Neoconservative - Paleoconservative Conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Starting in the 1980s, two factions in the American Conservative movement began quarrelling with one another: neoconservatives and paleoconservatives. Each argues that the other does not represent true conservatism. Disputed issues include immigration, foreign wars and Middle East policy.

Contents 1 A conflict of values 2 Politics and Jewish identity 3 The great schism 3.1 1981: National Endowment for the Humanities 3.2 1986: Intercollegiate Review and Philadelphia Society 3.3 1987: The Catholic University of America 3.4 1988: The Heritage Foundation 3.5 1989: The Rockford Institute 3.6 1990: The McLaughin Group 3.7 1993: National Review 3.8 1995: The Washington Times 3.9 1997: The New York Post 4 A protracted conflict 4.1 The ongoing battle 4.2 March, 2003: A crossfire in print 4.3 Beyond paleo and neo 5 See also 6 References

[edit] A conflict of values

The phrase paleoconservative ("old conservative") was originally a tongue-in-cheek rejoinder used in the 1980s to differentiate traditional conservatives from neoconservatives and Straussians. Pat Buchanan calls neoconservatism "a globalist, interventionist, open borders ideology.”^[1] The paleoconservatives argue that the "neocons" are illegitimate interlopers in the conservative movement. Robert S. Griffin argues that the neocon's worldview is a mirror image of the paleocons':

The neos point out the negative aspects of the Western and American heritage: oppression, exploitation, racism, patriarchy and other authoritarian tendencies, and narrow, ethnocentric conceptions of art and decorum. Rather than viewing America as the product of an Anglo-Christian people and tradition, neocons see this country as the repository of certain laudable ideals: freedom, equality, democracy. Neocons applaud large-scale non-European immigration and a multiracial, multiethnic, egalitarian America. Neocons believe in free trade and economic globalism. They accept strong federal government initiatives directed at ensuring economic and social justice. They see an opportunity and obligation for America to spread democracy and freedom around the globe.[3]

The roots of this conflict predate either the paleocons or the neocons. In 1950, Lionel Trilling, a forefather of the neoconservatives, said that liberalism is "sole intellectual tradition" in the United States. He dismissed Old Right conservatives as expressing "irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas."[4] Three years later, future paleocon Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind challenged this thesis.[5]

The new neoconservative movement, as it rose in the 1970s, articulated a different vision from the Old Right. While they were not opposed to the New Deal, they thought the Great Society and the New Left went too far. Neoconservatives embraced an interventionist foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East. They espoused especially strong support for Israel and still believe the United States should help ensure the security of the Jewish state. (see the neoconservatism article for fuller discussion).

In 1972, James Burnham commented that the neoconservatives still clung to "what might be called the emotional gestalt of liberalism, the liberal sensitivity and temperament."[6] He said they substituted abstractions about "compassion, kindliness, love and brotherhood" for indispinsible civic virtues. These were "courage, duty, discipline, and especially self-discipline, loyalty, endurance, [and] yes, patriotism."^[2]

The late Samuel Francis, a leading paleoconservative intellectual and a student of Burnham, wrote that during this time,

"Old conservatives who welcomed the neo-cons into their ranks soon found that their new allies often displayed the habit of telling them what was and what was not "permissible" to say and how to say it. Criticism of the New Left and domestic communism was fine, but what the neo-conservatives regarded as "McCarthyism" - calling for restoration of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, for example, or the FBI's domestic security functions - was not respectable. Criticizing affirmative action was also okay, but criticism of unconstitutional civil rights legislation, the civil rights movement, or Martin Luther King Jr. was not respectable. Old conservative heroes like Joseph McCarthy, Douglas MacArthur, Charles Lindbergh, Robert Taft, and even Barry Goldwater tended to disappear or earn scorn in neo-conservative journals, while Harry Truman, George Marshall, Hubert Humphrey, and Henry Jackson developed into idols before which conservatives were supposed to bend the knee. Almost none of the neo-conservatives showed any interest in American constitutional principles or federalist and states' rights issues and arguments based on constitutionalism were muted in favor of the "empirical" arguments drawn from disciplines like sociology and political science in which neo-conservative academics tended to concentrate."[7]

