Unpatriotic Conservatives

National Review Online ^ | 4/7/03 (advance) | David Frum

[Chancellor Palpatine]

"I respect and admire the French, who have been a far greater nation than we shall ever be, that is, if greatness means anything loftier than money and bombs."
— THOMAS FLEMING, "HARD RIGHT," MARCH 13, 2003

rom the very beginning of the War on Terror, there has been dissent, and as the war has proceeded to Iraq, the dissent has grown more radical and more vociferous. Perhaps that was to be expected. But here is what never could have been: Some of the leading figures in this antiwar movement call themselves "conservatives."

These conservatives are relatively few in number, but their ambitions are large. They aspire to reinvent conservative ideology: to junk the 50-year-old conservative commitment to defend American interests and values throughout the world — the commitment that inspired the founding of this magazine — in favor of a fearful policy of ignoring threats and appeasing enemies.

And they are exerting influence. When Richard Perle appeared on Meet the Press on February 23 of this year, Tim Russert asked him, "Can you assure American viewers . . . that we're in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?" Perle rebutted the allegation. But what a grand victory for the antiwar conservatives that Russert felt he had to air it.

[billbears]

Personally I'm getting a little sick and tired of the namecalling. Apparently if you dare step off the neocon Empire building train, you're anti-semitic. Let me state for the record, I am in 100% support of Israel (because of my Christian and Southern beliefs. And for the record, our side had a Jewish secretary of state and has the only Jewish military cemetary outside of the state of Israel.

Yes I said 'our side'. Because in my heart, it comes down to something I've seen here and throughout conservative groups a lot lately. It's regionalized. No one wants to admit it, no one cares to say it, but Washington was right in 1795. Different regions will never see eye to eye. Did I support President Bush when he first started talking about invasion? No. There has never been a formal declaration of war. Don't give me this crap about open authorization. The Constitution requires a formal declaration in Article I, Section 8. Not some pansy open check to do whatever the heck one man thinks should be the course

But war has started and I will (as I always have) support fully the men and women of these United States Armed Forces in their cause, for their success, and for their safe return home. But please quit shoving this world policeman, put a soldier in every port of the world because it's vital, imperialistic crap down our throats as conservatism. Because it's not. I don't know what the h#ll it is, but it's not what most people I know grew up knowing as conservatism

[Willie Green]

They were uncalled for.

Actually, you should trust your initial instincts.
IMHO, they were right on target.

[Ff--150]

We fight not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, and so on. This is in both politics and religion. This is war. Don't give up truth and principles in order to get along with darkness and wickedness.

You've read the end of the Book and know we win!

[Sangamon Kid]

I am only apologizing for using the term "maroon", an ad hominem attack that detracts from civil debate. Everything else I have stated still stands.

[JohnGalt]

Rockwell is caring on a tradition established by Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard; Fleming, may prove to be a huckster, but the League of the South--which he founded-- will outlive him, I suspect.

Francis wants nothing more than to pull the conservative movement over to Jared Taylors neck of the woods, and I think that is something libertarians will not tolerate. But what we have gotten from the past decade is a search for an authentic American voice of dissent from the anti-anti-Federalist who would have looked at the Constitution as a coup d'etat and Jefferson as a sellout. It has been and continues to be a rich debate, cemented in Murray Rothbard and Fleming's Hard Right.

[american spirit]

Not sure....hope they're not to be replaced with UN blue.

[american spirit]

Nothing in that statement implies "we got what we deserved" on 9/11. Obviously, there are numerous reasons why 9/11 occurred as well as many ironies surrounding the whole affair. Buchanan's statement outlines the complex reasons why the majority of the hijackers were Saudi (why aren't we invading Saudi Arabia?) and the possibility of Iraqui involvement, nothing more nothing less. At least he has the courage of his convictions and is not afraid defend his positions from the attacks of the uninformed.

[risk]

At least he has the courage of his convictions and is not afraid defend his positions from the attacks of the uninformed.

I agree. PJB is definitely an intelligent contributor to this discussion. I disagree with his conclusions, but I think they're honest. We don't know the long-term outcomes of our decisions now.

Reagan couldn't have known that we would win the Cold War in his lifetime, but he had faith that fighting it was good for the whole human race, and especially Americans.

In those terms, fighting Islamic theofascism and Stalinism (north Korean style) is worthy of our efforts now.

[NYC GOP Chick]

I misplaced mine too. But, as a full member of the International Zionist Conspiracy, I'll have my broadcast networks run the memo on the 6 o'clock news. ;-)

Can you please remind me which frequency to tune my shortwave radio, so that I can hear Chairman Sharon's next set of orders? Thanks and mazel tov :)

[risk]

Did I support President Bush when he first started talking about invasion? No.

