I too am a traditionalist type of conservative who has been called a neocon, for the same reason. And then I recall that when Pat Buchanan ran for President a couple of elections ago, his running-mate was Lenora Fulani, a far-left leftist. The agreement of the Buchanan, Sobran, etc., types with the Left on foreign policy may not be such an anomaly. Drop the labels and look at the positions one by one, and especially look at attitudes toward Israel, Jews, and American society (and I emphatically do not make an exception for the few Jews among that crowd), and the anomaly shrinks to almost-nothing (the “almost” is there because of their opposition to abortion). In fact, the epithet “neocon” has often served as a euphemism for “Jew,” notwithstanding Jeane Kirkpatrick and other non-Jewish neocons.

In connection with this blog, here’s one from last December called “The New Buchanan,” in which I write: “Buchanan has become to the Islamo-Fascist threat what the McGovernite liberals of old were to the Soviet threat—a splitter of differences, a searcher for moral equivalencies, an inveterate worrier about our own bellicosity.”

http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001023.html

frieda writes:
“In fact, the epithet ‘neocon’ has often served as a euphemism for ‘Jew,’”

Well, now we’ve heard from the neocon side. According to the neoconservatives there is no such thing as a paleoconservative; just good conservatives on the one hand who are slurred with the label “neocon” and anti-semites on the other that we call “paleo”. Labels are useless in understanding the various positions, and merely to assert the label is an insult. None of this is terribly constructive, of course, but the notion that neocons are the true conservatives and paleos are leftist anti-semites in disguise is laughable.

But isn’t there some truth to the idea that sometimes the more angry paleo types do use “neocon” as a slur on a group which, if not literally and exclusively Jewish, is quasi Jewish or constructively Jewish?

At the same time, some of the neocons (and I’ve run into this a lot lately) absurdly regard the very expression “neocon” as a slur, as simply a code word for Jew. They reject the term altogether, which is insane, since the term was popularized by the father of neoconservatism, Irving Kristol. Clearly, “neoconservative” describes a coherent, identifiable set of attitudes and views, and, despite Norman Podhoretz’s attempt in the mid nineties to pretend that neoconservatism no longer existed, having supposedly merged itself with regular conservatism (when what he REALLY meant was that neoconservatism had TAKEN OVER mainstream conservatism), neoconservatism is still very much with us.

In conclusion, I don’t object to Frieda’s point that “neocon” is sometimes used as an epithet aimed at Jews. On the other hand, I completely reject the notion that “neocon” is ONLY an epithet.

I agree with Mr. Auster completely here. If Frieda wants to retract the contention that paleoconservatism differs from leftism only in its opposition to abortion that would be a welcome rise in the level of discourse.

Matt says:
“If Frieda wants to retract the contention that paleoconservatism differs from leftism only in its opposition to abortion that would be a welcome rise in the level of discourse.”

I should like Matt to read what I said (note that I didn’t say “reread,” since he evidently didn’t read it the first time). I referred to certain paleos—“the Buchanan, Sobran, etc., types.” Fortunately, they aren’t synonymous with traditionalist conservatism, as the majority of traditionalist conservatives would be happy to confirm. It is, however, true that abortion isn’t the only issue on which the Buchanan, Sobran, etc., types differ from their allies on the Left. I recall, during Buchanan’s campaign for the Presidency, that international trade, NAFTA, and protectionism aren’t among them; but yes, there are a few.

I will stipulate that on one possible reading Frieda specifically said that Buchanan and Sobran are leftists on everything except abortion, rather than that paleos in general are leftists on everything except abortion. That doesn’t make the statement any more credible or constructive, though, so it seems an odd objection.

I just now saw this linked by Richard Poe, in a response to a reader’s query in the RichardPoe.com Forum:

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/007511.php#007511

It is self-explanatory, including Glenn Reynolds’ rhetorical question appended at the end: “Where are the condemnations of ‘unilateralism’ and ‘preemption’?”

This “Instapundit” blog entry is meant as a barb legitimately aimed at people like me, who still more or less oppose this attack on Iraq (though people like Matt, Lawrence Auster, Richard Poe, Rush Limbaugh, and others, are slowly making me question my stance). When I read this little blog entry in “Instapundit” I instantly had a feeling of, “Good for them! Good for the Japs! Of COURSE it makes no sense to wait until the missiles are in the air, launched by lunatics!” And of course, in the very next instant, I saw the inconsistency of that reaction with my opposition to those who call for exactly this prudential stance in regard to Iraq.

