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.

[Sangamon Kid]

The Constitution says: To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

Technically, you are correct. Maybe Congress just couldn't find the d*mn form to fill out when they needed it. The sad fact of the matter is that the present Administration doesn't have the cajones to create a declaration. They seem to have caught the same virus that previous administrations suffered going back to the 1950's.

[Alberta's Child]

That wasn't the only reason he called for U.S. support of Croatia. He used it in a symbolic sense to make the point that Croatia, of all the former Yugoslav republics, was the most "Western" in its outlook and had the best potential for developing into a modern, U.S.-friendly state. It's hard to argue with the results, and it's hard to figure out what the hell the U.S. has been thinking in the Balkans over the last ten years. Not long after that column was written by Buchanan, the U.S. not only criticized Germany for doing exactly what Buchanan had suggested, but proceeded to do in Bosnia and Kosovo -- the two former Yugoslav republics that are dominated by anti-Western Muslims -- the exact same thing (and more) that Germany had done in Croatia!

[hchutch]

The Corner from National Review Online has more comments that seem to illustrate the situation a lot more..

From Jonah Goldberg at 11:22 AM on 3/19/03:
"In general National Review has followed a policy of ignoring the fever swamps which claim to be to our right and I am loath to give these folks even a thimble of satisfaction. They pound on their high chairs and shout nasty curses and think they are great thinkers if anybody pays attention. On the other hand, partly because of the levelling effect of the web, this coalition of cranks and malcontents (with a few decent but mislead types as well) has gained a smattering of influence. And, because Pat Buchanan retains credibility with many for his past accomplishments and his eloquence, some paleo ideas leak like contaminated water from below into mainstream debates. And, sometimes bad arguments must be fought with good ones rather than ignored.

"Also, I should point out that I am also a bit envious. David Frum is undoubtedly more qualified to lead this charge than I, but as I feel I have a personal stake in this, I hate it when I feel like others are making my fight for me. Of course, this is larger than me, but the paleos have been goading and mocking me for so long and with such intensity I sometimes expect to find Lew Rockwell sitting outside my house in a gray Buick wearing a trench coat. I have had several email exhanges with several Lewrockwell and VDare authors and scores of their readers. My contempt, with a few exceptions for individuals who've mistakenly aligned themselves with these people, is total. With a sophomoric joy one usually finds with skinhead wannabes just smart enough to be dangerous, they call National Review, "Goldberg's Review" -- something they would never do were my last name O'Mally but my politics the same. They talk about preserving the genetic stock of America, they blame their shabby careers on Jews they've never met, they compare Lincoln to Hitler and America to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. And the misguided few who don't write such things, have no problem associating themselves with those who do. They've made their bed as far as I'm concerned.

"I do not know how long the window on the "let's ignore them" policy will be, or should be, open. But let me take this brief intermission to salute David on a job well done and the editors of National Review for deciding that the job must be done. And hopefully this sad crowd will continue to scoot themselves ever deeper into the dustbin of history where they belong."

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/03_03_16_corner-archive.asp#005147

Stanley Kurtz, 12:23 PM on 3/19/03:
"I’ve just finished reading David Frum’s very powerful indictment of Buchananite pale-conservatism, in the latest issue of National Review magazine. Frum charges leading paleo-cons with the worst sort of bigotry and anti-Americanism, and he backs up his charges with many detailed quotes. This article is going to mark a watershed in the battle to define conservativism."

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/03_03_16_corner-archive.asp#005150

Jonah Goldberg at 12:49 PM on 3/19/03:
"But, when it comes to immigration I think there's something important that needs to be added. Ramesh Ponnuru, for example, has written with great intelligence in favor of a more restrictionist immigration policy. Rather than greet Ramesh's efforts as good news and opportunity to build a pragmatic consensus etc, they respond with sophomoric taunts about his ethnicity and suggest that anybody who disagrees with them "isn't serious" and is part of the problem. Even on immigration, even if I disagree with you, I don't see that they offer much by way of new "ideas." They offer a sentiment, a pang, a grievance and when serious people try to translate that pang into policy they reject it out of hand in the name of purity -- purity of politics and purity of ethnicity since Ramesh (born in Kansas) has committed the sin of having Indian immigrants in his family tree."
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/03_03_16_corner-archive.asp#005156

Rod Dreher at 3:11 PM on 3/19/03:
"I suppose it might be unseemly to praise one's own magazine, but I am proud to be associated with a publication responsible for David Frum's magnificent and necessary essay. I've never paid much attention to the paleocons, to be honest. I find the interest many of them have in traditional forms of Christianity to be appealing at some level, and I share too their concern over the loss of certain aspects of traditional culture, particularly in light of the role the free market plays in exacerbating and accelerating this destructive dynamic.

