The American Conservative's August 29 cover story, "How the Right Got Bigger & Dumber," is must reading--but for the offline reader only. Conservatives have made inroads at the major publishing houses, watch their own news network, dominate talk radio, boast several well-respected DC think-tanks, and regularly cast ballots for winning candidates. But has getting to the top come at the price of sinking to the bottom?

The piece's author, Austin Bramwell, asks: Where is today's Russell Kirk, Fredrich Hayek, or James Burnham? If they exist, we know neither their names nor their writings. The vibrant debates between, say, L. Brent Bozell II and Frank Meyer, have been replaced by mindless cheerleading. "Indeed, the more a right-winger exalts one set of ideas," Bramwell writes, "the more marginal he becomes; by contrast, the more foggy he remains about what the Holy Grail is, the more influence he can have."

The intellectual dormancy first appeared on the radar screens of many thoughtful conservatives in the 1990s, when Clinton-bashing passed for a unifying political philosophy. The inheritors of this unworthy, dumbed-down conservatism at present identify whatever talking points the Republican Party is issuing with conservative principle. Bramwell points out that "elitism, perhaps an electoral handicap, is an intellectual strength. Original thinking often flourishes under conditions of intellectual marginality. Unfortunately, the conservative movement, having discovered a mass audience, risks squandering the intellectual marginality that once made it interesting and daring."

"In future years," Bramwell concludes, "it may take a smaller, elite group of right-wingers to animate conservative ideas once more." Mr. Bramwell, meet Mr. Nock.

There is a very strong basis of what Wilds calls Bush Cultists in Conservatism, to be sure. There is also a very strong intellectual base in Conservatism. They just all happen to be Neocons.

The piece's author, Austin Bramwell, asks: Where is today's Russell Kirk, Fredrich Hayek, or James Burnham? If they exist, we know neither their names nor their writings. The vibrant debates between, say, L. Brent Bozell II and Frank Meyer, have been replaced by mindless cheerleading.

There are plenty of brilliant conservative writers who do not reside on the kook fringe. Of course someone writing in The American Conservative will be blind to these scholars, because TAC and magazines with similar philosophies have such a ridiculous and limited view of what conservatism is.

Also, elitism is garbage. It simply insulates people from legitimate, open debate by giving them airs of superiority. Elitists are too damned incredible to waste time with people who believe _____, thereby avoiding the arguments of those who believe _____. Elitism is a character trait of leftists.

But I'm glad to hear TAC recommends that those on their ideological bandwagon become more elitist and separate from the mainstream. That way, such crazies will fade into oblivion, clearly failing to win people over in the marketplace of ideas.

Also, I forgot to add that I don't gleefully await the day another Kirk comes into existence. I learned from an old comment of Brian's, actually, that he voted for a socialist in '44 because of his opposition to our involvement in World War II. Ridiculous, short-sighted, and asinine. He also seems to have been a kind of Luddite.

Yes, the Bramwell essay is a great one, and thanks for the link to the Nock essay. What a wonderful piece!

I'd say you are doing an admirable job trying to fill the intellectual void Mr. Flynn. Maybe some of your regular posters like Short, Ralph, Epstein, and Sea King can be leaven for the movement in the future. Then we can say we knew of them first at FlynnFiles.

Btw, Nock could have pointed to Romans 11:5 as well as Isaiah: ". . . at present there is a remnant left selected out of grace and truth."

As far as the elitism issue goes, I take Bramwell's point, and yours, to be in line with Nock's and not Litchman's (above) understanding of the term. Truth isn't private, it isn't gnostic, therefore it is not the guarded esoteric teachings of an elite. However, since thinking as "communion in the truth, not generation of the truth" is an achievement of intellect (with a docile will) in conforming to reality, and man is in a sad state with his fallen nature, then the fact of mass ignorance of truth is unavoidably a real problem. Basically I am claiming that elitism in Nock's sense does not necessarily involve a lack of humility.

Two words: Sean Hannity

That right wing crazy kook who wrote the article is Austin Bramwell, one of the two trustees of the bastion of right wing paleoconservative kooks... National Review.

I wrote a very long response to the piece that I hope to get published somewhere sometime soon.

A significant part of the problem, it seems to me, is that the winners of the recent Republican primaries (Bush 41, Dole, Bush 43) have all been moderates. And once a nominee has been chosen, the options are severly limited: elect a moderate or allow a liberal to be elected. And unlike some posters here, I believe that a moderate conservative is better than a liberal.

Is this phenomenon traceable to the fact that the vast majority of early primaries (i.e., the primaries that determine the nominee) are held in the Northeast and the West Coast? In 2000 14 primaries were held on or before March 7. Of those, only 6 were outside of the Northeast: South Carolina, Michigan, Washington, California, Georgia, and Ohio. And of those, only South Carolina and Georgia are solidly conservative States (perhaps Ohio can be included). The remaining 8 primaries were held in the Northeast: New Hampshire, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Were the first Republican primaries held in the Southern and Western States, wouldn't the nominees be more conservative?

>Elitism is a character trait of leftists.

Oh really?
Webster defines elitism as : the attitude that society should be governed by an elite group of individuals.

Which is exactly the current mind-set of neocons, except the definition doesn't go far enough. They would have the world be brought under their particular brand of "conservatism".

And what is more elitist than claiming to have God on your side? Nothing, of course. For the con's, the only Americans capable of running the country are straight, wealthy, christians. Indeed the only good Americans are straight, neocon christians.

But please, don't stop now. The Hypocrisy of the far right can only help the Democrats.

When you race across the border between objective reason and pure ideology like so many of the con's and their cheerleaders in the MSM have done, you're forced to shed any facts that contradict with the party line. And this makes you look juuuust a little bit crazy.

The war in Iraq boiling over and American marines dying in three's and five's and what does Bush do? Nothing. Oh, a vague speech in front of a somber crowd of soldiers, then it's off to vacation.

Rumsfeld and cheney are left to blather about "Last throes" and pathetically leaf thru a dictionary on "Meet the press" to explain what throes really means.

Intelligent Design, the belief that "God" made everything, is being hitched to Evolution and taught in science class. Well, it will be if Bush has his way.

Now, all of this may not seem like a big deal to those of you at the eye of this storm, but to folks like me, moderates, it's lunacy. And that kind of lunacy can only help come 2006.

So please. Keep it up. Keep pushing the most hard-core, homophobic, anti-choice, anti-science, anti-secularists you can find and put 'em on Bill's "No spin zone" where they can sputter their way into oblivion and hopefully, take your party with them.

I have to agree with Ralph. It's an unfortunate fact of our current political system that we often times have to swallow hard and vote for the lesser of two evils. And in almost every case, like it or not, the the moderate Republican is significantly less evil, yet still far from perfect. My anger and frustration with Bush's free-spending form of "conservatism" is always tempered by the realization that the alternative could only have been worse: much worse.

It's worth noting that for now, the result of any significant third party candidacy (Nader and Perot) has only served to elect the opposition candidate: Clinton in '92 and Bush in 2000.

I for one would have infinitely prefered a pro-choice Republican who was a true fiscal conservative to Dubya, as I firmly believe that even were Roe v. Wade overturned as the incredibly poor interpretation of the Constitution that it is, the vast majority of the individual states would never outlaw abortion.

Best regards to all.

Thom

I'm glad liberals like Brian (or perhaps 'anti-Brian') stop by FlynnFiles to vent. As he runs through the Democratic talking-points in a fever-pitch, he provides a nice contrast to conservative, rational discussion.

I noticed that Brian doesn't read anything like Brian, so I checked the IP addresses. They're different. To avoid confusion, I ask that second Brian add a last-name initial or pick another name to avoid confusion--in the way that we can tell the Bens apart because they follow their first names with "T" or "Litchman."

"Which is exactly the current mind-set of neocons, except the definition doesn't go far enough. They would have the world be brought under their particular brand of "conservatism"." -Brian

You might want to calm down on the kool-aid there Brian.

"The war in Iraq boiling over and American marines dying in three's and five's and what does Bush do? Nothing. Oh, a vague speech in front of a somber crowd of soldiers, then it's off to vacation.

Rumsfeld and cheney are left to blather about "Last throes" and pathetically leaf thru a dictionary on "Meet the press" to explain what throes really means."

Really? Because the last time I checked, elections have been held, a democratic government runs the country, a new Iraqi military, at only 50% capacity is already capable of taking over security for several Iraqi cities, The Iraqi Military has opened it's first armored divison, Iraq's constitution is about to released, US troop presence outside of the Sunni triangle has become almost totally unnecessary, and the US will be starting pullout as early as next spring.

Meanwhile, the Insurgency has accomplished...nothing. I smell Victory.

"Intelligent Design, the belief that "God" made everything, is being hitched to Evolution and taught in science class. Well, it will be if Bush has his way."

The best way to teach a child is not to wall him off from a idea you disagree with. It is to give him the tools of reading, understanding, and logic, so that he may make his own choice. In fact that's almost exactly what Bush said.

Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about," he said, according to an official transcript of the session. Bush added: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes." -George W. Bush

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201686.html

I see nothing of the radical theocrat you would conjer.

