Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Ron Paul and the End of Paleoconservatism

Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left at 1:14 PM on February 26, 2008.


A McCain nomination has the potential to reopen a rift amongst Republicans not seen since the early 1990s success of Pat Buchanan.
ronpauljcgqa

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Election 2008 in your
mailbox!

 

Pat Buchanan on the need to impeach Bush over immigration policy:

Author Pat Buchanan says President Bush should be impeached for failing to stop the invasion of illegal aliens across the U.S. border with Mexico.

"I think he's committed an impeachable offense in refusing to enforce the immigration laws and in failing to uphold the Constitution by defending the states against this invasion," Buchanan told radio talk-show host Curt Smith this weekend on National Public Radio stations in upstate New York.

"When you have 6 million people apprehended on the border and several million got in on your watch ? and you have the ability to stop it ? I think you're derelict in your duty," he said. "And if the president says 'I can't do it,' you need a new president who will do it."

"This is not Ellis Island," said Buchanan. "This is an invasion."

John McCain on our national imperative to spread Americanism worldwide, by force if necessary:

Theodore Roosevelt is one of my greatest political heroes. The "strenuous life" was T.R.'s definition of Americanism, a celebration of America's pioneer ethos, the virtues that had won the West and inspired our belief in ourselves as the New Jerusalem, bound by sacred duty to suffer hardship and risk danger to protect the values of our civilization and impart them to humanity. "We cannot sit huddled within our borders," he warned, "and avow ourselves merely an assemblage of well-to-do hucksters who care nothing for what happens beyond."(...)

And for Roosevelt that common destiny surpassed material gain and self-interest. Our freedom and our industry must aspire to more than acquisition and luxury. We must live out the true meaning of freedom, and accept "that we have duties to others and duties to ourselves; and we can shirk neither."

Some critics, in his day and ours, saw in Roosevelt's patriotism only flag-waving chauvinism, not all that dissimilar to Old World ancestral allegiances that incited one people to subjugate another and plunged whole continents into war. But they did not see the universality of the ideals that formed his creed.

The last major conservative split took place in the early 1990's, when Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot were able to exploit conservative dissatisfaction with Bush Sr. over trade, immigration, the first Iraq war, and multilateral cooperation abroad. A McCain nomination has the potential re-open this exact same rift. It is ultimately a split between neoconservative imperialism and paleoconservative American exceptionalism. While McCain is a strong believer in the inherent superiority of American civilization, he draws many of the same internationalist conclusions from that belief that we have seen from the Bushes: spread American influence through foreign wars, free trade, religious evangelizing, and immigration policies that are relatively open when compared to those favored by other conservatives. This draws the ire of paleocons like Buchanan who are mainly interested in preserving what they see as the exceptionalism of American cultural identity through closed borders, closed trade, and a general disdain for involvement overseas.

With McCain as the nominee, a conservative split of this nature is almost inevitable. Like Bush, Iraq and immigration are two of the few areas where he simply refuses to pander to certain sections of his base. What is less inevitable is that this split will blow up into a full-scale primary and third party challenge ala 1992. In fact, that appears extremely unlikely, given what appears to be a remarkable decline in the political influence of paleoconservatives.

Ron Paul carried the paleoconservative banner for Republicans in 2008, and despite his tens of millions of dollars he never once reached double-digits outside of a caucus. Buchannan, by contrast, regularly scored over 20% of the vote in 1992 and 1996 primaries. For all the talk of Ron Paul's activists as a rising force in the Republican Party or conservative politics, the influence of his supporters is actually in severe decline. Now, Republican candidates are winning primaries as a result of their internationalist (if imperialist) approach, while anti-immigration Republicans are getting crushed. The paleocons that led to the massive conservative split of 1992 have seen their coalition reduced to a rump of noisy, active, and increasingly alienated supporters. Even Bush, who bows to his base on just about everything, won't bow to paleoconservatives on issues like immigration.

The lack of influence of the paleoconservatives also arose in yesterday's flap over the picture of Obama in traditional Kenyan attire. The course of that argument was not about Obama wearing the attire, something that might offend American exceptionalists like Buchanan, but rather about whether the Clinton campaign was being sleazy in attacking Obama over wearing the garb. For the record, I don't think the Clinton campaign was behind the attack, and that Drudge just made that up whole cloth, so to speak. Anyway, the point is that when an attack like that itself becomes offensive, then paleocons have become utterly irrelevant in American politics. Consider further that while Ron Paul's crowds seem impressive, on Saturday his supporters held a GOTV rally in Austin that attracted 4,000 people, of whom only 54 actually voted. It is in this way that his campaign can be viewed as the last, desperate convulsion of a once powerful force in American politics that seems to be heading in the direction of the Dodo. That such a platform can't even succeed during a time when unpopular free trade, unpopular immigration, and an unpopular foreign war are all partially blamed for a poor economy is particularly telling.

Digg!

Tagged as: bush, mccain, republican party, conservatives, trade, immigration, buchanan, paul

Chris Bowers was a full-time editor at MyDD from May 2004 until June 2007. Some of his projects have included the creation of the Liberal Blog Advertising Network, the first scientifically random poll of progressive netroots activists, the Use It Or Lose It campaign, the nation's most accurate forecast of Democratic house pickups in 2006, and the 2006 Googlebomb the Elections campaign.