(As I’ve said, I’m striving to keep an open mind.)

Now this is absurd. The pro war rhetoric of the Right is not just the same as that coming from the neocons, but Tony Blair, socialists like Christopher Hitchens, and the people at Dissent (all of which frontpage reprints). The common argument is that anyone who America does not like is a fascist, and that we must be anti fascist before we are anti-war or anti-imperialist.

Admittedly some on the right use leftist reasons to oppose war (The oppression of the palestenians, or the lack of U.N. support), but as a whole ,the reasons the paleos give for opposing the war, whether or not you agree, are conservative. Most of the neocon justifications (and admittedly your justifications do not fall in this category) for the war are simply leftist, Wilsonian diatribes about spreading human rights and democracy.

Tying the Old Right with the old “Your no different than the loony lefties” has been going on since the 40s. Franklin Roosevelt Accused the Chicago Tribune with being in cahoots with the communists because they both opposed intervening in WWII during the non-agression pact. The New Republic accused Robert Taft of coddling with Moscow for his non-interventionism. I wrote an article at www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein4.html that explains this absurdity of the claim. To answer Mr. Auster’s question, it feels the same as it always has.

Instead of discrediting themselves with an unprincipled blanket anti-war stance I think paleos ought to stick to two focused messages:

1) Any increased security brought about by this war will be short lived unless we stop importing Moslems and their ideologies into our country on purpose.

2) War with Iraq is valid in large part as a completion of the defensive Gulf War, as the teeth in our agreement to stand down in 1991. Everyone needs to know that agreements with America are on rock solid ground. Justification for any other war starts at square one.

As it is, neither of these messages makes it to the public at all. Buchanan in particular could change that rather dramatically if he wanted to, since if he stood down from opposing this one (even without giving his support to it) it would be big news. He could say “I don’t oppose the war as enforcement of the previous cease-fire, but I can’t put my personal support behind it without a guarantee that we will have a minimum ten year moratorium on the immigration of people from Muslim countries. Otherwise we are sending our boys to die for a very short-lived increase in the security of Americans.” Or something like that. Buchanan is welcome to use those very words if he likes; I place them in the public domain.

It is true that there is no alliance to be had with neocons, and paleos shouldn’t expect one. Whatever is done needs to take that into account.

I’ll keep up the conversation with myself for a moment here, with the indulgence of VFR readers. There may be a unique opportunity to make a point about immigration, religion, and culture as a result of 9-11. In order to make that point, though, traditionalists have to be focused. Many, many more people will dismiss as racist a purist isolationist call for no war and a moratorium on all non-anglo immigration, than will dismiss a specific call for a moratorium on Islamic immigration. Nevertheless, actually accomplishing a moratorium on Islamic immigration - or frankly just getting it discussed seriously so that the discussion itself is not considered to be intrinsically immoral - skewers the multicultural sacred cow. It becomes impossible to deny that culture and religion matter, and that the law in any civilized nation MUST discriminate against some cultures and religions. It represents an actual positive step, however small, toward restoration. That is exactly why we get the “Islam Means Peace” nonsense from our multicultural president. Traditionalist conservatives are not presented with such genuine opportunities very often.

Matt wrote: “Instead of discrediting themselves with an unprincipled blanket anti-war stance I think paleos ought to stick to two focused messages….(1) [Immigration]; (2) [We are not going to war but have been at war; we’re just finishing what we should have finished in ‘91] …As it is, neither of these messages makes it to the public at all.”

Immigration has been addressed by several commentators. See Thomas Sowell’s articles (in just the week after the 11th no less); David Hackworth; Michelle Malkin; VDare; and Chronicles; etc. Maybe they haven’t been so bold as you in their prescriptions, but some have at least addressed the question.

