Conservative is their influence today in Washington. General Pinochet, a true friend to the American people, passed away yesterday, and was mourned by the British Conservative Lady Thatcher, who understood first hand, how important Pinochet's contribution was to the survival of traditional Western values. At the same time, the White House issued a statement expressing sympathy for Pinochet's alleged victims!!

Pinochet moved effectively to save his native land from a Marxist takeover and consolidation of power. Is there any true Conservative who would not want the American military to intervene in order to prevent a Communist takeover of America? Yes, the Pinochet interim Government may have done in some known Communists. The supporters of the Founding Fathers, back in the late 1770s and 1780s ran off some foes of our Independence by putting them on split rails, and pouring hot tar over them, before they covered them with feathers. Some did not survive the process. Can we expect this White House, through the same anonymous spokesman, to mourn the victims of the American Revolution next July 4th?

Enough is enough!

William Flax

[JTHomes]

Am I overlooking something about "Lockean contract theory"?

Yeah, I don't get that either. I thought John Locke was saying that if through your labor and wits you make something, then you own it, so long as you don't hurt someone else in the process. That to me seems a fundamental and conservative pillar.