Unpatriotic Conservatives -- A war against America. MANDATORY READ -- DETAILS PALEOCONSERVATIVES

National Review On-Line ^ | March 19, 2003 | David Frum

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Guess who doesn't want to have to watch over fellow Americans or to fight in foreign lands, who has respect for his neighbors and would prefer to be home with the family, minding his own business - and guess who wants to tell you how to run your business, raise your family and care for oversee most of us little people (regular people to John Edwards)?

Hillary and Bill, Kofi and Jacque, Noam, Babs, Gorby and Fidel thank you for focusing on the "neocons" - helping the left once more to label, divide and weaken their opponents. The left will vote as one - for power's sake, even if it means intentionally working against our national security interests by aligning themselves with nations and powerful NGOs that oppose US supremacy.

 Domestic enemies:

 

*Hillary Clinton Attacks Bush, U.S. Intelligence Services in Overseas Interview

*Hillary: "New Political Icon" Clinton's European Triumph

*Clinton: NATO should intervene in Iraq - AFP ^ | July 12, 2003 | AFP

*Clinton urged to head NATO  - Aftenpost (Norway) ^ | Tuesday 17 June 2003

*Democrats Use Bastille Day, Internet Activism to Bash Bush

 

*'Dems plan to undermine America to beat Bush'

 

"The Americans gave Clinton the key to the candy store and he sold it to Beijing." ~ Peter Zhang, Clinton in the shadow of treason.

---

 

"Let's Roll" -Todd Beamer, 9-11-01.  "I see happy!" free Iraqi man in Baghdad, 4-09-03.

 

"When I hear a speech like Blair’s, I have to check the calendar. And the calendar is usually wrong. It may say 2/23, or 7/16, or 4/30. But I know what the date is, and the date is 9/12. It’s going to be 9/12 for a long time to come." ~ James Lileks, Fri., July 18,  2003.  http://www.lileks.com/bleats/ 

 

 

[L,TOWM]

Hey, one flag deserves another. Check out post 200 before some dino whhiner hits the abuse button...

[Jim Robinson]

There are other websites available to those conservatives who wish to work against Bush and the Republicans. It's not like your voices are being silenced or not heard. Buchanan, Rockwell, Raimonodo, LibertyPost, et al, and their following are shouting their lungs out. Who knows? Maybe someday they may enjoy some success. But not now. Not in 2004. And probably not in 2008 or even 2012. Right now I'm determined to do what I think is the ONLY immediate thing that can be done that will have a positive effect, and that is to Dump as many Democrats as humanly possible!

[boxerblues]

bump for later reading

[Missouri]

Pat Buchanan and other paleoconservatives,

I to agree with Buchanan on many issues but he's mis-handled the Middle-east/Isreal situation.

As for GWB, he's better than Clinton and Gore but why would he say that Ted Kennedy is really a nice guy? Oh how that hurt !

What it comes down to in 2004 is that nobody with deep pockets like a Ross Perot or an individual with strong regional support like a George Wallace will run as a strong third party, What will happen is we'll see a democrap on the TV everyday during the election, who will terrify alot of people into voting for GWB including us who critize him over immigration, the budget, CFR, or other social issues.

I've always thought that it is good to debate with people who believe in the same things so we'll be well honed in our debate with people (liberals/marxist) who are against us.

[Jim Robinson]

I'd say that about ninety some odd percent of the voters (not counting a few hundred Gore supporters who are too dumb too vote a ballot) did not agree with Pat Buchanan, otherwise, he'd be president. Or at least nominated by the Republican Party. These are the only polls that matter.

[x]

I don't see much point in excavating Frum's purge screed. Frum looks pretty opportunistic for trying to ride the controversy to greater prominence for himself. One might say the same of others involved, but the butt-kissing responses to Frum that National Review published in a subsequent issue were particularly laughable. When Frum became the unassailable conservative pope and heresy hunter is beyond me. Scott McConnell's American Conservative response is worth looking at.

