Archive for the 'Paleoconservatism' Category
Paleodom was very interested in the success of Jim Webb (and his failure), all those many years ago. His defense of the Celt warrior being (note, Human Events posted a review, very similar to what was found in the pages of Chronicles Magazine) was the stuff of legend. His electoral victory for a US Senate seat (hint: this might have something to do with Rand Paul) was highlighted by one stunt in his Senate career, refusing to shake W.’s hand/suggesting he wanted to slug (hint: a failed, sadly, act of political theater, in wrestling speak, failed to get over)–Webb had a boy in theater at the time. Nary a filibuster from him.
Webb’s failure to capitalize on his populist standing to effective political opposition on the immigration question (there were no paleos in Webb’s circle), even with the ‘other’ power in charge, proved fatal, and Webb declined to run for a second term. (I’ll note there are other Webbs who might win Democrat primaries down South, as has been mentioned.)
Webb has not gone into the night. As Mark Sanford (and for that matter, Petraeus) continues to rehab his standing (primary fight coming up), so too, Webb, who had an article in National Interest this month that favors the non-interventionist outlook, yet appeals to elite opinion. Proof being that George Will wrote about it.
It’s the best, and worst of times, to be a paleo.
There are two ways for authentic conservatives to deal with CPAC. You can eschew it because it is an unfaithful representation of the real thing, or you can attempt to represent the real think at a meeting of the unfaithful masses. I noticed both these approaches on Facebook prior to the event.
Palemetto Patriot of the Southern Nationalist Network said eschew it.
Looking at the 2013 CPAC lineup I can’t help but be totally unimpressed by this pathetic bunch of ‘respectable conservatives.’ None of them represent me. They really have no ideas and nothing to offer. Southern nationalism should eclipse the US conservative movement as a political force in Dixie. We actually have solutions to the problems faced in Southern suburbs, towns and countryside.
The White Student Union is headed to CPAC, are you? http://towsonwsu.blogspot.com/2013/03/towson-wsu-to-attend-cpac.html
Senator Rand Paul won the “C”PAC vote, which is both impressive, and a reminder that the bad guys are onto him.
Back in the day, Ron Paul folks had to actually travel and buy tickets–but then they got to boo Dick Cheney and Rummy, so I can see how it would be worth the price for a little political theater.
Senator Rubio came in second, and must be feeling concerned about the whole Amnesty Bill he is promoting with Lindsey Graham and John McCain.
The paleo simply notes that without a dog in the fight, there is only one potential free agent, Rand Paul, who might take some tactical advice.
Below I mention Judge Nap’s libertarian immigration problem. In another thread C Bowen praised James Kirkpatrick for having a “plan.” Here is a new VDARE article from James Kirkpatrick (Is that his real name?) called “CPAC 2013: Conservatism Inc. vs. Libertarianism Inc.?” It is a very insightful article. I am growing fond of Mr. Kirkpatrick’s writing. Here is the makings of a paleo ”plan.”
While neoconservatives lectured us that the national interest consisted of becoming a “universal nation” and spreading democracy overseas, the new left-libertarianism tells us the national interest doesn’t even exist.
The good news: the American people simply don’t support root-canal libertarianism.
Which provides an opportunity. There is no reason that immigration patriots should go down with U.S.S. Conservatism Inc. As elite opinion solidifies behind amnesty, immigration patriots gain a political opening for a populist movement that can be anti-corporate, economically nationalist, racially realist—and politically dangerous to “conservatives,” progressives, and libertarians alike.
Immigration patriots can build a new movement that can stand up for the historic American nation that the Beltway Right—libertarian and “conservative”—has utterly betrayed.
Because the Rand Paul dead horse still needs more beating:
Daniel Laison comments on “Movement Conservative Reactions…”
Larison’s comments are in response to this article by Jim Antle.
Aaron Wolfe on the reaction of National Review. Aaron, quoting Sam Francis, makes an important point here. Neocons (and mainstream conservatives in general) have always taken a dim view of extremism qua extremism?
James Kirkpatrick at VDARE takes a more critical view of Rand.
