The thing is, I, as someone who is more and more comfortable with the neo-conservative label, feels the need to point out that I would NOT want to be associated with people who make comments like these, nor do I really desire to tolerate those that make them:
"I respect and admire the French, who have been a far greater nation than we shall ever be, that is, if greatness means anything loftier than money and bombs."
— THOMAS FLEMING, "HARD RIGHT," MARCH 13, 2003
"[Clarence] Thomas calls the segregation of the Old South, where he grew up, 'totalitarian.' But that's liberal nonsense. Whatever its faults, and it certainly had them, that system was far more localized, decent, and humane than the really totalitarian social engineering now wrecking the country."
— LLEWELLYN H. ROCKWELL
"How horrible to realize, ten years after the Cold War, that the real evil empire is not some foreign regime, but the U.S. military state. It bombs buses, bridges, factories, churches, and schools, expresses 'regret,' and then continues to do the same. A host of innocents have died from U.S. attacks — a fact which should make every patriot wince. The propaganda should also make us wonder to what extent the old Communist Threat was trumped up to plunder the American taxpayer."
— LLEWELLYN H. ROCKWELL, "THE END OF BUCKLEYISM," IN SPINTECH, JUNE 12, 1999
"It is clear that neither laws nor any sense of fair play will stop this rampant U.S. arrogance. The time may soon come when we will have to call for the return of the spirit of the man who terrified the United States like no one else ever has. Come back Stalin — (almost) all is forgiven."
— GEORGE SZAMUELY, IN "TAKI'S TOP DRAWER," NEW YORK PRESS, JULY 11, 2001
"The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people." — SAMUEL FRANCIS, SPEECH AT THE AMERICAN RENAISSANCE CONFERENCE, MAY 1994
"The Bush administration should not only ignore the advice of such characters as Mr. Ledeen and Mr. Podhoretz but consider placing them under surveillance as possible agents of a foreign power." — SAMUEL FRANCIS, IN CHRONICLES, DECEMBER 2002
"The U.S. government has probably killed more people outside its own borders than any other. Or am I overlooking something?"
— JOSEPH SOBRAN, SPEECH TO THE JOHN RANDOLPH SOCIETY, HERNDON, VA., JANUARY 1992
Those were the EXCERPTED quotes that Frum highlighted in his original article.
Now, look at what other folks at National Review have pointed out:
From Jonah Goldberg at 11:22 AM on 3/19/03:
"In general National Review has followed a policy of ignoring the fever swamps which claim to be to our right and I am loath to give these folks even a thimble of satisfaction. They pound on their high chairs and shout nasty curses and think they are great thinkers if anybody pays attention. On the other hand, partly because of the levelling effect of the web, this coalition of cranks and malcontents (with a few decent but mislead types as well) has gained a smattering of influence. And, because Pat Buchanan retains credibility with many for his past accomplishments and his eloquence, some paleo ideas leak like contaminated water from below into mainstream debates. And, sometimes bad arguments must be fought with good ones rather than ignored.
"Also, I should point out that I am also a bit envious. David Frum is undoubtedly more qualified to lead this charge than I, but as I feel I have a personal stake in this, I hate it when I feel like others are making my fight for me. Of course, this is larger than me, but the paleos have been goading and mocking me for so long and with such intensity I sometimes expect to find Lew Rockwell sitting outside my house in a gray Buick wearing a trench coat. I have had several email exhanges with several Lewrockwell and VDare authors and scores of their readers. My contempt, with a few exceptions for individuals who've mistakenly aligned themselves with these people, is total. With a sophomoric joy one usually finds with skinhead wannabes just smart enough to be dangerous, they call National Review, "Goldberg's Review" -- something they would never do were my last name O'Mally but my politics the same. They talk about preserving the genetic stock of America, they blame their shabby careers on Jews they've never met, they compare Lincoln to Hitler and America to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. And the misguided few who don't write such things, have no problem associating themselves with those who do. They've made their bed as far as I'm concerned.
"I do not know how long the window on the "let's ignore them" policy will be, or should be, open. But let me take this brief intermission to salute David on a job well done and the editors of National Review for deciding that the job must be done. And hopefully this sad crowd will continue to scoot themselves ever deeper into the dustbin of history where they belong."
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/03_03_16_corner-archive.asp#005147 Stanley Kurtz, 12:23 PM on 3/19/03:
"I’ve just finished reading David Frum’s very powerful indictment of Buchananite pale-conservatism, in the latest issue of National Review magazine. Frum charges leading paleo-cons with the worst sort of bigotry and anti-Americanism, and he backs up his charges with many detailed quotes. This article is going to mark a watershed in the battle to define conservativism."
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/03_03_16_corner-archive.asp#005150 Jonah Goldberg at 12:49 PM on 3/19/03:
"But, when it comes to immigration I think there's something important that needs to be added. Ramesh Ponnuru, for example, has written with great intelligence in favor of a more restrictionist immigration policy. Rather than greet Ramesh's efforts as good news and opportunity to build a pragmatic consensus etc, they respond with sophomoric taunts about his ethnicity and suggest that anybody who disagrees with them "isn't serious" and is part of the problem. Even on immigration, even if I disagree with you, I don't see that they offer much by way of new "ideas." They offer a sentiment, a pang, a grievance and when serious people try to translate that pang into policy they reject it out of hand in the name of purity -- purity of politics and purity of ethnicity since Ramesh (born in Kansas) has committed the sin of having Indian immigrants in his family tree."