Paleo historian Thomas Woods elaborates on the divergence in the conservative movement, and the ascent of the neoconservatives, and their distinguishing features from more traditional conservatives:

The conservative’s traditional sympathy for the American South and its people and heritage, evident in the works of such great American conservatives as Richard M. Weaver and Russell Kirk, began to disappear... [T]he neocons are heavily influenced by Woodrow Wilson, with perhaps a hint of Theodore Roosevelt...They believe in an aggressive U.S. presence practically everywhere, and in the spread of democracy around the world, by force if necessary....Neoconservatives tend to want more efficient government agencies; paleoconservatives want fewer government agencies. [Neoconservatives] generally admire President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his heavily interventionist New Deal policies. Neoconservatives have not exactly been known for their budget consciousness, and you won’t hear them talking about making any serious inroads into the federal apparatus.^[3]

In discussing neoconservative distinctives on state power, Irving Kristol wrote in 2003:

Neocons do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state and are happy to study alternative ways of delivering these services. But they are impatient with the Hayekian notion that we are on "the road to serfdom." Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable... People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today's America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not. Though they find much to be critical about, they tend to seek intellectual guidance in the democratic wisdom of Tocqueville, rather than in the Tory nostalgia of, say, Russell Kirk.[8]

What made the neoconservative movement so potent was the number of influential intellectuals who attained positions of power in the government and media. Paul Gottfried argues that the neocons funded their efforts using funding originally intended to fight the New Deal or the Great Society.^[4] Kristol remarked that "one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy."[9]

By comparison, the paleocons were marginalized. Samuel Francis wrote,

Contemporary paleoconservatism developed as a reaction against three trends in the American Right during the Reagan administration. First, it reacted against the bid for dominance by the neoconservatives, former liberals who insisted not only that their version of conservative ideology and rhetoric prevail over those of older conservatives, but also that their team should get the rewards of office and patronage and that the other team of the older Right receive virtually nothing.^[5]

Francis also argued that many on the Left minunderstood both the neocons and paleocons, as well as the conflict between the two. He said they disregarded the paleo's critiques and over-emphasized the influence of Leo Strauss on the neocons:

This silence about the paleocons was the result, in part, of the abysmal ignorance of the writers of most such articles but also of the hidden purpose that lurked beneath much of what they wrote. That purpose was not so much to “deconstruct” and “expose” the neocons as to define them as the real conservative opposition, the legitimate (though deplorable and vicious) “right” against which the polemics and political struggle of the left should be directed. The reason the left prefers the neocon “right” to a paleo alternative is, quite simply, that the neocons are essentially of the left themselves and, thus, provide a fake opposition against which the rest of the left can shadowbox and thereby perpetuate its own political and cultural hegemony unchallenged by any authentic right.[10]

Further, Francis also complained that the neocons never fought the left with anything more than elegant reprimand. If they saw serious criticism in return, they issued charges of anti-Semitism. He also said that if "the point is to wipe out Israel's enemies," such as in the Iraq invasion, "the [neocon] Likudniks don't care about American casualties very much."[11]

[edit] Politics and Jewish identity

Some paleocons say they are honest conservatives who were bullied and smeared by a corrupt ideology tied to social democracy and globalism. Some critics claim that such criticism is actually antagonism toward Jews in general^[6]-- even though neoconservatism is neither an all-Jewish movement^[7] nor claims to represent all Jews^[8]. They also say that in condemning the neocons, they are falling into the hands of the West's enemies, especially militant Islam^[9].