The it’s-not-a-new-war-when-it-comes-to-Iraq argument doesn’t strike me as a particularly Paleo argument. The self-described paleo’s I’m thinking of (Buchanan, Fleming) would a describe a true conservative/paleo as one who wondered aloud back in 1990, “Hey, who cares who we buy oil from?” or, “Gimme a break, like Saddam’s NOT going to sell oil to us; what’s he gonna do for money, sell tulips?” They didn’t support Gulf War I, and they don’t support the sequel.

Rather, with regard to the continuous war argument, here’s what I hear from conservatives: The UN is bogus. When or if our security was or is really in danger, we have done, and will do, what we need to do. Nevertheless, for better or worse, for Gulf War I we went to the UN and got their approval. We fulfilled the UN goal, stopped, and led the UN into a deal with Saddam. Leaving aside the issue of Saddam’s duress at the time of agreeing, unfortunately the agreement has proven to be a poorly drafted contract.

Some would say that a true conservative (true Christian?) doesn’t press a bad contract, but let’s it go. Does “render unto Caesar” apply? Did we not render unto the UN the enforcement of the post GWI agreement? Now we have made our argument for enforcement.

The UN is, in my opinion, letting Saddam wiggle out of of the deal. But, again, did we not cede authority for enforcement to the UN? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. That the UN is unwilling to enforce the ‘91 agreement and is letting Saddam slip the noose is not a point in support of US unilateral action to the Buchananites, but only a point in support of US EXIT FROM, AND ABANDONEMENT OF, THE UN.

From there it is not too much of a stretch to categorize the following as arguments against further US action: The real reason for war is that we seek “possession of Iraqi oil fields and erection of world empire—all that stuff about weapons of mass destruction over the last 12 years has just been a big orchestrated lie” etc.

I can respect those who say increased military action without UN approval is not moral. In fact, I had a conversation with one recently —from which I just borrowed— and I am having some doubts.

Thank you Mr. Epstein,

Your thoughts and article http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein4.html reflect my own with the one exception you attribute to paleocons:.

“some paleocons, view free trade and capitalism as fueling the war, while most libertarians see it as the path to peace. This has nothing to say with all the differences we have on various economic and cultural issues.”

The paleocon don’t view capitalism with suspicion, but do condemn Calvinist Hegelian capitalism, which is the common type practiced today.

Chris Collins writes:
“Immigration has been addressed by several commentators.”

Again, though, the point is to focus specifically on the Islamic threat rather than making immigration into a broader topic. Think of it as marketing advice to paleos. Islam presents the opportunity to publicly falsify multiculturalism in a way that is understandable to just about everyone; or certainly everyone who saw Americans falling to their deaths from a burning building. Even many neocons and leftists are shaky on Islam; why not press the advantage?

“The it’s-not-a-new-war-when-it-comes-to-Iraq argument doesn’t strike me as a particularly Paleo argument.”

Ah, but paleos don’t have to make it as a positive argument. They can simply concede the point, and the other valid neocon points, and (as is proper) attach Islamic immigration to them where it belongs. That is not what Buchanan (for example) is currently doing. Paleos argue against particular positions simply because neocons argue for them. The continuation-of-prior-war factor makes Iraq UNIQUE. The more UNIQUE the case of Iraq is the more difficult it will be for neocons to argue for future military action that does not share Iraq’s UNIQUE attributes. So one of the paleo objectives should be to acknowledge and reinforce how UNIQUE the case of Iraq in fact is. If the neocons are going to win the argument anyway, it is best to isolate it so that it cannot be used as a tool in the creation of broad powers for neoconservatism in later conflicts. If they are going to win the battle anyway then why let them turn that win into a major strategic asset in the war?

“But, again, did we not cede authority for enforcement to the UN?”

I don’t see how the formalities of the UN can let us off the hook from our obligations on the one hand or protect our credibility on the other. (Both ideas are laughable, or should be). Is it really credible to think that a future dictator is going to carefully consider UN formality in his assessment of US credibility when he is negotiating his surrender to the US commander? Furthermore, the notion that the formalities let us off the hook is to equate formality to morality; a mistake no traditionalist conservative should ever make. If the UN had simply dissolved (ah, what heavenly fantasy) since ‘91 that wouldn’t change the moral picture by a whit.

There are two futures ahead, in simplified terms:

In one future, the military might of the lone superpower is used very sparingly. When it is used, it is used surgically, with devastating effect, and the long term is dealt with through credible, enforced high-level agreements.