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/03_03_16_corner-archive.asp#005156 Rod Dreher at 3:11 PM on 3/19/03:
"I suppose it might be unseemly to praise one's own magazine, but I am proud to be associated with a publication responsible for David Frum's magnificent and necessary essay. I've never paid much attention to the paleocons, to be honest. I find the interest many of them have in traditional forms of Christianity to be appealing at some level, and I share too their concern over the loss of certain aspects of traditional culture, particularly in light of the role the free market plays in exacerbating and accelerating this destructive dynamic.
"Since 9/11, however, I've been increasingly disturbed by anti-American and racialist rhetoric emanating from the paleos. I suppose it may have been there all along, but not paying close attention to them, I never saw it. Not long after the 9/11 attacks, I investigated what I came to believe were credible reports that paleocon students at a conservative Catholic college were going around saying the terrorist assaults were a good thing, because wicked America deserved it -- and that there were professors at this college encouraging students, from a rightist perspective, to see the American founding as illegitimate. I found it hard to believe that there were actually people on the Right saying these kinds of things, but as Frum details, this vile sentiment is now something some leading paleocon writers are willing to say publicly. I met a traditionalist Catholic at a party who, upon learning that I worked for NR, said cheerily, "Well, I'm anti-American." He himself was born and raised in America, a country which, for all its problems, is still a land where the Catholic faith is practiced to a degree no longer known in the European countries he and his sort revere. I've heard some of this same crowd, who have been untiring in their declaration that Pope John Paul II has been a disaster for the Church, now talking of the Holy Father as a prophet because the pontiff has set himself against America in the cause of war on Iraq.
"I am in no way a "my country, right or wrong" man, but neither do I understand irrational hatred of this country, one's native land, and its institutions as a virtue, particularly a conservative virtue. And Jew-hatred is a sin and a disgrace. National Review has acted in the past to rescue conservatism from this lot, and has done so again."
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/03_03_16_corner-archive.asp#005175 Ramesh Ponnoru at 3:24 PM on 3/19/03:
"David’s essay on the paleos is not only an important act of moral, intellectual, and political hygiene. It’s also, as essays go, a rollicking good time. It’s both heated and funny."
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/03_03_16_corner-archive.asp#005178 ---
This type of stuff has CLEARLY gone outside thebounds of civil discourse. If anything, it is rude and destructive. All told, the neo-conservative view that the paleos ARE nefarious and destructive seems to have a lot of evidence to back it up.
Particularly when Mr. Frum receives e-mails like this:
“Mr. Frum,
“I have on my desk at work a copy of the very first issue of The National Review. The National Review that you write for today has as much in common with that original edition as a horse has with a horsefly.
“You are not a ‘conservative’ nor are you an ‘American’ as you describe yourself.
“You are a jew. First, last always.
“You have been identified and people are no longer afraid to name the jew and to point out the irrefutable pattern of obfuscation, denial, silence and attacks used in the past to keep Americans from identifying jews as the problem with America. The ability to contain that absolute truth of nature- not rhetoric- has slipped past you while you pontificated about what America is. You wouldn't know, because it was a creation of White men, not jews. A stranger can tell me nothing about my own child and so the jew has nothing to offer me in describing my own nation.
“Jew.
“Enemy of the White Western Man that created our culture and our
civilization. The polio vaccine is not enough to undo the damage caused by the Jew and as a far brighter man than you once observed about you and yours-‘Quickly he turns the attacker's charges back on him, and the attacker becomes the liar, the troublemaker, the terrorist. Same exact enemy. How to respond? Nothing could be more mistaken than to defend oneself. That is just what the Jew wants. He can invent a new lie every day for the enemy to respond to, and the result is that the enemy spends so much time defending himself that he has no time to do what the Jew really fears: to attack.’
“It is time to step up to the plate and men, good men, intelligent and deeply patriotic men are doing just that.
“I served my country in combat and so did my father and his father before him, for our people, not for yours- I don't fear conflict like the Fleishers, Perles, Wolfowitzes, Kissingers, Feiths, Abrams and Frums- I relish it.What unit did you serve in, chickenhawk?
“No one cares about the labels anymore, no one cares about the smears.We want our nation back, and we will have it.It doesn't belong to you and it never has. So call me what you like, for I know what you are- Jew.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/diary032203.asp#005586 I don't know about you, but there's a bunch of evidence to back up the claims Frum has been making. A bunch of it. I do not think I would be long for FR if I were posting such repulsive and bigoted statement in ANY other context than as quotes. I'd probably be banned.
The repeating of anonymous emails to Frum by vicious Jew haters detracts a bit from your post. Who knows who they are. We are better off and more effective in making our case without guilding the lilly. JMO.
I try not to get too involved in party labels and personalities and who said what when as they muddy the waters and prevent clear viewing of the real issue at hand. I put all policy proposals to the acid test of the constitution - the original text and intent - not the modern liberal precedents. With that as my standard I can not be a neocon - in fact I could not be a conservative of any of today's stripes. One may say that there is no viable life outside the two party system to which I respond - verrry good, now you see that limited govenment is not viable in today's political climate(which is a very sad thing) but that is modern reality. That said I can still have hope for the future - the distant future.
In addition to your paleocon quotes, I could add a column by Joseph Stalin, er, Sobran, just a few days after 9/11. (Sadly, I can't find it, since both Sobran and Lew Rockwell wisely dump past columns instead of having archives). In it, he was very glib about the attacks, stating that Americans might think Osama bin Laden old-fashioned, but that since he knew philosophy he was smart enough to know that being old-fashioned wasn't a bad thing. Somehow it didn't seem to occur to him that Americans might have a far bigger issue with Osama than his old-fashionedness. Of course, the 3000 Americans he murdered in cold blood probably watched Friends and South Park, so why would any self-respecting paleo care about them?