DaveG has an awfully quirky way of using terms. After months of being obsessed with “technocrats,” whatever those are, he has now decided that “neoconservative” refers to the ideology of the conservative revival under Thatcher/Reagan and “neoliberal” refers to the political Third Way epitomized by the Clinton/Blair politics that followed it.
Those terms, actually, are already taken; neoconservatism refers to the welfare-state-friendly, hawkish ideology propagated by men like Irving Kristol; “neoliberalism” is a derogatory term used by leftist opponents of globalization and free trade.
Since DaveG thinks that Obama represents “paleoliberalism” — that is, traditional, New Deal-style liberalism — but does not quite define paleoconservatism outside of “what Ross Perot did,” I’m going to assume — perhaps against my better judgment — that he means by paleoconservatism the same thing that everyone else does: the Buchananite ideology that holds forth to the tenets of nationalism, traditional morality in the public square, isolationism, and populism. Paleocons usually support protectionism and heavy-handed religion in schools, oppose the Iraq War, and call for closed borders. To paleocons, America’s glory days are behind her.
It looks like the hypothesis goes something like this: we’ve tried everything else and people aren’t accepting it, so it’s time to try out the fourth option: the Old Right.
If this is what DaveG means, then he is utterly, almost embarrassingly wrong. Paleoconservatism — unlike New Deal liberalism — is a dead ideology. Even if it is true — and sadly, I think that it is — that Americans are becoming wary of free trade, that doesn’t mean that they’ve become xenophobic, nativist, or ready to bar gays from being schoolteachers. It doesn’t mean that they’re ready to withdraw from the Middle East overnight. It doesn’t mean that they’re willing to accept — not in 1992, and not twenty years later — the kind of rhetoric that filled Pat Buchanan’s notorious 1992 RNC speech.
So there’s that little problem.
But even if Americans did believe it — or were ready to take a chance on it — who on Earth would lead this movement? Pat Buchanan is busy defending Adolf Hitler and comparing Israel to Nazis, Tom Tancredo isn’t as much of a paleoconservative as people think (and he’s running for governor, anyway [Well, regardless, if I have to explain to you why he couldn't win...]), Ron Paul is looney tunes, and Lou Dobbs is…well, Lou Dobbs. So where’s the man for the moment? All of DaveG’s other revivals were led by charismatic figures — Reagan, Clinton, Obama. Where’s the paleoconservative leader?
There’s also no evidence that the Thatcher/Reagan model can’t work again. Americans are ready once again for someone who is socially conservative but not abrasive, a true-blue capitalist who can truly defend it from a moral and practical standpoint, and an American exceptionalist who doesn’t sound like he wants to hoist the red flag and start slitting throats.
But alas, that faces a similar leadership problem.
Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com
November 25th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Alex,
“Pat Buchanan is busy defending Adolf Hitler and comparing Israel to Nazis,”
Then by logical extension, doesn’t that mean Buchanan is defending Israel?
Bad logic aside, Buchanan is not “defending” Hitler. That’s a liberal lie. He is NOT a holocaust denier. He has NEVER justified Nazism or the Hitler regime. He has consistently described Hitler and Nazism as a great evil. The fact that he is interested in historical accurancy, instead of Jr. High caricatures, does not mean that he defends what he considers evil.
Give the sophomoric Buchanan-bashing a rest already.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:52 am
It’s game on in Colorado governor’s race
Former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, in attendance at RK Mechanical, officially nixed his plans to run for governor and endorsed McInnis.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_13854307
Tancredo, Penry bow to McInnis & the real fight begins
http://www.examiner.com/x-7651-Denver-Page-One-Examiner~y2009m11d24-Tancredo-Penry-bow-to-McInnis–the-real-fight-begins
November 25th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Bad logic aside, Buchanan is not “defending” Hitler. That’s a liberal lie. He is NOT a holocaust denier. He has NEVER justified Nazism or the Hitler regime. He has consistently described Hitler and Nazism as a great evil. The fact that he is interested in historical accurancy, instead of Jr. High caricatures, does not mean that he defends what he considers evil.
Ah, but he is a Holocaust denier.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/~jamie/buchanan/
November 25th, 2009 at 9:57 am
And yes, he did defend Hitler, saying that Hitler didn’t really want war. He just wanted to help his people out and that asshole Winston Churchill was a warmonger who pushed the West into an unnecessary war.
Pat and Adolf sittin in a tree, G-A-S-S-I-N-G
November 25th, 2009 at 9:57 am
“ideology that holds forth to the tenets of nationalism, traditional morality in the public square, isolationism, and populism. Paleocons usually support protectionism and heavy-handed religion in schools, oppose the Iraq War, and call for closed borders. To paleocons, America’s glory days are behind her.”
Alex,
Didn’t you just describe Ron Paul?
November 25th, 2009 at 9:59 am
#1
Sheesh, where the heck did this Buchanan defending Hitler stuff come from? Is Alex making things up again?
November 25th, 2009 at 10:00 am
5 – So Ron Paul’s gonna lead the new paleoconservative movement?