In the other future, the military might of the lone superpower is constantly in use. Because clear enforced high level agreements are not possible, that military might has to be used to micro manage. It becomes a mirror of unnacountable domestic bureaucracy, except now it is a bureaucracy of death. Agreements are only as strong as the local bureaucrat who enforces them, and formal considerations like the 18 UN resolutions so far on Iraq are used to argue for whatever the local bureaucrat wants.

The notion that the moral future of what we decide now should hinge upon current UN formalities is not credible. Either the UN represents a voluntary alliance of sovereign states, in which case our commitments are our commitments whether or not they went through one formal channel or another; or the UN is sovereign. If paleos want to hang their hats on a sovereign UN they will lose all right to be thought of as traditionalist.

Like other posters I would like to see this result in a US exit from the UN (as unlikely as that is to actually happen).

“They didn’t support Gulf War I, and they don’t support the sequel.”

Just to clarify this, since I didn’t address it in my last post: it doesn’t matter whether paleos supported the GW in the first place. They can say “Well, I didn’t support the GW in the first place. On the other hand, we fought it and ended it subject to a certain understanding, and if the US is to have security with as little intervention as possible in the affairs of other nations our agreements and commitments have to be credible. I acknowledge all that. I can’t put my personal support behind the current effort to complete the GW unless Islamic immigration into the US is also addressed, since that is a key component of our security in the post 9-11 world; but I won’t oppose it either.” Or something like that. Paleos have a rare moment of influence on the writing of the rules, in my opinion (it is remarkable how many of my acquiantances now know the word “paleoconservative” compared to only a year or two ago); but instead, by refusing to agree to anything asserted by a neocon regardless of its truth, they are marginalizing themselves.

Marcus Epstein’s post was excellent. I wonder why Lawrence Auster did not bother responding to it.

Mr. Epstein writes:

“Admittedly some on the right use leftist reasons to oppose war (the oppression of the Palestinians, or the lack of U.N. support), but as a whole, the reasons the paleos give for opposing the war, whether or not you agree, are conservative.”

I did not say that the paleocons’ arguments and values were identical to the left, I said the paleos were aligned with the left. However, they do have many significant things in common with the left, most importantly the invoking of raw hatred and suspicion against America. Thus the latest issue of The American Conservative has several cartoons of Uncle Sam looking like a sinister sadist, and Scott McConnell starts his article by approvingly quoting the anti-American leftist, John Le Carré. Then there was the cover story on the anti-American Norman Mailer. Then there is the constant charge that President Bush wants to launch this major war for totally cynical and dishonest reasons, meaning that the antiwar right believes that everything Bush has been telling us for the last year and half is a total lie, a front for his real purpose which is not to protect us from WMDs but to build a global empire. Then there is the cultivation of an attitude of adolescent alienation and anger against the “parent figure” (whether conceived of as America, or as the U.S. government, or as the conservative establishment) who has let one down (sound familiar?). Then there is the repeated use of phrases such as that America has gone “mad” (used by McConnell in his recent article), an echo from the left of the sixties, seventies, and eighties when, for example, the Union of Concerned Scientists would portray America’s leaders as madmen for building up nuclear weapons. In fact, as I realized at the time (and it was one of the many small epiphanies that led me out of liberalism), those leaders were not mad at all but were behaving rationally under the very difficult and dangerous circumstances of the Cold War. Furthermore, when the Soviet Union died, the “mad” arms race came to an end, whereas if the anti-American leftists had had their way, the Soviet Union would have been able to keep feeding off the West and thus stay alive. A similar dynamic is at work now with the antiwar left and anti-war right vis à vis Hussein.

In sum, people who invoke the kind of irrational adolescent resentment against America that is being cultivated by the antiwar right—especially at this moment of crisis and war—do not resemble any kind of conservative that I can recognize.

Mr. Epstein continues: “Most of the neocon justifications (and admittedly your justifications do not fall in this category) for the war are simply leftist, Wilsonian diatribes about spreading human rights and democracy.”