"Since 9/11, however, I've been increasingly disturbed by anti-American and racialist rhetoric emanating from the paleos. I suppose it may have been there all along, but not paying close attention to them, I never saw it. Not long after the 9/11 attacks, I investigated what I came to believe were credible reports that paleocon students at a conservative Catholic college were going around saying the terrorist assaults were a good thing, because wicked America deserved it -- and that there were professors at this college encouraging students, from a rightist perspective, to see the American founding as illegitimate. I found it hard to believe that there were actually people on the Right saying these kinds of things, but as Frum details, this vile sentiment is now something some leading paleocon writers are willing to say publicly. I met a traditionalist Catholic at a party who, upon learning that I worked for NR, said cheerily, "Well, I'm anti-American." He himself was born and raised in America, a country which, for all its problems, is still a land where the Catholic faith is practiced to a degree no longer known in the European countries he and his sort revere. I've heard some of this same crowd, who have been untiring in their declaration that Pope John Paul II has been a disaster for the Church, now talking of the Holy Father as a prophet because the pontiff has set himself against America in the cause of war on Iraq.

"I am in no way a "my country, right or wrong" man, but neither do I understand irrational hatred of this country, one's native land, and its institutions as a virtue, particularly a conservative virtue. And Jew-hatred is a sin and a disgrace. National Review has acted in the past to rescue conservatism from this lot, and has done so again."

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/03_03_16_corner-archive.asp#005175

Ramesh Ponnoru at 3:24 PM on 3/19/03:
"David’s essay on the paleos is not only an important act of moral, intellectual, and political hygiene. It’s also, as essays go, a rollicking good time. It’s both heated and funny."

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/03_03_16_corner-archive.asp#005178

Sounds like National Review's getting ready for some clean-up work.

[Joe Hadenuf]

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

Huh? What is a neo-confederate?? Pat hates America? Immigration-reform movement? LOL! What in the Sam Hill are you talking about....

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Ping for #223

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Ping for #223

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Ping for #223

[hchutch]

Check this out.

[justshe]

THANKS for the ping!

WOW!

The *WHAP* we've all been waiting for. (evil snicker)

I hear the air being let out of 'armchairs' all over the forum!

And to think I derided Mr. Frum initially.

[x]

It's hardly surprising that National Review writers would pat each other on the back. Most of what Frum wrote isn't at all new. But it's hard to see how the views of eccentric outsiders like Fleming or Francis reflect on conservative critics of the war like Robert Novak. It's the old guilt by association ploy.

A partial dissent from an admirer of the article here: Frum’s and Goldberg’s Orwellian lie about immigration restrictionists. Frum's idea that neocons and NRcons would have been big backers of immigration reform if it weren't for the paleos is laughable and a lie.

[rmlew]

The sad fact is that Congress has been delegating Constitutional responsibilities since 1915 and the US Supreme Court ignores this.

[rmlew]

That wasn't the only reason he called for U.S. support of Croatia. He used it in a symbolic sense to make the point that Croatia, of all the former Yugoslav republics, was the most "Western" in its outlook and had the best potential for developing into a modern, U.S.-friendly state.

1. Slovenia is the most Western of the States.
2. Croatia was ruled by Franco Tudjman, an Ustashe wannabe.
We did help the Croats against the Serbs.

It's hard to argue with the results, and it's hard to figure out what the hell the U.S. has been thinking in the Balkans over the last ten years.

The place is a mess. I sometimes think that Bismark was correct when he said it was not worth the bones of a Pomeranian Grenadier.

I did not support the Kosovo war. However, we are in the odd position of having Albania supporting us.
Of course the the organized crime syndicate/terrorist group/ paramilitary org known as the KLA is making life difficult and Albanian rebels are pressing Macedonia.

[hchutch]

If you check a number of the immigration threads, I thinkt here is an accurate basis for what is being said. Certainly, one does not see any of the folks who are clearly engaging in racialist rhetoric being taken to the woodshed.

In fact the Kevin MacDonald mentioned in this article apparently used to post here as MacDonald14. Cachelot seems to have outed him.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/839652/posts?page=83#83

You may want to look up that user name, and note that user's status. You will note he has been banned.

Mr. Auster ignored the old saying, "Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas." Whether it is because the left has fired off unfounded racism charges in the past, I don't know. But in this case, there is a lot of evidence backing what Mr. Frum wrote, both in his major article AND in his diary. I am one of those who has moved FAR AWAY from a restrictionist position on immigration, because I, too, saw what David Frum is seeing and wrote in the immigration threads.

