Thursday, November 18, 2004
Who you callin' an apostate?
This is a bit of a followup from my post last night on Pat Buchanan. As I alluded to, Buchanan likes to label all those on the right who don't toe his line "neoconservatives" and also has the tendecy to call them all apostates. As mentioned last night, true neocons do indeed veer from the traditional path of conservatism, but when Buchanan and others so loosely use that term it loses all meaning. I think some clarification is in order.
Some of this rehashes to some extent something I wrote on Southern Appeal about a month ago, and the link to that post can be found here. And now that I have done the cheesiest thing imaginable by linking to myself, let me proceed.
Really what I want to do is clarify the different strands of conservatism, and why Buchanan's brand is itself not really traditional conservatism. Traditional conservatism is said to have its roots in Edmund Burke, and particularly his seminal work Reflections on the Revolution in France. Indeed Burke is a towering figure in the history of conservatism, but no one writer or philosopher can really represent conservatism. As Russell Kirk once wrote, conservatism is the negation of ideology, thus to define it systematically is to unravel what makes it unique. Its basic tenets, as defined by Kirk, are essentially the belief in a transcendent moral order, a rejection of levelling (thus socialism), an acceptance of some form of social hierarchy, and a deep veneration of tradition. There's more to it than this, but these are the essentials. But note here how these are not precise definitions but instead are very general and somewhat vague outlines of the essence of conservatism. It's sort of like Catholic social teaching: there are basic parameters, but no clear black and white rules as such. By the way it is also significant that I should mention Catholicism, as Catholics have played a rather important role in traditional conservatism.
That leads me to Buchanan. Buchanan's brand of conservatism, called "paleoconservatism," rejects alot of what is in fact conservative. Perhaps most important is its rejection of elites and fervor for populist measures, especially referrenda. You will note, for example, that among the right-wingers last year who most embraced the California governor recall were Buchanan and Robert Novak. Such an embrace of Jeffersonian populist democracy stands the paleos apart from the rest of the right. Also of primary importance is their intense isolationism. They are united in opposition to the Iraq war and most military adventures of its sort. Similarly, they reject free trade and are quite protectionist in their economic policy. In fact it becomes difficult to differentiate between the paleos and Naderite progressives on most things with the important exception of cultural and social issues, and it is here where the paleos retain their ties with traditional conservatism.
Neocons, are quite the opposite. They readily embrace an aggressive foreign policy which seeks to transport American values abroad. They are the nation builders of our little clique. They also certainly embrace free trade and free market capitalism, but are also much more comfortable with government than other conservatives.
What perhaps sets neocons apart from traditional conservatives is a certain sense of secular messianism. Neocons seem to believe that greater human happiness can be achieved through the state. Whereas traditionalists have an Augustinian streak that accepts the failings of this world, neocons have a striking mission to alleviate himan misery all over the globe. They have a much more optimistic appraisal of humanity and in humanity's potential for perfectibility.
This a very basic outline, and I have not even really begun to scratch the surface. Moreover, there are many conservatives who fall in between or even outside these groups. Evengelical Christians really don't fit neatly into any three of these categories; in fact they have tendencies of all three types. I would also submit that there is a brand of conservatism exemplified by the likes of Michael Savage (and perhaps more mainstream voices) that I like to call crankycons. These are your libertarians with morals that want to close down the borders and essentially strip the federal government of almost all powers and leave everything to the states. They are basically anti-federalists reincarnated.
How does such a diverse coalition stay united? Two things, I think. Essentially all brands are united socially, in particular when it comes to issues such as abortion. I also think that most conservatives are originalists when it comes to constitutional interpretation, and share a deep disdain for judicial activism. But other than that it a tenuous coalition, and one that can fragment very easily.
I think Buchanan's group has been written out already. Well, at least Buchanan himself, who most conservatives now look upon with disdain. It is sad, really, as he is a very astute and creative writer; it's just too bad he is a complete maniac roughly 50 percent of the time. Most importantly though, it is becoming increasingly difficult to separate paleocon rhetoric from that of Michael Moore. It might be a tad extreme to say that they are anti-American, but they refuse to accept that we are at war with a dangerous set of religious fundamentalists. They would rather blame Israel and her "puppets" in the American government for all that is wrong currently in the world. This is not conservatism; it's reactionary.
Moreover it is an ideology blind to the ways of the world. Burke wrote that society must change in order to preserve itself, and indeed conservatives accept change, albeit slow change. Paleos, on the other hand, wish to revert backwards to some glorified past which never really existed in the first place. Moreover, they act as though the rest of the world does not exist. Their extreme isolationist rhetoric harkens to American nationalism, but it ignores the fact that the world has changed and we cannot ignore our responsibilities as the preeminent global superpower. Their idealist yearning for splendid isolationism contradicts the realism that is the hallmark of conservative foreign policy.
Well, enough of conservatism 101. What I hope I have shown is that Buchanan's brand of conservatism is no more authentic than any other, and in fact may not even be truly conservative at all. In its insistence on a ideoligical purity test, paleoconservatism becomes something of an ideology. And returning to Kirk's comment about conservatism being the negation of ideology, paleoconservatism is thus neither paleo nor conservative. Discuss.