Historian Edward Shapiro, tracing the debate back to the 1960s, wrote that many neoconservatives saw their new political philosophy within a specifically Jewish context. This became an element in the dispute with the paleocons. He said that these neocons equated conservatism with country club exclusion, racism, and the “Protestant hinterlands.” They also considered the Burkean social order as a “premodern social order revered by Edmund Burke and the other pioneers of conservative thought, a world which had ostracized Jews to the fringes of society.” He continued:

For the Jewish neoconservatives, children and grandchildren of immigrants from Eastern Europe, this was far too narrow a view of American culture. They emphasized the pluralism and openness of America and claimed that Americanness was less a matter of biological descent and European culture than of civic values and political ideology. Just as the neoconservatives stressed the ideological content of American diplomacy and asserted that American political ideology had well-nigh universal applicability, so they underscored the plastic character of American identity. Anyone was potentially a good American just as long as he or she affirmed the fundamental American political precepts of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Gettysburg Address. The neoconservatives, the traditionalists responded, exaggerated the appeal of American political principles to the rest of the world, and they underestimated the powerful hold which culture has, or should have, on its citizens.^[10]

[edit] The great schism

[edit] 1981: National Endowment for the Humanities

The open rift is often traced back to a dispute over the directorship of the National Endowment for the Humanities by the incoming Republican administration in 1981. Sen. John East proposed literary scholar Mel Bradford, a former Dixiecrat. Bradford withdrew himself from consideration after neoconservatives argued that his record of academic articles criticizing the actions and thought of Abraham Lincoln ill-suited a Republican nominee. They circulated quotes of Bradford calling Lincoln "a dangerous man," and saying, "The image of Lincoln rose to be very dark" and "indeed almost sinister."^[11]

Historian Paul Young described Bradford's view of Lincoln as :

Bradford cast all of Lincoln's life in the most sinister of terms. He gave Lincoln no credit for any intellectual or moral progression from his pronouncements in the 1840s to the years of the Civil War. Rather, Bradford freely juxtaposed the young Lincoln's comments on race and slavery, whether on the political hustings or otherwise, with his later statements and actions in order to convict him of hypocrisy. Neither did Bradford afford any consideration to the expediencies of politics; no sin by Lincoln could ever be justified by an appeal to political necessity. Bradford's Lincoln was a paragon of venality: hypocritical, corrupt, racist, unscrupulous, and duplicitous in his rhetoric. He was motivated by his own ambitions and thirst for power, provoking sectional conflict in order to attain his goals. Lincoln was guilty of war crimes for denying medicine to the South, complicit in the underrationing of his own troops, given to locking up political opponents in a “Northern ‘Gulag,’ ” and, in general, an apt model for the twentieth-century dictator. Noting the dyspeptic Edmund Wilson's comparison of Lincoln to Bismarck and Lenin in Patriotic Gore (1962), Bradford added Hitler for good measure.^[12]

The neoconservative choice, William Bennett, was nominated on November 13, 1981.^[13] Curiously, a few leaders, whom the paleocons would later oppose, supported Bradford: Dan Quayle, William F. Buckley Jr., and Harry Jaffa.^[14] Former Bradford associate Thomas Landess says that today's neocons "are too busy running the world to tilt with Mel Bradford.".[12]

[edit] 1986: Intercollegiate Review and Philadelphia Society

The real genesis of the paleocons came in 1986.[13] The ISI journal Intercollegiate Review ran a "State of Conservatism" symposium. Some of the contributors complained about growing neoconservative dominance. Historian Clyde Wilson wrote of being “crowded out by overwhelming numbers.” Gregory Wolfe argued that true conservative scholars valued "order and organic community, class and natural aristocracy" and considered "Christian belief as the foundation of morality and law."

