He not only considers himself "paleo-conservative" but calls his silly magazine, Chronicles, the "flagship magazine of paleo-conservatism." Just because they have substantial collections of rejection slips from conservative publications does not make his writers conservatives of any stripe.
Do not for a moment indulge the fantasy that ANYONE involved in the Rockford Institute is describable as libertarian. Several of them pine for the good old days when Slobodan Milosevic was communist boss of Serbia and not a "puppet" of American interests like more recent Serbian governments. Fleming actually wants to move to Serbia or Montenegro upon retirement. Good move for him. Good move for America. Serbia's loss would be America's gain.
The quote that quidnunc included at #159 is quite representative of the reflexive anti-Americanism which permeates the Rockford Institute whose personnel are old enough to remember the anti-American and antiwar Americong of the 1960s and 1970s. Nonetheless, they are willing to lie down with anti-war dogs in time of war.
Though the institute is NEITHER conservative NOR libertarian, one must also say of libertarians that those whose worldview is based upon secular ideology, who often cheerlead for the American holocaust of 45 million innocents slaughtered in the womb by surgical means alone since 1973, who root for the love that once dared not speak its name but will not now shut up, who think that all of political philosophy can be reduced to a few cliches out of Mill or Rand about non-initiation of force or fraud, are not conservative either. Conservatives may agree with libertarians on taxes and on limiting government regulations of business, but libertarians make poor partners on the major issues such as abortion and family and civilization.
Such as the Rockford Institute crowd make poor allies as well since they think that wallowing in novels and poetry is preferable to asserting military force in pursuance of the legitimate objectives of American foreign policy, even in the aftermath of 9/11. Also, in their passionate devotion to yakking about everything while acting about nothing, the Institute in the person of Fleming published a Chronicles editorial just a few months ago deriding pro-life champion Joe Scheidler's efforts as violative of the property rights of abortionists as though those rights should be asserted in defense of their grisly profession and confidently predicted that SCOTUS would uphold a racketeering verdict against Scheidler, about a week before SCOTUS decided by more than a mere majority in his favor and finished off RICO jurisdiction over pro-lifers.
Well, now, I didn't, did I? I've said over and over that the libertarians are libertarians and should not be lumped under the false label of paleo-cons. I'm not the one lumping Tom Fleming at Rockford with Lew Rockwell at Auburn; they have very different views. I don't think any of them should be tarred with this "paleo-con" brush.
I have argued only two things: that we should use the old labels (if any), in which paleo-con should be a badge of honor -- a Goldwater conservative, one of those early ones before the neo-cons arrived. Certainly we should not adopt a second set of definitions at odds with the first, such as the blast offered by David Frum. It causes only confusion. Witness this thread.
What then would be left to call the veteran members of the conservative movement who built it all? They are not neo-cons and the "paleo-con" as you use it is purely pejorative. What shall we call Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Bill Buckley? This usage will not do.
My other point was not to shoot to the rear. There are socialist targets enough for all. We don't need to echo the not-so-impartial David Frum's attacks on people who don't agree with every jot and tittle of the neo-con Party Line. Conservatism doesn't have a party line -- we tolerate many other opinions so long as they don't get into kissing the Pharaoh's toes and crusading against Western civilization.
In his article, Mr. Frum mentioned being at a meeting of the Philadelphia Society some years ago when the neo-cons were invited to meet with us paleos to discuss our differences and common interests. That is imo the most distinguished mainline conservative scholarly group. The present director of that group and others who were present that day, including me, were unanimously of the view that Frum offered a flawed and biased account of it. The current issue of NR indicates that it is being flooded with responses. I'm sure they'll have plenty of support, but I'll bet some of NR's old guard readers -- the true paleo-cons -- are furious.
If you wish to continue your attacks Tom Fleming or Sam Francis or Lew Rockwell or Joe Sobran, take it to them, not to me. All four are exceptionally intelligent men and they can defend their diverse views. Free Republic is no place for personal attacks.
And when Whittaker Chambers writes an reflective essay explaining why he is not a conservative, it not your place or anyone's to contradict him and announce that he was too a conservative.