Two things:

1. I'm convinced that Hussein has the motive and the passion to contribute to world terrorism on the scale of the OKC, US embassy bombings in Africa, and 9/11. Micah Morrison in a September 2002 WSJ article links Iraq to the OKC and 9/11 attacks. He also points out that James Woolsey, the former CIA director, has praised this line of investigation.
2. If Hussein didn't have anything to do with the above events, he would want to commit more like them by now. America needs a strike-first approach to terrorism. There can be no doubt what will happen to those who threaten us.

I think there are several other good reasons to overthrow Hussein, but revenge is high on my list. One of them is the suffering our soldiers who defended Kuwait in the first Gulf War have undergone due to their exposure to chemical and/or biological agents, but that's another story.

I want our troops to know that we don't just "support them," but we're behind them 100% and we urge them forward as they rush to preserve our safety, our sovereignty, and our freedom.

[billbears]

but we're behind them 100% and we urge them forward as they rush to preserve our safety, our sovereignty, and our freedom.

And if you read my statement that is exactly what I said, 100 percent support of the troops, their safety, and success. Although I'm unsure how fighting a 3rd world dictator with 'possible' (note possible not definite) ties to terrorism is going to protect our freedom.

[risk]

Although I'm unsure how fighting a 3rd world dictator with 'possible' (note possible not definite) ties to terrorism is going to protect our freedom.

I understand your concerns. The 9/11 terrorists used our own infrastructure (airports and large aircraft) to attack us, not traditional weapons of mass destruction. I'm sure we can look forward to more "inconceivable" techniques in their attacks.

Again, I think America's proper external role as it defends itself and its interests is a legitimate debate, so I didn't mean to cast doubts on your logic. On the other hand, I think the time for equivocation is over, and I think we agree on that. But this will come up again and again until our current enemies are rendered incapable of leveling a threat at us.

[billbears]

I think the time for equivocation is over, and I think we agree on that. But this will come up again and again until our current enemies are rendered incapable of leveling a threat at us

On that we can agree. I do hope the war is swift and decisive

[Hoppean]

Pat is Pro-white-European-American, as long as they're pumping out babies.

Does your observation mean that you're "Anti-white-European-American," babies or no? If so, you've got a lot in common with the Jesse Jackson, "Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Western culture's Gotta Go" crowd. Given the choice between them, I side with "Go, Pat Go!"

[sinkspur]

Given the choice between them, I side with "Go, Pat Go!"

You don't have to choose between them.

Jesse and Pat are both anti-semites.

[american spirit]

I agree with a lot of what you say but let's not be too sure we won the Cold War and Communism is dead as we've been led to believe. It's certainly not dead in China, S. Africa, Cuba and in other places where a communistic style gov't exists but is probably labeled something a little more palatable to our psyches. After seeing quotes by Gorbachev that the plan was to lull the West into believing that glasnost represented the end of Communism when in reality Mother Russia is seemingly alive and well regardless of what Dan, Peter and Tom are telling us. IMO I think we've been sized up, set up and in the process of being sold out.

[Hoppean]

For the next few decades we have the oportunity to build the first true World Empire. An Empire that has no enemies, because there is nothing outside it.

We are the Hegemon. We can Do anything we damned well please.

I hate to sound like Jonah Goldberg by bringing up a Star Trek reference, but those two sentences above just remind me of the Borg, as in "We are the Borg, existence as you have known it is over, we will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. You will be assimilated, resistance is futile." I'm not sure if that should be the pattern for our national development.

[x]

Francis has shown a keen analytic bent, though he flirts too much with the segregationists. So much about the man is guaranteed to offend. Gottfried is likewise a skilled analyst of contemporary American society. His books are very much worth reading, though in his slighter articles he's gotten to be too much of a whiner and accepted without question too much of what Rockwell and Fleming dish out.

Buchanan has shot his credibility as a politician, but often makes good points and raises important questions. The GOP is eventually going to regret its embrace of the neocons and move to a more main street, less globalist, less interventionist point of view, though. But it won't happen if the alternative to globalism is perceived as being tribalism or racialism.

Fleming is far too much of an armchair emotionalist. I can't consider him any sort of serious thinker or even a good writer. So much of his writing boils down to "I don't like," and some of the things he does like, sociobiology for example, have real problems for many. I don't think he has much understanding of history beyond a good guys vs. bad guys approach.

Dittos for Rockwell who also flirts too much with anarchy. So much of what gets put up on his website can't be taken seriously. The eternal "I hate the state/government is evil" refrain is more apt to turn people off than to attract them. He comes across as very much a Johnny One-Note.

I regard this LOTS/SIP nonsense more as a damning rather than a redeeming feature. An intriguing idea about American history gets pounded into a dry, narrow, spectacularly wrong-headed orthodoxy. Secession becomes a cure all, and the Confederacy the great alibi of American history.

Liberty Magazine has much in common with the paleolibs without falling into their grosser errors. There's an interesting article in the March issue contrasting Mises with Rothbard and Rockwell and questioning what they've done with his work.