There has been and will continue to be much discussion about whether our latest war was wise or prudent or the right thing to do. Global recriminations of paleos and neos are a distraction from real policy questions. One can certainly despise the paleocon mythology and still question whether President Bush made the best choice. One doesn't have to subscribe to loopy theories about Lincoln or Churchill to question the wisdom of administration policy. And charges of disloyalty or lack of patriotism should be indulged in sparingly and only with real proof.

[rmlew]

Neutrality is fine.
The problem is when Paleocons support all Nationalism but Zionism, borrow liberally from Communist and Islamist attacks against Israel, and use the sheild of perported victimhood to protect recycling of anti-Semitic canards.

[Captain Kennit]

Doesn't mean that the voters disagreed with Buchanan. It simply meant that they chose not to 'waste their vote', and help Al Gore. A better picture of Buchanan's support can be seen in his primary runs in 92 and 96. His support is not negligible. Traditional conservatism as espoused by Buchanan will be around long after the Frums of this world have gravitated back to their natural habitat, the Trotskyite Left.

[rmlew]

I happen to agree with him on culture and the national question.

[Captain Kennit]

Neoconservatives are far more hypocritical than paleocons on these issues. Witness the neocons treat Islamic terrorism as BAD when it affects Israel, yet GOOD when it affects Serbia. Note that the neocons actually supported the Islamic terrorists in Kosovo, and demanded that Clinton bomb Belgrade back into the Stone Age. Even the most ardent anti-Zionist paleos (and Buchanan is by no means among them) would never actually argue to bomb Israel or even to actively support the Palestinians. Put another, the neocons are the true hypocrites; they view any type of nationalism as BAD, excepting Zionist nationalism. (And their support of American "benevolent global hegemony" is hardly an example of a support of nationalism, as benevolent global hegemony is anything but).

[Captain Kennit]

Buchanan is not anti-Israel, nor is he pro-Palestinian. Buchanan is not particularly pro-Israel; in the eyes of some, that translates to 'anti-Israel', though it is not. To me, it is no more signifigant if one is anti-Israel than if one is anti-India. I think it is a mistake to be 'anti' either nation, but the magnitude of that is not particularly consequential to me in the greater scheme of things. Certainly, if one was anti-Britain, I would have greater concern.

[Captain Kennit]

For an example, please review his vicious shots at Sam Francis.

[Missouri]

Witness the neocons treat Islamic terrorism as BAD when it affects Israel, yet GOOD when it affects Serbia.

Interesting point. Kind of supporting open-borders/wide open immigration here in the U.S. but closed/secure borders for Isreal.

[Jim Robinson]

Not waste their vote? No kidding? And therein lies your problem. If you don't have a candidate that can't convince the voters to pull the lever then your third party is doomed to failure.

[Captain Kennit]

Bingo. Which many neo-cons (but not all) do.

[Captain Kennit]

You are correct, and history shows that in American modern history third parties are inevitably doomed to failure. But that doesn't mean that the views they espouse do not have strong support; it is just that general agreement with some or all of their views does not translate into votes. Buchanan runs on a 3rd Party ticket and receives 1% of the vote, but that does NOT mean that only 1% of Americans agree with his views.

[Jim Robinson]

Doesn't matter how many agree with some subset of Buchanan's or Browne's or Phillips' (or whatever third party's) beliefs. They're in a tiny minority and have no chance at a direct positive influence on government. It would be far better to rid our government of as many Democrats as we possibly can and replace them as with the most conservative candidates we can possibly get elected. Third parties are not the solution. Makes no sense at all to knock Bush and the Republicans out now just to turn control back over to the Democrats. Let's hang on to the WH and the Congress and build on what we have. Continue pushing up new conservative blood through the farm teams to replace the liberals and rinos. Eventually we'll have a conservative congress and courts and can start actually rolling back some of the unconstitutional crap that's been forced on us.

[liberallarry]

later read.

[WFTR]

I generally like David Frum. I recently finished his book The Right Man about the early part of the Bush presidency. I thought it was a very good book that painted the president in a fair and positive light. Likewise, I generally like the president although I disagree strongly with some of his positions on the issues.

