Conservatism against the Radical Right

enterstageright ^ | April 7, 2003 | By Scott Shore

[Noddegamra]

Conservatism against the Radical Right

By Scott Shore web posted April 7, 2003

At a time when conservatives should be developing an agenda for domestic and foreign policy while the nominally more conservative Republicans control government, some extremists have chosen to declare a “civil war” within the conservative movement. The principal occasion for this war is President Bush’s policy with respect to Iraq.

Often conservative writers describe this as a battle between paleoconservatives and neoconservatives. This is a great disservice to the conservative cause. The real battle is between traditional legitimate conservatives and the insinuation into respectable conservative circles of the Radical Right.

The Radical Right is precisely that -- radical. Conservatives believe in among other things, respect for liberty, property, institutions, customs, wholesome heterogeneity of interests, people and regions, limited constitutional government and the belief in a strong national defense. In the spirit of Edmund Burke, prudent reforms are required from time to time to ensure the vitality of those policies or institutions guarding our values. The principal values of America are freedom and liberty.

When we lived in an isolated world, this may have meant isolationism or disengagement from the world. In the 20th and 21st century it means a thoughtful activism in global affairs to ensure a global rule of law in which America and free countries can ultimately survive. In an era of terrorism, it means having superior intelligence capabilities and striking preemptively if that is likely to save American lives. This seems to be the view whether one reads Buckley since the Cold War, or most major conservative columnists or listens to most major conservative TV or radio personalities. It’s been almost twenty years since the dean of modern American conservatism, William F. Buckley, sadly noted Pat Buchanan’s drift into the delusional world of anti-Semitism. Whether it's Cal Thomas or Pat Robertson or the National Review or the Weekly Standard, conservative thought is a fairly coherent body of assumptions and ideas.

The Radical Right is something entirely different. Largely animated by disreputable emotions seeking respectability, the radicals wish to turn back the clock to a time when there was unquestioned white rule and Jews were kept out of the better clubs, especially “conservative” clubs. According to their view this is a white, Nordic or Aryan country whose social fiber is endangered not so much by leftism but by those orchestrating leftism for their own advantage -- the Jews, the Masons, the UN and Israel. The fact that trilateralism or the UN has been generally hostile to Israel is explained by some even more nefarious plot. To get into the mind of these people is to go to a dark place where every contradiction is a proof of a greater conspiracy.

The same Radical Right which wishes to rid our country of foreign blacks, Mid-Easterners, Asians…etc. suddenly become like Amnesty International or the ACLU when Israel fights Palestinian terrorists. While no other national struggle seems to move these radicals, the Palestinians do have a special place in their heart. The answer is simple. These folks are the political descendants of Tom Watson and his anti-Semitic prairie populism. They are in the footsteps of William Jennings Bryan in finding conspiracies of Jewish bankers, Wall Street and London. They are also creeping up from under the rocks of the KKK, White Aryan Party under the cover of men like Buchanan or labels like “paleo.” These people use the term “neocon” as a code word for Jews. Amusingly they must think that gentiles are so stupid that Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle have hoodwinked the entire Administration.

To call this a fight between neocons and paleos is to give the opponents of true conservatism too much credit. There are straight-thinking conservatives who often have legitimate differences of policy amongst themselves on one side and then there are the ugly faces of the Radical Right that reappears under different flags at different times.

The time has come for conservatives to refuse to give credence to the forces which, in their most extreme variety, blow up federal buildings like those in Oklahoma City. The Radical Right should be marginalized and labeled for what they are -- the antithesis of the principles upon which this country was founded and the nemesis of those conservatives who wish to preserve this country.

This is Scott Shore's first contribution to Enter Stage Right.

[Deb]

Trollin' trollin' trollin'...

Noddegamra = Armageddon backwards. Subtle.

[Jhoffa_]

Hopefully its his last. He's inventing boogiemen where they don't exist.

No kidding..

I normally don't comment much on this neo/paleo garbage, but this just looks like one, huge, unjustified, unsourced, ambiguous racial slur to me. It sounds like something ripped straight from the DU.

If this is the best the author can do, then he should quit writing & political analysis and go find something he's good at.

[EternalVigilance]

You got it.