Mr. Auster is, in my honest opinion, in denial. Part of this is probably due to the unfounded claims of racism by the Left that have become all too common in political discourse. However, Mr. Frum and Mr. Goldberg have provided evidence to back up a lot of their comments on this matter. At this point, I see no reason to doubt Mr. Frum's take on this issue.

[rmlew]

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

Joe Hadenuf reponded
Huh? What is a neo-confederate?? Pat hates America? Immigration-reform movement? LOL! What in the Sam Hill are you talking about....

A neo-confederate is a supporter of the Confederacy. Sam Francis is one of these.
Pat does not hate America, but I believe that he dislikes post 1900 America. He sees us as morally bankrupt (that goes too far), Imperialistic (as if we weren't from 1775 to 1898?), and lacking a common culture (I agree here).

As for the immigration Reform movement, I am talking about the movement that support reducing numbers of immigrants and expelling illegals. I support this.

[rmlew]

It's hardly surprising that National Review writers would pat each other on the back. Most of what Frum wrote isn't at all new. But it's hard to see how the views of eccentric outsiders like Fleming or Francis reflect on conservative critics of the war like Robert Novak. It's the old guilt by association ploy.

It is unfortunate that Frum is using tactics perfected by Francis, Sobran, Gottfried, and Buchanan.

A partial dissent from an admirer of the article here: Frum’s and Goldberg’s Orwellian lie about immigration restrictionists.

Kalb and Auster's blog, Veiw From the Right (to which I regularly respond as "Ron"), is one of the few sane Paleocon publications.

Frum's idea that neocons and NRcons would have been big backers of immigration reform if it weren't for the paleos is laughable and a lie.
National Review has supported immigration reform for at least a decade. Some of its writers disagree, but that is the official position.

[hchutch]

The same tactics? In this case, I must disagree. Frum and Goldberg are raising valid points and sounding a legitimate alarm in this case. Take a look at some of the stuff you see on immigration threads, and tell me if it is unreasonable to perceive things as Frum and Goldberg are perceiving them.

[ArneFufkin]

Interesting!!!

We've endured a bit of that "paleo" pathology here on FR. It's sad ... "Neo-con" has seemed to become a code word for "Jew" to Buchanan, Rockwell and some of the worst of the worst.

[hchutch]

Frum and Goldberg are accurately portraying the paleo-cons based on what I have seen on certain threads.

It's pretty ugly, IMHO, and I'm glad they are speaking out on this issue.

[x]

It is unfortunate that Frum is using tactics perfected by Francis, Sobran, Gottfried, and Buchanan.

Polemicists write like polemicists. To say that Francis or Sobran "perfected" those tactics, or anything else, is absurd. I really doubt that it's a question of "who started it" or that Frum had anything to learn from those you mention. But to be sure, Frum's own notorious 1991 attack on Buchanan did a lot to embitter the paleo/neo split. A wiser, less personally ambitious publicist would have tried to cool things down. Frum's instinct has always been to pour gasoline on fires and he's been rewarded for it by his allies.

National Review has supported immigration reform for at least a decade. Some of its writers disagree, but that is the official position.

That is at most a half truth. John O'Sullivan promoted immigration reform when he was an editor at NR a decade ago. When he left, the issue was buried for years. I don't know the circumstances of his departure, but there were rumors that his position on immigration played a role in it.

Those who succeeded O'Sullivan never promoted immigration reform until 9/11 provoked new concern over national security. Some writers like John J. Miller strongly opposed reform. I don't know what the "official position" on immigration at National Review is, but it's nice to have such an "official position" somewhere deep in the background to use as an alibi for not taking real stands on an issue.

[x]

I am one of those who has moved FAR AWAY from a restrictionist position on immigration, because I, too, saw what David Frum is seeing and wrote in the immigration threads.

"Paleoconservatism" was born because the conservative establishment didn't take immigration (and trade) issues seriously. And with a few worthy exceptions, like John O'Sullivan, they continued to ignore the issue, until 9/11.

I don't think Auster is so much defending the paleocons, as exposing Frum's and Goldberg's self-serving deception. Neocons, NRcons and the political establishment in general don't want to deal with immigration and won't, unless pressure is put on them. But they can always counter the pressure by picking out a few egregious statements by critics of immigration and proponents of reform to justify their inaction.

Arguments like this usually pale off into quarrels over "Who started it." But keep your eyes and ears open and see whether the government does anything about immigration or the conservative establishment takes a clear stand behind efforts to limit immigration. My guess is that they won't. They don't want to. And they'll always find some big mouth to blame for their own inaction.