Talk:Paleoconservatism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Removing citation requests

I was thinking about the problem of heavy use of citation requests. Although I agree with Psychohistorian that every fact should be cited, perhaps we could cut down on the edit wars by announcing on the talk page when you want to remove either (1) a citation request or (2) a (non-BLP) statement without a citation. State your reasons and give it, say, 48 hours before deleting. If anyone objects debate on the talk page rather than immediately delete. If you can't get agreement then get a request for comment.

It may use up the Talk page for a while, but it should cool things down here.

JASpencer 22:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson Is a Neocon

While Tim Long has now provided a citation that refers to Carlson as a paleocon, most sources refer to him as a neocon. See, for instance, the comments by paleoconservative writer Paul Craig Roberts in this interview and the remarks by a liberal newspaper columnist here (not to mention Thomas Fleming's "Honest Journalist: A Modest Proposal" in the June 2004 issue of Chronicles). In addition, nothing in Carlson's track record of political positions would identify him as a paleocon. While he now says that he opposes the Iraq War, he initially supported it. If that is the reason that some are beginning to identify him as a paleocon, it would be better to say that, like Bill Buckley and George Will, he remains a neocon who has simply had second thoughts about the war. --Scott P. Richert

In the same vein, are either Evans or Novak considered paleocon? I know Novak opposed the Iraq Attaq, but these two are creatures of the Beltway. Why paleo? Yakuman 09:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Tweaks

I threw in a reference to Morgenthau because I know Gottfried likes him -- and much of the current paleo thought sounds a lot like him. Anti-universalism, the centrality of the nation state, and the need to not see every enemy as a cross between Hitler and the Antichrist were some of his big topics. I'm not saying he was a paleocon; for one thing he died in 1980. Yakuman 08:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw a link to Virtue. Site says: "Our team consists of the future Hugh Hewitts, Michelle Malkin's, Instapundits, and Lilek's of the blogosphere."[sic] That's far from paleo. Yakuman 09:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Back Issues not citable

Could anyone state why the back issues of Chronicles are "not published"? Why aren't they the same status as an out of print book?

(By the way why doesn't Chronicles put it's back issues on a computer readable CD - it could probably sell to a far wider audience - including libraries - than a subscription.)

JASpencer 14:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy states, "it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library." These Chronicles back issues, as I understand it, are not available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library.-Psychohistorian 14:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

So if they were available through a public library they would be citable? JASpencer 15:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI:
New York Public Library: Call # JFM 86-238 Title Chronicles (Rockford, Ill.) Chronicles. Imprint Rockford, Ill. : Rockford Institute, 1986- Identity CURRENT IN ROOM 108 JAN -DEC 2003 Identity CURRENT IN ROOM 108 HOLDINGS Call # JFM 86-238 LIB. HAS 10:3(1986)-12:4(1988),12:6(1988)-12:7(1988), 12:9(1988)-14:4(1990), 14:6(1990)-17:2(1993), 17:4(1993)-17:6(1993), 17:8(1993)-26(2002)- Latest Received: September 2006 v.30 no.9 Yakuman 21:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the intent is that sources should be verifiable by most editors, not just those who live in New York city. But according to a strict reading of the policy, by my understanding, the fact that they are available in the New York public library system seems to be good enough. -Psychohistorian 22:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

So long as the article is publicly available, it should be good. Note that with interlibrary loan, an article/book available in virtually any library in the United States can be acquired (for little or no cost) by virtually any other library in the U.S. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 18:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Paleo talk radio

I know of only two talk radio hosts in the US with paleo vieews: Ron Smith in Balitimore and Charles Goyette in Phoenix. Are there others? Yakuman 05:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

the political cesspool out of memphis is pretty paleo and has guests like Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Virginia Abernethy etc. but they also have White nationalist leanings as well. thepoliticalcesspool.org Take a look

Jack Hunter the "Southern Avenger," a commentator on 1250 WTMA-AM in Charleston, SC is a paleo who's had guests such as Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin on his show before.

Tucker Carlson is a...Paleocon?

Mr. Carlson -- never really a card-carrying member of the vast right-wing conspiracy -- said he had broken off from the hawkish neoconservatives who flogged the war from the get-go. "I'm getting more paleo every day," he said, referring to the so-called paleoconservatives.