Soon after, a conservative group called the Philadelphia Society held a symposium on neoconservatism at its 1986 annual meeting.[14] Among the critics was historian Stephen Tonsor (who does not accept the paleo label^[15]), who said:

It has always struck me as odd, even perverse, that former Marxists have been permitted, yes invited, to play such a leading role in the Conservative movement of the twentieth century. It is splendid when the town whore gets religion and joins the church. Now and then she makes a good choir director, but when she begins to tell the minister what he ought to say in his Sunday sermons, matters have been carried too far.[15]

Tonsor also argued that that the movement divided "techniques from ends in an effort to maintain their cultural modernism while rejecting its social and political implications." He said it couldn't be done.

Neoconservatives are, as Irving Kristol remarked, "liberals who have been mugged by reality,' but while they have been detached from their social and political myths they have not located themselves in a body of principle that makes life worth living, or that one would die defending.[16]

[edit] 1987: The Catholic University of America

Paul Gottfried claims that neoconservative lobbying kept him from a professorship in classical political theory at The Catholic University of America.[17] David Frum dismisses the allegation as “relentlessly solipsistic.” [18] He described the incident:

[In 1987,] neocons denounced me to the authorities at Catholic University of America, on the grounds that I was “not safe on Israel,” their flagrantly illogical argument: I had denied that Imperial Germany was principally to blame for the outbreak of World War One. Somehow this proved that I had denied the Holocaust, at least by indirection (never mind that it was the wrong German war!), and therefore I had to be against the Israelis (many of whose ancestors fought for the Central Powers in World War One—as did my own, Austrian Jewish forbears). Nevertheless, I still lost a graduate professorship. [19]

Gottfried describes Israel as "an ethnic national state with a constitutional government that offers legal protection to non-Jewish minorities." He says the country "should remain predominantly Jewish and that the U.S. and Europe should remain predominantly Euro-American — and I support whatever is necessary to achieve these objectives."[20] He also argues that "American and European Zionists" insist that Jews "have a special inviolable right to an ethnic state, while Euro-American gentiles are expected to practice multiculturalism."[21] He explained his position in the interview:

Clearly Jews outside of Israel have adopted a double standard about Jewish and gentile rights to national identity, but the Israeli government has not caused the problem. Israelis have not ordered Martin Peretz, Alan Dershowitz, and Abe Foxman to think and act in this hypocritical, malicious fashion. In my view, Jewish liberals and neocons who favor both a Jewish right to ethnocentricity and a Euro-American obligation to have open borders and to exchange their traditional identities for 'human rights," have turned paleocons against Israel.[22]

[edit] 1988: The Heritage Foundation

Russell Kirk found himself in the fray on December 15, 1988, when he gave a lecture at the Heritage Foundation. The title was "The Neoconservatives: An Endangered Species." As Chronicles editor Scott Richert describes it,

[One line] helped define the emerging struggle between neoconservatives and paleoconservatives. “Not seldom has it seemed,” Kirk declared, “as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States.” A few years later, in another Heritage Foundation speech, Kirk repeated that line verbatim. In the wake of the Gulf War, which he had opposed, he clearly understood that those words carried even greater meaning.[23]

Midge Decter, the director of the Committee for the Free World (and Podhoretz's wife), called Kirk's line "a bloody outrage, a piece of anti-Semitism by Kirk that impugns the loyalty of neoconservatives." She claimed that Kirk “said people like my husband and me put the interest of Israel before the interest of the United States, that we have a dual loyalty.”[24] She had previously denounced Sobran and the Intercollegiate Review symposium as anti-Semitic as well.[25] She told The New Republic, “It’s this notion of a Christian civilization. You have to be part of it or you’re not really fit to conserve anything. That’s an old line and it’s very ignorant.”[26]

Conversely, paleocon Samuel Francis called Kirk's "Tel Aviv" remark “a wisecrack about the slavishly pro-Israel sympathies among neoconservatives.”[27] He called Decter's response untrue,[28] "reckless" and "vitrolic." Furthermore, he argued that such a denunciation "always plays into the hands of the left, which is then able to repeat the charges and claim conservative endorsement of them." [29]