North American Union conspiracy boy Ron Paul? Acquaintance of 9/11 Truthers Ron Paul? Racist newsletter Ron Paul? Stormfront sends me money Ron Paul? Ron “America is an empire” Paul? Ron “Iran isn’t building nukes” Paul?
November 25th, 2009 at 10:00 am
6 – http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=pat+buchanan+loves+hitler&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=6b22d27f49a5e7dd
November 25th, 2009 at 10:04 am
The post fulfilled Godwin’s Law so what’s the point in even commenting further. Alex shut down any adult sort of conversation by implying paleoconservatives are Nazis.
As far as I can tell the point of the post wasn’t discussion but the spreading of irresponsible defamation.
In that sense Alex is channeling his inner Nancy Pelosi.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:07 am
9 – Um, Buchanan is a Nazi sympathizer, not paleocons.
But, yeah. Utter the magic incantation: “Godwin’s Law! You’re a child!”
Pat Buchanan could ejaculate over a pile of fetishistic Nazi porn while giving the Nazi salute and bashing Jews and if I called him a Nazi sympathizer, Doug would go “LOL GODWIN’S LAW ALEX IS BEING IMMATURE”
November 25th, 2009 at 10:08 am
http://www.newsweek.com/id/124012
“Is Pat Buchanan Anti-Semitic?”
Answer: Yes
William F. Buckley thought he was, for Christ’s sake.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:15 am
With respect Alex, is this supose to be a neoConservatism and PaleoConservatism or is it a contest about Mr. Buchanan, Dr. Paul and so on?
November 25th, 2009 at 10:15 am
12 – Whatever you want, I suppose.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Alex,
#6. That’s evidence? LOL!!!!!!
Well, I have evidence here that Ayn Rand is an idiot:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ayn+rand+is+an+idiot&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
November 25th, 2009 at 10:23 am
#7
I think so Alex!
November 25th, 2009 at 10:25 am
#12 ‘With respect Alex, is this supose to be a neoConservatism and PaleoConservatism or is it a contest about Mr. Buchanan, Dr. Paul and so on?”
I vote Ron Paul!
November 25th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Alex,
I’ve read Pat’s articles for years, and he has written numerous times of the holocaust as a fact.
Stop being an idiot.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Alex,
Anyway, back to the meat of the post:
I agree that what Dave is trying to drive at isn’t quite paleoconservatism. I think it is traditionalist conservatism, of which the paleos are a subset. But I think what he is getting at is currently being called “Red Toryism.”
Here is an excellent apology for it here, as it relates to Britain, but there are certainly applications here as well:
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2009/02/riseoftheredtories/
It is a philosophy and approach with which I largely agree.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:01 am
By the way, Frum is hawking Dobbs.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Oh no! the 757th battle between Alex and MWS over Buchanan.
Sorry, MWS, if you have to place him on one side or the other, he falls into the anti-Semitic category.
19. That’s hard to believe.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:51 am
I have agreements adn disagreements with both Alex and DaveG. But the ultimate problem is that, in large measure, the old PaleoConsevative/NeoConservative division is largely dead (if it ever existed). In all frankness, PaleoCons, NeoCons, SoCons, and Libertarians have been working more or less together in the conservative movement for a few decades now – and there’s been so much mixing that the new genereation of activists they helped train (people like me)are much more fusionist. We get mostly people who are traditionalist/SoCon on culture without being xenophobes, NeoCon on foreign policy, and libertarian on economics. Hence, the modern conservative movement can take on different looks at different times. And yes – when a Democratic administration like Obama’s launches a crusade against America’s founding principles, a few of those more traditionalist impulses come out in the Tea Party protests. But if you haven’t noticed, pied piper of this “PaleoCon Moment” – Glenn Beck – is to a large degree a libetarian!
Now, I won’t say there aren’t ideological divisions among conservatives – we all know there are. But with as long as these four ideological strains (Paleo, Neo, Theo, Libertarian) have been colluding together – it’s only logical that the next generations divisions are much more complicated due to the constant ideological cross polination.
So – let’s dump the talk about the Neo-Paleo dichotomy (which really hasn’t existed in almost two decades now) and try to move forward without this ridiculous labelling debate.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:52 am
GOP Must Reclaim the Immigration Issue from Lou Dobbs
by David Frum
http://www.frumforum.com/gop-must-reclaim-the-immigration-issue-from-lou-dobbs
November 25th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
“I vote Ron Paul!” Well then if Paul is on the table, I cannot vote for Ron Paul, M.D., but I can vote for Mr. Rand Paul.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
22 – Stop the presses! This is a momentous event that will not happen again for quite a long time.
I’m going to say this slowly and with the knowlesge that this statement applies to this and only this column and should not be interpreted as having any bearing on future opinions.
I…agreee….with…David Frum
November 25th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Martha,
“Oh no! the 757th battle between Alex and MWS over Buchanan.”
758th.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
“I…agreee….with…David Frum” I do too. I’m glad that Mr. Frum finally flip flopped.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Adam,
“So – let’s dump the talk about the Neo-Paleo dichotomy (which really hasn’t existed in almost two decades now) ”
Not true. Compare what The American Conservative has been writing about the Iraq War the past 7 years with The Weekly Standard.
