Contact Us    
The Re-emergence of the 'Old Right'

Ron Paul, the Paleos, and 2008.

by James Leroy Wilson
March 27, 2003

Bookmark and Share

The Re-emergence of the 'Old Right'_James Leroy Wilson-Ron Paul, the Paleos, and 2008. Like every other decent person, I pray that the War on Iraq will end quickly, with mimum destuction of life and property. That said, I do not think America can "win" this War, in the sense that we would be better off than had we not fought it.

That is the way to look at wars in retrospect. Looking back, it appears that the only people who benefitted from World Wars I and II were the Communists. No one benefitted, really, from the original Persian Gulf War, otherwise we wouldn't be in combat now. And I believe America is in a worse position than it would have been if we woke up on September 11 and realize that "they" hate us because our military troops are stationed on their soil. We ought to have sent our men and women back home from the 120 countries they're stationed at, and embarked on a Swiss-style foreign policy. Or a George Washington one: trade with all, political connections with none. Instead, President Bush spewed nonsense about America being hated for our freedom and prosperity, and established a worldwide War on Terror, which can not be any more successful than a War on Drugs. Which might be the point. Establish a new, permanent, government program.

Several things have to go right for Bush to use political capital from this war to win re-election in 2004:

1. Large quantities of weapons and weapon material banned by UN resolutions are found.
2. American casualites and Iraqi civillian death tolls are low.
3. Neither the war nor the occupation is long.
4. Budget deficits are "under control."
5. America suffers no further terrorist attacks.

I can't get inside the mind of the President who, frankly, cannot be trusted on domestic policy. I don't know the personal or ideological agenda of his advisors (oil? protect Israel?). But his Presidency is failing, and although it is hard to imagine any of his Democratic opponents actually winning, we should never over-estimate the American people. The more shameless demagogue has won the popular vote of, if not all, then the vast majority modern democratic Presidential elections.

If Bush is toast in 2004, then the real conservatives have an opportunity. There is a war going on under the radar of the mainstream media. It is fought mainly on the Internet, between what are called "paleo-conservatives" and "paleo-libertarians," on one side, and the "neo-conservatives" on the other.

The "paleos" carry on the principles of what was once known as the Taft wing of the Republican Party (after Senator Robert Taft of Ohio), or, prior to World War II, the Old Right. If one word would describe their common idea, it is non-intervention. The government should not intervene in the economic or personal lives of the people, nor intervene in the politics or affairs of other countries.

The "neo-conservatives" are ex-Democrats. Their Founding Father is actually not one of them, but rather the "bridge" between some of the ideas of the Old Right and current Republican policy. His name is William F. Buckley. He is a writer and ex-CIA operative who founded National Review magazine in 1955. His magazine advocated free markets and state's rights at home, but militarism abroad to fight communism. That was a change from a core conservative principle of non-intervention abroad. This conservatism that most of you know, the conservatism of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, is Buckley's conservatism.

And even after the Cold War ended and expansionist communism defeated and dismantled, the militarism remained. America now what is called world hegemony, and this is where the neo-conservatives come in. America, as the world's only superpower, must use that power to ensure a Pax Americana and the flowering of democracy everywhere. This is ideological aggression, the antithesis of the old conservatism. That is what disillusioned Pat Buchanan, and why the neo-cons, without cause or excuse, now brand him an anti-Semite.

Neo-conservatives had other ideas on the domestic front. School vouchers. Partial investments of Social Security in private savings accounts. Welfare reform. Tax cuts to spur economic growth in order to increase tax revenues, instead of cutting both taxes and also spending. The difference between neo-conservative values and the old conservative values is that they guaranteed continued federal spending and enlargement, albeit under the false guise of "free-market competition."

Bush and Bush's team is dominated primarily of neo-conservatives, and otherwise by country-club or blue-blood Republicans, who embrace the same sort of mercantilism and corporate favoritism that has characterized the GOP since Lincoln. The interests of both camps entertwine. Use the government as an interventionist tool, both at home and abroad, in order to achieve morality and home and democracy abroad. And if our projects also happen to help our corporate friends, so be it.