This is false. The main reason the neoconservatives give for the war on Iraq is to protect America from something worse than 9/11. The antiwar rightists keep ignoring this cardinal fact, which is perhaps the biggest objection against them and shows in what bad faith they are conducting themselves. They keep spreading the spectacular misconception that the global crusade for democracy that some neocons propose is ALREADY the U.S. government policy, and therefore that the war on Iraq is the first step in carrying out that policy. It is true that some people in the administration talk this way, and Bush himself has made some sounds like this, as in his national security statement. But Bush and his people have also indicated very different things, for example, Rumsfeld’s recent statement eschewing any larger aims of making Iraq a political template of America. It is clear that a variety of opinions and long-term agendas are being debated within the adminstration, and it is not clear what steps they will take after Iraq. Also, given the enormous time and difficulty involved in launching a war on Iraq (which after 13 months of threats has not still not occurred), it is not at all assured that the administration would be able to launch further wars or major internventions in the Mideast even if it wanted to. For these reason it is dishonest to conflate the “democratize the world” agenda promoted by some neocons with Bush’s proposed war on Iraq. Yes, if Norman Podhoretz were president of the United States, we could say that a plan to impose democracy on the whole Mideast is the administration’s aim. But Norman Podhoretz is not the president of the United States, a fact that the antiwar right seems not to have noticed.

Of all the dishonest assertions put forward by the antiwar right, this conflation of the neocons with Bush is the biggest, and also the most central to the antiwar right’s rotten enterprise.

I can’t answer to Mr. Epstein’s comparisons to Roosevelt’s argument with the Chicago Tribune, as I don’t know enough about it. But I do remember reading things by its publisher McCormack from the late 1930s and I don’t think they were anything as bad as what I see coming out of today’s antiwar right.

“”Most of the neocon justifications (and admittedly your justifications do not fall in this category) for the war are simply leftist, Wilsonian diatribes about spreading human rights and democracy.”

While I certainly do not consider myself a neocon, over the last two years I have begun to see that there is a large degree of falsification and simplistic demonisation of the neocon point of view. Throughout the 1990’s I was an unwavering Buhananite. I did not use the term paleoconservative to describe my views, but they were certainly consisitent by and large with that philosophy. As such I considered neocons to be evil incarnate, mere liberals disguised as conservatives. Since 911 in particular I have ceased being a supporter of Buchanan, and I have begun to see that neocons, like paleocons, hold a variety of points of view, not all of which can easily be dismissed as liberal. I have met neocons who’s views on immigration are no different than any paleocons (this is increasingly true since 911), and certainly most neocons that I have met or that I have read hold socially and religiously conservative points of view. To dismiss neocons therefore as mere liberals is a conveniant but false argument. A way of dismissing any neocon view or statement without having the intellectual integrity to deal with the content of what different neocons actually say. And the above quote from Mr Epstein is a good example. While some neocons have talked about spreading democracy and American values, this has not been universal and it is certainly not the primary argument that I have heard neocons making. By far the issue that tops the list in importance for most neocons has been preventing a repeat of 911 by removing any chance that in the future WMD’s may fall into the hands of terrorists either through accident or by Saddam’s design. I also disagree with Mr Epstein’s claims that all paleocon arguments against war with Iraq are conservative. While some of the points made by various people in Chronicles have been based on a certain conservative viewpoint, as Lawrence clearly shows those being made by Buchanan’s “American Conservative” magazine have often been liberal and anti-American, both in content and in tone. To use a neocon phrase, to my disgust Buchanan and his mag have become part of the “adversary culture” that has been ripping the heart out of America since the 1960’s. As such, in my opnion, they have not merley sided with the enemy, they have become the enemy.

The anti-American illustrations in the February 24 issue of The American Conservative, which I referenced in my previous comment, ought to be described more fully. The cover says:

RULE THE WORLD?
The Madness of Empire
By Scott McConnell

Below that, the cover illustration shows Uncle Sam holding a globe in his hands and cackling with maniacal glee, his eyes popping wide, the pupils contracted to a dot, like a homicidal madman out of melodrama, as he stares at the globe with evident villainous intent, while little helpless Europeans stand around him, vainly protesting. Such an illustration cannot be described as a criticism of America. Nor can it be dismissed as a mere humorous take-off. It is a portrait of America as an evil, insane entity.