You sound nothing like a moderate of any kind. I'm glad to learn from Dan that you aren't THE REAL Brian.

Thanks for helping to make my point ralph. Any opinion that goes against the current neocon thinking (or anti-thought) is just a liberal, venting at a fever pitch.

A knee jerk reaction that demonizes and ensures that you won't have to address any of the points I raised. A tactic brought to an art form by the likes of rush, sean and joe. But like I said, keep it up because it only helps.

"Which is exactly the current mind-set of neocons, except the definition doesn't go far enough. They would have the world be brought under their particular brand of "conservatism"." -Brian

You might want to calm down on the kool-aid there Brian.

You might want to open your eyes Ben. The Project for the New American Century(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century) makes their goals quite clear.

"The war in Iraq boiling over and American marines dying in three's and five's and what does Bush do? Nothing. Oh, a vague speech in front of a somber crowd of soldiers, then it's off to vacation.

Rumsfeld and cheney are left to blather about "Last throes" and pathetically leaf thru a dictionary on "Meet the press" to explain what throes really means."

Really? Because the last time I checked, elections have been held, a democratic government runs the country, a new Iraqi military, at only 50% capacity is already capable of taking over security for several Iraqi cities, The Iraqi Military has opened it's first armored divison, Iraq's constitution is about to released, US troop presence outside of the Sunni triangle has become almost totally unnecessary, and the US will be starting pullout as early as next spring.
Meanwhile, the Insurgency has accomplished...nothing. I smell Victory.

Funny. See all of this was supposed to be a cake walk and be over in six months. Remember that? That we were going to be greeted as liberators and Iraqi oil would pay for the whole thing? Remember? And now here we are, years later, 1800 dead Americans and Billions of dollars in the toilet, but.. you smell victory.

Well, I smell something too, but it ain't victory.
The Iraqi army is barely able to hold their own even with US soldiers at their side.

"The Pentagon (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050722/wl_mideast_afp/usiraqsecurity) on Thursday made a secret assessment to Congress on the readiness of Iraqi security forces to take over security duties from US troops.Pentagon officials have refused to comment on the specifics of the assessment, but acknowledged that only a small number of Iraqi troops are now ready to mount independent counterinsurgency operations.
The readiness of the Iraqi security forces is a key condition for any drawdown of the 138,000-strong US force in Iraq. Maintaining that level of forces in Iraq has put severe strains on the US army and marines."

As far as the US pulling out, of course it could happen, just in time for elections too. But what about restoring democracy and making Iraq a safe beacon for Liberty? Is that how we're going to leave it?
"Gen. George Casey, the most senior commander of coalition forces in Iraq, drew the most notice Wednesday. He told reporters that a “fairly substantial” withdrawal of U.S. troops could go ahead in the spring and summer of 2006 if the Iraqi political process is not derailed and the insurgency does not grow"

So now, if the insurgency, which according to the pentagon hasn't been weakened, continues at the same deadly pace, well that's the Iraqi's problem. And that constitution? From what has been reported so far, It calls for Sharia law, the same laws that govern Iran. So say we do leave in 2006. What have we accomplished? A chaotic semi-state teetering on the brink of civil war with a constitution that resembles the one the theocracy next door have. Hmmm.. can you say blow-back?

"Intelligent Design, the belief that "God" made everything, is being hitched to Evolution and taught in science class. Well, it will be if Bush has his way."

"The best way to teach a child is not to wall him off from a idea you disagree with. It is to give him the tools of reading, understanding, and logic, so that he may make his own choice. In fact that's almost exactly what Bush said."

Fine. Then teach it in an elective corse on theology where it belongs, not in science where it doesn't.

"You sound nothing like a moderate of any kind. I'm glad to learn from Dan that you aren't THE REAL Brian."

Of course you don't think I'm a moderate. To con's like you, anyone who even questions the administration is a Liberal. Moderates don't exist in your world.

"Which is exactly the current mind-set of neocons, except the definition doesn't go far enough. They would have the world be brought under their particular brand of "conservatism"." -Brian

You might want to calm down on the kool-aid there Brian.

You might want to open your eyes Ben. The Project for the New American Century(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century) makes their goals quite clear." -Fake Brian

You could have had the decency to link to the Actual Project for the New American Century. Not that it matters, I am quite familiar with them.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Now where do they say they want to force all of the governments of the world to operate under neoconservative policies, whether that be economic policy, social policy, or foreign policy?

"Funny. See all of this was supposed to be a cake walk and be over in six months. Remember that? That we were going to be greeted as liberators and Iraqi oil would pay for the whole thing? Remember? And now here we are, years later, 1800 dead Americans and Billions of dollars in the toilet, but.. you smell victory." -Fake Brian

No, I do not remember anyone saying this was going to be a cake walk that would last six months. However anybody honestly assessing the situation in Iraq will come to the conclusion that the United States is far closer to winning the war than they are to losing it.

"on Thursday made a secret assessment to Congress on the readiness of Iraqi security forces to take over security duties from US troops.Pentagon officials have refused to comment on the specifics of the assessment, but acknowledged that only a small number of Iraqi troops are now ready to mount independent counterinsurgency operations.
The readiness of the Iraqi security forces is a key condition for any drawdown of the 138,000-strong US force in Iraq. Maintaining that level of forces in Iraq has put severe strains on the US army and marines."

As far as the US pulling out, of course it could happen, just in time for elections too. But what about restoring democracy and making Iraq a safe beacon for Liberty? Is that how we're going to leave it?
"Gen. George Casey, the most senior commander of coalition forces in Iraq, drew the most notice Wednesday. He told reporters that a “fairly substantial” withdrawal of U.S. troops could go ahead in the spring and summer of 2006 if the Iraqi political process is not derailed and the insurgency does not grow'" -Fake Brian

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0711/dailyUpdate.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/13/africa/web.iraq.php
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/BillofRights.pdf

""The best way to teach a child is not to wall him off from a idea you disagree with. It is to give him the tools of reading, understanding, and logic, so that he may make his own choice. In fact that's almost exactly what Bush said."

Fine. Then teach it in an elective corse on theology where it belongs, not in science where it doesn't." -Fake Brian

Bush made a comment in passing about how he felt on the Evolution debate. He didn't break out charts and graphs and ge into an in-depth lecture on how best to implement his EVAL KRISTIAN KONSPIRACY!!!

"Of course you don't think I'm a moderate. To con's like you, anyone who even questions the administration is a Liberal. Moderates don't exist in your world." -Fake Brian

I didn't say you weren't a moderate, I said you don't sound like one.

Brian (whichever one you are), no offense, but making statements like "The war in Iraq boiling over and American marines dying in three's and five's and what does Bush do? Nothing. Oh, a vague speech in front of a somber crowd of soldiers, then it's off to vacation" constitutes neither discussion nor debate. How exactly does Webster's define "boiling over"? Your arguments would carry more weight were they based more on fact than emotion, but given the rather generalized nature of your comments, I'm not certain that's possible.

And please, when you mention Marines, please show a modicum of respect and at least capitalize the name.

anti-Brian Brian:

(1) Any one who rants at Bush for being afraid of homosexual persons and puts the word "god" in scare-quotation marks is not a moderate. To pretend otherwise, is, well, fraud.

(2) "A knee jerk reaction that demonizes and ensures that you won't have to address any of the points I raised. A tactic brought to an art form by the likes of rush, sean and joe." I just wanted to point out that these aren't sentences. Perhaps if you calmed down, you could structure your sentences at least semi-grammatically. Then your statements would have the chance of being true or false.

(3) Who's "joe"? I've never seen Joe Scarborough demonize anyone, lose his temper, fake losing his temper, or be anything but cordial and respectful to his guests. Is there another Joe? Joe Wilson? Am I missing something?

I think a more appropriate title would be _How the Right Got Smaller and Dumber and more Dishonest_.

Several reasons for this would be 1) National Review magazine and William Buckley 2) Talk radio e.g. Limbaugh and Hannity 3) false belief that the Republican Party is conservative.

If you listen carefully to the comments made by people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter you'll notice that they're living in a completely schizophrenic universe. On the one hand they'll cite Bush's victory and Republican electoral success as proof "conservatism is sweeping the country," and then they'll say things like the "Republican Party can no longer claim to be the party of less government." Limbaugh will quote Ed Gillespie who said we had a battle to reduce the size of government and we (conservatives) lost.

So how can "conservatism" be sweeping the country when "conservatives" keep losing political battles?

Also, I found it odd that Mr Bramwell looks to the marginalized fringe to resurrect the conservative movement when National Review magazine under the tutelage of Willliam Buckley spent its early years excommunicating anyone they didn't find respectable -- Randroids, Birchers, Isolationists etc. "Ex-communists" always were welcomed though.

About a year ago I heard Sean Hannity ask William Buckley who the new intellectual voices for conservatives were and Mr Buckley stumbled a moment and then said, "All the writes for National Review." Ha! Jonah Goldberg is the next James Burnham or Erik Leddihn?

