Paleo-Conservativism, Why We are Not Paleo-Conservatives
I am a Traditional Conservative and I write about Traditional Conservatism, but a major strain of Conservativism is Paleo-Conservatism and it's worth while pointing out what we agree on and what we do not agree on.
On most issues we are in agreement. Both agree that Tradition and custom are important, that we owe a great deal to our Western heritage, which includes both it's Pagan and Christian past. Greek/Roman and North European combined with Christian Civilization. That family is at the centre of life and that without the family being strong only tyranny can rule in it's place. We share a distrust of "big", business, Government, political parties, ideas and non-government organisations. In other words everything should be human sized, not "big" and impersonal or simply by it's size be in danger of crushing us.
We jointly oppose the "isms", Feminism, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Nazism. All of these are impersonal forces that seek to crush the little and the big. We share a belief that people are different, both as individuals and as groups, that race, ethnicity and nationality are real and they can and do make people different, maybe better, maybe worse, but different. Just as men and women are different. That religion is not something old and worn out, but something that is needed and when it vanishes people do not become rational they instead find a new "religion". One now based not on tradition and custom but on the fashion of today, no matter how silly or destructive.
We agree on a lot.
What we disagree on is Foreign policy.
Paleo-Conservatism is an American philosophy, once called isolationism. Once upon a time it made sense, America was in a real sense isolated from the realities of the outside world. But that isolation ended, for better or worse it does not exist any more. America was lucky that it ever existed. The only reason it existed was that even after the Revolution, Britain was her main trading partner and what a very jealous partner she was. The Royal Navy as much as the United States Navy keep America isolated from the political realities in the rest of the world. That wouldn't last forever and it didn't. America it'self ended it's isolation by becoming a large trading nation. Big business ended isolation before the Spanish-American war, before WWI and well before Pearl Harbor. Trade involved America in the affairs of other nations and other people. Trade still involves America in the affairs of other nations and people. Of course America is not alone in that, most countries are so involved, but America has the worlds largest economy, it's has Wall Street, it has Hollywood, it is the birthplace of Jazz, Country and Western, Rock and Roll and Hip Hop as well as producing enormous amounts of Television. It is often forgotten, but shouldn't be, that American culture leaves a very big imprint, I would argue even bigger than it's economic, political or military imprint, upon the world. The idea that America can step out of the world is very strange indeed.
Now two other countries also have a Paleo-Conservative tradition, Canada and the United Kingdom. Because Canada is so close to the United States it often picks up things that others might not notice simply because they are further away. Paleo-Conservatism is one of these things, I don't know enough about Canadian politics to say too much but I have noticed how different Canada's response to international crises are compared to Australia or New Zealand. Canada has much more of a hands off approach.
The United Kingdom also has a tradition, but it's known as "Little Englander", a little Englander was a term of contempt for British (normally English) Conservatives who didn't really like the Empire and thought Britain should have as little to do with Europe as possible. Trade if need be but apart from that keep out. To see a modern version of a little Englander you can read the newspaper columnist Peter Hitchens.
The problem with all of this is that it ignores the practical realities that exist. It is not possible to live in a world were our enemies, and everyone has enemies, just ignore you and don't trouble you. The question is when you are challenged when do you respond. Do you do it when the Nazi's come to power? Or wait until they break the Treaty of Versailles? Or the Ruhr? Or Austria? Or the Sudetenland? Or the rest of Czechoslovakia? Or Poland? Or Denmark and Norway? Or France and the Low Countries? Or Britain? Or Pearl Harbor?
Either you do something at some point or you capitulate. There is no third option, not really. Doing nothing is capitulation.
Far too often I see the option do nothing, at least it's consistent I guess. But the consequences are not mentioned because it is always supposed to be someone else's problem. There is no responsibility and little concern for outside issues. If your only opinion is, get out we should never have been there, you shouldn't be surprised that you have no influence upon events or opinions. And thats a real problem.
Traditional Conservatives believe that Foreign Affairs continue and that we should be a part of it. That Foreign relations, trade, diplomacy and military intervention all have their place. War is part of human existence and we must be prepared for it and it is nearly always better to fight in someone else's country than in our own if we have a choice about it. That we should have Allies and friends and that we should stick by them just as we expect them to stick by us. That we should have principles and that we should be prepared to defend them, even fight for them and that sometimes a situation is simply wrong and that we should be part of righting it. Even if that means war.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Balanced Society
'Paleo-Conservatism is an American philosophy, once called isolationism.'ReplyDelete
To me the paleoconservative movement is simply old style blood and soil conservatism. The defining thing in it being labeled paleoconservatism is the rise of neoconservatism in the USA taking control of the Republican Party. The Neoconservative movement was dominated by Jewish ex-Trotskyites.
It's unfair to say paleoconservatives are isolationists, rather they don't want America to fight wars on the behalf of Israel. Something the neocons have no qualms about (as the old joke goes; to accuse them of having dual loyalties would be to pay them a compliment').
Also the old school conservatives aren't in favour of flooding their nations with immigrants whose racial and cultural backgrounds have noting in common with the European founding stock. Again the neocons on the other hand have adopted a 'whats good for the Jews' approach to the matter and have been happy to see European peoples on the road to being reduced to minorities in their own nations.
My views on Neo-Conservatives are here:
"It's unfair to say paleoconservatives are isolationists, rather they don't want America to fight wars on the behalf of Israel."
Tell me which of these wars you believe America should have fought?
The Spanish-American War
Liberation of Kuwait
I have heard Paleo-Conservative arguments against all of these wars. If thats not Isolationist, what is it?
Sadly I have heard far to many Paleo-Conservatives join the blame America first crowd.
"neocons....have been happy to see European peoples on the road to being reduced to minorities in their own nations."
Neo-Conservatives are Liberals, so they support Liberal policies.
Thanks for your reply.Delete
"Tell me which of these wars you believe America should have fought?"
The Spanish-American War: I don't know enough about the circumstances to offer an informed opinion.
WWI: No. European Civil War. Wilsonian 'make the world safe for democracy' nonsense.
WWII: Yes. Japan and Germany declared war on the US.
Korea and Vietnam: Yes, I view both as part of the worldwide anti-communist struggle which was maybe the USA's finest moment.
Liberation of Kuwait: Yes, textbook campaign really.
Afghanistan: A punitive campaign was applicable. Not decade long nation building nonsense.
Iraq: No, disastrous neoconservative war.
Regarding what drives neoconservatives you view them as being ideologically motivated, whilst I view them as ethnically motivated.
I do not accept that Iraq was a Neo-Conservative war, they certainly supported it, but so did many others who were not Neocons, including myself. Sadly I do agree with you that the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq were distorted. I say as much in my article on them.
As for being ethnically motivated, while most Neocons are Jews, it is not exclusively Jewish. Also I would point that most Jews are not Neocons.
Neo-Conservatives are Liberals, so they support Liberal policies.ReplyDelete
That's my view as well. I don't see anything remotely conservative about neocons. They're pro-big business but I don't see that as being particularly conservative.
I think neocons have done enormous harm to the conservative cause. They're a large part of the reason that conservatives are seen as being hostile to the interests of ordinary people. Because neocon policies are hostile to the interests of ordinary people. Neocons have made it easy for liberals to identify conservatives as greedy, corrupt and uncaring.