Talk:Paleoconservative

Isn't Paleoconservative more often a term of derision used by Neoconservatives against conservative opponents like Bob Novak, than an active branch of conservatism? One should be careful to distinguish terms used by other people about one from the terms used by the people themselves. ALthough, of course, terms of derision often stick and become associated with groups (see Whig and Tory). But I tend to think this should be tightened up some. john 23:05 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Ita to the comment above... also, the 'ex-marxist' and 'ex-liberal' bit is a bit funny. By whose definition of Liberal and Marxist are neocons ex-anything? I will remove this bit until someone can defend it. Graft 01:36 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that a Limey like me is commenting on American politics shows that I've got an interest in politics that is not altogether healthy, however...

1. Paleoconservatism is self defined

Chronicles (http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/), which most recognise as the premier paleo publication actually hosted a round table discussion (http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/January2001/0101RoundTable.htm) entitled "What Is Paleoconservatism?" So it's certainly a term widely used by the Paleos. In fact the term Paleoconservative originated among conservatives (http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0503/0503conswar.htm) who opposed the neo-conservatives, and the term was to define themselves from the "neo" (that is "new") Conservatives.

2. Neo-conservatives are (mostly) converts from the left

The very term neo-conservative was a badge pinned on them by former colleagues on the left because they were "New" conservatives ("neo" is the Latin for new). Some of the Ex-Marxists who are now seen as neo-conservatives are David Horowitz, Marvin Olasky, Norman Podhoretz, Joshua Muravchik, Irving Kristol, Midge Dector and Jeanne Kirkpatrick. Most other neo-cons came from a more conventional liberal background (like Daniel Moynihan and Bill Bennett). There are a few second generation neo-conservatives whose conservatism is not by any means "new" as they have never been outside the conservative movement. Either due to family connections (William Kristol), a general aggresiveness on foreign policy (Paul Wolfowitz) or just plain laziness from journalists are lumped in with neo-conservatives.

The former neo-conservative journalist Michael Lind (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/lind1.html) says of neo-conservatives "Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left, not the right. They are products of the influential Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history."

JASpencer 27 May 2003

3. Re the addition of text recently termed POV and deleted, to what in particular do you object? Have you read the historians mentioned or the primary sources to which they refer? The text presented reflects common knowledge among intellectual historians of the period. The coda on the conservative movement is, again, non-controversial. One should be aware of the ongoing intellectual struggle within conservatism, which has received significant press from left and right, before charging anyone with promulgating a mere POV.

Lastly, JASpencer above is correct that paleoconservatism is not a term of derision and is often used by paleocons to describe themselves.

<b>4. Seward Collins was an important, often overlooked figure in the development of early 20c American conservatism

The continual removal of Collins from the list of Americans who played a role in the development of what became known as "paleoconservatism" is a historiographical error. Collins's quarterly journal, The American Review, was intrumental in popularizing the work of both the Southern Agrarians and the English distributists, both of whom favored policies and philosophies central to paleoconservatism. He should be included in this article if it is to be useful to the general public in their research on a key topic in American intellectual history.

Contents

1 Neutrality dispute 2 Eric Margolis a paleocon? 3 Dinos aren't paleolithic 4 Jerry Pournelle.

Neutrality dispute

This page is marked as "neutrality disputed" but it looks fine to me. Who disputes the neutrality of what specifically? - NYK 08:02, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay then I will remove the proviso. - NYK 02:44, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I would certainly dispute the neutrality of this page. "Isolationism" is a scare term. It applies to some who call themselves paleoconservative but hardly to all. Many paleoconservatives were supportive of US involvement in Viet Nam but not in Yugoslavia. Most opposed the Iraq War, because they believed it not in the US interest. Adams wasn't opposed to the Barbary Coast Wars. When the dragons attack Americans they need taming. They don't need slaying simply because they are dragons.

I note that someone has in fact fixed that problem, and I withdraw my above remarks. It looks pretty neutral to me now.

