Pat Buchanan remarked last month that the "conservative movement had passed into history." John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, authors of The Right Nation, respond by telling conservatives to cheer up. If Republican were synonymous with conservative, Micklethwait and Wooldridge's Wall Street Journal article would have a strong point. But since the ascendancy of the Republicans has resulted in bigger government, nation-building, government control of political speech through campaign finance reform, lax border enforcement, nationalization of airport security, and the creation of a massive new cabinet department, it's tough for principled conservatives to express much enthusiasm for the current state of affairs.

"Fixate on a snapshot of recent events and pessimism makes sense," the British duo write. "Stand back and look at the grand sweep of things and the darkness soon lifts. There are two questions that really matter in assessing the current state of conservatism: What direction is America moving in? And how does the United States compare with the rest of the world? The answer to both questions should encourage the right."

Micklethwait and Wooldridge point to Republican control of political institutions, the growing power of religious faiths of a more traditional bent, that Bush's enthusiasm for big government serves conservative ends, and the dearth of ideas among the Democrats. "So cheer up conservatives," the Journal piece counsels. "You have the country's most powerful political party on your side. You have control of the market for political ideas. You have the American dream. And, despite your bout of triste post coitum, you are still outbreeding your rivals. That counts for more than the odd setback in the Senate." Perhaps it is because I'm an American conservative that I see things differently from these European liberals.

Post-modern American culture treats life like a dogpile. It is rife with materialism. There are basic moral and philosophical deficiencies that exist that foreshadow political developments such as this.

Hopefully conservatism will return once Hillary wins.

Since Old-Rightists have informed us time and time again on this blog that conservatism is incapable of evolution, conservatism never existed in the US. After all, we never had a monarch.

These people take Steve Sailer's "Baby gap" thesis as a justification for conservative exuberance without giving him credit. They also fail to recognize that his Baby Gap theory works to explain WHY certain states vote democratic or Republican, but don't mean that conservatives are winning the demographic war as immigrants overwhelmingly vote democratic.

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/06/wsj-steals-from-baby-gap.html

Besides that I'd sugges that America is much more than an idea or dream.

Steve Sailer's idea is "affordable family formation," so the three critical factors are fertility rates, marriage, and low housing inflation. Since rural areas -- the dirt gap -- can expand and build more housing, while coastal areas cannot, it's easier to afford families in rural areas. This isn't new. Russell Kirk pointed out years ago that the wellsprings of conservatism were found in the rural areas of America, those areas left untouched by urbanization and development. Is Europe more liberal (progressive) than America because it's more urbanized? Or because it's more costly to raise children in urban areas?

You can stick a fork in conservatism -- it's done. The notion that the Republican Party is a conservative party because it falsely appeals to "God and country," "freedom and less government," is like saying Anton LaVey's Church of Satan is Catholic because they attend Black Mass.

The style of conservatism that is popular 'round these parts will simply never gain majority support. (Proof: Pat Buchanan couldn't muster even one half of one percent of the popular vote in the 2000 election.) It is seen as being xenophobic and backward-looking, a departure from the wildly successful Reagan-esque conservativism which was principally devoted to freedom, welcoming to immigrants, and optimistic about the future.

I hope a more libertarian-minded President can be elected in the future, in order to shrink the government and eliminate the innumerable nonsensical laws and regulations. However, I do not hope for the election of a conservative in your (collective) sense.

Acting as if Buchanan's 2000 election was the standard bearer for what an America First platform could get is simply dishonest. Yes the campaign was a disaster, but there are several reasons for this that had nothing to do with his platform.

1) He had health problems and did very little campaigning
2) The election was extremely close, and most conservatives hated clinton so much they were not willing to let another democrat get in the office.
3) He obviously made some serious strategic blunders such as initially alligning himself with Fuliani

The truth is Buchanan got over 3 million votes, (over 6 times as many as he got in 2000) in both 1992 and 1996. When it comes to immigration and trade (even though I disagree with him on the latter) Buchanan is certainly closer to the grassroots republicans (and most americans for tha matter) than the globalists. And certainly his foreign policy views are more in step with American opinion (Though unfortunately not most Republicans) than most conservatives.