[Jhoffa_]

I also don't appreciate these "neo's" and "paleo's" jockying for position as they are. They try to paint all Conservatives into one corner or the other and it just strikes me as incredibly arrogant.

If you ask me, both these are fringe groups with agenda's and do not properly reflect the thought's of "Joe Conservative"

"What? You want to support our allies? WELL THEN, you're nothing but a worthless Neo! (spit!)"

"What? You don't favor globalization, mass immigration & amnesty? WELL THEN, you're nothing but a worthless Paleo! (spit!)"

Screw em both, afaiac.. Just pots & kettles trading insults.

[EternalVigilance]

Just pots & kettles trading insults.

LOL...you betcha!

[EternalVigilance]

Just goes to show, labels are only useful to a point. Then you have to start actually talking about real issues to find out where folks are really coming from. ;-)

[CFC__VRWC]

Screw em both, afaiac.. Just pots & kettles trading insults.

If these guys (and notice how it's ALWAYS the same tired crew) spent half the energy they use flaming each other to cinders in going after real honest to God liberals and socialists, we would really have the lefties on the run.

[Jhoffa_]

Exactly..

Instead they try to turn everything into some kind power play.

[Princeliberty]

Facism is the right of the Hegelism
and Communism is the left of Hegelism.
Social Democrats etc.. and the middle
of Hegelism.

We who love liberty truely come
form a different spectrum.
We are constitutionalists
who believe in the ideas this nation was founded
upon and thus really belong on a different
spectrum.

That is the real difference in "conservatives"
some are really Hegelians at heart
and some are constitutionalists.

Not good to simply say extreme bad and moderate good,
that's the way the press loves to talk to
ignore people without addressing their ideas.

Hegelisms main beliefs:

1. Socialism
2. Evolution
3. No objective morality
4. Groupism, since no objective morality people
are to be judged by their group status and
expected to conform to that group's normalities.

Both Demcrats and Republicans, Liberals and
Conservatives of many stripes follow these
assumptions.

Remember always judge by actions not words.

[Jackson Brown]

No, not wrong. Since your taking license with what you think "I am", I'll return the favor.

In VERY general terms --
"Models" of political beliefs are NOT neatly grouped on one "line". There are three "lines". Each of the three groups are separated based by the view of "size/power/invasiveness of government".

1 -- Little or no government
2 -- moderate (for want of a better term)
3 -- all powerful or totalitarian

You're most likely some sort of Libertarian, who do not believe in intervention, just defense. Libertarianism is the right on the "little or no government/rules" line with anarchism the left. Libertarians seem to think they are some form of conservative. They are not.

The totalitarian "line" runs from communism/Marxism to fascism.

Classic liberalism and Classic conservatism are the left "range" and right "range" that occupies the middle group -- in one regard -- a "sizable" government in between "very little or no state" and "huge totalitarian state". running from small to big (as opposed to none to huge) with the added fight of some version who should have the most power -- federal or local (state).

What causes the confusion is that the three ALL mingle since people fight being boxed in any category and each group shares some beliefs of the other groups.

My mistake was trying to be brief. I still left out a few thousand permutations this time too, but you wouldn't get it anyway.

JB

[jammer]

Jackson, Jackson, you DIDN'T know what fascism was. You use it as the unthinking Liberals of the past 50 years have used it. Sorry I gave you credit. Fascism is the melding of big business and government. That's much closer to socialism (government control of the means of distribution and production) than anything you're talking about. It's also why Mussolini and Hitler had an affinity.

Sure, sure, it's convenient to talk about left and right, but that has been noted by many to be a false way of talking about it. Hitler is commonly described as being a right-winger, which is ludicrous. Hitler was a NAZI, a national SOCIALIST. So, don't preach that pap to me--I knew it was wrong before you were born.

[Theophilus]

Nice post, I agree.

I would add this: True Liberals believe that mankind is inherently "good" (a syncretistic theft), but stupid, and civilization is corrupted by bad institutions (family, church, labor, investment, defense, education, law, local government). Elites within a towering hierarchy are responsible for success and progress. Teamwork is most important for setting goals rather than achieving them. Process is more important than product. The elusive ends justify the perpetual and exorbitant amoral means.