Some of this rehashes to some extent something I wrote on Southern Appeal about a month ago, and the link to that post can be found here. And now that I have done the cheesiest thing imaginable by linking to myself, let me proceed.
Really what I want to do is clarify the different strands of conservatism, and why Buchanan's brand is itself not really traditional conservatism. Traditional conservatism is said to have its roots in Edmund Burke, and particularly his seminal work Reflections on the Revolution in France. Indeed Burke is a towering figure in the history of conservatism, but no one writer or philosopher can really represent conservatism. As Russell Kirk once wrote, conservatism is the negation of ideology, thus to define it systematically is to unravel what makes it unique. Its basic tenets, as defined by Kirk, are essentially the belief in a transcendent moral order, a rejection of levelling (thus socialism), an acceptance of some form of social hierarchy, and a deep veneration of tradition. There's more to it than this, but these are the essentials. But note here how these are not precise definitions but instead are very general and somewhat vague outlines of the essence of conservatism. It's sort of like Catholic social teaching: there are basic parameters, but no clear black and white rules as such. By the way it is also significant that I should mention Catholicism, as Catholics have played a rather important role in traditional conservatism.
That leads me to Buchanan. Buchanan's brand of conservatism, called "paleoconservatism," rejects alot of what is in fact conservative. Perhaps most important is its rejection of elites and fervor for populist measures, especially referrenda. You will note, for example, that among the right-wingers last year who most embraced the California governor recall were Buchanan and Robert Novak. Such an embrace of Jeffersonian populist democracy stands the paleos apart from the rest of the right. Also of primary importance is their intense isolationism. They are united in opposition to the Iraq war and most military adventures of its sort. Similarly, they reject free trade and are quite protectionist in their economic policy. In fact it becomes difficult to differentiate between the paleos and Naderite progressives on most things with the important exception of cultural and social issues, and it is here where the paleos retain their ties with traditional conservatism.
Neocons, are quite the opposite. They readily embrace an aggressive foreign policy which seeks to transport American values abroad. They are the nation builders of our little clique. They also certainly embrace free trade and free market capitalism, but are also much more comfortable with government than other conservatives.
What perhaps sets neocons apart from traditional conservatives is a certain sense of secular messianism. Neocons seem to believe that greater human happiness can be achieved through the state. Whereas traditionalists have an Augustinian streak that accepts the failings of this world, neocons have a striking mission to alleviate himan misery all over the globe. They have a much more optimistic appraisal of humanity and in humanity's potential for perfectibility.
This a very basic outline, and I have not even really begun to scratch the surface. Moreover, there are many conservatives who fall in between or even outside these groups. Evengelical Christians really don't fit neatly into any three of these categories; in fact they have tendencies of all three types. I would also submit that there is a brand of conservatism exemplified by the likes of Michael Savage (and perhaps more mainstream voices) that I like to call crankycons. These are your libertarians with morals that want to close down the borders and essentially strip the federal government of almost all powers and leave everything to the states. They are basically anti-federalists reincarnated.
How does such a diverse coalition stay united? Two things, I think. Essentially all brands are united socially, in particular when it comes to issues such as abortion. I also think that most conservatives are originalists when it comes to constitutional interpretation, and share a deep disdain for judicial activism. But other than that it a tenuous coalition, and one that can fragment very easily.
I think Buchanan's group has been written out already. Well, at least Buchanan himself, who most conservatives now look upon with disdain. It is sad, really, as he is a very astute and creative writer; it's just too bad he is a complete maniac roughly 50 percent of the time. Most importantly though, it is becoming increasingly difficult to separate paleocon rhetoric from that of Michael Moore. It might be a tad extreme to say that they are anti-American, but they refuse to accept that we are at war with a dangerous set of religious fundamentalists. They would rather blame Israel and her "puppets" in the American government for all that is wrong currently in the world. This is not conservatism; it's reactionary.
Moreover it is an ideology blind to the ways of the world. Burke wrote that society must change in order to preserve itself, and indeed conservatives accept change, albeit slow change. Paleos, on the other hand, wish to revert backwards to some glorified past which never really existed in the first place. Moreover, they act as though the rest of the world does not exist. Their extreme isolationist rhetoric harkens to American nationalism, but it ignores the fact that the world has changed and we cannot ignore our responsibilities as the preeminent global superpower. Their idealist yearning for splendid isolationism contradicts the realism that is the hallmark of conservative foreign policy.
Well, enough of conservatism 101. What I hope I have shown is that Buchanan's brand of conservatism is no more authentic than any other, and in fact may not even be truly conservative at all. In its insistence on a ideoligical purity test, paleoconservatism becomes something of an ideology. And returning to Kirk's comment about conservatism being the negation of ideology, paleoconservatism is thus neither paleo nor conservative. Discuss.
# posted by Paul Zummo : 11:53 PM