In spite of some good feelings, I'd recommend against taking David Frum's word as the final opinion on what a "paleoconservative" is. Much of the paleo versus neo conservative rhetoric is little more than the immature sniping of people in opposite political cliques. The stupidity comes from both sides, and I've seen in from both sides on Free Republic just as I've seen it from more nationally known figures.

I'll offer my own definition based on the big issues and leave it to others to decide where they fall.

Immigration:

Paleoconservatives believe in limited immigration geared towards what is best for The United States as a whole. Paleos don't believe that immigration policy should be dictated by some people's guilt over the fact that America is prosperous and other countries are not. We don't believe that immigration policy should exist to give some employers cheap labor. We don't believe that immigration policy should exist to increase America's racial and cultural diversity.

Yes, we are a nation of immigrants, and we became strong because we allowed people to come to this country to become Americans and fill the land for America. In case proponents of more immigration haven't been watching, America is quite well populated these days, and we don't need to bring in large numbers of people to stake our claim to our land. Paleos believe in a selection process that brings people here because they would be good Americans. Admittedly, some Paleos have racial prejudices and mistakenly believe that only Caucasions will become good Americans. I disagree with the movement on this point. However, I agree that racial diversity just for the sake of racial diversity is not a good thing. Instead, we should look for people of all races who will believe in the things that made America great, and we should accept them at a rate that allows us to assimilate them into our culture.

Free Trade:

Paleoconservatives agree with the Founding Fathers that tariffs are the most non-intrusive way for the federal government to make money and that their protection of American manufacturers is a good thing. We look at history and see how the South wanted free trade and wanted to import all of its manufactured goods from Britain and France. When the lead started flying in the War Between the States, the South had big problems meeting its own needs for manufactured goods. A country that must import many of is manufactured goods is a country that has a major weakness.

I depart from some Paleos in the extent to which I support protectionism. I don't think we should promote policies that encourage too much of our manufacturing to go overseas, but I see the advantage to some competition to keep unions from becoming too strong.

Regulation:

The neoconservatives accusation that paleos favor regulation is simply a lie. Paleos favor reduced government regulation of American businesses. We favor repeal of many of the laws that have driven companies to move their manufacturing elsewhere. People who are too stupid to understand the difference between a tariff and a regulation are too stupid to be taken seriously.

Foreign Policy:

Paleoconservatives oppose an activist foreign policy. We believe in becoming involved only when our interests are at stake. Unfortunately, it often seems that each side in this debate follows their position without thought. I disagree with those paleos who think that we were wrong to be involved in the War on Terror or the war against Saddam Hussein. On the other hand, neo support for the Kosovo war was just as stupid as paleo opposition to this one. The KLA that the neos supported in Kosovo was affiliated with Al Qaeda. In effect, Clinton provided an Al Qaeda ally with an Air Force to use in their terrorist war against the Serbs, and neos cheered him forward at every moment. One dishonest point in the David Frum article was his failure to point out that the anti-military quote from L. Rockwell was in regards to the Kosovo campaign.

Abortion:

Paleos and neos both oppose abortion, but some paleos tend to be louder and less thoughtful about it. Most of these paleos don't like me and get mad when I suggest that I'm a paleo.

Guns:

Paleos and neos both oppose drastic gun control, but some neos support some additional restrictions on gun ownership. I oppose all new gun control and most existing gun control. On this point, I am most closely aligned with the paleos.

Taxes:

Paleos and neos both oppose high taxes. Neos like to accuse paleos of supporting taxes, but their accusations just aren't true. The argument is about how much to take in each kind of tax.

Many of the neos like to pretend that all paleos hate the president and want to see him fail. That accusation simply isn't true. For the most part, I'm a paleo, and I like the president very much. There are some national figures that are stuck in perpetual pissing contests with each other, and they line up as "neos" versus "paleos." We see the same silliness here at Free Republic. We have strong differences on some issues, but the notion that paleos aren't patriotic is silly.

WFTR
Bill