True Conservatives believe that mankind is inherently bad, generally shrewd and that civilization is preserved by good institutions (family, church, labor, investment, defense, education, law, local government). Individuals within a flattened hierarchy are responsible for success and progress. Teams are formed around common extant goals with a focus on the product. The profitable ends pay for the most expedient and pragmatic but moral means.

[Jackson Brown]

I don't think you really read what I wrote.

They are opposites of the same group. They are "left TO right" (labels used just to help differentiate) because of the range of how one defines what the state is, who owns it, and who is intended to benefit.

Benefit spread out to the "collective" (left) Vs. benefits restricted to private owners (right) -- both controlled by totalitarian central government...this last part is what defines them as one group of the three.

It's the level of power vested in government that defines the three POLITICAL groups.

"Politics" is about the role and functions of government -- not just economic models.

Also, we are now just talking about the economic when trying to compare much broader political models.

My point is that there are "left and right" poles of three POLITICAL groups.

Not just one group spread out left to right on a single liner political model.

It all really only makes sense -- when trying to consider the proper place of EVERY form of political thought -- if the view of the power/size of government is used to separate them. You are just looking at a few and treating them like they are all there is.

If there was JUST one political group -- using your logic -- Libertarians are Anarchists.

""So, don't preach that pap to me--I knew it was wrong before you were born.""
You must be pretty old. I finished my graduate work on this "stuff" in 1967. BTW, if you're that old, you should have learned some manners in all those years.

Oh, BTW...Bite me!

JB

[Jackson Brown]

If there was JUST one political group -- using your logic -- Libertarians are Anarchists.

Actually a better example would be: using your logic an Anarchist (NO government) is the same a Communist (huge centralized totalitarian government)

JB

[jagrmeister]

It's intellectually bankrupt "essays" like this which ruin the conservative brand. As has been expressed on this thread, the author has concocted a myth that the Republican party has a major wing of paleoconservatives that have a racist, paranoid, conspiratorial agenda. The truth is that such a "wing" does not exist. If so, what policy has it influenced? What congressional bills have its stamp on it? The truth of the matter is that the specter of this paleoconservative wing is over-dramatized by the Left so as to discredit the entire Republican party.

[nopardons]

Nope, the author is right on the money ! What's the matter, he hit too close to home, for you ? LOL

[EternalVigilance]

No. What would give you that idea?

He simply is picking fights with nonentities who don't deserve the time of day...stirring up division where there doesn't need to be any. Buchanan and Co. are utterly irrelevent and their views represent no one in the mainstream of the conservative movement.

I think you owe me an apology for your insinuation. By now you should know that I have very little or nothing in common with these people.

[EternalVigilance]

It's intellectually bankrupt "essays" like this which ruin the conservative brand. As has been expressed on this thread, the author has concocted a myth that the Republican party has a major wing of paleoconservatives that have a racist, paranoid, conspiratorial agenda. The truth is that such a "wing" does not exist. If so, what policy has it influenced? What congressional bills have its stamp on it? The truth of the matter is that the specter of this paleoconservative wing is over-dramatized by the Left so as to discredit the entire Republican party.

My point exactly on this entire matter.

But you expressed it so much better than I did. Thank you.

[nopardons]

I was pulling your leg. ; ^ )

There have been and continue to be, many threads on FR, which Balkanize what SHOULD be a solid front, but isn't. Jim got rid of most of the Patsies; just not all of them. The fringe faction here is not helpful and the article did hit that segment pretty well. You can't refute the fact that " neo-con " gets thrown out ( spat out, rather ) as an insult, here, by some. We should all be just Conservatives, as we should all just be Americans, without ANY hyphanation.

[EternalVigilance]

I totally agree!

If I seemed at all testy, I didn't mean to be.

It's just that I've had to fight this particular battle alot in the last 24 hours.

Buchanan has been digging his own political grave for years, but it was 9-11 that provided the final backfill. ;-)

Anti-war, anti-Israel, racist so-called rightwingers in truth quit being conservatives a long time ago, and not just on foreign policy--they are out to sea on many other issues as well. And of course they are such a small group that they are meaningless politically, as I said before.

Have a great day!