[edit] 1989: The Rockford Institute

Another defining incident came on May 5, 1989, when the Rockford Institute fired Richard John Neuhaus, who went on to launch First Things. One issue between them was that Neuhaus claimed that Chronicles, Rockford’s magazine, tilted toward nativism and was “insensitive to the classic language of anti-Semitism." Allan Carlson, then Rockford’s president, called the allegations "egregious and potentially damaging."^[16] Fourteen years later, Neuhaus called Chronicles "racist and anti-Semitic," joked about "Schadenfreude" and said he holds a "gala staff luncheon" every year to commemorate his termination.[30]

Here's how John Judis, a leftist, describes the incident:

Under the Rockford Institute's name and funding, Neuhaus published a regular newsletter out of his Center for Religion and Society in New York. But in March 1989, Neuhaus and Podhoretz took strong exception to two articles published in Rockford's glossy journal, Chronicles. In one of them, Chronicles editor Thomas Fleming called for stricter quotas to prevent the United States from "being dominated by Third World immigrants," and in the other, novelist Bill Kauffman defended Gore Vidal, who had earlier attacked Podhoretz for putting Israel's interests before America's. In a letter, Podhoretz wrote Neuhaus, "I know an enemy when I see one, and Chronicles has become just that so far as I am concerned." In May the Rockford Institute made the next move by locking Neuhaus out of the center and confiscating his files. When Neuhaus left, three foundations linked to the neoconservatives, Olin, Smith Richardson, and Bradley, withdrew their funding for the Rockford Institute, costing an estimated $700,000 a year.[31]

[edit] 1990: The McLaughin Group

Pat Buchanan's paleoconservative views soon became a point of dispute. The major controversy began with the August 26, 1990 McLaughlin Group. He said that "there are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East -- the Israeli defense ministry and its 'amen corner' in the United States" -- and was accused of anti-Semitism. [32]

(For further discussion, see the Pat Buchanan article.)

[edit] 1993: National Review

A further event was the demotion and eventual firing in 1993 of Joseph Sobran from National Review, who had criticized American supporters of Israel. One such comment was that the New York Times "really ought to change its name to Holocaust Update."[33] Neoconservative Norman Podhoretz vehemently objected to such writing^[17], saying they were "anti-Semitic in themselves,"^[18] His wife, Midge Decter, told Sobran she had ""shock and disgust -- and contempt -- at the discovery that you are little more than a crude and naked anti-Semite."^[19]

Sobran himself claimed that founder William F. Buckley told him to "stop antagonizing the Zionist crowd." and Buckley accused him of libel and moral incapacitation. ^[20] Buckley had previously said that an outsider "might reasonably conclude that those [Israel] columns were written by a writer inclined to anti-Semitism."[34] Before his firing, Sobran discussed the issue in National Review, saying:

I'm responding to an obsession--a more or less official national obsession with a tiny, faraway socialist ethnocracy, which, I agree, ought to be a very minor concern of American policy-makers, but isn't. The orthodox view that Israel is a "reliable ally" is so brittle that a single maverick can ignite a frenzy. The reason, I repeat, is not that critics of Israel are so numerous, but that even one, as far as Israel's claque is concerned, is one too many. There is the terrible danger that the public may be more interested in what he has to say than in the party line the rest of the chorus is emitting.^[21]

[edit] 1995: The Washington Times

Washington Times Editor in Chief Wesley Pruden fired Samuel Francis in September, 1995, after neoconservative Dinesh D'Souza described his appearance at the 1994 American Renaissance conference:

A lively controversialist, Francis began with some largely valid complaints about how the Southern heritage is demonized in mainstream culture. He went on, however, to attack the liberal principles of humanism and universalism for facilitating "the war against the white race." At one point he described country music megastar Garth Brooks as "repulsive" because "he has that stupid universalist song, in which we all intermarry." His fellow whites, he insisted, must "reassert our identity and our solidarity, and we must do so in explicitly racial terms through the articulation of a racial consciousness as whites . . . . The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people." ^[22]