McCain, Despite Deep Flaws, Has a Chance... Thank Nixon
Progressives see McCain as dead in the water, but the optics are quite different in NixonLand.
Post by Steve M.. July 23, 2008.
American Jews Like Obama Over Lieberman; Have Higher Opinion of MoveOn Than AIPAC
How does the mainstream media keep reporting against the statistics time and time again?
Post by Sam Stein. July 22, 2008.
Obama Needs to Change His Afghanistan Policy
Obama must not take the same stance as McCain concerning the War in Afghanistan.
Post by Laura Flanders. July 21, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
So what's a concerned paleocon to do?
Posted by: blue70rose on Feb 26, 2008 1:59 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm starting to consider moving to Canada more seriously.
By the way, there were actually a lot more than 4,000 people at those rallies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE:I agree w/blue70rose Posted by: donl51
» RE: good, move to Canada, Paleocon Posted by: left_libertarian
» And you aren't there. . . Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: And you aren't there. . . Posted by: blue70rose
» Of course Posted by: drmflorida
» RE: Of course Posted by: blue70rose
» Yes, they are called. . . Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: Of course-brilliant! Posted by: boydranchitos
no school like the old school, even with conservatives
Posted by: MobileSucks on Feb 26, 2008 4:49 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Say what you will about conservatives (or "conservatives") but some from the old school, of the paleo variety, have been amongst the most outstanding critics of Bush policy around. Well, foreign policy in particular.

I only wish more liberal (or "liberal" --"I just play one on TV.") would speak with such confidence and conviction. I've long since had it with those who would do anything less than proudly proclaim their liberalism for all the world to hear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Poor Analysis ... Buchanan is a Nationalist, Paul a Libertarian ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Feb 26, 2008 9:02 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Paul is all for increased immigration and free trade.


Buchanan and the traditional paleo conservatives are vehemently against free trade and increased immigration.


Should a Republican candidate have run on protectionism and stoping immigration he would have been in the 20's or 30's percentile in Republican votes or more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Paul's Libertarianism Doesn't Mesh Well With Traditional Conservatives
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Feb 26, 2008 9:30 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most conservatives like to be controlled. Religious conservatives especially believe there are certain social rules in life that people should be forced by law to follow.

Look at any poll on legalizing just marijuana. Liberals are more likely to be for it, conservatives more likely against it. Religious conservatives especially are likely to be against it.

Ron Paul is a more of a traditional conservative in regards to economics but the party base largely isn't anymore. This left him as a socially liberal fiscally conservative congressman running in a party of socially conservative fiscally liberal people.

Not a very good combination when trying to win his party's popular vote.


It should be noted though that he did have widespread internet support. Lots of middle class, college educated, internet savvy users supported his campaign. This was largely supporters flocking to him and not him being a savvy politician able to market himself well on the internet.

His campaign advisors frankly sucked.

They were horrible at gaining him support in traditional media outlets like television, radio, magazines, and newspapers.

A majority of people in this country are still news receivers, they view passive media and absorb opinions rather than seek out news and information themselves.

His internet supporters were not the passive news receivers who get their news from the boob tube but it is precisely those people who need to be marketed to the most in order to win elections and his campaign staff was abysmal at that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Old values
Posted by: Dr T on Feb 27, 2008 3:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What ever happened to Barry Goldwater Republicans? The only alternative is the Libertarian Party.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ron Paul was the most eligible!!!
Posted by: xvictor on Feb 27, 2008 5:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A great opportunity for the Repug gang to transform themselves into a respectable "Republican Party" has been squandered by the likely nomination of "Manchurian Candidate" McCain. In the few debates I saw, Dr. Paul gave the most intelligent responses and comments. The rest were of them were mere morons in suits, especially McCain after he miserably failed to respond to an economic question. How anyone could see him as an independent is beyond me. He sided with Bush 99 percent on everything. How is that being a "maverick"?

Dr. Ron Paul is the true maverick.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article
Posted by: sre on Feb 27, 2008 6:26 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is written as though the campaign for the Republican nomination is over. When did that happen? I thought the Republican convention was still a few months away.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pat is the Master of Understatement
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Feb 27, 2008 7:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think he's committed an impeachable offense in . . . failing to uphold the Constitution

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As Much As I Am Shocked To Agree With Pat Buchannan...
Posted by: Wacre on Feb 27, 2008 9:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to wonder at his naivete, as well as his use of the word 'invasion', which somehow implies sinister or evil intent.

Naivete because the only reason we have such an influx of immigrants is because of American policies like NAFTA, which doesn't allow nations to nurture and create industries of their own.

If we had trade polices (and conversely didn't undermine) nations that did things to protect their own industries (like higher tariffs on imports in certain sectors of their economies) as well as support nations that did so, then immigration wouldn't be a problem (though that it is even a problem at all depends upon who you ask).

You can't have it both ways. If we are going to undermine economies all over the world, those excess people have to go somewhere.

Karma's a bitch, isn't it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Guess what, folks?
Posted by: willymack on Feb 27, 2008 11:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's STILL time for a "new" rethug candidate to come riding to the rescue to save the day for the Greedy Old Plutocrats. This could be why Shill O'Liely, and Lush Limpmember are badmouthing mcjerk, so at just the right moment Jeb, or some other neocrook can burst onto the scene and steal, (and I do mean STEAL) the show. Stranger things have happened, haven't they?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm not crazy 'bout Ron,
Posted by: donl51 on Feb 27, 2008 1:01 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but dammit he's far superior to anyone else we've got running to lead our country,for this ''I kiss his feet!''

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Repubs/conservatives eating their young.
Posted by: lamac66 on Feb 27, 2008 7:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too funny Buchanan wanting to impeach Bush over immigration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]