Thomas Fleming should be widely appreciated as a great conservative thinker but since his foundation doesn't receive large financial backing and he's anathema to the Neocons he's ignored.

Litchman,

Russell Kirk voted for Norman Thomas in 1944 because he appreciated his strongly worded anti-imperial speeches made before Pearl Harbor. Kirk was also terrified by the direction FDR was taking the country, opposed conscription (slavery), and the internment of innocent Japanese Americans.

Shame on Kirk! He doesn't applaud dictatorships.

I wrote my honors thesis on this exact issue that Mr. Wilds does, and I would say before I embarked upon my research I would have agreed with him 100%, however now I need to respectfully disagree about the role played by early national review.

I would seriously question that Randians, isolationists, or libertarians were "purged" from national review. I don't know if it's an official policy, but I'd assume that Paul Gottfried, Lew Rockwell, Tom Fleming, Peter Brimelow etc. are all Persona non grata at National Review, even if they wrote on conventional issue like say opposing affirmative action or lowering taxes. Yes there are a few mildly paleo people who are still welcome (e.g. Tim Carney and Doug Bandow at least appear on the online version), but it seems to me that no paleos of any eminence are even welcome to write there at all. In contrast John T. Flynn, for example, was commissioned to review a book for NR that had little to do with foreign policy, and Flynn turned the review into a semi-antiwar piece. Buckley rejected the piece, but still wanted Flynn to write more for the magazine, which he chose not to. Similarly, NR wanted Murray Rothbard to write on economics, but he wanted to change their foreign policy which they did not let him do b/c their views were diametrically opposed. NR had no problem printing Frank Chodorov or Felix Morley when their views happened to coincide, just not on foreign policy. Now, I happen to think that on balance, Flynn and Rothbard were Right and Buckley and Burnham were wrong about the Cold War. However, I don't see how not publishing things that completely contradict ones editorial page constitutes a "purge." I'm sure the American Conservative wouldn't print a pro-open borders article nor would antiwar.com publish a pro-war piece. Why should they? This is not to say that I agree with their early editorial policy, but rather

As for Ayn Rand, I don't see how Whittaker Chambers' negative review of Atlas Shrugged (which I pretty much agree with) represents purging her. They were simply critical of her book. After that Rand wrote her "conservatism an obituary" piece and desired no relaitonship with the movement.

As for the JBS, I think a lot of what Robert Welch says was completely crazy and I can now see why NR wanted to separate themselves from that view. The fact that they chose the Birchers semi-opposition to the Vietnam war as the official reason speaks volumes about NR, but not much about the JBS. NR could have simply said, we don't agree with Robert Welch, so don't try to conflate our groups as the same, and left it at that. What the purge of the JBS really represented was the first time they did something to prove to liberals "hey, we're really not that bad guys" and that led to their decline. But I don't see anything wrong with them not wanting to associatie with the society.

I also don't really think Bramwell described any of the potential intellectual movements he discussed as "fringe." Rather he saw them as people with interesting ideas who most conservatives do not really think about.

Now what I do find odd, at least in his discussion of evolutionary conservatives, is that he forgets that in the pages and website of his own magazine, its biggest proponents are dismissed as racists and nazis by John Podhoretz, Jonah Goldberg, and David Frum.

What really made the piece stand out to me is that Bramwell actually tried to be thoughtful an discuss people who may have disagreed with him by actually looking at their views rather than calling them "unpatriotic conservatives" or practicing "identity politics for white people" as have become standard fare at National Review.

Hopefully his type of thinking will begin to have a more positive impact on the magazine itself.

>Elitism is a character trait of leftists.

Oh really?
Webster defines elitism as : the attitude that society should be governed by an elite group of individuals.

That's my point, New Brian. Leftists believe an elite group of individuals, whether they're economic planners or judicial activists, ought to govern the society.

As far as the elitism issue goes, I take Bramwell's point, and yours, to be in line with Nock's and not Litchman's (above) understanding of the term. (...) Basically I am claiming that elitism in Nock's sense does not necessarily involve a lack of humility.

Old Brian, the idea that the masses in a free society are wrong about most of their views betrays a complete dearth of humility. It's inherent.

Whether or not you'd like to accept it, paleoconservatives are not humble people. They are, in large part, a very nasty group. And I am saying this in a serious way; I'm not attempting to be polemical and hyperbolic. For proof, I can simply quote you, Brian, from an old post:

D'Souza just sounds like a neocon doesn't he? The high-pitched voice, the overwraught teary rhetoric, the false patriotism. Neocons are sissies. D'Souza employs standard sophistical debate techniques for demagoguing the ignorant but the manly and sonorous Sobran wins the argument hands down.

This is not an aberration; I could provide dozens of similar quotes from both well-known paleocons and ones who post on this site.

On to Eric,

Shame on Kirk! He doesn't applaud dictatorships.

Let's get this straight. You call conscription (which I also strongly oppose) "slavery" and refer to FDR as a dictator. Out of curiosity, have you ever used comparable language to describe people like Jefferson Davis, who fought for actual slavery?

What really made the piece stand out to me is that Bramwell actually tried to be thoughtful an discuss people who may have disagreed with him by actually looking at their views rather than calling them "unpatriotic conservatives" or practicing "identity politics for white people" as have become standard fare at National Review.

Did you read the David Frum article to which you're referring? Did he misquote any of the paleocons like Fleming and Francis, who made explicitly anti-American and white supremacist statements, respectively?

Eric,

You need to wake up to real politics. If you vote for the best conservative and he never wins (indeed, never has the possibility of winning), what benefit is it? As you congratulate yourself for high principles, the liberal who did win is making policy.

Marcus,

I think one of National Review's purposes was to drive isolationist tendencies out of the conservative movement. While there may have been no official purge it seems their editorial line was to make sure there was no one calling into question the moral necessity of fighting the Cold War. Since NR became the premiere journal on the Right -- thanks partially to CIA money -- they were able to wield tremendous influence.

I would say in the 1990's there was a "purge" against immigration restrictionists. Peter Brimelow used to write for the magazine and Buckley featured him in a lengthy debate panel on Firing Line. NR also used to publish some writings by Steven Sailer, used to advertise J.P Rushton's Race, Evolution, and Behavior, and published feature stories by the "patriarchal" Steven Goldberg. So there was an openness or at least a willingness to tolerate some of the ideas of evolutionary biology.

Likewise there was the recent Frum purge against anyone who dare question the wisdom of going to Iraq. So it seems through various incarnations NR has played a devious role in driving out conservatism so that now all that's left is a dried up fossil.

I think it's telling that NR wrote a sympathetic obit to radical leftist feminist Andrea Dworkin, but nothing for longtime conservative Sam Francis. At least we know what side they're really on.

Ralph, explain what is so great about getting a "conservative" elected so that he can make liberal policy? I'd rather conservatives lose consistently but with each loss grow a bit more than win all the time but never do anything conservative.

Ralph,

As I've stated before, conservatives will not find salvation through the voting booth. If a Christian lives in a town without a church this doesn't mean he should go to local pub and get drunk because it's better than snorting crack on the street corner.

Ben,

I oppose slavery in all forms, Southern and Yankee. FDR did appear to have clear dictatorial aspirations -- trying to muzzle his critics, HR 1776, internment of Japanese, terror bombing, conscription, ignoring Washinton's precedent of only serving two terms. Why should a conservative be gaga about FDR?

Likewise there was the recent Frum purge against anyone who dare question the wisdom of going to Iraq.

What are you talking about? William F. Buckley, Jr. himself has questioned the wisdom of going to Iraq.

I think it's telling that NR wrote a sympathetic obit to radical leftist feminist Andrea Dworkin, but nothing for longtime conservative Sam Francis.

Sam Francis was a racist. There's no way around that fact. That disgusts the majority of decent people.

I haven't seen the official NR obituary to Dworkin, but I found this with a quick Google search. Seems very reasonable.

As to Flynn's original post, I disagree that "we know neither [the] names nor [the] writings" of brilliant modern-day conservatives. Have you read "What It Means to Be a Libertarian" by Charles Murray? "The Quest for Cosmic Justice" by Thomas Sowell? D'Souza also comes to mind. Just because these men don't whistle dixie doesn't mean they aren't conservative, weirdos.

Obi,

If the elected 'conservative' truly does not do "anything conservative," he is then no better than a liberal; in fact, he is a liberal. I submit to you that this is not the case with Bush. On the broad spectrum of political possibilities, he is certainly to the right of Gore or Kerry on most, and far to the right on some, e.g., tax cuts and judicial appointments. It is better to gain something than nothing.

Eric,

What do you propose? Secession? Absurd. I here there is a movement afoot to create a "Christian state" somewhere in the South. Can I expect your name to appear on the citizens' list?

Your @nalogy is poorly chosen. The simple truth is that a partial conservative is better than a liberal. If the practical effect of your ideals is their opposite, then what good are they?

I oppose slavery in all forms, Southern and Yankee.

Firstly, Eric, this is intellectual dishonesty. "Slavery" is a word thrown around too frequently. Some people might speak of the "slavery" of the consumer culture. My point is that there is a huge difference between literal enslavement and figurative enslavement, and confusing the two minimizes the horror of the literal form.