--Newly Dovish, Tucker Carlson Goes Public, by Joe Hagan New York Observer May 17, 2004

I'm not sure this proves the point. Saying, "I'm getting more paleo every day"--moving in a certain direction--is not the same as saying, "I am a paleo." Especially when the only "paleo" position, as far as I can tell, that Carlson has adopted is opposition to the war in Iraq. --Scott P. Richert

Gotcha. Exit Carlson. Exit Evans and Novak; they fit that "neither" category." Lou Dobbs is an exconomic nationalist,. but I can't find where he calls himself a paleo.

My rules-of-thumb for paleos are: 1.) Significant personal, direct influence on the movement (i.e., Buchanan, Francis. Sailer) or

Makes sense.

2.) Personal, active identification with the movement (i.e., Bradford, Brimelow, Gottfried)

Ditto.

3.) Must have been alive during the initial paleo/neo split (i.e, not Taft or Bricker)

Defined as when? May 1989? The Bradford incident? Personally, I think that saying that someone must have been alive when "paleoconservative" came into use (early 80's) is good enough.

Burnham was alive then, but he had his stroke in '78 and was pretty incapacitated until his death. Also, while he criticized the neoconservatives, and was influential to many paleocons, I don't think his views are all that paleo. He opposed Taft, McCarthy, and virtually every Old Right figure there was during his lifetime.

Yes, Burnham had had his stroke, but "pretty incapacitated until his death" is an overstatement. He accepted the Ingersoll Prize in the fall of 1983 and delivered what may well have been the best acceptance speech in the history of the prizes. Sadly, some who did not like the speech (a treatment of the opening passages of the Gospel of John) or his "poping" on his deathbed have tried to claim that he hadn't had his wits about him for several years as a result of the stroke. --Scott P. Richert

4.) Must not have disavowed or attacked the paleos. (i.e., not Robert Bork or Lawrence Auster)

Also makes sense.

If we go just by mainstream media reports, we'd have Bill Buckley, Bill Rusher and Kevin Phillips on the list, which would be inaccurate. If we go by publication in a paleocon magazine, then Norman Mailer would be on the list.

AFAIK, Mailer has been interviewed in AmConMag, but never published in the sense of writing an article. Publication is an important indicator of self-identification, but you're right--it's not a completely reliable one by itself.

I'm not sure what makes Jerry Pournelle a paleocon, but since he put himself on the list, I'm not sure what to think.

Self-identification, combined with views that most paleos would find familiar--that seems reasonable. Self-identification, combined with a majority of views that fit in better with some other movement--that would seem reason to think that the person just doesn't really know what the term means. So Pournelle, yes; the "Paleoconservative Youth Movement," which seems like nothing much more than a YAF-ified version of neoconservatism, no.

Virginia Abernethy and William Regnery II represent Charles Martel, but are they paleocons?

Both would self-identify, and Abernethy has written some of her most important popular demographic articles for Chronicles.

What about: Fred Reed, M. Stanton Evans, Brent Bozell Jr., Ralph de Toledano

Hard to make a case for any of these, with the possible exception of Reed.

or William Stockdale?

Former board member of The Rockford Institute. I certainly regard him as a paleo. --Scott P. Richert

How about Ken Cribb. I have heard him say nice things about various paleocons in private, but other than a nice obit about Mel Bradford, what has he actually done to promote any sort of paleoconservative agenda. I believe (I don't have the source, but someone can correct me if I'm wrong) that he was a big supporter of Steve Forbes rather than Buchanan in '96. Has he ever written for Chronicles or other paleo publications? Has he ever criticized the neocons?

Also

1.) Different question: Where did this word "paleconservative" come from? Where did it come from?

There's some debate over that. Paul Gottfried lays claim to first using it in print, but both he and Tom Fleming say that they're fairly certain that one of the two of them first used it in conversation.