They differ in details, but essentially this is identical to Democratic policy. The main difference is the difference in "morality." To the Republican, it means government-engineered personal virtue; to the Democrat, it means government-engineered social justice.

And that's what's been upsetting those who believe in the principles of the Old Right. They've gone off and started their own parties, none of which, individually, stands a chance to succeed in the near future. The Libertarian Party. The U.S. Taxpayers Party. The Constitution Party. And in its own way, the Reform Party. Disagreements among them are sharp, but what at least the first three have in common is the conviction that the federal government's unconstitutional policies are responsible for the vast majority of the nation's economic and moral problems. Add to that the non-interventionism of Buchanan, whom the Reform Party nominated in 2000, and we have the makings of a coalition of the Old Right that can challenge Bush in the Republican primaries and, after losing to Bush, get the nomination of all four of these minor parties and compete with Bush and the Democratic nominee in the general election.

All that's required is a viable candidate. For those well-informed, you know who I'm talking about.

He is Ron Paul, M.D., Republican Congressman from Texas's 14th District. I won't detail his biography here; you can look it up yourself at his website, and from there go back to his home page and find out about his ever-consistent voting record,and read his writings and speeches. I commend this to everyone, even those who may harshly disagree with him, just so you know that there is at least one man in Congress who knows what he believes and sticks by it thick and thin.

If Paul challenges Bush in the Republican primaries, that will already help Paul's identity and name-recognition, and prove the political weakness and unprincipled positions of the President. Conservatives who love liberty more than they hate Democrats will turn out in droves to vote for him. Bush would still likely win the nomination, but after Paul wins the nomination of four "third parties," he will be a player in the national election much like Ross Perot was in 1992. After Bush loses to whatever ineffectual, incompetent empty suit the Democrats nominate, the paleos will capture the soul of the Republican Party and send Paul, or someone like him, to the White House in 2008.

Granted, people in the national media may be so angry, that the entire northeast and west coast might threaten to secede from the Union. And the new Republican/Constitution/U.S. Taxpayer/Reform/Libertarian President will say "Go ahead. That is your right and your choice."

Comments (2)

Post a Comment

JWilson from Chicago writes:
March 28, 2003
Dear Editor, Thank you for running Notes from the Swamp. I have questions for James Leroy Wilson that I hope he addresses in one of his future columns.

1. If everyone in the world had paleo-conservative Swiss-style convictions, the aggression against Kuwait in 1990 or Poland in 1939 would obviously not have happened. When you assert that no one was better off after these wars, do you mean because Hussein was an idiot to start it and Kuwait would have been better off not to have been invaded? Then I agree, obviously. Or do you mean that Kuwait is not better off for the international coalition intervening for its liberation? That is not realistic or defensible,and therefore not what you mean, correct?

2. WWII was an effect of a number of causes stemming from WWI, which should never have been fought in the first place. In that sense I agree with you that no one was better off for either war having been fought. But does that mean that WWII should not have been fought? Should Poland's borders not have been guaranteed after the Czechs had been sold out?

3. Since when has it become the right of any state to secede from the union, as you claim Ron Paul would allow? Isn't this a treaty violation? Does this mean the US Civil War should not have been fought either? Again, it should not have been fought because slavery should never have been introduced because everyone in the world ought to be Swiss-style paleo conservatives. The problem is an innate human depravity that stirs the will to power and the will to exploit. Can we honestly assert that the lives of African Americans did not improve as a consequence of the Civil War?

4. The only reason the Swiss and the Swedes could ignore the monsters is that the rest of the world dealt with them. Because Hitler attacked Stalin and lost, the only thing standing between Stalin and complete domination of all of Europe was Americans, forcing Stalin to negotiation and containment. Maybe Stalin would have left Switzerland alone, who knows? But the Swiss might have been Finladized as well. I think it was Mises who believed that communism would collapse on its own--but only after it had taken over the whole world, leading to the collapse of the whole word. He had recognized something of its revolutionary energy when he wrote. American and NATO vigilance contained the dominos. The nations that lived free because the US had troops in Germany, became the economic base of progress for the world which has prospered the US greatly.