FDR did appear to have clear dictatorial aspirations -- trying to muzzle his critics, HR 1776, internment of Japanese, terror bombing, conscription, ignoring Washinton's precedent of only serving two terms. Why should a conservative be gaga about FDR?

No rational person ought to "be gaga" over FDR. He did some terrible things. But he also did an immensely important thing by helping us win World War II. This is yet another example of the paleoconservative inability to see the forest for the trees.

"Sam Francis was a racist. There's no way around that FACT." For a second there I thought you were going to go through the thousands of articles he wrote and find something not PC that he had writen. And back up your fact. I am sure some of the readers could find dozens of your contradictions on these posts and in your term papers. Lightweight!

This has nothing to do with political correctness. I am not suggested men like Francis should have their right to spew nonsense taken away. I am simply acknowledging the fact that he was a racist. Here are some choice quotes collected from a few places around the Internet.

"The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people."

"If the sin is hatred or exploitation, they [Southern Baptists repenting their support of slavery in the mid-1800s] may be on solid grounds, but neither "slavery" nor "racism" as an institution is a sin. Indeed, there are at least five clear passages in the letters of Paul that explicitly enjoin "servants" to obey their masters, and the Greek words for "servants" in the original text are identical to those for "slaves." Neither Jesus nor the apostles nor the early church condemned slavery, despite countless opportunities to do so, and there is no indication that slavery is contrary to Christian ethics or that any serious theologian before modern times ever thought it was.

Not until the Enlightenment of the 18th century did a bastardized version of Christian ethics condemn slavery. Today we know that version under the label of "liberalism," or its more extreme cousin, communism."

Francis' view of equality: "pseudo-Christian poison".

Francis on some stupid TV ad: "But the ad's message also was that interracial sex is normal and legitimate, a fairly radical concept for both the dominant media as well as its audience. (...) Breaking down the sexual barriers between the races is a major weapon of cultural destruction because it means the dissolution of the cultural boundaries that define breeding and the family and, ultimately, the transmission and survival of the culture itself."

This is more than sufficient evidence.

OG Brian here, I suppose I may need to take on a new name? Maybe I will let the Ben's come up with one for me.

Ben L.,

I could reasonably point out in my defense that the quote from me, which you apparently filed away for just such a future ad hominem use, in its original context and in the tenor of that thread was intentionally hyperbolic and over-the top. But to be totally honest, I am not above thoughtlessly letting out a rant online (the anonymity makes it oh so easy) and posting embarrassing comments. Assuredly I should self-censor more and more often apply self-criticism pro- rather then retro-actively.

But if you want to appear to be above the likes of "nasty" me, as you see it, then you should probably avoid attempting to shame me by reposting my hot-headed comment. Your tactics are really getting too personal and your posts above clearly remind me of how short in years you and Ben-T are. A fact that when overlooked, allows me to overreact to your juvenile harangues and constant name-calling.

O.k., look, I am respectfully asking that you restrain yourself from addressing my comments in the future unless you can do so without calling me names. I don't know you and you don't know me. This is after all, just a blog. And it isn't even yours or mine, but Dan's, and we're just guests here.

That said . . .

Ben. L,
In the hope of renewing a more cordial debate I will respond to your comment above on the topic of elitism.

You quote only the intro and conclusion of my comment, leaving the argument I made as an ellipsis. Then you respond that: “the idea that the masses in a free society are wrong about most of their views betrays a complete dearth of humility. It's inherent.” But this isn’t the claim I made. I was developing the understanding of the term “elitism” as found in Bramwell’s, Nock’s, and Flynn’s pieces as being in contrast to your conceptualization. It is not clear to me yet whether you have read the Bramwell piece or the Nock piece that Dan linked to. You may just be speaking more off-the-cuff in reaction to just Dan’s post. If you have read them then I was not clear in my exposition above, or something, since your statement does not reflect what I (or Bramwell and Nock if I understand them right, Dan can speak for himself here) think or meant. Your rendering does remind me of P.T. Barnum’s contrasting folk wisdom, however, that "you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time."

Anyway, I think there is some really interesting territory to cover here and would welcome feedback (Ali G, Ralph, Short?) on the philosophical-anthropological point I was trying to make above.

That point is, on the one hand, truth---as Aristotle indicates---is like that proverbial barn door which one cannot fail to hit. Meaning that as rational creatures we are ordered to truth, to the real, and it is difficult for us to completely miss out on “truth.” So Aristotle makes a point of starting his philosophical explorations with the common opinions of men, what we would call “mass” or “public” opinion. But then on the other hand I am suggesting that given our fallen nature and discursive rationality, truth in a capital T sense---meaning specifically first principles of faith and morals---is quite an intellectual achievement (and in the case of faith to a fairly large extent a matter of revelation). The true and the good (virtue) is honored more in the breach than in the practice of most or, taken at different times, all people. Therefore, recognition of the intellectual or moral failure of the “masses” in one or another instant or on an issue does not necessarily entail a lack of humility on the part of those who are NOT failing in that instant or issue, namely the elite, or “remnant” as Nock and St. Paul used the term. The issue of humility comes up after recognition of a fissure between the views or actions of the minority (the possible “remnant”) and the majority (the possible “masses”). Humility as a personal character trait becomes indispensable to the individual’s attempt to evaluate the competing claims as regards the “true” or the “good” in order to achieve both. Some people are “elitists” in Ben’s sense of the term who fail in humility. Then there is what Nock calls the “remnant,” the elites who don’t fail, the wise and the righteous whom we should all want to strive to become I think.

Am I making any sense here?

Ralph,

Here is an argument for you about voting for the lesser of two evils. The prudential question is how can conservatives best effect changes in public policy that would conform with their understandings of the common good? The standard response is to not vote third party or abstain from voting if it could allow the worse candidate to gain office. I will leave aside the fact that I personally have not voted for Bush twice now and yet he got elected, therefore my non-vote carried no impact as regards getting Gore or Kerry, the worst options in your view, elected.

Rather, conservatives tell themselves to support conservative candidates in the primaries or in congressional races. That is exactly where your interesting point about the way the GOP's primaries are scheduled comes in. The deck is stacked in the GOP against conservatives, at least those whom I am in agreement with.

So my suggestion is whether or not in order to affect a shift in the establishment "moderate" (that is liberal) agenda of both parties it would be more effective in the long run to stop supporting the GOP monetarily and with votes and instead work to promote a large populist 3rd party alternative. There are multiple examples of such political parties and movements throught our history, with Perot's Reform Party being the most recent model. All such parties are at bottom understood by the participants to be ephemeral, the point is to gain enough momentum and significance as a protest alternative vote that the 2 major parties have to change their stances in order to quiet down the revolt and regain a broad coalition as a party.

you apparently filed away for just such a future ad hominem use

Brian, I may seem crazy on occasion, but I'm not that crazy. I just happened to have read that post and listened to that debate fairly recently, and your quote stuck out in my mind for some reason. A quick Google search allowed me to cut and paste the quote.

My point was not to shame you. It was honestly an attempt to provide an example of what I believe to be a character trait of many who share your political persuasion. Next time you read articles on Lew Rockwell, VDare, TAC, and the like, see if you notice the really vicious animosity paleoconservatives have towards those with differing views, and towards their carousel of enemies such as Lincoln, MLK, and the rest. We all mock each other from time to time (myself obviously included) -- I think it makes debates more human and enjoyable. But I truly believe paleocons take their criticism of those with whom they have honest disagreements far beyond anything reasonable.

I am respectfully asking that you restrain yourself from addressing my comments in the future unless you can do so without calling me names.

You have said on numerous occasions that my posts are "dumb" and ought to be ignored. Just a reminder.

In the hope of renewing a more cordial debate I will respond to your comment above on the topic of elitism.

Cool.

you respond that: “the idea that the masses in a free society are wrong about most of their views betrays a complete dearth of humility. It's inherent.” But this isn’t the claim I made.

I was referring to your phrase "mass ignorance of truth."

It is not clear to me yet whether you have read the Bramwell piece or the Nock piece that Dan linked to.

I don't intend on giving TAC any money, so I haven't read the main article, but after your comment I read the Nock piece to put further posts in context.

To answer your last question, I understand your view and to a large extent I agree with it. That said, there are some important differences which I hope to address below.

recognition of the intellectual or moral failure of the “masses” in one or another instant or on an issue does not necessarily entail a lack of humility on the part of those who are NOT failing in that instant or issue, namely the elite, or “remnant” as Nock and St. Paul used the term.

Absolutely. An example would be someone who believes, as many of us do, that abortion is an extremely immoral practice and will chastise the majority in particular groups for supporting it. I don't regard something like this to be elitism at all. It's when we believe that people have it all wrong (as many Paleocons do with regards to American history, for a quick example) that we become elitists. I'll bring up some examples in response to a few Nock excerpts.