2.) There's also Jim Kalb's category called "neopaleoconservatives," which fits the Genoveses and Paul Piccone. These are people who come from the Left to sympathize with paleo idea, without passing through mainstream conservatism. Use it? Yakuman 15:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That's the first I've ever heard of that term, and I can't say I like it much. Piccone regarded himself as a Marxist right up until his death--hard to reconcile that with being a paleocon, no matter how sympathetic he was to paleo concerns. And the Genoveses certainly don't self-identify, and while they are known for having very definite views at any given time, they're not necessarily known for having the same views over a long stretch of time, so it's hard to categorize them. (Both have written for Chronicles, and Eugene received the Richard M. Weaver Award.) --Scott P. Richert

Here's what Kalb wrote: 6.6 What are Frankfurt School Neopaleoconservatives?

    A group (so named for the first time in this FAQ) that has come by
    way of Frankfurt School cultural criticism to a position
    reminiscent of paleoconservatism emphasizing federalism, rejection
    of the therapeutic managerial state, and (most recently) liturgy.
    Their publication is _Telos_, which now includes paleocon Paul
    Gottfried on its editorial board and publishes Chronicles editor
    Thomas Fleming as well as writers such as Alain de Benoist
    associated with the European New Right. (It has also published the
    author of this FAQ.) http://www.faqs.org/faqs/conservatism/faq/

BTW, if you think this article raises knotty problems, you should see the neoconservative one.

The term was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. The thought was that a neocon is someone who picks up conservative themes and concerns without really being conservative, so a neopaleocon would do the same thing with regard to paleoconservatism. Jim Kalb 12:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. As a tongue-in-cheek term, with that explanation, I rather like it. I hereby declare Tucker Carlson a neopaleocon! --Scott P. Richert

John T. Flynn

DickClarkMises (Talk | contribs) "John T. Flynn has been described by Buchanan and others as a paleo con."

I don't think Buchanan uses the term frequently. For example, the search "paleoconservative site:americancause.org" on Google comes up empty. Raimondo calls Flynn Old Right. The articles I see online don't mention Flynn as paleoconservative: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/young9.html http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2000/01-31-2000/vo16no03_flynn.htm http://personal.ashland.edu/~jmoser1/flynn.html http://www.fff.org/freedom/0396g.asp

The search "'john t. flynn' paleoconservative" doesn't turn up any direct references of him as a paleoconservative, just that he was an Old Right influence on the Paleos.

Also, Scotchie seems to start the history of paleoconservatism with the founding of Southern Partisan in 1979. That's long after Flynn's passing. Yakuman 17:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Flynn is definitely an influence on paleos, but he is more properly termed "Old Right." Would he, like Russell Kirk, have been a paleo had he lived into the early 80's? Maybe, but it's hard to tell. It's best not to apply terms anachronistically, however. --Scott P. Richert

Add: The Chronicles "What is Paleoconservatism?" symposium has the movement starting in 1986. Yakuman 17:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

New Stuff

In the last few days, I have tried to fill out some holes in this survey of paleoconservatism:

1.) The theory of the managerial state, as told by Francis and Gottfried.
2.) The Middle American Revolution, the dream Francis didn't live to see.
3.) Paleo-federalism. I regret that I don't have much of the applicable Thomas Fleming material at hand, but I think what I wrote up is pretty decent.
4.) The paleo side of social convervatism. I went with the theories of Allan Carlson, who has the most published scholarship. He seems a bit more enamoured with public policy (and the new deal) than the typical paleo, but he certainly fits the paradigm.
5.) The history of the neo/paleo wars. I've tried hard to be NPOV and show both sides' responses fairly, if succinctly.

BTW, I've also overhauled the Pat Buchanan article. The two surveys complement each other. In both cases, I have worked to provide a clear, balanced explanation of the paleo worldview.

With Buchanan, I expanded his biography and included all of his relevant beliefs in context. I also tried to explain the major "anti-Semitism" charges against him, showing both sides of the story; it goes from the 1990 "Amen Corner" incident to the recent conflict in Lebanon.

Comments, corrections and edit wars are always welcome.  :-) Yakuman 07:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Paleoconservatism contradicts itself

The intro of Paleoconservatism says..

Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleo or paleocon when the context is clear) is an anti-authoritarian right wing movement that stresses tradition, civil society and classical federalism, along with familial, religious, regional, national and Western identity.

Then if you go the Federalism it says..

Federalism underlies a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces), creating what is often called a federation. Disquietude 03:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the Federalism section in this article, you see: "Federalism is another key aspect of paleoconservatism, which they use as an antitype to the managerial state. The paleocon flavor urges decentralism, local rule, private property and minimal bureaucracy. In an American context, this view is called anti-federalism and paleos often look to John Calhoun for inspiration."

