I have gone back over the posted Frum essay, and cannot find the reference you make. Perhaps I skimmed it too fast, but I do not recall seeing it the first time over, either.
Frum is a propagandist--I do not know what Novak saw him as, but he (Frum) is a propagandist, not an analyst. The sole function of the long essay is to lump those who dissent from current American foreign policy, for the purpose of discrediting their credentials. But he does this by innuendo and a very, very selective citation of incidents, in their respective careers, which taken out of context, fit the pattern, he claims to be finding. What is significant, is that he does not really answer their arguments.
Now, I do not know whether each of those being aspersed by Frum has actually chosen to label himself. a "paleoconservative." (In my opinion, it is a foolish, misleading term; at best, totally redundant, but more likely tending to mislead, and play into the hands of the Left.) I suspect otherwise, but must confess that I have read very little, if anything, from most of them. Frankly, some of them may be off-the-wall on some issues. On the other hand, many of the stands that Frum has attacked them over, are perfectly consistent with the mainstream Conservatism of America. Whether they have crossed a bad judgment line, at some time, in their writings I have no way of knowing, and frankly do not care. Frum's examples tell me nothing that would support his innuendo.
Conservatism is not a movement, like the Young Socialist League, or the Hitler Youth, or any of the indoctrinating mechanisms used by the hard core Left over the past 100 years. It is more attitude and affection than doctrine. Yet most of us do share a great body of beliefs in common. And when one, who pretends to be on our general side, seeks to vilify those who share that atttitude and the affections that go with it, we have something that needs to be recognized.
Trying to preserve and protect the values that made America the envy of the World has been a difficult task for true Conservatives, at all times in our history. There are always those with an axe to grind; always politicians with self-serving ambitions; always special interests, that want corners cut for their particular interest. That is reality--obvious reality. It comes with the growing complexity of a political society.
Given the obvious, it remains also obvious, that not all Conservatives will agree with the same set of priorities at any moment in time. Not all will even agree as to what is truly the Conservative position, on any particular issue. Those, too, are obvious givens. What possible legitimate reason, then, would any "Conservative" want to try to discredit the patriotism of other Conservatives, just because he disagreed with them on a particular issue?
Frum had only one purpose in writing this piece of propaganda, and it was an unworthy purpose. It was also a highly impertinent purpose, as he is only here because the heirs of Americans who built this country allowed him to enter and take part in our debates. A gentleman, under those circumstances, would be a bit more temperate in his characterizations of the native born spokesmen for long-standing American values.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Apologies. It's not in the posted article. It's in his book, THE RIGHT MAN, toward the end. Pretty thorough discussion about the whole thing regarding his departure from the White House. He admits that some in the WH staff gave him the cold shoulder after his wife sent out the email identifying Frum as the source of the "Axis of Evil" line, but he said it had nothing to do with his leaving the White House. He had intended to leave before the SOTU, but wanted to see that through, at least. The decision to leave was made before his wife's email flap. Novak spun it as THE reason he left, and Frum mentions this.