To suggest that Ronald Reagan's success was do to his support for his welcoming stance towards immigrants is equally ludicrous. For one, the real fall out from the 1965 act didn't really begin to affect the rest of the nation until after his presidency, so immigration wasn't a really big issue then. Though it should be noted, of course, that Reagan said "a Nation that loses control of its borders ceases to be a nation"

As for his optimism, yes, perhaps that helped appeal to some people, but what did it get us? Not one federal department abolished, bigger budgets, amnesty for illegals etc. It wasn't Morning in America, it was the 11th hour. If Reagan was a little less optimistic and a little more backward looking; our nation would be much better off than it is now.

Oh come now Marcus when has Pat Buchanan EVER done well with the Americna voter?

The American voter looks at Buchanan's platform and they see the truth:

It is backward looking, it is isolationist, it is unrealistic, and it is ineffective.

As for his optimism, yes, perhaps that helped appeal to some people, but what did it get us? Not one federal department abolished, bigger budgets, amnesty for illegals etc. It wasn't Morning in America, it was the 11th hour. If Reagan was a little less optimistic and a little more backward looking; our nation would be much better off than it is now.
Posted by Marcus Epstein at June 22, 2005 09:56 PM

Grade A BS.

Reagan won the Cold War, Reagan turned the American economy around, Reagan gave the American people back their spirit.

That is the difference between mainline conservative and paleocons.

Paleocons would sit around tinkering with how best to dismantle out of the way, largely unimportant government programs, while mainline conservatives and neocons understand how to see the big issues and focus on them, knowing that even if some government programs are an annoyance, other matters are more pressing.

To suggest Reagan's presidency was the 11th hour is a joke.

I suspect -- and public opinion polls back me up -- that if we were to have a national plebiscite on Buchanan's immigration policies versus George Bush's that Buchanan's would win hands down. Americans don't show any popular support for amnesty, open borders, and easy visas. It's for this reason that Republicans, Neocons, liberals, and Democrats -- all other traitors to this country -- do everything they can to malign and marginalize Pat Buchanan.

From a NY Times/CBS poll a few months back:

18. Should the United States try to change a dictatorship to a democracy where it can, OR should the United States stay out of other countries' affairs?

The answers:

27% change
59% stay out
10% depends
4% don't know/no answer

I todl you when he did well, in 1992 and 1992, where he did remarkably well considering how the establishment was stacked against him.

As Eric Wilds points out, Buchanan is more in touch with the American people on foreign policy than Bush or any "Mainline conservative." All polls show that the majority of Americans think invading Iraq was a mistake and support a speedy withdrawal. http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

As for immigration and Trade, I'd say Buchanan is closer to Americans, and certainly repbulicans than Bush http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm
http://www.pollingreport.com/trade.htm

I will admit that there are some issues where the paleos certainly hold minority opinions, but when it comes to the core of Buchanan's America First platform, he is in tune with most Americans.

Finally, even if we are to grant that Reagan was responsible for the economic boom and the fall of the Soviet Union (Which I don't) Buchanan and most paleos supported his agressive Cold War posturing, and his tax cuts. (I'm assuming you don't think that the economic boom was created because of Reagan's optimism of openness to immigrants.) So you can't say that whatever good came out of the Reagan Presidency would not had happened if Buchanan or osmeone like him was in charge.

As for paleos being overly concerned with getting rid of some tiny federal programs, I have little hopes that any federal program will be abolished anytime soon. Yes, I'm concerned more about "the big issues" just like the neocons. It's just to me these big issues are sealing the borders from the millions of Third World Countries that enter this country each year and ending the war in Iraq that costs hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and has made us the most hated country in the World. I find these issues much more pressing than abolishing the National Endowment for the Arts. The difference is not that I'm too concerned with petty annoyances to focus on the "big issues" it's that the neocons are on the wrong side of the big issues.

I suspect -- and public opinion polls back me up -- that if we were to have a national plebiscite on Buchanan's immigration policies versus George Bush's that Buchanan's would win hands down. Americans don't show any popular support for amnesty, open borders, and easy visas. It's for this reason that Republicans, Neocons, liberals, and Democrats -- all other traitors to this country -- do everything they can to malign and marginalize Pat Buchanan.

Posted by Eric Wilds at June 22, 2005 11:10 PM

Care to point out why everyone who disagrees with you is guilty of treason?

Oh wait, you can't, because you are a hate-filled xenophobic demagogue without much to back up any of his arguments but a heaping pile of argumentum ad hominem, strawman, and above all else intellectual dishonesty.

