A look at paleoconservative ideology and why neocons are not conservatives

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-paleo-persuasion/

Joseph Scotchie’s Revolt from the Heartland is not, as some readers might guess from the title, about the terrorism of right-wing militias in the Midwestern United States, although some readers might also say that guess was close enough. In fact, Revolt from the Heartland deals with the emergence of “paleoconservatism,” a species of conservative thought that despite its name (“paleo” is a Greek prefix meaning “old”) is a fairly recent twist in the cunningly knotted mind of the American Right. While paleos sometimes like to characterize their beliefs as merely the continuation of the conservative thought of the 1950s and ’60s, and while in fact many of them do have their personal and intellectual roots in the conservatism of that era, the truth is that what is now called paleoconservatism is at least as new as the neoconservatism at which many paleos like to sniff as a newcomer.

Paleoconservatism is largely the invention of a single magazine, the Rockford Institute’s Chronicles, as it has been edited since the mid-1980s by Thomas Fleming, and Scotchie’s book is essentially an account of what Fleming and his major colleagues at Chronicles mainly, historian Paul Gottfried, book review editor Chilton Williamson Jr., professor Clyde Wilson, and I believe, and what the differences are between our brand of conservatism and others.

Scotchie’s first three chapters are a survey of the history of American conservatism up until the advent of Chronicles, including an account of the “Old Right” of the pre-World-War-II, pre-Depression eras (for once, an account not confined to the libertarian “isolationists” but encompassing also the Southern Agrarians), as well as the emergence of the “Cold War conservatism” of National Review and the neoconservatism of the Reagan era and after. Scotchie’s overview of these different shades of the Right is useful in itself and necessary to clarify the differences between these colorations and the paleos who constitute his main subject, though he may underestimate the differentiation between the current, paleo “Old Right” and earlier “Old Rights.”

Although Scotchie does not put it quite this way, 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.

READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE AT THE LINK

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “A look at paleoconservative ideology and why neocons are not conservatives

  1. Depending upon its exact nature, Dark Matter may, or may not, be used for propulsion.
    Thinking about the subject for decades (!) I came to the conclusion that Dark Matter may be produced by what is presently a glaring loophole in Quantum Physics. Namely the collapse of the (quantum) wave packet, over galactic sized distances, could leave remnants. Those remnants may push forward a device…

    Various experimenters, including NASA, may have observed just this (NASA proposed a different explanation based on De Broglie model and vacuum energy)

    The “left” and “right” labels don’t mean much these days. The next French president, Macron, is going to be a 39 year old Rothschild “banker”, who earned millions a year. He was economic and finance adviser and then economy and finance minister. In a debate against his competitor, a lawyer Macron exhibited blatant ignorance, getting unemployment figures wrong, not knowing the history of the ECU (European Currency Unit) versus the Euro, and thinking France was uniquely doing bad economically in Europe (whereas everybody in the Eurozone is, except for Germany, the former explaining the latter).

    Macron, the Rothschild roquet (a yapping dog) is the SOCIALIST candidate…

    He is supported, loudly, by Obama, the “left” president who presided over the greatest inequality in the USA ever, after sending trillions to the world’s richest men, to make their main assets, government bonds, more valuable..

    Marine Le Pen, has plenty of really socialist propositions, but all the French establishment calls her “extreme right”, to defeat her.

    Meanwhile in the USA, a Senator such as Rand Paul, is unhappy. with the modification of Obamacare passed by the Republican Congress. Paul is viewed as extreme right. But what he resents is actually that Obamacare sends public money to private companies to make plutocrats wealthier….

    Right versus left is so yesterday. What matters is truth versus fake.

    • “The “left” and “right” labels don’t mean much these days. The next French president, Macron, is going to be a 39 year old Rothschild “banker”, who earned millions a year. He was economic and finance adviser and then economy and finance minister. In a debate against his competitor, a lawyer Macron exhibited blatant ignorance, getting unemployment figures wrong, not knowing the history of the ECU (European Currency Unit) versus the Euro, and thinking France was uniquely doing bad economically in Europe (whereas everybody in the Eurozone is, except for Germany, the former explaining the latter).
      Macron, the Rothschild roquet (a yapping dog) is the SOCIALIST candidate… ”

      It is the same in Croatia. The so-called Socialdemocratic Party has always supported policies far more neoliberal than the conservative Croatian Democratic Community. Elected officials are plutocratic lapdogs, we need direct democracy either soon, or now.

      “Marine Le Pen, has plenty of really socialist propositions, but all the French establishment calls her “extreme right”, to defeat her. ”

      She is a right-wing candidate, problem is that people have a wrong view of right-wing… as I explained above, Croatian nationalists have always been far more socialists than the internationalists. Of course, both parties are almost the same now. But as Edward Bernays (?) said, it matters not what is true, but what people believe is true. Labels such as “extreme right” appeal to a significantly-sized portion of the populace that is simply too lazy to think.

      “Right versus left is so yesterday. What matters is truth versus fake.”

      Agreed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s