And if you look back at that other definition and move the italics around, you get: Federalism underlies a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces), creating what is often called a federation. Yakuman 03:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

They are for Federalism that has a small limited central government with strong member states within a Federation. A Federation can have a weak or strong central government and it is still federalism.J. D. Hunt (talk) 05:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The key to understand here is that 'Federalism' has changed in meaning over time. In a modern context Federalism refers to what its advocates consider a more even - or more constitutional - division of powers between State and Federal governments. This does indeed have a different point of emphasis from the original Federalists of the 18th and early 19th centuries. --patton1138 (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

2 Different Types of Sourcing

There seem to be two different types of sourcing in this article: some using "footnotes" and others using "embedded HTML links". While both types of sourcing are accepted on Wikipedia, having two different types of sourcing is to be avoided (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). As many of the sources referred to in the article aren't available online (and thus any HTML link would include significant text interrupting the article), I propose that the article should only use footnotes. This is further supported by the fact that the HTML links aren't currently supported with complete information in the References section, as recommended in Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Embedded_HTML_links (to ensure that if/when a link goes dead or changes, information about the original target of the link would remain) and it would be significantly less time consuming to migrate the HTML links to Footnotes than to migrate the Footnotes to HTML links AND fix the HTML links with references.

If there are no objections, I'll begin gradually converting the embedded links into footnotes in a few days. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 19:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup (please!)

There are a number of things that should be addressed:

1. The references after number 120 are a mess, for whatever reason.
2. The references themselves are 1 off... ^[50] jumps to ^[51] at the bottom, etc.
3. The embedded HTML references start out at [15]. In any case, I'd favor full citations as mentioned in the above comment.
4. This talk page could seriously use some WP:ARCHIVE'ing.

— VoxLuna ^(talk)  09:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

And how about the length? It's more than half again as long as the entire liberalism page. 66.57.225.77 02:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Jaffa on Bradford

Yakuman, do you have the text of that Washington Post article? Jaffa opposed Bradford--truly, madly, deeply. What exactly does the Post article say? --Scott P. Richert

I have two sources for Jaffa supporting Bradford:

WaPo

October 20, 1981, Tuesday, Final Edition Bradford's GOP Boosters; 16 GOP Senators Push Texan for NEH Chair

By Carla Hall

Sixteen Republican senators sent a letter to President Reagan yesterday supporting Melvin E. Bradford, a longtime Reagan supporter and strongly conservative Republican, for the chairmanship of the National Endowment for the Humanities. […] The authors of the letter list members of the intellectual community who support Bradford: "Russell Kirk, Jeffrey Hart, Bill Buckley, Gerhart Neimeyer, M. Stanton Evans, Andrew Lytle, Harry Jaffa, and dozens of others. Dr. Bradford helped establish Scholars for Reagan and worked on the transition team for NEH."

TXMo

Mr. Right by Gary Cartwright Texas Monthly, March 1992

“A lot of what Bradford says about Lincoln is simply sour grapes from a disappointed Confederate,” says Harry Jaffa, a professor emeritus of political philosophy at Claremont McKenna College and Claremont Graduate School in California. “Bradford would never come right out and defend slavery. You can’t do that these days. Instead of defending slavery, he attacks Lincoln.” The author of Crisis of a House Divided and other books, Jaffa has debated and written numerous responses to Bradford’s attacks on Lincoln. Though Jaffa is Bradford’s longtime nemesis, there is a grudging friendship in their relations. Jaffa supported Bradford in the NEH fight.

I asked Jaffa why he thought Bradford was so vehement about Lincoln. He laughed and said, “Lincoln stole Mel Bradford’s great-grandfather’s slaves.” http://www.texasmonthly.com/mag/issues/1992-03-01/academia-2.php Yakuman 01:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the news coverage of the Bradford nomination is really interesting. The Washington press described the neocons as political outsiders.