The mass-man is one who has neither the force of intellect to apprehend the principles issuing in what we know as the humane life, nor the force of character to adhere to those principles steadily and strictly as laws of conduct; and because such people make up the great and overwhelming majority of mankind, they are called collectively the masses. (...) This view of the masses is the one that we find prevailing at large among the ancient authorities whose writings have come down to us. In the eighteenth century, however, certain European philosophers spread the notion that the mass-man, in his natural state, is not at all the kind of person that earlier authorities made him out to be, but on the contrary, that he is a worthy object of interest. His untowardness is the effect of environment, an effect for which "society" is somehow responsible.

I reject both of these notions. The latter is obviously false because man in his natural state is evil and animalistic (see: cannibals). But the former is also wrong because we have religion. Because the majority of people believe in God and attempt to live up to basic moral principles (at the very least), the majority of people are good.

Everyone with a message nowadays is, like my venerable European friend, eager to take it to the masses. His first, last and only thought is of mass-acceptance and mass-approval. His great care is to put his doctrine in such shape as will capture the masses' attention and interest.

Nock is right that people ought not arrange their lives in such a way as to receive "mass-acceptance and mass-approval." However, there is the potential for confusion in this statement, because one might be led to believe that those who have mass acceptance owe it to their compromising significantly on what they truly believe.

Two examples from different areas in life...

I'm a musician. When I began studying music and my instrument, I (like many elitists) had much disdain for popular music and was extremely critical of most people's tastes in said artform. I was frustrated that most people didn't care to listen to 20-minute progressive rock epics -- shame on those heathens for loving radio-friendly garbage. (I wonder why I wasn't such a hit with the gals throughout high school).

Fairly recently, though, I began to approach popular music with a more open mind. I started appreciating many artists for whom I would've previously expressed an ignorant loathing. For about a year, I have been worshipping at the altar of Stevie Wonder, for example. Here is a man who's reached unimaginable heights of popularity, but whose music is often very complex and intricate, with a style all his own.

Similarly, Milton Friedman expounded on economic ideas that were rejected by many in the early 20th century, to see them grow to become what socialists now disparagingly refer to as free-market "orthodoxy".

Both of these men have found a way to honestly express themselves and get their work out to a mass audience which has been very receptive. They have not perceived themselves to be above everyone else (and lest we forget that too often those who do have little reason to), instead opting to make their work in some way more understandable for the masses. (Though he was definitely an elitist, Frank Zappa did this as well, merging ridiculously complex and esoteric modern classical music with R&B and rock).

In fact, such intellectual or artistic "bridges" are vital to any little-known idea winning support. Perhaps after listening to Zappa, you check out Varese. Hey -- maybe you like that more. But perhaps not; neither preference is necessarily superior.

Back to Nock...

Even admitting that in the t33th of history that hope of the human race may not be quite exclusively centred in the Remnant, one must perceive that they have social value enough to entitle them to some measure of prophetic encouragement and consolation, and that our civilization allows them none whatever.

No, they are not entitled to anything more than those rights everyone receives from God. Instead of believing that they are and placing themselves up on a pedestal, would-be elitists ought to drop the pretenses and do the work of convincing others that their views, however unpopular they may currently be, are the right ones.

OG Brian,

I have entertained the possibility you suggest, but here is the simple problem I have with it: once law's are made, they're really hard to unmake.

In the short term, all Perot did was allow Clinton to win a plurality and become President. And that, it seems to me, must be the short-term outcome of any third-party movement - to elect the candidate most unlike the aims of the movement. As a result, many laws and appointments will be made that are far worse than they would have been under the moderate. And once made, they're intractable.

Eric: I'm not denying that there has been a purge recently, I'm just saying there wasn't one in the 1950s except against the American Mercury and the John Birch Society. I really don't think etiher was about isolationism, and it takes a bit to explain with the JBS. e-mail me and I'll give you a draft of my paper that explains my position on that.

I agree that national review turned the conservative movement into a much more warlike direction, but I think that a) it was going there anyway , and b) they did not use the types of dirty tricks and slander that they use against anyone who had view similar to National Review pre 1970, hell even pre 1995, today

I'd also say that now NR does not have the power it did back then. When it ran Sobran out, that was more a matter of the power of the Podhoretz and the neocons telling their lapdogs what to do. Similarly, I don't think unpatriotic conservatives had any real effect. Most of the movement already felt like marginalizing anyone who is insufficiently pro-war, and all that did is embolden a few mainstream conservatives to speak out.

As for their early reviews of Rushton and the like, I was only 11 at the time, but it seems to me that around 1994-1995, there was a brief time when people could openly discuss such issues. The Bell Curve and REB were both positively reviewed by the NY Times, and had some friendly reviews in the The New Republic, Commentary, and virtually ever single neconservative. Actually NR recently did have a very positive review of Sandra Sarich and Frank Miele's Race: the Reality of Human Differences. But anyway, whatever purge of discussion of the national question that has occurred seems to be on a concerted effort from what's left of the conservative movement, not just from NR.

Ben: A mere ten years ago, Sam Francis, Peter Brimelow, and all the other racists you hate were all welcome at National Review. In fact when Francis' got fired from the Washington Times b/c John J. Miller, Linda Chavez, and Dinesh D'Souza made it their mission to "drive him out of politie society," National Review editorialized in defense of him.

As for buckley being antiwar, he says that IN RETROSPECT he thinks the war was a bad idea, but he fully signed on to the Unpatriotic conservatives piece. Now that the war has gone to hell, a lot of the pro war people try to get around their unqualified support for it earlier. I documented this last year http://acuf.org/issues/issue12/040517med.asp

There is no getting around the fact that Unpatriotic Conservatives was designed to get rid of all antiwar people, not just us evil paleos, or else they wouldn't have included Robert Novak, who is about as standard an establishment mainstream conservative you can get EXCEPT that he opposed the war. About two months after the piece, they claimed that they weren't really going after Novak, even though he was probably the person who Frum mentioned most often. Now Rich Lowry claims they were just going after the evil neoconfederates and racists, but of course all six reasons they went after the paleos related to the war.

"But if you want to appear to be above the likes of "nasty" me, as you see it, then you should probably avoid attempting to shame me by reposting my hot-headed comment. Your tactics are really getting too personal and your posts above clearly remind me of how short in years you and Ben-T are. A fact that when overlooked, allows me to overreact to your juvenile harangues and constant name-calling." -The Real Brian

The irony is just so unbelievably rich in that statement.

The point is simply that Frum is perfectly happy to say wonderful things about Dworkin, a radical feminist, but no one mentioned Francis who was a real conservative who wrote frequently for National Review. One NR editor told me he wanted to write something on Francis but he knew that they wouldn't publish it.

No rational person ought to "be gaga" over FDR. He did some terrible things. But he also did an immensely important thing by helping us win World War II. This is yet another example of the paleoconservative inability to see the forest for the trees.

1) many "conservatives" conrad black comes to mind are "gaga" about FDR. Michelle Malkin even seems to love his worst qualities such as rounding up the Japanese and having Hollywood in bed with the government making propaganda movies (I wonder if she also liked Song of Russia and Mission ot Moscow.)

What you fail to understand is that us paleos aren't purists who fail to recognize that the good is better than perfect. Rather that we don't think FDR Should be praised for "helping us win World War II." I am assuming by "us" you mean the US rather than Britain or the Soviet Union because he didn't "help us win WWII" he got us into the war in the first place. Him getting us into a war that helped the USSR make huge gains, had us abandon all sense of morality and kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent civillians, and soldified all the "advances" of domestic statism made by the New Deal doesn't make us forget all the other bad stuff FDR did.

I'd also think it's worth discussing the Forest f

Ben: A mere ten years ago, Sam Francis, Peter Brimelow, and all the other racists you hate were all welcome at National Review.

Marcus, I don't care. I've read maybe a single issue of National Review. My point was simply about acknowledging Francis' obvious racism. To you and others like you, that's no big deal, but most people find it repulsive. This is an unavoidable fact.

As for buckley being antiwar, he says that IN RETROSPECT he thinks the war was a bad idea, but he fully signed on to the Unpatriotic conservatives piece.

Of course he signed on to it -- it's an honest piece describing a slice of conservatism that can be anti-American and racist in nature. Your attributing to Frum nefarious motives does not change the facts contained in the piece.

About those who are against the war: I listen to Jay Severin often, and though he is extremely anti-war (and often very anti-Bush), I have never had reason to question his patriotism. In other words, the isolated fact that someone is against the Iraq war means very little to me; unlike paleoconservatives, I recognize that honest people can disagree on the matter.

What you fail to understand is that us paleos aren't purists who fail to recognize that the good is better than perfect. Rather that we don't think FDR Should be praised for "helping us win World War II."

You guys really are a strange bunch. I don't really feel any desire to argue why we had to fight World War II now (one would hope it'd be common knowledge at this point), so I'll leave it at that.

Ben L: As far as I can tell, Flynn's peice was on the claim, by a mainstream conservative, that conservatism has become less intellectually serious and interesting in proportion to its becoming a more popular label. Also raised was the question of elitism-- in what ways are conservatism and leftist elitist or populist? I find these topics interesting.

