Why I am (Probably) a Paleoconservative

RichardPoe.com ^ | August 3, 2002 | Richard Poe

[AnalogReigns]

there emerged an old, white(ish) man named Augustine of Hippo.

St. Augustine was from Northern Africa, what is now Libya. Although not Arabic--like the peoples there now, 4th Century Libyans were likely a mixture of Cartheginian and Roman... i.e. your swarthy meditarianian type. One can't really call him white, or black for that matter.

The earliest images of Augustine, as more or less reliable as they are (none date from his lifetime) back of my contention the St. was an olive skinned meditarianian.

I find the peleocon contention that skin color makes culture rather offensive. I think all kinds of people can learn--once steeped in Western culture--the basics of democratic thought, and their backgrounds can add, not subtract to our culture. There will always be various skin colors--and we should lighten up about it all!

[cicero's_son]

I find the peleocon contention that skin color makes culture rather offensive.

So far, the only 'cons I've heard make this contention are neocons. I have yet to hear a self-described paleocon contend that "skin color makes culture" though I admit that I don't follow every volley the intramural conservative conflict.

Me? I think I'd pass on both of the age-defined conservative labels (paleo- and neo-) and, like LaBelleDameSansMerci, just call myself an Extreme Reactionary. (at least until someone comes up with a term that combines a Habsburg Catholic sensibility with a Puritan theological bent).

St. Augustine was...your swarthy meditarianian type. One can't really call him white, or black for that matter.

Indisputably true. How about "white(ish)?" (not that it maters)

[rmlew]

Mr. Poe,
National Review has published articles on how Hispanics are hurting conservatives. They also ran anti-immigration pieces in 2 of their last 4 issues.
Clearly there are neo-cons on the Staff, but they do not control the magazine. (The online site is another matter.)

I also think that VDare did the movement a disservice with the ad hominem attacks on Jonah Goldberg. I had lunch with him after the YAF conference last summer. He actually agreed that the importation of large number of people from foreign cultures and polities undermined our common culture and was driving the American polity to the left.
Then Paul Gottfried (a nice enough person with which to correspond by e-mail) started a series hitting Jonah on immigration. This had the effect of angering Jonah and making sure that he would not change positions.

[Richard Poe]

<< Clearly there are neo-cons on the Staff [of National Review] but they do not control the magazine. (The online site is another matter.) >>

Dear rmlew:

Actually, I was referring to the online version. The exact phrase in my article that aroused this unexpected controversy was, "In the unimpeachably neocon NationalReviewOnline.com..."

Also, please note that I did not mean this as a put-down of NRO. While I am attempting, in this column, to identify some of the ways in which I may disagree with neocons, I do not look upon them as the enemy, and I do not use the word "neocon" as a pejorative.

I offered the above links to Vdare.com not to take sides in their feud with NRO, but simply to illustrate that when I characterized NRO as "neocon," I was doing so accurately. Frankly, I was a bit surprised that I even had to defend such an unremarkable assertion.

And, by the way, I wasn't kidding, in my article, when I said, "...it is possible that the neocons are right." My mind is not closed to any of their arguments. I am raising questions here, not pronouncing dogma.

[Hoppean]

I think all kinds of people can learn--once steeped in Western culture--the basics of democratic thought

At one time, that was considered a liberal, even Marxist, position, because of its focus on environmental conditions. That position implies a certain malleability in human nature.

Even better question: who originally steeped Westerners in Western culture?