Pruden had cut back on Francis’ column after the ‘’Times’’ ran his June 27, 1995 essay criticizing the Southern Baptist Convention for passing a resolution repudiating slavery. In it, Francis quoted Oswald Spengler that “Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism.” He argued that if the Baptists “dismiss the New Testament passages about slaves obeying their masters as irrelevant,” then they might as well join the Bolsheviks.

[edit] 1997: The New York Post

Neoconservative Scott McConnell was fired as the New York Post’s editorial page editor on September 4, 1997 after writing editorials critical of Haitian immigration and Puerto Rican statehood. About the latter, he had cited statistics that "half the island's 3.7 million inhabitants receive Food Stamps" and "59.4 percent of Puerto Rican children born on the U.S. mainland are born to unwed mothers."^[23] He concluded:

We believe that the looming vote on Puerto Rico's status is yet another sign of how the congressional GOP has lost its way. The current leadership seems more interested in trying to placate the liberal Washington establishment -- or hatching schemes it imagines are popular with minority voters -- than in protecting the interests of the voters who elected it. This is a feckless way to guide America's destiny.[35]

McConnell, an heir to the Avon cosmetics fortune[36], later remarked that “'that our society had developed an expected script of white Anglo contrition and apology... and that I had failed to follow it.” He found himself replaced by John Podhoretz, who denounced him as “very dangerous.” [37] About his former employer, he said:

When push comes to shove, Rupert Murdoch does not want any difference of opinion with the Hispanic community. So if you have to put on one side appeasing a growing demographic and on the other side a conservative principle having to do with the language and traditions of the United States, he falls clearly on the first side.^[24]

Two years after the incident, McConnell said he had changed his mind about Pat Buchanan and joined his campaign as an advisor. He once dismissed his presidential hopes as “not worth discussing."^[25] Soon he helped found The American Conservative..

[edit] A protracted conflict

[edit] The ongoing battle

Since the end of the Cold War, the rift within the Conservative movement has deepened with the neoconservatives' ascent and the paleocons' marginalization. For example, there are no prominent paleocons in the Bush administration. Charles Krauthammer calls paleoconservatism a "philosophical corpse" and "a mix of nativism, protectionism and isolationism.”^[26]

On domestic affairs, the Weekly Standard claimed that "the paleos' radical dissatisfaction with contemporary America could eventually veer into an anti-Americanism almost indistinguishable from the more familiar variety on the left."^[27] David Brooks, in the same magazine, claimed that the movement combines "high principle and bad-boy bravado," along with melding good ("longing for the old virtues") with bad ("race and sex roles"). He concluded that paleocons replace "the universalist ideas of the Founding" with "blood and soil."^[28] Brooks also described Pat Buchanan's campaign supporters as "people who thrived in the machine age" but who "are not going to thrive in the new economy."^[29]

Lew Rockwell once illustrated the depth of paleo/neo schism with the story of an encounter between a paleocon and a neocon. The neocon complained that the paleocon make an "insensitive remark" about AIDS and said, "How can you say that, when we all have so many close friends who have been struck down by this terrible disease?" The paleo replied, "Close friends?" I don't know anyone who has AIDS. I don't know anyone who knows anyone who has AIDS." After that, the neocon stopped speaking to the paleocon.^[30]

[edit] March, 2003: A crossfire in print

David Frum of National Review and Pat Buchanan of The American Conservative exchanged harsh words just before the Iraq War began. Buchanan wrote that neocons influence the U.S. government toward the pursuit of global empire and the benefit of pro-Israel hawks.^[31] Frum charged that paleocons have become unpatriotic, racist, and anti-Semitic.^[32] He also hinted that paleocons were subversives, claiming they "made common cause with" international Islamists and "deny and excuse terror." Yet a year later, National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr. described The American Conservative as "highly literate" and "wonderfully well edited."[38]

