A couple weeks ago neoliberal Andrew Sullivan (who masquerades as a “conservative” aliquando), referencing two recent articles in the American Conservative, called Chuck Hagel the “great paleocon hope.” I take issue with this classification on a number of grounds. In no way, I think, is Hagel representative of paleoconservatives or the Old Right.
First, Hagel is not a non-interventionist. He merely disagrees with the way the war has been implemented in Iraq.
Second, Hagel’s position on immigration is better representative of the American Enterprise Institute than the Old Right, whose legacy included the Immigration Act of 1924, a tradition to which Hagel does not belong.
Americans for Better Immigration gives Hagel a career grade of D-. On reducing chain migration, he receives an F-; on reducing unnecessary foreign workers, F-; on reducing amnesties, F-; and on reducing other enticements, F-. In short, he’s an embarrassment.
On free trade, which is destroying our economy and sovereignty, he is giving a 92% by Cato, which indicates that he does not support an America First economic policy, thus putting him at odds with paleoconservatives.
Neocons have made support of the war a litmus test for membership in any mainstream conservative organization. It seems that some of the opponents of the war have fallen into the same wrongheaded reasoning. Simple opposition to the implementation of the Iraq War, especially taken conjointly with other globalist positions, does not a paleocon make.