November 25th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
#10 Are you incapable of seeing a distinction between an actual Nazi and Pat Buchanan?
If you’re just calling him a Nazi for effect we can dismiss what you write as unserious and move on to people who say what they really mean.
If you actually see no difference between Pat Buchanan and a Nazi than I suppose you don’t know what Nazism was.
If you don’t want to appear immature than try being serious about topics that are innately serious.
November 25th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Pat Buchanan for president (well Sec of State anyway)! You guys are nutters! A Nazi? Last time I checked he was anti-war for the most part! Additionally, with your derogratory remarks, about Paleocons you obviously left out sevaral important things that you don’t want real conservatives to know about 1) substantial roll back of the welfare state 2) adherence to consitutional government and 3) opposition to the monstrosity known as the United Nations. You can’t use Lou Dobbs & Perot as paleocons or anything cons. Like the neocons they are only useful for 1 thing at most conservative. Perot (deficit hawk & entitlements) Dobbs (immigration). I also would not describe Thatcher or Reagan as neocons. They are part of the New Right, which is in my opinion a decent version of the real thing. Neocons- McCain, Giuliani, Tom Ridge, Wolfowitz, Cheney along with their good friends David Brooks & Frum have brought the Republicans to their knees while simultaneously blaming everyone from home-schoolers to the Club for Growth to yes, Buchanan himself (even though he has had zero influence since 1996). By the way his speech was only infamous to the NYT and WP.
Read Rothbard’s take http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch1.html
Additionally David Cameron is NOT a paleocon. He is a traitor. And a liberal to boot. The only decent party in Britain is the UKIP. There has been no collusion for conservatives. Fiscal, economic & social conservatives had no influence in Bush admin. It has been exclusively Neocons in 89-93, and 01-09. We need to start from scratch- the intellectual leaders should be George Will, Pat Buchanan, and David Keene. The political leaders are up for grabs. One thing is for certain- we can not return to Neocon philosophy.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
To clarify:
1) I didn’t use the term “neoconservative” to apply to the Reagan/Thatcher revival. If I implied it, it was through imprecise language and nothing else. I consider neoconservatism to be part of a broader neoliberalism that spans from Tom Friedman on its left side to Bill Kristol on its right side, and I think that’s essentially the approach that was taken from 1992-2008.
2) I call Reagan/Thatcher conservatism “Revolutionary Conservatism” and I think that’s what reigned the country from 1980-1992.
3) I think Obama represents a brief flirtation with paleoliberalism that Americans decided to try because it hadn’t been tried in awhile and no one remembered what it was all about.
4) I don’t think that pure paleoconservatism, as in Tom Tancredoism, is coming back with a vengeance. I do think, and Adam Brickley summed this up quite well in the comments from my post, that all of the disaffected voters out there seem to represent certain pseudo-paleocon strains. But all of the strains are distinct and different. So you’ve got the Paulites who want to legalize everything and the Palinites who just basically don’t like the federal government and the radical middle which is angry over debt and the economy and is blaming things like the war, trade, spending, the attempt by the federal government to do too many seismic things, etc. In other words, all the disaffected voters out there, where all the energy currently is, have a paleocon tilt, albeit a very shallow one.
5) While it would be hard to get all the different groups to trust each other, my point was that a theoretical charismatic paleocon leader could bring together all of these groups under the broader principles of less internationalism, more devolution of power away from the federal government, a lower deficit, and by generally going after the political and economic elites that all of these groups are mad at, some for cultural reasons and others because they’re the ones getting the bailouts. I wouldn’t call the disaffecteds populists, because they are rejecting more government spending, more entitlements, etc. They seem to be essentially folks who are blaming elites, internationalism, and the federal government for the country’s woes, and I think that could a movement make under the right conditions. I’m not saying I’d support it, I’m just saying that’s where the energy is.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
to all the pat buchanan lovers: READ the piece (linked by alex in 3). then try to claim that hes not denying (and certainly downplaying) the holocaust.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/~jamie/buchanan/
November 26th, 2009 at 4:32 am
dave,
Did you actually read the whole Buchanan article? You couldn’t have. It wasn’t about the Holocaust in general (which he DOESN’T deny) rather the death sentence handed down to one specific man- John Demjanjuk- and whether he committed the crimes he was accused of. And guess what? Pat was right. The Israeli Supreme Court ended up overturning Demjanjuk’s conviction. The jerked out of context quote is not presented as “evidence” against the holocaust.
November 26th, 2009 at 4:47 am
32, Lol, in what context could talking about the Holocaust being downplayed be acceptable?
November 26th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Alex,
In the context of specific evidence brought in a specific trial of a specific person who was wrongly accused and sentenced to death, before the Israeli Supreme Court overturned his conviction.
So Pat wasn’t “downplaying” the Holocaust. Don’t be stupid.
November 28th, 2009 at 1:22 am
[...] was going to let the whole topic drop given that Alex and I appeared to be largely arguing over labels and semantics, and there are far more interesting things to argue about. But given that [...]