Now, how did YOU manage to divert the discussion so that everyone *once again* has to talk about Sam Francis, "neocons vs. paleos", about slavery, the CSA, WWII and FDR, etc etc?

Do you just come by this site to do some daily antipaleo bashing or something? Wouldn't you rather talk about these interesting and important issues with the other serious intellectual conservatives found here?

Why can't we ever talk about anything else?

Also raised was the question of elitism-- in what ways are conservatism and leftist elitist or populist? I find these topics interesting.

As do I, which is why I addressed them in great depth above.

Now, how did YOU manage to divert the discussion so that everyone *once again* has to talk about Sam Francis, "neocons vs. paleos", about slavery, the CSA, WWII and FDR, etc etc?

Hey, short -- go check again. Hit Ctrl+F, type "Sam Francis" and see who initially mentioned that delightful fellow.

Ben L.,

I could tell your initial reaction to my take on elitism that it was in response to the phrase "mass ignorance of truth" but "mass" isn't the same as "masses" I was making the same point in both posts so the second one seemed to be a clearer explanation for you.

Short,
I think it has traditionally been the case that the American right has strongly advocated local rights, community rights, state's rights, federated (divided) government, etc. This puts into place the principle of "subsidiarity" that Catholics speak of, which basically suggests that people closest to a situation are better able to make the prudential judgments necessary to take care of the situation. So this seems to make the right significantly populist I think.

But Nock's piece is great for expressing how first principles will to a large extent be unknown or ill-formed to most people. This is w=here culture or religion would come in I guess. Nock is largely trying to take aim at self-styled Zarathustra's as they pose a great danger in political modernity. He is therefore attacking the Bolshevik-style "elites" the "vanguards of the masses." His reasons for doing so are elitist in Ben's sense to some extent, in that they aren't populist arguments but are based on the fact of humanity's fallen nature as experienced even in all of our own cases, which makes righteousness or saintliness a rare achievement and thus makes the masses worth less in a sense.

So what of this? Dan's post quotes Bramwell's praise of "elitism" as related specifically to intellectual achievement. This goes along with what Nock says and what I have said. Does this cause contradictions, or make the right wing simply the opposite elite to the left wing, both populist as well in their own ways?

Yes, Ben L, someone mentioned Sam Francis, in passing, to point out how screwy it is that an incredibly insane LEFTIST got a relatively nice obit in NR, while a controversial but conservative mainstay, who had regularly published in mainstream conservative places, didn't. So, who turned it into another fight about paleos, and FDR, and WWII, and the CSA, and racism...? You did.

You didn't sincerely, seriously discuss any of the topics raised in Flynn's post. You did so polemically to start a fight. You and Ben T immediately started in with "neo and paleo" chest-pounding, making fun of TAC and Bramwell--a National Review board member, if you didn't know--and then you had a mindless comment about Kirk's antiFDR/WWII stance. That's how this started.

I really do think you're rather smart. When you stay on topic and resist your fetish for conservative feuding and purging, you say really smart things and add to the diversity of perspectives at FFs. I also suspect you're a nice guy. But why don't you stop the hijacking?

In Ben's defense, I think Bramwell's article implicitly brings up the neo and paleo feud in a number of different ways.

I disagree with Sam Francis when he said your average neocon has an IQ of sea scallop, but I think because neoconservatism has become so successful you do have a number of intellectuals at the top, and a lot of dumbed down versions (e.g. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh etc.) that appeal to the masses.

I can't think of any real dumbed down version of paleoconservatism, perhaps Middle American News, but I wouldn't necessarily call it dumbed down or paleo. Bringing this to the populist vs. elitist point- any successful political movement will have its high intellectuals, it's popularizers of ideas who can appeal to the intelligent layman, and the people who can rile up the masses, with each building off of the former. With the neocons you have people like Strauss and Jaffa as the first, Frum and Brooks as the second, and Hannity and Limbaugh as the Third.

Also, I think the fact that Bramwell describes conservatism as a success, as this is a key thing that differentiates paleos from neoconservatives. I think if there is one thing that all paleoconservatives agree with its conservatism, as a movement, has been a massive failure, while neoconservatives usually see themselves as saving the movement or at least giving it vibrancy.

So what of this? Dan's post quotes Bramwell's praise of "elitism" as related specifically to intellectual achievement. This goes along with what Nock says and what I have said. Does this cause contradictions, or make the right wing simply the opposite elite to the left wing, both populist as well in their own ways?

The left also elevates those with brilliant minds (in specific fields) to the elite, or the "anointed" as Sowell has dubbed them. You mentioned the "principle of subsidiarity." I think the fact that this is reviled by the left, along with many other aspects of liberal democracy, is proof that they are far more elitist and not at all populist. I'm not denying that there are elements of elitism on the right, particularly among opponents of democracy, but instead stating that I don't find the "opposite elites" argument compelling.

Yes, Ben L, someone mentioned Sam Francis, in passing, to point out how screwy it is that an incredibly insane LEFTIST got a relatively nice obit in NR, while a controversial but conservative mainstay, who had regularly published in mainstream conservative places, didn't. So, who turned it into another fight about paleos, and FDR, and WWII, and the CSA, and racism...? You did.

Short, I responded to the comment about Francis with two tiny, factual statements regarding why it was understandable that he was not given a loving obituary in a mainstream magazine. Lex asked me to "back up [my] fact," and I complied. Additionally, I stated that I have no desire to argue about WWII here, recognizing that this isn't the time/place for such a tired debate. (The initial passing mention was only in response to Flynn's call for a modern-day Kirk, offering an opposing view.) As far as the CSA -- I guess I used the word "Lincoln" and "dixie", but there was no attempt made to re-debate the Civil War.

You didn't sincerely, seriously discuss any of the topics raised in Flynn's post.

There is a lengthy post above in which I discuss why I am so opposed to elitism, bringing in examples from music and economics while addressing specific quotes from the Nock piece Flynn linked.

Forgot to add that I appreciate your compliments.

I can't think of any real dumbed down version of paleoconservatism

Disclaimer: I mean the following comment very honestly and not as a way to impugn the character of everyone who happens to share paleoconservative views.

I believe it is fair to suggest that a "dumbed down version of paleoconservatism" comes in the form of David Duke and his contemporaries and followers.

surprisingly, I don't entirely object to that characterization. During the early 1990s when David Duke ran for governor and senator, he renounced his earlier extremism and had a populist more/less paleoconservative agenda that was designed to appeal to the masses and was rather successful.

The strategy was praised by both Sam Francis and Murray Rothbard, but they both noted that it should have been done by someone who did not have the KKK and other extremist baggage that Duke had.

Duke has made it clear that he still believes (and probably always believed) the same things he did when he was in the Klan, and you could say he is just an extreme paleo (or if you want to be even less gracious, a more honest paleo), but it's not that he's less intellectual, but that he takes more extreme positions. I'm more than happy to concede that the paleo position can be taken to an extreme, but I don't see how it discredits it. The relationship b/w Pat Buchanan and David Duke is no different than that between Ariel Sharon and Rabbi Kahane or Martin Luther King and Huey P. Newton.

B Litchman,

You don't think it's odd to disparage Sam Francis as a "racist" and then cite Charles Murray, author of the infamous Bell Curve, approvingly? The white nationalist organization American Renaissance hailed the Bell Curve as a "return to national sanity." Besides "What it Means to be A Libertarian" hardly compares to other canonical works like "Road to Serfdom" or Mises "Human Action." "What it means..." is basically a very simple introduction to libertarianism, hardly a work that will stand the test of time.

More importantly, libertarians are not conservatives, although this often gets overlooked by both sides. Libertarians defend liberty; conservatives defend civilization. While there is naturally a strong concurrence between the two, libertarians and conservatives still sit on very different territory.

Also, conscription is not a figurative form of slavery -- it's slavery pure and simple. WWII did not result in a freer America or a freer world. However, it was successful in evolving into the worst mass slaughter in human history.

Marcus,

I am interested in reading your honors thesis on it.

I thought Sam Francis was dismissed from the Washington Times after it was uncovered that he formed a covert organization with Buchanan, Sobran and a few others to try and stop the U.S. entrance into the first Gulf War. His presentation before American Renaissance was just a smoke screen. At least that's how I understood it.

Marcus,

"In Ben's defense, I think Bramwell's article implicitly brings up the neo and paleo feud in a number of different ways"

But Ben made it completely clear that he has not read the Bramwell piece, has no intention of reading the article and gladly shared his prejudices with us (which involved insulting many of us as well) about why he won't read that piece.

But enough of turning this site into the "Ben Files" I am still interested in thinking about the subject of the post.

How about the plausibility that all societies are ruled by elites? The "political class" for example is in all times and places identifiable as an elite, maybe formed in various ways, but an elite nonetheless. If this is the case then the question is what sort of elites does a country have and how can they be influenced or developed in conformity with the common good?

"You didn't sincerely, seriously discuss any of the topics raised in Flynn's post. You did so polemically to start a fight. You and Ben T immediately started in with "neo and paleo" chest-pounding, making fun of TAC and Bramwell--a National Review board member, if you didn't know--and then you had a mindless comment about Kirk's antiFDR/WWII stance. That's how this started.

