Replies

I couldn't disagree with you more if I tried.

Check it. Look at FR members who throw out the term "neo-con" at the drop of a hat. These are the same ones who will say some of the most outlandishly bigotted things on this site. These would be the so-called "paleo-cons," which I view as nothing more than old Dixiecrats.

FrontPageMag is considered "neo-con." Show me something hostile to blacks on it. Same can be said for National Review.

"Paleo," "neo," whatever. I transcend it all and go "post." So, please, let's leave that stupid argument alone. There are no litmus tests here. I know for a fact that I can't in good conscience take the "help" of another conservative who wishes to divide instead of grow the base. And if I have anything to say about it, the black vote is one area where I will not allow the use of which to further this fantasy intellectual divide among the Right. That's antithetical to what we supposedly believe, and does the work of the Left in the process.

No, thank you.

I've heard more definitions for "paleo-con," "neo-con," and every other kind of con. What it boils down to is that there is a fringe element within the conservative movement that is hostile to blacks in general and to black participation in the conservative movement in particular.

The meaning that I took from jstone's statement was that he was pointing at that fringe element -- who themselves usually call themselves neo-cons. In that regard, I think we are all pointing toward and saying the same thing.

I don't think Front Page is anti-black, and I certainly wouldn't say such for National Review either. Then again, I don't consider them in that fringe element.

{"....Look at FR members who throw out the term "neo-con" at the drop of a hat. These are the same ones who will say some of the most outlandishly bigotted things on this site. These would be the so-called "paleo-cons," which I view as nothing more than old Dixiecrats...."}

Just one minor correction. The so-called "Dixiecrats" are former members of the Democratic Party from the 1950s and 1960s, and have absolutely nothing to do Paleo-conservative or "Old Right" intellectual thought. Paleo-cons consider themselves followers of the philosophical tradition of former Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio, who was liked by many blacks in his state.

The Dixiecrats are what can be described as "George Wallace Democrats". There are a few of them on this forum. Most do not know or care about principals of constitutional government, economic reform, foreign policy, etc. They mainly focus on promoting outdated racial stereotypes. But their extreme racial views have nothing to do with Paelo-conservative intellectual thought.

The fact that some of those George Wallace and David Duke Democrats, also have complaints about "neo-cons", does not make them Paleo-conservatives.

Another thing. George Schuyler (1895-1977), a black journalist, is regarded as one of the most important of the Paelo-con thinkers.

Here is an article he wrote in 1926, in a literary debate he had with the legendary Langston Hughes, on Black Art and the Harlem Renaissance: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5129/