Pat Buchanan asks “Who Now Speaks for the GOP?…”
This whole article from VDARE is well worth a read. My how far Conservative Inc. has fallen.
Apparently the organizers (and funders) of CPAC, like the innumerate GOP pro-amnesty caucus, either have a death wish for their causes and their party or they can’t do simple math.
The demographic shift unleashed over the last 40 years by massive immigration—legal and illegal—is on course to crush Republicans and conservatives utterly.
Human Events is for sale and may close.
I used to receive Human Events for a period in the past before the widespread advent of the internet. It was known to be somewhat paleo friendly, as it’s Editor for some duration after ’96 was Terence Jeffrey, who had been Pat Buchanan’s campaign manager in ’96. If I’m not mistaken, HE supported Buchanan’s primary challenge in ’92.
But as far as I know in recent years Human Events, which is now owned by Eagle Publishing, has been indistinguishable from other pro-war yahoo rags. (I haven’t followed them in recent years. If anyone knows whether they still retain any paleo vestiges, let me know. Also, does anyone know if Jeffrey still leans paleo?)
Human Events has a venerable history as the Rockwell posts show. This is a case where we really need some paleo moneybags to buy it up and retake it from the neocons. And no that does not mean turning it into moderation central.
Here’s one to warm the hearts of our old school paleo readers. (Is there such a thing as a new school paleo?) Pat Buchanan takes on free trade. Brings back memories, doesn’t it?
Since CHT worked hard to stop the Korea “Free Trade” Agreement, here is what Pat has to say about that.
What about South Korea, the country with whom we signed a free-trade deal in 2012?
U.S. exports to Korea fell last year, and due to a surge in imports our trade deficit in goods with South Korea soared 25 percent to $16.6 billion.
Seoul’s trade minister who cut that deal and cleaned our clock should get a medal and the kind of bonus Americans reserve for people like hedge fund managers and the folks who ran Fannie and Freddie.
Scott McConnell has a post up at TAC acknowledging Lawrence Auster’s health issues. He also discusses Austerism. His take on Auster is surprisingly similar to mine. I’m surprised that McConnell is that familiar with Auster, but Auster’s frequent criticism of TAC probably accounts for his familiarity.
“I’m from the Federal Government, and I’m here to protect you”
In the latest National Review Online, Charles Krauthammer, that anti-gun, pro-amnesty, pro-global democratic revolution, big-government “conservative,” defends Obama’s drone program:
Once you take up arms against the United States, you become an enemy combatant, thereby forfeiting the privileges of citizenship and the protections of the Constitution, including due process. You retain only the protection of the laws of war — no more and no less than those of your foreign comrades-in-arms.
Lincoln steadfastly refused to recognize the Confederacy as a separate nation. The soldiers that his Union Army confronted at Antietam were American citizens (in rebellion) — killed without due process.
The operative idea in Krauthammer’s argument is that the commander-in-chief is all-powerful. If he chooses to ignore the right of self-determination, or the Bill of Rights, or whatever, then those who oppose him deserve to be in the crosshairs.
Of course, that attitude effectively negates the very principle of the American Revolution:
Legal scholar Ryan Alford observes that the 13th century marks “the last time when the executive branch of any country governed by the common law had asserted that it was legal to kill a citizen on the basis of an executive order.” Obama’s “executive death warrant” is more than a breach of the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantee, he argues, it’s an affront to the entire Anglo-American constitutional order.
Problem is, overthrowing the “entire Anglo-American constitutional order” is just part of the process of overthrowing the rest of our Anglo-American culture, which DC is actively implementing as official policy. It’s what they call “diversity” and “inclusiveness.” I call it “a death spiral into a Third-World banana republic,” but then, I’m a hopeless conservative.
This is news to me. Bay Buchanan apparently decided after Romney’s loss to leave TV punditry and pursue a career in real estate. I kid you not. The ridiculously prolific Warner Todd Huston has the story.
Here is the source Washinton Examiner story.
But Bay Buchanan, a top Mitt Romney lieutenant who’s been involved in politics ever since serving as treasurer of Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign, saw last November’s loss as a signal to get out of presidential politics.