I really do think you're rather smart. When you stay on topic and resist your fetish for conservative feuding and purging, you say really smart things and add to the diversity of perspectives at FFs. I also suspect you're a nice guy. But why don't you stop the hijacking?
Posted by short at August 4, 2005 07:11 PM" -Short

Okay, Short I'm game.

How do you expect to have a serious disucssion about the state of modern Conservatism without, being central to that discussion, the obvious civil war that has raged within Conservatism between the Neos and the Paleos for decades?

PS: As for our point, it was quite valid. Dan said that the intellectual basis of Conservatism had disappeared. The statement isn't true. Paleoconservative intellectuals have dropped like flies, this is true, but the intellectual basis in the other conservative sects remains as strong or stronger than ever. Especially in Neoconservatism.

But Ben made it completely clear that he has not read the Bramwell piece, has no intention of reading the article and gladly shared his prejudices with us (which involved insulting many of us as well) about why he won't read that piece.

I don't understand your reaction. I'm not going to run to the store to buy TAC, but I would've read the article had it appeared on the Internet, just as I read and critiqued the old Nock piece (foolishly thinking that that would re-establish some civilized debate between us).

surprisingly, I don't entirely object to that characterization.

I'm glad you understood my comment to be an honest observation, Marcus.

[Duke's] strategy was praised by (...) Murray Rothbard

(Just as an aside, it saddens me to find yet another example of self-loathing among the Jews; how Rothbard could've supported Duke astonishes me.)

The relationship b/w Pat Buchanan and David Duke is no different than that between Ariel Sharon and Rabbi Kahane or Martin Luther King and Huey P. Newton.

I wouldn't say there's any substantial relationship between Buchanan and Duke, but between Francis and Duke. Buchanan ran with Ezola Foster, and I doubt that Francis would do the same in that position, noting his unbridled animosity towards non-whites and the mixing of the races. I also don't think there's any connection between the Kahane's and the people in Kach to Ariel Sharon, evidenced in the fact that the far right in Israel frequently labels Sharon a traitor. Finally, the Huey Newton - MLK, Jr. connection eludes me, too, as the former founded an explicitly violent group while the latter was dedicated to nonviolence. So I agree with the general thrust of your "connections" argument, but I guess I challenge parts of the premise.

it's not that he's less intellectual, but that he takes more extreme positions.

I mentioned not only Duke, himself, but also his contemporaries and followers. Do you recall D'Souza's discussion of the modern Klan and young racist movement in "The End of Racism"? For instance, he brings up the "Original Boyz in the Hood" shirt popular among such people.

Duke may be articulate, but his "intelligence" is like Chomsky's "intelligence" or Malcolm X's "intelligence." In other words, I'd rather hear a Rush Limbaugh ranting in a simple manner than put up with eloquent extremism. My view is akin to Dennis Prager's, that character and goodness is far more important than intelligence.

You don't think it's odd to disparage Sam Francis as a "racist" and then cite Charles Murray, author of the infamous Bell Curve, approvingly?

No, I don't, but I did anticipate that question. Charles Murray would not rail against miscegenation and provide a Biblical defense for slavery like the throwback to the 1800s that was Sam Francis. I haven't read the Bell Curve, but I've read much about it and watched a long interview on BookTV with Murray. After seeing that, Murray strikes me as a decent guy with whom I have a few disagreements. This is in stark contrast to Francis, who was very clearly a nasty and detestable character.

More importantly, libertarians are not conservatives, although this often gets overlooked by both sides.

Again, Eric, you have a very limited view of conservatism as it exists today. There are, without question, significant differences between libertarians and conservatives. But your viewpoint would be like my insisting that Joe Biden not be called a liberal. Hayek and Friedman lost that battle a while ago, and the reality is that (as Flynn wrote, back a month or so) a man like Hayek -- who renounced "conservatism" -- would be considered a conservative in 2005.

Can't we simply try to ignore the fact that BenX2 has once again turned an interesting topic into sh*t because it wants to destroy any vestige of pre-1995 conservatism? It always says the same things about the same people, then implies guilt by association to anyone who won't go along with the FoxNews agenda.

BenX2 just comes by this board between posting on its brainless boards, knowing that if it makes some tired statements about paleo hot-botton issues it can divert the discussion and have fun fighting. I have concluded, with Brian, that it is best to ignore BenX2 when it does this. Now, I would love to chat about the issues Flynn's post actually raised...

About elitism. Ben L says its leftist and he opposes it. Nock and Bramwell imply it's needed. Kirk lists it as a conservative axiom. Brian concurs, saying that a "political class" is inevitable. I've always been confused about eltism. I think I'm leaning this way. Let's divide it into two type pf elitism:

(1) Everyday Life: American conservatism is antielitist about everyday life-- people can run the details of their (and their local communities') lives better than gov't elites can. Leftists sometimes think that agencies should micromanage stuff: e.g., who can buy an SUV? What should the price of gasoline be? How many eskimoes need to be hired for equitable opportunity? (Let alone socialist health-care policies, etc!).

(2) Major Policy Power: Leftists are antielitist when it comes to mass democracy-- "the people" have some kind of supernatural intelligence and benevolence. FoxNews-cons have bought this mass populism. Traditional cons think this is naive because mass man and mobs are trendy, stupid, often surreptitiously led by an elite anyway, and usually want a free lunch.

What do you all think? Brian???

OK, well to bring up the evil Sam Francis, Francis argued that what conservatism, as a movement, defended was the values of the Ruling Class that emerged after the Civil War: this class from the Rockerfellers to the Coolidges to the Irving Babbits, all supported laissez faire (at least in principle), Victorian morality, and greatly opposed immigration, unions, and communism. This class was displaced during the New Deal by the managerial class described by James Burnham. However, those at the top- your Rockerfellers, Morgans etc. simply adjusted to the rapid changes.

So the people who started the conservative movement: Woods, Koch, Welch, Vicks etc. were really just the bottom rungs of that old ruling class; but they lacked any real base or even any powerful elites. Hence rather than embrace any real substantive people or place, they defended "libertarianism" and "traditonalism" in the abstract rather than actual ordered liberty or any meaningful tradition.

An interesting theory to say the least, I can't seem to find it online though, so I don't know if I did it justice.

Oh here it is, I think it's important enough to quote at length

http://www.samfrancis.net/pdf/all1998.pdf

Scan down to page 89

In the United States, prior to the 1930s, it was not so [history's losers]. The Right back then was the organized political expression of a dominant social and political class, a class that sported at its top families like the DuPonts and at its bottom such happy warriors as Sinclair Lewis' George Babbitt and his friends. It was a class that dictated the tastes and manners of the day, was determined to keep immigrants out of the country, maintain the Constitution and the Free Enterprise System, put America First, preserve the white, Christian, Republican character of the nation, and crush the Bolsheviks and labor agitators wherever you could find them. As a ruling class, it was an amalgam of the Old Stock Protestant Establishment and the plutocracy that rose to national power after the Civil War. However poorly defined its ideas and however vapidly expressed its ethic, it was nevertheless a real class that really had something to conserve, and it generally knew that it could not conserve it unless it also conserved the social and cultural fabric through which it exercised social power.
In the Great Depression and New Deal, this bourgeois ruling class was effectively dislodged from social and political power. Its top ranks, if they survived at all, soon allied with the emerging managerial elites in state and corporation, and its bottom ranks, stripped of any real prospect of preserving or restoring the social order in which they had played a significant part, simply drifted. It was mainly those middle and bottom ranks of the old Burgeois elite that for the next forty years would effectively define "conservatism" and the Right as they were known to the generation between Herbert Hoover and Barry Goldwater. Unable to articulate its own ideas and values very effectively, it welcomed ideological allies in journalism and the academy that could express them, but the journalists and the academics were not for the most part of the same class or culture. Hence, the "conservatism" they defined displayed all the symptoms of rootless intellectualism and attracted all the odd and awkward personality types that could not fit anywhere else and would not fit with each other. Once "conservatism" is decoupled from the social order and the social class that it naturally represents, it becomes simply one more ideological ghetto, angrily hunting down and kicking out those who deviate from its sectarian commandments and every now and then hurling a few mudballs at whoever passes by, and the kinds of personality it tends to attract are precisely those that are unable to work together for any serious purpose. It ceases tocannot be restored and, instead of presenting itself as the champion of lost causes, to align itself with new forces able to challenge the established order and to do so in terms that will neither be co-opted by the new regime nor deflected by the phantoms of the old. Once in a while such a movement appears, but invariably it only excites the wrath of the "Right." It is too "populist," it appeals to Mass Man, it is too "statist," it is too "radical," or it deviates from the ideological orthodoxy of the Right in some other arcane way. Sooner or later, such a movement is either captured by its allies on the Right and simply becomes one more phone booth into which all the malcontents and oddwads try to cram themselves, or else it ignores them, wishes them a good day, and proceeds to make a little history all by itself, on its own terms and for its own purposes. But, of course, when the movement does the latter, it ceases to belong to the "Right" at all and actually begins to evolve into one of history's winners.��

Nice Francis quote Marcus, he makes some interesting points.