IMHO, this doesn't strike me as a paleo vs. neo fight per se. It seems that the neocons sought to promote their guy vs. someone they found ideologically deviant. Over the next four years, the neos irritated enought people that it provoked a backlash within conservatism. In 1986, you get the war of words. The neos decided to stretch their muscles. They started trying to marginalize their critics, even Russell Kirk. The one think tank that fights back is Rockford and the rest is history.Yakuman 01:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting

Thanks for the quotations. That means that Jaffa, like Buckley, changed when the Kristols decided to try to put their man in instead. I knew of Buckley's betrayal, but not Jaffa's. Fascinating.

By the way, another good piece for background on the battle is "Mel Bradford, Old Indian Fighters, and the NEH" by Tom Landess. Landess was the person closest to Mel (besides his wife, Marie) during the entire fight.

As far as whether this was a "paleo vs. neo fight," well, yes and no. In one sense, it's the first such fight. In another, it's the seminal fight that helps draw the lines and unite a certain group of people who become the paleoconservatives. (The paleolibertarians don't really come on board for another decade.) The reason it's usually characterized as a "paleo vs. neo fight" is that the neocon opposition to Bradford was framed in terms of their attack on Bradford's writing on Lincoln. And there's no doubt that Bennett was/is a neocon par excellence. And there's also no doubt that the neocons involved in the fight (particularly the Kristols) did see it as "us vs. them." Who they thought the "them" was, at that time, is up for debate. Certainly, by 1989, they identified the "them" (perhaps retroactively) as the paleocons, particularly those clustered around The Rockford Institute and Chronicles. --Scott P. Richert

Gore Vidal and Christophobia

I'm not sure I'm following the point about Gore Vidal. There are a lot of writers who have written strongly against Christianity to whom the label "Christophobic" has not been applied. (For instance, I can't think of anyone who has applied it to Christopher Hitchens, though it is hard to imagine anyone who better deserves the label.) Why single out Vidal? For that matter, why single out anyone to whom that label might be applied, but hasn't? --Scott P. Richert

I anticipated this. OK, well, part of the neo/paleo/Buckley split involves Vidal. Chronicles went to the mat over his writings, specifically over Bill Kauffman, a Roman Catholic who praises the guy often and loudly. To my knowledge, I've never seen a disclaimer, as in, "Sure, he's a rabid, monomanical anti-Christian who wants the managerial state to protect his sexual behavior by fiat and force, but what he says about FDR/Harry Truman/George Bush is just wonderful."

Part of wikipedia's directive is that all sides must appear, so a fact like this should be pointed out -- just as I've tried to include all the major neocon attacks on the paleos in general. I even mentioned Neuhaus' annual I-hate-Rockford bashes. I see the whole task as journalistic. Don't hate me! :-) Yakuman 01:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I anticipated the answer, too. :) I think it's overstating it to say that "Chronicles went to the mat over his writings." We published Kauffman's piece, sure, though it would be a stretch to think that our entire editorial board agreed with it. And there's no doubt that the piece played a role in the neocon attacks on Chronicles and TRI. But I think everyone associated with Chronicles (Kauffman included) is well aware of Vidal's faults. And Tom Fleming has, indeed, specifically criticized him, though the article isn't available online.

Still, the question remains: Is it really necessary to accuse every Christophobe of Christophobia? Is the failure to do so when one agrees with such a person on some other point really a problem? When we ran a very good piece by Kirkpatrick Sale a year ago, should we have run an editorial note disavowing his writings on Columbus, even though his article was a reflection on secession, prompted by a consideration of I'll Take My Stand? --Scott P. Richert

I'm not sure my personal opinions are apropos in this forum. You can probably tell that I have no axe to grind with anyone, including Kauffman.

Agreed. I think you've done yeoman's work here. And I'm not objecting to the statement (which is, after all, objectively true); I just really don't see the relevance. In an article that's this long already, it really seems just to eat up more space.

As far as the article goes, I can imagine an honest "theocon" (First Things/Crisis/Books & Culture reader) or a Buckley loyalist could raise the issue. My addition is just anticipating it. Conservatives' reaction to Vidal is an important piece of history he himself is important because he was the last America Firster. And Vidal is up there with Jane Fonda and Barbra Streisand as far as raising the Middle American blood pressure goes.

I suppose that a Buckley loyalist could do such a thing, and someone who wanted to claim that we've been too kind to Christopher Hitchens could point out that (as far as I can recall) we've never applied the term "Christophobe" to him, either. Again, it just seems sort of irrelevant to me.