Another illustration that appears inside the magazine with the McConnell article, “The Madness of Empire,” shows Uncle Sam, looking deranged and perverted, holding the staff of an American flag in both hands as he plunges it into a globe opening a gash in its side. He is made to look like a psychotic killer.

Remember, these illustrations are appearing in a magazine edited by Pat Buchanan. Just think about the meaning of that for a moment, without trying to evade the reality of what you’re seeing or immediately looking for excuses.

This is what the Buchananites have done: they have identified the neoconservatives as an insane, evil force, and then they have merged their demonic idea of the neocons with that of America itself, so that America now becomes an insane, evil force.

Although it is apparent that Mr. Auster often enjoys deforming and stretching reality a bit in order to prove a point, Mr. Auster deformation in his last two posts is a bit to severe, since surrealism is only effective if it is imitative of nature or reality .

To ascribe some paleo arguments as “the cultivation of an attitude of adolescent alienation and anger against the “parent figure” (whether conceived of as America, or as the U.S. government, or as the conservative establishment) who has let one down”, is no longer the imitation of reality, but a wholly formed new fiction.

Nor are any paleos ‘invoking . . raw hatred . . against America’, but are they suspicious and passing on that suspicion to others? I should hope so, pollyanna is poorly written fiction, and even a poorer method of approach to government. Anyone who has worked on the Hill, soon learns just how soft and malleable are the feet of men who lead this country. And when that knowledge is combined with a knowledge of certain reprehensible foreign policies which are practiced by the U.S., only the fictional character, herself, would not be suspicious.

And although Scott McConnell enjoys Mr. Auster’s same predilection with his use of terms such as ‘mad’, he at least remains properly imitative, since it’s rather difficult to ascribe to Richard Perle, Wolfowitz and others who think along similar lines as theirs complete rationality. Nor is anyone writting or insinuating that the neocons or America is an ‘evil force’ in the way Mr. Auster is implying, but neither is America, its government or its people, even approaching virtue in such a way that would deny Scott McConnell his musings.

Certain American programs, such as USAID may be evil; and its foreign policy of intervention which abrogates the principle of subsidiarity may be wholly wrong and destructive, but to claim that Buchananites think that America is “an insane, evil force” even by proximity is pure fiction.

I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised by Mr. Auster, since only a surrealist would describe the illustrations in The American Conservative as ‘Anti-American’. And then again, Mr. Auster may be correct, the paleos, and Buchananites are a rather diverse lot, and I suppose if we stuck our gnostic pins into enough of them, we might find one, or a few, who is as surreal in his thinking as Mr. Auster is predisposed in his writing.

LA writes: “This is what the Buchananites have done: they have identified the neoconservatives as an insane, evil force, and then they have merged their demonic idea of the neocons with that of America itself, so that America now becomes an insane, evil force.”

This is only true if you identify “America” with the federal government. The paleos are not condemning Americans per se as evil people with evil designs, they are condemning a government which they see as practically beyond the people’s control as having evil designs. This is an important distinction, and it says less about Buchanan than it does about his detractors that they are unable (or unwilling) to draw it.

Bubba is uttering pure sophism. Throughout history warring countries have said to the people they were fighting, “We have nothing against YOU, only against your government.” That might have some validity when the government in question is a dictatorship imposed on the people. It’s certainly not appropriate in the case of a representative government, as though the government of a free people had nothing to do with the people it represented! That’s what Tokyo Rose was insinuating, as she tried to demoralize U.S. soldiers in the Pacific war. She wasn’t very successful, was she?

Right now most Americans, whatever they think about Bush and the U.S. government on other issues, realize that that government is striving to protect our lives and our country from the awful things that are likely to happen if Hussein remains where he is. It doesn’t seem to occur to Bubba that a cartoon caricature of our government as a homicidal maniac might be reasonably taken an attack on the country and people that that government is protecting and representing.

Mr. Auster’s sense of history appears to begin rather recently, if I take his phrase “throughout history” literally.

He also points out a characteristic of representative government, but fails to see it as a flaw which is most evidently signified by conscription.

His statement that the US “government is striving to protect our lives and our country from the awful things that are likely to happen if Hussein remains where he is”, would only have validity if there was proof for such an assertion. But there is none.

