I consider myself a "fusionist," close in ideological stance to Frank S. Meyer. I know some of the paleos would consider this to be a "species" of "neocon," I don't think fusionism is. This debate over what conservatism consists of is nothing new. It's been raging on and off for around fifty years, since the founding years of the modern conservative movement in America. It's bound to continue for years to come.
Bump.
On the other side, the neo-cons are clearly Wilsonians, more loyal to an internationalist ideology than they are to the United States. They are certainly not conservatives--conservatives do not believe in ideology, except as a reaction to Marxism. Conservatives believe in a naturally formed society without superimposed ideologies, based on human nature and the goodness of almighty God. Like what's in our Constitution.
And also Novak is right--Frum may not realize it, since he's a Canadian, but we had this 9-11 thing down here, and any sensible American would agree that al-Qaeda is definitely a bigger terrorist threat to us than is Hizbullah.
Frum was way out of line with his piece, and the NR editors, who have sold out the original intent of their magazine, should be ashamed of themselves.
The paleoconservatism associated with Fleming and Chronicles is pretty much dead. Likewise, Lew Rockwell, though not a paleoconservative, has been running on intellectual fumes for some time. To the small degree that it was even known in the country at large it was unpopular. One can't carry on as Fleming did about peripheral topics and expect to be taken seriously or to have much of a practical influence, or even to leave much of a heritage theoretically. It may be that much of American culture deserves a raspberry, but endlessly repeating it is of little use, especially if one has nothing practical to put in its place. What Fleming offers looks more individual than political -- a set of attitudes, a lifestyle, a snobbery -- rather than a program.
But there's bound to be much criticism of neoconservative foreign policy assumptions in the future. And it's certainly not true that such a view is linked to racism or anti-semitism in most cases. That's a red herring. Dig up some of the old posts here from Clinton's 1998 Serbian venture and you'll see much conservative support for a less interventionist foreign policy. Or take a look at some of Bush's statements in the 2000 campaign.
The attitude of National Review today is very much a product of the passions and interests of the moment, than of lasting orientation in conservatives or conservatism. One can draw a connection between their promotion of this war and their attitude towards the Cold War, but some notable cold warriors of the old days aren't wholly persuaded that the neocon course today is for the best. After the war when we have to pick up the pieces and figure out what to do next the neocons' forward momentum is bound to break. And other voices will be heard.
One can leave aside more radical views that would like to back out of all alliances or international organizations -- or even break up the country and "smash the state" -- and find room to criticize some of the neoconservative assumptions and aspirations. We can't go back entirely to the isolationism of earlier years -- and even in the earliest days of the republic we were drawn into foreign conflicts -- but we can, and should, choose our actions and battles more carefully than the neocons want.