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.

[eskimo]

Jesse and Pat are both anti-semites.

Whose going to believe that nonsense when we see Semites accusing other Semites of being "anti-semites"?

[IamHD]

From the time President Bush took office, there has been nothing but dissent from the left. All of this anti-war BS has nothing to do with being against war; it has to do with hating President Bush. IMHO

[JohnGalt]

I trust you are older than me since Francis just comes across as a charlatan to me, more so than Jared Taylor who I honestly think is interested in legitimizing a debate none of us really want to have. I must concede, Francis' 'managerial liberalism' has become part of my political lexicon.

But we disagree on Fleming. I believe most out-side the beltway conservatives, and they are not many of us, who read the full spectrum, don't fully appreciate that the machinations of the DC government is a who's who of the elite in this country. Their culture, both the Rs and Ds, is repugnant, atheist and hedonistic to the core; yet they have no problem going on TV and playing the moralist.

Fleming is offering a view, albeit, in its infancy, that reminds us that 'they' are not like the rest of us. That DC, NYC, and LA may have money, but they are not representative of anything remotely 'American.' At its core, Fleming is giving a pure nationalism, stripped of the cheapness of pure ethnic identity.

Just last week, in the now infamous Francophobes column he mentioned a line about that space between New York and Los Angeles. When just the Sunday before, Ned Flanders on the Simpsons described the space between New York and Los Angeles as "you know, America."


Fleming watches the Simpsons? I doubt (Kaiser) Bill Bennett does.

[4CJ]

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.

I concur 100%.

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

Lincoln himself acknowledged that a President declaring war without congressional approval was a dictator.

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

Bump again. Take care of Americans first, defend this country from invasion - military and illegal immigrants. I live in a military neighborhood, several of my neighbors and a best friend are overseas right now - I pray for all of them and their success.

[hchutch]

I share your sentiments strongly.

David Frum has been devastatingly accurate.

[x]

Reading Francis 15 years ago or Fleming 10 years ago or Rockwell 5 years ago was an exciting experience because they questioned the prevailing orthodoxy of the day as few others did. But I think we're finding out that the orthodoxy isn't wrong about everything. Now I suspect that the paleos would rather be provocative than right.

At its core, Fleming is giving a pure nationalism, stripped of the cheapness of pure ethnic identity.

It would be nice if this were true, but I really doubt it. Fleming has too many emotional zigzags. He has real trouble focusing.

What I object to in both neos and paleos is the closed and cultic quality of much of their thinking. Rather than address issues of concern to the country as a whole, one throws around group passwords and codewords and makes secret signs and handshakes. There's much that's wrong with practical politics, but it does allow people a chance to focus on a few things that affect their lives and try to fix them. I appreciate Fleming's attempt at dealing with the broader cultural landscape. A conservatism that neglects cultural questions is indeed impoverished. But I suspect all that it amounts to in the end with Fleming is a few poorly written articles damning the contemporary scene in a wholesale fashion, with special pleading for the cause of the day, Serbia, Lombardy or the Confederacy. Fleming's yearnings after the wild and heroic can't be satisfied by everyday life, and are apt to so more harm than good.

I think Americans will come around to a view more centered on the nation, but I don't think we'll be very indebted to Fleming and his sort for it. It won't be because we're fighting the battle of the "true America" against the "false" -- I suspect most Americans would view Fleming's America as a false one -- but because we have to pull together to overcome common obstacles. Bush's 2000 vision of a "more modest America" was of value. It certainly looked like a good idea at the time. Unfortunately, things didn't turn out as it appeared they would. Arrogant intellectuals of whatever stripe, aren't apt to bring about a more modest country, though it looks like apparently modest politicians won't do so either.

[Pistias]

1. As old-line, traditionalist Catholics, they share the Islamic sense that the West is decadent and no longer deserves Divine protection.

Check.

. They are anti-Israel and possibly anti-semitic, and oppose any mid-East policy which they see as even indirectly beneficial to Israel.

Hmm...what defines "anti-semitism?"

3. They are isolationist and share the Founding Fathers' distrust of standing armies and complex international treaties, agreements, and commitments.

Check.