I never said anyone who disagrees with me is a traitor to this country. However, in my opinion anyone who supports our current open border policies -- which includes Democrats, Republicans, Neocons etc -- is.

Hey Marcus,

Too cool to have you posting here! I have enjoyed your articles for Lew Rockwell and in TAC. Glad to see the Ben's aren't the only youthful representatives of future of the (at least so-called) American right.

Ben's,
You are as usual speaking out the wrong end. Buchanan in 1992 was a Republican version of Eugene McCarthy (you can look him up) by running against the incumbent president of his own party and so yes many people saw this as political treason and responded accordingly. Anyway, he went on to garner 3 million votes in the primaries (that is a significant amount btw) and forced Bush to pretend to be a conservative in the campaign but since he wasn't good at being a phoney and pretending to not be a liberal (his son learned this lesson really well), Clinton handed him his walking papers. Buchanan then was given the keynote address at the convention in 1992, in which he delivered a phenomenal address beloved by conservatives on the "culture war" engulfing America.

Then in 1996 Buchanan ran against Bob Dole, et.al, in the primaries and DEFEATED him in the New Hampshire primary and went on to get over 20% of the total votes in the primaries.

And if you believe some libs (which I don't but I will repeat it for fun), then if it wasn't for little old confused Jewish ladies in Miami voting for Buchanan in 2000 your beloved leader wouldn't have been elected and the Iraqi people may very well still be under the thrall of Saddam. So you should be grateful for ole Pat.

Part of the reason why paleocons will never win any elections is shown in this thread. As Ben-T pointed out, those who disagree are not simply incorrect -- they're evil "traitors". It's as though your lives are consumed with misery, and any opportunity to whine is immediately seized upon. Lighten up, you annoying curmudgeons.

Regarding immigration, I don't care how close Buchanan is to most Republicans, I care how close he is to most Americans. And the reality is that a man whose magazine advocated a 5-year moratorium is simply not close.

The only reason protectionism has any popularity is that people (e.g. Buchanan, union representatives, reporters) pollute the discussion with economic fallacies. Even with their attempts to miseducate, only 27% of Westerners believes globalization negatively affects their countries.

Brian -- In your examination of Buchanan's popularity, you're looking at one slice of Americans (members of the Republican party) instead of the whole picture. (As an aside, in my opinion this inability to see the forest for the trees is actual a fundamental part of paleoconservative thinking).

I find it quite humorous that right after accusing someone of being "a hatefilled xenophobe" you also accuse him of using ad hominem attacks.

Buchanan's views on immigration are closer to most Americans and most Republicans to neocons. There has never in this nation's history every been a single opinion poll that showed more than 13% of the nation wanting to increase immigration. A moratorium is not a complete end to immigration, but simply zero net immigration-- that is 250,000 a year. I don't even know if Buchanan is still calling for that, but I guarentee you that the % of Americans who support that is much greater than those who support liberalizing our immigration policies, much less open borders.

Also, as for us paleos throwing around the "T word" too much, let's not forget Ann Coulter's book Treason, and now this lovely speech by Bill O'Reilly the other day.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200506220006

"And when he [Durbin] went out there, his intent was to whip up the American public against the Bush detainee policy. That's what his intent was. His intent wasn't to undermine the war effort, because he never even thought about it. He never even thought about it. But by not thinking about it, he made an egregious mistake because you must know the difference between dissent from the Iraq war and the war on terror and undermining it. And any American that undermines that war, with our soldiers in the field, or undermines the war on terror, with 3,000 dead on 9-11, is a traitor.

Everybody got it? Dissent, fine; undermining, you're a traitor. Got it? So, all those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains, because they, you know, they're undermining everything and they don't care, couldn't care less. "

Hey Marcus -- Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly are not exactly intellectual idols of mine.

There's still one small problem with your theory that Buchanan has his finger on the American pulse when it comes to many important issues: his failure to win a national election. Of course, you could argue that he's right about certain things (as I do with various libertarian ideas), but the question at hand is whether these things are popular.

Most people want our immigration policy reformed in one way or another. I will assert two things: 1) Most people do not support an "open borders" policy. 2) Most people also do not support a "Let's-only-encourage-white-Europeans-to-come-here" policy reminiscent of some suggestions in magazines like Patty's The American Conservative.