5. If that is true of communism, might it not also be true of the Jihad and anti-Israel forces at work in the Islamic world? What is inherent to their repressive regimes that truly threatens the interests of those who want to live free as paleo Swiss non-intervening conservatives? Islam is a revolutionary force, as was Marxism. The energies latent in the edicts of the Qu'ran need to be understood rather than ignored. I saw them posted on the wall of the Metropolitan Mosque in Chicago, in English for anyone to understand, with a map illustrating Muslim prominence and population statistics. It is not a hidden agenda or conspiracy. Nor was Das Kapital or Mein Kampf. These were published by the proponents of Communism and Nazism for all to read. Only the ignorant and the appeasers could pretend that by ignoring the movements of Communism, Nazism, or Jihadism, that somehow their interests would remain unmolested and secure.

Sincerely, Jonathan Wilson

James Leroy Wilson from The Swamp writes:
March 28, 2003
Dear Editor,

Jonathan Wilson's questions are noted, and recognize that they reflect the opinion of society's mainstream. I am unable to address them here, and I have planned already what my next two columns will be, but I hope in the course of time to answer Mr. Wilson's questions through my column. But the entire tone of Mr. Wilson's letter does remind me of a line about alcohol from Homer Simpson which I will now paraphrase: Nationalist, militarist, ambitious government: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.


James Leroy Wilson

Send Us Your Opinion
(Comments are moderated.)
Your Name:*

Your E-Mail Address:*
(Confidential. Will not be published.)


Note: In order to control automated spam submissions, URLs are no longer permitted in this form.

Please type the letters you see above.


Bookmark and Share

Ron Paul Is a Nut (and So Am I)
Published September 10, 2008

Forget about red states and blue states. Wilson's unique take on political topics is refreshingly not politics as usual.

» Buy Now
» More Information
RSS Feed for James Leroy Wilson: RSS Feed for James Leroy Wilson
Sign up to receive an e-mail notice when new articles by this author are published. Your address remains confidential, and you may cancel at any time. A confirmation email will be sent.

Your e-mail address:
The Re-emergence of the 'Old Right'
po Books
Now Available!

Teachings of a Three Year Old... Turned Tyke,
by Hal Evan Caplan.

A father learns from the wisdom of his toddler.

More Information.

More by James Leroy Wilson
47 for 46 for 45
My favorite movies since when I was born
by James Leroy Wilson, 3/15/16
Hired Gun Quarterbacks
They rarely win the Super Bowl.
by James Leroy Wilson, 2/9/16
Fixing Football's Overtime
Get rid of the coin toss!
by James Leroy Wilson, 1/19/16
Solving the NBA's Conference Imbalance
Get rid of them!
by James Leroy Wilson, 5/26/15
The Problem of School
We develop differently, but arbitrary age rules punish us.
by James Leroy Wilson, 5/19/15
Deflating and defaming Tom Brady
Punishing without evidence
by James Leroy Wilson, 5/12/15
Should Floyd Mayweather be allowed to fight?
The Nevada Athletic Commission is wrong, but not for the reason you think.
by James Leroy Wilson, 4/28/15
» Complete List (565)

RSS Feed for James Leroy Wilson: RSS Feed for James Leroy Wilson

Recently Published
View Article Divided Loyalties
Our right to votes unites us as Americans
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 11/9/18
Violence in Mister Rogers' Neighborhood
Protesting the synagogue shootings in Pittsburgh
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 11/2/18
Responding to Those Who Suffer
Lessons from Job when tragedy strikes
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 10/29/18
Grieving for a Friend
Mourning the death of Pastor Eugene Peterson
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 10/26/18
The Death of a Trailblazer
Remembering my neighbor Paul Allen
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 10/18/18
Be Sure Your Sins Will Find You Out
The transgressions of youth and social media follow us
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 10/12/18
So Who are We to Judge?
A timely question
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 10/4/18

Get the Partial Observer's
'recently published' headlines via RSS.

RSS Feed for Recently Published PO Articles    What is RSS?

Reproduction of original material from The Partial Observer without written permission is strictly prohibited.
The opinions expressed by site contributors do not necessarily reflect those of the editors.
Copyright ©2000-2018 partialobserver.com. All rights reserved.
Home · Site Map · Top