“It was so tough. It was brutal,” she said of the loss to President Obama. “I think it’s the toughest because we really expected to win it,” added Buchanan, a former Treasurer of the United States who also ran her brother Pat’s three campaigns for president.
Bay’s strong support for Romney has always been baffling and can only be explained by “the Mormon thing.” (Bay is a convert to Mormonism.) But his sister’s involvement with the Romney campaign is widely speculated to be the reason Pat seemed to hold his fire where Romney was concerned.
Daniel Larison and Justin Raimondo are arguing again. This isn’t the first time. (See here and here) Those two remind me of a couple of brothers. Raimondo called Larison an “insufferably priggish anti-interventionist.” Ouch. That stings a little bit.
The gist of the disagreement is that Raimondo is excited about the nomination of Hagel and thinks it represents a significant break from the status quo. He thinks Larison’s more measured assessment of Hagel is throwing water on a hopeful developement.
You decide who’s right, but I think it’s kinda of fun to watch.
Posted under Conservatism & Constitution Party & Democrat Party & Election 2012 & Libertarian Party & Mitt Romney & Obama & Paleoconservatism & Political Philosophy & Republican Party & Ron Paul & Third Party & Virgil Goode
We at Conservative Heritage Times have been inspired by the TAC symposium to do one of our own, although one with more of a paleo edge. I’m actually not sure symposium is the best characterization of this. It is a virtual symposium I suppose. But I’m going with it because we are blatantly riffing (not ripping ) off TAC’s effort.
Not all the people here would be best described as paleoconservatives, and some would not claim that label, but the attempt was to try to get people who might be considered part of the paleo/traditionalist sphere. I asked CHT’s own contributors, plus people I know (both actually and virtually) whom I thought would represent a broad cross section of the paleo/traditionalist sphere, plus some of our regular commenters. Other of our regular commenters volunteered their services.
In order to avoid the appearance of favoritism, I have arranged the contributions in alphabetical order by first name. I am still expecting some more to roll in. They will be added in their appropriate alphabetical order as they do. Please check back frequently and please promote this on Facebook, Twitter, with you email contacts, etc. Thanks, enjoy and discuss. The endorsements commence below the fold. ~ Red
TAC has a “symposium” of multiple writers discussing whom they plan to vote for. Some endorse voting for one of the major party candidates and some endorse not voting, but several endorse third party votes or write-ins. Some of the writers include Andrew Bacevich, Justin Raimondo, Paul Gottfried and friend of this website Sean Scallon.
Daniel Larison has a separate endorsement here that wasn’t included in the symposium for some reason.
Samuel Goldman has a separate endorsement here because Hurricane Sandy precluded his participation in the symposium.
Here is a summary of the endorsements.
Romney — 4 (Coombs, Pinkerton, Tippins, Zmirak, Antle and Birzer leaning)
Obama — 4 (Bacevich, Hadar, McConnell, Millman, Giraldi in a pinch)
Goode — 1 (Scallon, Brimelow and Gottfried would if they could)
Rand Paul — 1 (McCarthy)
Hapsburg Monarch — 1 (Lind)
Not voting/ambivalent/unclear — 7 (Dreher, Dougherty, Gordon, Murphy, Raimondo [rooting for Obama], Richman, Russello, Beer, Sailer)
Here is a somewhat cryptic post from Daniel McCarthy on the comment policy at TAC. I have to say I’m a little bit baffled by it. I think I’m normally pretty good at reading between the lines, but I’m not sure what is being referred to here. As I said in my own comment, I don’t detect a lot of trollish comments at TAC, although I obviously don’t see the ones that don’t get through. What I do see is a lot comments from liberals and perhaps moderates who seem to come to TAC to pile on conservatives. I see a lot less of the “all good conservatives must support Romney” type comments.
Anyone have any ideas/intel what McCarthy is getting at?
Thomas Fleming is posting a series of articles discussing the origins and distinctives of paleoconservative thought. As he explains in the comments of the first essay, the posts are excerpts of what may become a book on the subject. He is now up to post three. The articles are interesting as is the discussion that follows.