[Classicaliberalconservative]

The difference between most paleos and neos is race. WSJ is considered neoconservative by most paleocons because of its support of open immigration (not something I am in favor of). Frankly, most paleoconservatives are bigots. Paleos never accepted the the changes of the 1960s over race and immigration. Trent Lott was defended primarily by conservatives who consider themselves paleocons: Sam Francis, Lawrence Auster, Jared Taylor etc. Don't get me wrong; the current civil "rights" establishment is scum and I believe in lower immigration levels for all nations. Still paleoconservatives tend to disturb me and they tend to label anyone who does not accept their white supremicist doctrine as "neocons", which for many of them is a code word for J-E-W-S and their allies.

[Pelham]

Still paleoconservatives tend to disturb me and they tend to label anyone who does not accept their white supremicist doctrine as "neocons", which for many of them is a code word for J-E-W-S and their allies.

Sure, and that's why Paul Gottfried is one of the more prominent paleocon writers. But thanks for providing us with such a stellar example of neocon bigotry.

[LibertarianInExile]

Um, could you generalize a little more? When you say something like "most paleoconservatives are bigots," you are further adding to the 'Republicans are sexist-racist-homophobes" bandwagon, since people think all conservatives are Republicans.

Further, the first thing that many neocons do when they want to defend their ideas against logically valid attacks is to trot out the anti-Semite charge, and I'm sick of it. I'm libertarian, and many paleos hate that viewpoint, but I will be the first to say that bigotry is not endemic to paleos any more than idiocy or lefthandedness is epidemic among neocons. It's a difference of opinion regarding government. Please don't jump on paleos because they'd like to take government back to the 1800s. Just because slavery was around then doesn't mean they're all for it.