Replies

I missed it. So thanks for the renewed post. (Some of us aren't on FreeRepublic 24/7/365. For some people, duplicate posts are a pet peeve. To me, being told that a post I've seen for the first time is a duplicate, with the implication that the duplicate shouldn't have been posted, is a pet peeve.)

It would be easy to label these "paleoconservative" lunatics. Some of them are. But their motives and opinions are more complex than that. All I can say is that many of these "paleos" tend to oppose Israel, favor the Arabs, think the Confederacy was a pretty good idea, correspondingly think Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant, and generally oppose a strong US because a strong military requires a strong central government.

I have little sympathy for any of their positions. When someone like Lew Rockwell calls Clarence Thomas a "liberal" in his views regarding segregation in the South, I think Rockwell discredits himself and has confined himself to a lunatic fringe. Unfortunately, we on FR have to contend with such knuckleheads every day.

All I can say is that many of these "paleos" tend to oppose Israel

It has been my observation that desiring a neutral stance towards Israel has been purposely misconstrued by neocons as being anti-Israel.

Of course this leads to the inevitible charge of antisemitism (racism). This isn't a new tactic at all. The Rats have used it for years with affirmative action: If you're against it, surely you must be a racist. Thus the focus is changed from debating the legitimate points of the matter to namecalling and maligning one's opponent.

"All I can say is that many of these "paleos" tend to oppose Israel, favor the Arabs, think the Confederacy was a pretty good idea, correspondingly think Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant, and generally oppose a strong US because a strong military requires a strong central government."

So how about someone like myself who supports Israel, favors the Arabs when they act like civilized human beings and favors shooting them when they don't, think the Confederacy was a good idea with the exception of chattel slavery, Lincoln was inarguably a tyrant, and support and advocate an imposition of a worldwide Pax Americana in as kind a fashion as possible and as brutal a fashion as neccesary. Am I tarred with the paleo brush for agreeing with them on a few issues? Or may I continue to identify myself simply as a twenty first century Jeffersonian with delusions of fascism?

When I read this while research paleo -- a word I did not know what it meant -- I figured I must not be the only one who had not read this article.

Have wondered about Novak and Hagel both -- this sure went a long way toward explaining their positions and attacks on the Bush Administration.

Your quote summed it up perfectly for me -- "Unfortunately, we on FR have to contend with such knuckleheads every day." Couldn't agree with you more!