What you could do is say "While the term has not been used to describe anti-interventionist Gore Vidal, Thomas Fleming has said that he...," add the quote and reference and that'll fit perfectly.

Or, if the point is really just a way of explaining that paleos and neos have had markedly different reactions to Gore Vidal ("Conservatives' reaction to Vidal is an important piece of history"), why not give a paragraph or so to the Vidal incident rather than bring it in through the back door (so to speak) in this section? Certainly, discussing Kauffman's article and the neocons' reaction to it in the 1989 subsection makes perfect sense.

Also, can you do me a favor? Can you find the quote where Fleming says he'd rather have all these nationalist groups fighting each other, than face a world where "Mommy will send you off to be re-educated." Early 1990s, I think. Justin Raimondo quotes it in his "American Right" book. Yakuman 03:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I should be able to find that early next week when I return to the office.

--Scott P. Richert

Found It!

"It is for this reason that I prefer the old Adam of strife and carnage to the new Prometheus of peace and human rights. Better a world torn apart by Husseins and Qaddafis, better a war to the knife between the PLO and the Likud Party, between Zulus and Afrikaaners, than a world run by George Balls and Dag Hammarskjölds, because a world made safe for democracy is a world in which no one dares to raise his voice for fear that mommy will put you away some place where you can be reeducated." --Thomas Fleming, "Further Reflections on Violence," Chronicles, November 1990, p. 15.

One of the great quotes of our age -- and a quintessential paleocon statement. Yakuman

A modest proposal

Naming just who is or is not paleo is as hard as with who is or is not neocon.

For example, during the first Clinton administration, the joke was that there were only 12 neocons on Earth – and all of them are either related or ex-college roommates.

The number I recall was 37 :)

 When the Iraq War started, suddenly “neocons” were everywhere:

In addition, someone removed the word “paleolibertarian” from the Jeffrey Tucker entry, saying, “Jeff has personally told me that he is not a paleolibertarian--any claims to the contrary ought have a verifiable, notable source.” As if it is some sort of insult.

Which brings us to another discussion, which I'll address in the "Paleoism" section below.

Third, the word “paleoconservative” had two meanings now, one essentially meaning “fuddy-duddy,” making the problem worse. There are all sorts of mainstream references to “paleocons” who aren’t part of the post-1986 movement.

Right, but self-identification is the most important consideration, don't you think? We can always find people who misuse words--that doesn't mean that those who use them properly are wrong, or even that they are somehow on the same level as those who use them incorrectly.

I submit that the “Prominent paleoconservatives” and “organizations” link stacks be deleted. Otherwise, we face a perpetual war for perpetual verification.

Other than the Jerry Pournelle and Tucker Carlson links, have there been debates? I haven't noticed any.

IMHO, paleoconservatism is decentralizing itself into seperate single-issue causes, such as anti-intervention, immigration reform and whatnot. This may reflect growing political influence, in that it is easier to gain approval on one - on issue without getting people to sign off on a whole list of them.

Paleoconservatism has always been decentralized. The only centers of any sort have been Chronicles (and The Rockford Institute) and, more recently, the American Conservative.

I really, really think it is a waste of resources to debate whether Jeff Tucker and every other paleo staffer actually calls himself a paleo, then figure out what label he uses. Whether or not Tucker is a paleo, Fleming's argument with him affects the movement at large. Make sense?

Is Jared Taylor a paleocon? Steve Sailer? Scott McConnell? Herbert London? The Kennedy brothers? Roy Moore? Howard Phillips? Otto Scott? Thomas Woods? Kevin Lamb? Alphonse Matt? William Norman Grigg? Gordon Baum? Jesse Helms? Ann Coulter? Stron Thurmond? Anyone who ever challenged a Podhoretz? If we have to deal with a list of names, the only safe people would be the Thomas Fleming circle -- and then maybe only the traditionalist Catholics within the group.