In his article, Buchanan wrote:

This is a time for truth. For America is about to make a momentous decision: whether to launch a series of wars in the Middle East that could ignite the Clash of Civilizations against which Harvard professor Samuel Huntington has warned, a war we believe would be a tragedy and a disaster for this Republic. To avert this war, to answer the neocon smears, we ask that our readers review their agenda as stated in their words. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. As Al Smith used to say, “Nothing un-American can live in the sunlight.[39]

Frum wrote that:

Having quickly decided that the War on Terror was a Jewish war, the paleos equally swiftly concluded that they wanted no part of it. It's odd: 9/11 actually vindicated some of the things that the paleos had been arguing, particularly about immigration and national cohesion. But the paleos were in no mood to press their case. Instead, they plunged into apologetics for the enemy and wishful defeatism.[40]

In the issue before Buchanan's cover story, The American Conservative carried a book review by John Derbyshire of National Review bearing this lead:

One evening early on in my career as an opinion journalist in the USA, I found myself in a roomful of mainstream conservative types standing around in groups and gossiping. Because I was new to the scene, many of the names they were tossing about were unknown to me, so I could not take much part in the conversation. Then I caught one name that I recognized. I had just recently read and admired a piece published in Chronicles under that name. I gathered from the conversation that the owner of the name had once been a regular contributor to much more widely read conservative publications, the kind that have salaried congressional correspondents and full-service LexisNexis accounts, but that he was welcome at those august portals no longer. In all innocence, I asked why this was so. “Oh,” explained one of my companions, “he got the Jew thing.” The others in our group all nodded their understanding. Apparently no further explanation was required. The Jew thing. It was said in the kind of tone you might use of an automobile with a cracked engine block, or a house with subsiding foundations. Nothing to be done with him, poor fellow. No use to anybody now. Got the Jew thing. They shoot horses, don’t they?(emphasis in original)[41]

[edit] Beyond paleo and neo

Paleo Clyde Wilson speculates that their critique of this “nasty little cabal” might be “belated and repetitive – a diversion from more fundamental problems,” namely “a fatal defect of national character.” He says the neocons are courtiers who saw “the chance presented by the vast gaping vacuum of ideas and principles that is the Republican Party.” He concludes that Middle America is too willing to “clamber aboard” a GOP bandwagon “and hosanna their way down the road to perdition,” instead of creating a populist replacement that might preserve “some semblance of civilized order and liberty.”[42]

In addition, while paleos and neos quarrel over Middle East policy, Paul Gottfried argues that domestic equality and the exportability of democracy are greater points of contention between them. ^[33] He says that the neocons' call for "permanent revolution" exists independently of their beliefs about Israel.[43] He also wrote, "What bothers me is not what Israel is but the manner in which its well-wishers blatantly misrepresent it."[44] Also, paleos freely disagree with one another about Israel. Pat Buchanan supported Yitzhak Rabin[45], while Gottfried, who criticizes “truculent [neoconservative] Zionism,”[46] admires Ariel Sharon.[47] Thomas Fleming wrote that "we (I only speak for us at Chronicles) would like to see both Israel and the United States survive and thrive in a world where Islamic aggression is the main enemy we face."[48]

Note, however, that not everyone associated with American conservatism can be easily sorted into neo or paleo categories. For example, one might support the war in Iraq, but support economic nationalism and immigration reform. Some prominent figures do not fit in either category. Also, paleos and neos both oppose the New Left, Marxism and Soviet Communism, especially Stalinism, and do not necessarily disagree on every political and cultural matter.

[edit] See also

• Straussianism
• Neoconservatism
• Paleoconservatism
• paleoconservative worldview
• managerial state
• Pat Buchanan

[edit] References