Lastly, Mr. Auster apparently considers certain cartoons capable of “an attack on the country and people”, but I find his choice of the words, to describe political commentary a bit unnerving. Maybe a harkening back to the childhood adage about sticks and stones might be helpful to him.

BTW, I appreciate Bubba’s clarification of the issue, but he uses Federal incorrectly.

“This is only true if you identify “America” with the federal government. The paleos are not condemning Americans per se as evil people with evil designs, they are condemning a government which they see as practically beyond the people’s control as having evil designs. This is an important distinction,”

It’s a false one. In printing pictures of Uncle Sam as an evil figure out to destroy the world Buchanan’s mag is making a clear and unequivecal point about America as a nation not simply the government. Most people outside of America identify Uncle Sam, rightly or wrongly, as a symbol of America and Buchanan knows this. If he had wanted to make a point about the government he could have used an image of Bush or Rice. In choosing to use the image he did he expressed hatred not just for the government but for his own country and spread that hate around the world. And given that a clear majority of Americans support their President on this issue, it is not possible to make comments about it without also making comments about the majority of American people. Despite the shallow attempts above to excuse these kinds of obscene cartoons as pointed politcal commentary, they are without a doubt expressing anti-American hate.

And surely another point is that conservatives should be above these kinds of tactics. Can the paleo’s who disagree with the Iraq issue do so without resorting to idiotic claims about “global empire” and offensive cartoons? Some paleo’s have indeed expressed reasonable critiques of American policy on Iraq in rational and civilised ways. But in using the overblown rhetoric and types of cartoons that it does Buchanans mag is simply climbimg into the gutter with the socialists.

Shawn wrote: “In printing pictures of Uncle Sam as an evil figure out to destroy the world Buchanan’s mag is making a clear and unequivecal point about America as a nation not simply the government. Most people outside of America identify Uncle Sam, rightly or wrongly, as a symbol of America and Buchanan knows this. If he had wanted to make a point about the government he could have used an image of Bush or Rice.”

I didn’t say they were attacking the Bush administration. I said, or meant to say, they are attacking our modern system of government, which is I think in their view corrupt and far removed from anything envisioned by the Founders. In that sense, and that sense only, they are attacking “America.”

Imagine, for a second, that overt Communists somehow managed to take over the US government. According to your principles, any American who then railed against American foreign policy (for the sake of argument, appeasement of and solidarity with other Communist regimes, etc.) would be a traitor or a child molestor or worse, simply because the government went by the name “American.”

It doesn’t matter what “most people outside of America” think Uncle Sam is a symbol of. It matters what *Americans* think he’s a symbol of, since Buchanan is writing primarily for Americans, and in the past, contrary to your assertions, Uncle Sam was always viewed as a symbol of the federal government, not of the American people directly.

Shawn,

Not to get off the subject but,

I’m curious, do you consider Bush a socialist? Or if that strains credulity of Bush’s reflective capacity, do you consider Bush a supporter of socialist programs?

And just to help us all along, I stuck in link with a quick but helpful overview of the subject.

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/polphil.htm#Socialism

“I’m curious, do you consider Bush a socialist? Or if that strains credulity of Bush’s reflective capacity, do you consider Bush a supporter of socialist programs?”

No I think Bush is a mainstream conservative. I also happen to think that he’s a very intelligent man. He has consistently outwiited his political enemies and largely delivered over and above what many Republican conservatives expected. A government which cuts taxes, makes the first steps, however tentative, in opposing affirmative action and abortion, rejects internationalist nonsense such as the Kyoto treaty and the International Criminal Court, consistently promotes America’s sovereignty as a free nation, and which is prepared to act in it’s own interests without the say so of the U.N, is certainly not a socialist government by any stretch of the imagination. The current administration is not perfect by my standards, especially on immigration issues, but it is a vast improvement over the last one. Bush is giving us the third(and I strongly suspect fourth)terms that Reagan should have had, but that Bush senior failed to deliver.

I am however not entirely sure about you. Silly barbs about Bush’s intelligence, the usual nonsense about Bush being a “cowboy”, defending Buchanans anti-American hate propaganda, defending the actions of a German government that is a coalition of social democrats and the radical left , all of this sounds identical to the rantings of much of the American and European socialists.