  J. E. Pournelle, Ph.D.

Just in case someone wonders, 68.66.75.82 _does_ in fact check out as an Adelphia Cable ip in JEP's physical neighborhood. It's him. and _he_ put his name back in the list of PC's... Rick Boatright 19:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--- T.S.Eliot? Why? Not every highly-educated anglophile is a "paleoconservative." And paleoconservative taste in verse ran more to James Whitcomb Riley wouldn't you say? Wetman 06:10, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On Nock I think it should be added that Albert Nock was an individualist of sorts. The refernce to him in this text seems to imply that he himself shared the paleos views when, in fact, he was against the State.

Eric Margolis a paleocon?

Eric Margolis does not have the parochial, isolationistic views generally associated with paleocons (for example he fervently supported the Kosovo War, which was opposed by most paleocons) - he identifies himself as a "Eisenhower Republican" and is hostile to the neocons mainly out of pro-Muslim sympathies. GCarty 16:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dinos aren't paleolithic

The phrase, association with the dinosaurs through terms like "paleolithic" is unfortunate, because the dinosaurs (with the exception of birds) were long gone in paleolithic times. If one wants to use the word 'paleolithic' for purposes of making fun of people (I'm not discussing whether this is appropriate or not), why not make the associations with early humans? They were probably not more stupid than we are, but at least there were humans alive in the paleolithic. Tjunier 09:39, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Jerry Pournelle.

Well, Jerry's friday response to being listed in this list was "Hmmmm." That doesn't exactly sound like a disagreement to me. As to him fitting this group, he has always self-identified as a "Burke" conservative in the english traidition of conservatism. He certainly, over and over in his Chaos Manor posts is derisive of neo-cons. Why then, do you remove him. His credentials here seem as good as anyone ELSE on this list. Rick Boatright 03:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because we're not an original source of such assignments but rather report the research and views of others. If some publication has described him as one, that's a different matter. If none has, I have some doubt that he'd qualify as a prominent example. I wouldn't say that he is derisive of Neoconservatives so much as commenting on the US acting as an imperial power. Some of his views do seem to match some of those attributed to paleoconservatives. Jamesday

Is this the "response" we're talking about? [1] (http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view366.html#Friday). That response certainly is non-commital. Has he been called a paleoconservative by anyone else? -Willmcw 21:43, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I find this fascinating. I hadn't asked to be placed on the list, and I hadn't asked to be removed from it. I presume there are those who like playing such games. I do not consider myself bound by any political group, but I certainly have more affinities with Burke and Kirk than I do with Leo Strauss and the neo-conservative movement. I do not know who placed me on the list, biut I found it interesting that I was there. I do not know who took me off it, but I find that even more revealing.

  Jerry E. Pournelle, Ph.D.

I wonder if you might not originally have been added by the correspondent who told you about it, for your name was added only a few days ago. Are you aware of any publicatons which have identified you as prominent for your paleoconservative views? I'm trying to determine whether you're prominent for those views, and thus merit inclusion in a list of prominent paleoconservatives, or not. Jamesday 23:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note that Jerry Pournelle did update his "View" page to discuss whether he is a paleoconservative or not: [2] (http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view366.html#Friday) In a nutshell, he says he agrees with paleoconservative views more than not, but not 100%. With that reservation, he seems to be a reasonable addition to the list. I see that someone has reverted the edit that removed him, which seems appropriate. He hasn't created an account on Wikipedia, but I can verify that he did write the comments signed by his name on this page (I have exchanged email with him today, and the IP address matches). --Steveha 20:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't doubt that he made the edits. I do wonder whether he qualifies. Have any sources cited him as a prominent paleoconservatve? Google turns up just one, a reader comment at Reason online: "Would you characterize yourself as being of the Lew Rockwell, Jerry Pournelle paleoconservative school?" [3] (http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2004/08/spinning_chavez.shtml). That just doesn't appear to me to qualify him for this list. Prominent in a variety of other ways, of course, but I don't see anything to indicate that he's prominent for this reason. Even one well known publication saying he is could change that - I just didn't find one doing it. Jamesday 23:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on the principle that the people on these types of lists should be well-known for their political views. If we have to scrounge around for a source and even (effectively) ask the subject then they probably shouldn't be on the list. Trying to parse a subject's political views and decide on our own which category to place them in may be original research. -Willmcw 23:40, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)