Pat Buchanan, Paleo-conservatives and The Future

Paleo-pithicus conservativus: an early form of conservative ape who refuses to adapt and will thus die out.

Buchanan is a bigot. He hates the neo-conservatives so much that his judgement is affected. Brian Birdnow writes a brief review of his new book for the Claremont Institute. Here he basically lists the problems with Buchanan's argument.

As a paleocon, Buchanan desperately wants to maintain his traditional political views and what he thinks is the tradition of American society. The problem is that he is wrong about what those things are. The conservative position, true, is one that rejects progressive ideas, but that does not mean that it is stagnant.

On the contrary, American conservativism is different from traditional Western conservatism in this very important way: it attempts to conserve the American Revolution. (Thanks to Dinesh D'Sousa and others for this concise description). It is at heart a deeply modern conservatism that has revolution as its founding moment. Contrast this with English Tory conservatism which tends toward monarchy, or at least toward maintaining the class distinctions of olde (true this is somewhat unfair, but that is for another post).

Conservatism is not, however, progressive. Conservatives believe thatpolicy must pay considerable deference to human nature or disaster will follow. Some will look toward their religion for this nature, and in America we are free to do this, even when making public policy. We argue that the Great Society and New Deal will always be failures since these programs violate certain natural principle of human society. Property ownership makes the world go 'round. Welfare reform was successfull precisely to the degree that it recognized this idea. People need to work and own and thus have a stake in their own success.

The Founders realized that certain aspects of traditional governance were out of step with the natural human character which is "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." So they undertook to conserve those rights by means of revolution.

Modern conservatives want to ensure that government maintains its focus on this idea. Change is life when it has nature as its guide, but when men decide how men should change the result will be death.

A change in the demography of America is of little consequence as long as America remains true to its core values. Likewise, foreign nations have little to fear from American influence as long as that inluence is consistent with these values. This influence may look like some modern Empire, but it is not. Or if we must call it that, then it is a good thing. An Empire which does nothing more than provide the structure within which humans grow and succed should be embraced by all.

American Indians who remain insulated from this influence decay and die. Worse, they are mostly ignorant of their own rich heritage. They are taught much about their past, but mostly it is false (many, like Gore, think that Chief Seatlle is real). The result: they are imprisoned by their own isolation. However, Indians who leave the reservation and adopt the American lifestyle are free to succeed (and, by the way, they are healthier too). They have access to the truth about their own people's history and, more importantly, they can share that knowledge with the rest of us. They are not forced to give up their culture; rather, in America they are free to live whatever style of life they wish, provided it does not conflict with our core values. This is a lesson Muslims could learn well.

This is what conservatives want: a great society of free people each leading his own life, not a melting pot. Legal immigration makes America stronger and so will the spread of American values into other countries. This is the revolution of founders writ large.

Viva la American Revolution!