4. They are staunch believers in the 9th and 10th Amendments, and feel that mainstream Republicanism has abandoned any pretense of defending the traditional concept of Federalism.

Check.

Well, it looks like I'm a dangerously unpatriotic conservative on three of four counts. But I am patriotic to America, just not what calls itself America these days.

Better ban me before I rain on the War on (Some) Terrorism Parade.

[rmlew]

While i like much of the piece, Frum's blindness to the problems associated with immigration poison alot of the piece.
Frum is a Jewish Canadian neocon. He is not the person at NR to write the piece. John O'Sullivan should have.

[rmlew]

That is very inacccurate.
Paleocons are essentially the post-Civil War Southern Democrat Party, except that they no longer lynch Catholics and have a few token Jews and blacks.

[rmlew]

Royalist France was indespespesible to American Independence. However, we fought our second war with Revolutionary France in the 1790's.
Don't confuse regimes, peoples, and geography.

[Joe 6-pack]

"Hey, I'm against Empire building."

And, just how are the current operations, "Empire building?"

Do explain...I'm willing to listen to any convincing arguement.

[rmlew]

Unfortunately, by joining with the neo-confederates, and hate-America left, Pat is hurting the immigration-reform movement.

You can't be a nationalist and hate your country. Ersatz nationalism is unmoored from reality.

[rmlew]

Actually, Frum does mention two Jews here.
He gives 2 paragraphs to Paul Gottfried. B Frum does mention Rothbard
There was no shortage of disaffected right-wingers; but what did Samuel Francis (who had spent the early 1980s investigating subversives for Senator John East) have in common with the economist Murray Rothbard (who had cheered when the Communists captured Saigon)?

I find the article to be vindictive and contemptuous, but no worse than stuff written regularly by Fleming, Sobran, Buchanan, Gottfried, or Francis.

[rmlew]

I didn't know that followers of Jefferson Davis, Wlliam Jennings Bryan, and George Wallace defined proper conservatism or the GOP.

[rmlew]

So by aligning themselves with the Globalist Left and promoting an action (US backing down) which would de facto create UN supremeacy over US foreign policy, the Paleos are defending our sovereignty?

The Bittercons are blinded by their hatred. They are no longer Nationalists, but ideologue supporting an America that exists only in their revisionst history.

[rmlew]

Have you read Dead Right and What's Right ?
I doubt it. If you did, you would know that he opposed both the Square and New Deals.

[rmlew]

Who are you talking about?

The Weekly Standard opposes a new drug plan.
Don't confuse squishy Republican politicians with Neocons.

[rmlew]

Congress authorized the war a year ago.
I would preffer a formal "We declare War on Iraq" statement, but there is no language for a declaration of war provided in the Constitution.

[nopardons]

This is a truely AMAZING " chronicle " ( hehehehehe ! ) of the lunatics, who imagine / call themselves CONSERVATIVE, but aren't. This should be posted and posted and POSTED, and EVERY FReeper made to read. Anyone, A-N-Y-O-N-E here, who claims to be a kindred soul, of the people mentioned, should be laughed off FR and usually ARE laughed at, chided, yelled at here.

[Sangamon Kid]

And, just how are the current operations, "Empire building?" Do explain...I'm willing to listen to any convincing arguement.

Where did I say that the current operation is Empire building? You can look, but you'll come back empty-handed. But, just for the record. Though I think that Saddam is the lowest sort of dog, I always felt that the evidence linking him to Osama and Al Queda was flimsy at best. Taking him out now is a pretext for gaining a foothold smack dab in the most volatile part of the world...a place where our military influence could be substantial. If we indeed plan on being the world's policeman (which is the righteous veneer of Empire), then what better place to have a precinct house than in Iraq. Anyone who believes we will be out of there soon is a fool. We intend to stay there for a long, long time.

I support our ongoing efforts to round up and destroy the parties responsible for 9/11. I oppose the foreign policy that creates monsters like Osama, Saddam, the Shah, Somoza, Noriega, and a whole host of other CIA stooges. I oppose the foreign policy that get's us involved in every nook and cranny of the world, and I oppose any policy that keeps us in the Mideast for one minute longer than is necessary to finish tracking down the criminals responsible for 9/11.