I can follow the claim that the U.S. had a WASP established power elite which saw its demise in the early decades of the 20th century. (I think the reason for this was largely a matter of their self-imposed sterility). What came up in the wake was the modern nation-state ruled by a professionalized, bureaucratic elite. This form of governance was predicted and theorized in Hegel, then critiqued by Weber and recently by Gottfried.

I think Francis is partly claiming that conservatism is of necessity restorationist. I agree with this, conservatism in modernity has been fundamentally restorationist in aim; first the Jacobites, then the Bourbons, and seen in the contemporary conservative goal of reestablishing a constitutional republic.

So where does elitism come in? I suspect that the conservative vision of an elite is much like what Bramwell might be describing, an intellectual elite that can act as safeguards for culture. Maybe it is like the ages old battle between the sophists and demagogues and the philosophers attempting to conserve the true and good. The revolutionaries attempt to undermine culture, the principles and beliefs that the masses are taught by religion and the conservative elites are called to defend culture from its enemies. Could this get us anywhere?

I am getting myself pretty confused on the topic.

Regarding Francis's point about American history, I think he's right. But I think part of his point is that conservatism needs very concrete--material--conditions it is trying to conserve, or else it turns into a bunch of inefficacious scribbling intellectuals. Is that what you get there, Marcus and Brian? So conservatism was first a power/cultural elite replaced by a rootless intellectual elite midcentury? If so, I think Francis over emphasizes the particular and the material (as usual BTW). I think that the question of elitism in the left and right--intellectual elite of a movement, elite protecting culture, or a political class ruling elite--is essential detachable from the the question of the decline of WASP power in America pre-WWII. I suspect the problem we are having today in Am conservatism is an irresponsible elite--one willing to use and control the masses and their prejudices for political gain, without actually trying to uplift the masses intellectually and culturally. At least that's what I think when I see FoxNews. And that would kill intellectual vibrancy on the right.

Traditional cons think (...) mass man and mobs are trendy, stupid, often surreptitiously led by an elite anyway

Is it any wonder why traditional conservatism has been a "massive failure" (to quote Marcus)? You all love to look down on your fellow Americans.

It always says the same things about the same people, then implies guilt by association to anyone who won't go along with the FoxNews agenda. BenX2 just comes by this board between posting on its brainless boards(...) Now, I would love to chat about the issues Flynn's post actually raised...

Even the beloved Mr. Epstein admitted that the neo-paleo debate was "implicitly" raised, and that my characterization of the "dumbed-down paleoconservatism" which eluded him was a fair one. I'm also glad to see that you are above baseless ad hominem arguments (though I'm not entirely sure which "brainless boards" I frequent).

Eh, I've had enough of this site and its band of Confederate flag-waving, double standard-having hypocrites. I'll just check in from time to time to make sure no one posts under my name or a similar one, as has become an occasional practice.

Quick. Ben's gone. Everyone can put their Army of Northern Virginia uniform back on. I really got the feeling that he had begun to get on to us in his last few posts.

"BenX2 just comes by this board between posting on its brainless boards, knowing that if it makes some tired statements about paleo hot-botton issues it can divert the discussion and have fun fighting. I have concluded, with Brian, that it is best to ignore BenX2 when it does this. Now, I would love to chat about the issues Flynn's post actually raised..."

Clearly you would not like to discuss the issues Flynn post actually raised, because when I attempted to engage you in that discussion, you simply rejected the option.

Your comment should be extended to say that you would like to discuss the issues Flynn's post actually raised, but only with people who are of the same mind that you are.

PS: Pertinent to this discussion is the essay "Why I am Not a Conservative" by Hayek.

http://www.geocities.com/ecocorner/intelarea/fah1.html

Ben T: where did you try to "engage" anyone on the issues? You started this board, and you started it by unprovoked shooting at nonneocons. You're friend continuted it with random attacks on nonneocons and Kirk, etc. There was no engagement there.

And you're a sixteen year old self-styled wunderkind telling the people on this board to read "Why I am not a Conservative"! Get over yourself. My suggestion: Go read something permanent and classic instead of filling your soul constantly with topical and timely polemics. Any decent conservatism has to start with a foundation in the Permanent Things(--oh no, I can't mention Kirk because of how he voted in 1944!) I would say the same to Ben L, but I'm afraid he's already too convinced of his own moral and intellectual superiority to everything before the 1960s (if not everything before 1995!).

I think Francis is partly claiming that conservatism is of necessity restorationist. I agree with this, conservatism in modernity has been fundamentally restorationist in aim; first the Jacobites, then the Bourbons, and seen in the contemporary conservative goal of reestablishing a constitutional republic.

In the Managerial Revolution, Burnham describes essentially public service bureaucrats and managers running society as the "ruling class" (later called the New Class by Irving Kristol and others), who displaced the capitalist owners. I think the Francis article I quote, essentially states that conservatism defends the pre Managerial Revolution ruling class.

What both Francis and Gottfried argue is that the managerial class has been replaced by a bunch of multicultural/state elite. Gottfried thinks its a bunch of irrational WASP guilt, while Francis thought it was a very rational strategy run by the Plutocrats who saw any sort of tradition or identity as a threat to the bottom line. I defer to Gottfried in this case.

As for this view being restorationist, I don't really know. The few times I had the pleasure to talk to Sam Francis he claimed that he was still a pretty hardline constitutionalist Taft republican, who's occasional critiques of capitalism were in Belloc/Agrarian tradtion. He would often write about how tradtional values and limited government were "well and good" but he didn't think this is what would animate a counterrevoution, but that he still believed in them. However, I often got the impression, though I never saw him write it explicitly, that he thought that the Managerial Revolution was a fait accompli, and that we had to accept it, put our people in charge and guard against multiculturalism.

So I get the impression that Francis was not saying we should try to restore any old order, but find something new to restore.

An interesting debate b/w francis and gottfried can be seen here and here

: Leftists are antielitist when it comes to mass democracy-- "the people" have some kind of supernatural intelligence and benevolence. FoxNews-cons have bought this mass populism. Traditional cons think this is naive because mass man and mobs are trendy, stupid, often surreptitiously led by an elite anyway, and usually want a free lunch.

I almost think that would be true, but if it were, then leftists would let the people decide many issues rather than the courts and the bureaucracy. If there was a national refferendum on immigration, homosexual marriage, affirmative action, or trade, do you think the left would be happy?

However, I certainly agree that this idea that everyone must be equal in making decisions for this country, and that every single felon and illegal alien must vote is a leftist view, but I don't know if that's anti-elitist or just some desire for national suicide.

Marcus, I think that leftists believe (and their rhetoric assumes) what I called "supernatural intelligence and benevolence" belongs to "the people." And of course this does conflict with their own convictions on moral issues (e.g., homosexual marriage) and on prefered mothods of governing of late (bureaucrats and judges). I think the condradiction is alleviated by the addition of progress. They think that "the people" are held back, tricked by republicans and businessmen, temporarily stuck in prejudice, etc. I'm basing this solely on their rhetoric.

Great comment J. S. Mosby! Too funny.

on the elitism of the left it may be useful to distinguish liberals from other groups on the left. Liberalism has always been elitist, and explicitly so. Particularly in its disdain for the "provinicalism" of rural life. Cosmopolitanism, high education, urbanity, etc., being decisive. This grows out of the enlightenment roots of political liberalism. The philosophes were quite interested in practical affairs of the people and the commodiousness of life but saw themselves as being ordained to educate the masses. As Richard Rorty would say today (following Dewey as Bramwell notes his views) the people need to be "educated for democracy." It has always been the self-appointed job of the liberal elites to fulfill this project of "enlightenment." Hence public education for one.

W/ Jacobinism and then communism I suppose the left's attitudes towards the people changed or were at least radicalized as regards what enlightening the people would take.

My basic point, I suppose, is that the egalitarianism of the left has always been theoretical, it is based on their rosy pre-lapsarian view of human nature corrupted only by society. So it doesn't make their elitism a contradiction exactly, it only makes them horribly self-rioghteous, prideful, and dangerous. I think Short is getting to this mentioning the notion of progress. Liberalism has never noticed how tyrannical their political philosophy is b/c they are always acting in the name of the progress of the people, they style themselves egalitarian because they really think that intentions matter more than principles and that ends justify means.

So you get phenomena like the recent book "What's the Matter with Kansas," which suggests that middle Americans are blinded by the right from acting in their "best interests" at the voting booth. I have encountered this attitude on the part of NYC liberal professors and other academic types countless times.

So, I dunno, I am still not settled in my views regarding the relative merits of and parameters for elitism. More study and thought is required.

Another essential reading on the idea of elites is Rothbard's classic speech to the John Randolph Club in 1992. I'm sure many of you have seen it, but it's always worth reading.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch1.html

I've given up on getting my commentary on this article published, so I just put it on my site.

http://www.marcusepstein.com/13101/13132.html