All Against All (On the paleo- vs. neo-conservative debate)

The Claremont Institute ^ | April 10, 2003 | Charles R. Kesler

[Darheel]

"Bradford blames our current degeneration on the prevalence of universals in politics and morals."

Of course Bradford is dead wrong. It is in fact the prevalence of anti-universals that has caused degeneration. This the substance of the political fugue, flaw in the application. It's so simple. Why not just shout "Republic!" a few times and go home?

ArchConservative btt

[Arkinsaw]

Of course there is hope. There is this old story:

If I'm going to have hope I figure it might as well not be a cheerless hope. :-)

[inquest]

For the paleos, democracy's success, no matter how expansive, is hollow precisely because it cannot match the glories of traditional societies, especially that of the Old South.

I don't know what this guy's idea of a paleoconservative is, but no one I've come across who identifies himself as such, comes even close to the description above.

For paleocons, the success of republican government is so resounding that it can spread purely by example. It's the neocons that seem to have such little faith in it that they need to militarily impose it everywhere they can.

[Jason Kauppinen]

"This is a specious argument and you know it.

Allow me to bring it down to an even more basic level.

Which ancient philosophers do you take into account before you decide which car to buy or how to present a proposal to your boss?"

Allow me to bring it down to an even more basic level.

Who's work are you using and building upon when you demand non-specious arguments, and use them to prove your points?

[quidnunc]

Iris7 wrote: And you use amazingly sweeping generalities. Do not confuse your own opinions with the truth. In fact, your prejudices appear unexamined.

Hogwash!

You're the one who dotes on philosophers and what do they do if not make sweeping generalities.

Iris7 wrote: With enormous risk of being uncharitable, your point of view reminds me of Henry Ford's "History is bunk." That reminds me of "Ignorance is bliss." If I were mean spirited it would remind me of "Freedom is Slavery."

Now you're being — and I'll be charitable here — silly.

History is a window to the past, not a blueprint for the future.

You can put as much lipstick on the paleo-con pig as you wish, but the past that they so greatly admire was — for all it's gentility and romantization — deeply bigoted and cruel.

It gave us, for instance, slavery, Bleeding Kansas and lynch law.

[Reactionary]

"Look at Old Europe, the countries of which are prone to ordering their societies acording to the dictates of philosophers."

Look at America. Our philosophers were Locke, Hobbes, the rest of the Enlightenment philosophes. Just like "Old Europe." "This tendency gave us just in the last 100 years fascism, Marxism/communism and most lately postmodernism which — along with its handmaiden, multiculturalism — insists there is no such thing as objective truth."

The "tendency" of societies to base themselves on Western philosophy is the rule, not the exception. As a matter of fact, the only countries currently free of Western philosophy are theocratic dictatorships in the Middle East.

[inquest]

Which ancient philosophers do you take into account before you decide which car to buy or how to present a proposal to your boss?

Those are concerns of a far more specific and secondary nature; as such it's entirely proper to consult experience local to both time and place. Learning about the basic foundations of human nature, and about how to apply them, is an inquiry of a primary and general nature; as such one should look over a somewhat wider compass in order to pursue it.

[quidnunc]

Reactionary wrote: Look at America. Our philosophers were Locke, Hobbes, the rest of the Enlightenment philosophes. The "tendency" of societies to base themselves on Western philosophy is the rule, not the exception. As a matter of fact, the only countries currently free of Western philosophy are theocratic dictatorships in the Middle East.

The Founding Fathers established the U.S. upon a set of principles from a number of sources, not upon the work of one particular person.

They borrowed freely from the enlightment but were not slaves to it.

They were practical men who started with one simple precept, that all men are created equal, and built uopn it.

[ChadGore]

"Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican"
--Reagans Law

[hchutch]

I agree. The paleos are in favor of big government in certain areas. They are also very negative.

[#3Fan]

Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican"

In between the primary and the general...is how Reagan put it.

Otherwise honest debate is needed.

[#3Fan]

That's where trhe likes of Buchanan and Smith have exposed themselves to be contrary to the conservative cause. They attack their fellow conservatives between the primary and the general. They can't take a couple months off?

[Jason Kauppinen]

"They were practical men who started with one simple precept, that all men are created equal, and built uopn it."

So did the Bolsheviks.

[dighton]

... two camps of Straussians ...

If I'm not mistaken, that was an endless back-and-forth in National Review.

[Iris7]

I can certainly see you are resistant to my best efforts. Reminds me of liberals I have known. If you refuse to see the absurdity of your position certainly there is nothing I can do for you. I wash my hands.

[quidnunc]

Jason Kauppinen wrote: ("They were practical men who started with one simple precept, that all men are created equal, and built uopn it.") So did the Bolsheviks.

The Bolsheviks built their society and economy according to the dictates of Marx, Engels and Lenin, and by and large they adhered to those dictates regardless of their workability.

[quidnunc]

Iris7 wrote: I can certainly see you are resistant to my best efforts.

Those were your BEST efforts!?

[caltrop]

Depends on the paleo. In my case, about the only federal agencies I'd like to see enlarged are the Navy, Air Force, Civilian Marksmanship, Border Patrol and Customs. If wanting to see an end to unfunded mandates, the Department of Education, etc., make me, in your view, very negative then so be it.

[Iris7]

Do you wish be to be insulting to your wisdom and intelligence? I see no evidence that you have had any idea about what I have been saying. If you are not interested in something that does not fit in with your preconceptions after being reasoned with so sweetly by so many on this thread, then who am I to think I can get though to you?

[mrsmith]

"the paleo-cons and neo-cons agree on far more than they disagree on"

And what little they do disagree on is made up.