Better watch it--you don't want the Lutheran Aaron Wolf on your bad side.  :)

We live in an age when nobody wants to be “defined” by labels. Paleos are as subject to it as anyone else, but they are less likely to admit it. :-)

Yakuman 17:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, most prominent paleocons have, at one time or another, disavowed labels, including "paleocon." And yet we continue to use the word, precisely because labels and categories are necessary. I think, from the standpoint of a reader unfamiliar with paleoconservatism coming to this page, it is useful to have links to Prominent Paleoconservatives and Organizations. The names included in the text aren't enough, because there are many folks who are quoted on certain aspects of paleoconservatism who are neoconservative or liberal or otherwise. Some sorting is, it seems to me, desirable. --Scott P. Richert

Paleoism

Now, what also seems desirable to me, and I have been hesitant to bring it up because I really don't want to be the one to attempt it, is to disentangle the parts of this article that apply to paleolibertarians and move them over to the paleolibertarian article. What we have now is an article that is mostly about paleoconservatism but also, in many places, more about "paleoism," in the sense of those things that unite (or, perhaps more accurately, once united) paleocons and paleolibertarians.

To some extent, that's inevitable. Paleoconservatism is the earlier phenomenon; the paleolibertarians become "paleo" around 1990/91, when they united with the paleocons at Chronicles to form the John Randolph Club. Just two to three years later, in a review of Paul Gottfried's second edition of The Conservative Movement for Humanitas, I predicted that the alliance would not last and explained why. (I was a graduate student at Catholic University at the time--it would be another three years before I came to Rockford.) Before the end of my first year (1996) at Rockford, my prediction came true, when the paleolibertarians left the JRC. It's now been TEN YEARS since the two groups went their separate ways--roughly twice the time they were closely aligned.

Paleolibertarianism, therefore, deserves to be treated as a separate phenomenon. It's unfair to saddle them with paleocon beliefs that they never adopted, have since shed, or are in the process of shedding (for instance, paleocon views on immigration or on trade); and it's unfair to saddle us with their utopianism (for instance, their professed love of anarchy). To me, the distinctions seem clear; and, frankly, I think the folks at Mises agree. I suspect that Jeff Tucker's dislike for the term "paleolibertarian" has nothing to do with the liberatarian part but with the paleo part, which ties him back (however tenuously today) to those to whom the prefix was first applied. --Scott P. Richert

1.) Jeff Tucker appears here to discuss Fleming's break with the libertarians. Most of the other references support common ideas.

That's fine, but that just backs my point that parts of the article read more like an article on paleoism rather than paleoconservatism.

If I took out everything paleolibertarian, all the references to Joe Sobran and Lew Rockwell would have to dissapear as well, which would erase a lot of history.

I'm not suggesting that you erase history. Obviously, some discussion of the (temporary) alliance between the two groups is necessary, stressing those things where they agreed.

The trade section explores the lib/con distinctions with some detail.

See, this is where I think both articles would benefit from moving some of this material to the paleolibertarian article. Wouldn't it be sufficient here to discuss the temporary alliance, then to say that there were areas of disagreement as well, including on trade, immigration, etc., and directing people to both the (quite good, because of your work) explanation of paleocon views in those areas in this article and paleolibertarian views in the paleolibertarian article?

The overlap between LRC and the other paleo publications is enormous. Paul Gottfried, for example, appears everywhere.

Of course. And there are people such as Joe Sobran who call themselves both libertarians and paleoconservatives (though, as far as I know, Joe hasn't ever called himself a paleolibertarian). Life is messy that way. But encyclopedias are about making distinctions.

2.) At the risk of hinting at my identity, I was there in DC in 1996. I can still remember Hoppe (derisively) shouting "national.... socialism!"

Oh, yes. I thought poor Sam was going to have a heart attack right then.

3.) As far as "prominent personalities" go, there is no objhective, verifiable test as to what counts as "paleoconservative."

Is that any different from other political labels, such as liberal, neoconservative, etc.? If not, is it really a problem? (That's actually not a rhetorical question. I don't see the problem, but if you do, I guess I'm just looking for a convincing reason.)

If you look in old media reports, everyone from Alan Keyes to William Rusher to Arthur Schlesinger, Jr would be on the list, because there is a "verifiable" news source listing them as paleoconservative. And you have all those names I bring up above.

I suspect that I can find a news source that refers to Tom Fleming as a neocon, too. Doesn't make him so and shouldn't cause confusion.

4.) On the org list, we have Charles Martel, CoCC, National Policy Institute, and New Century Foundation. These are all that "third school," which is obviously related. VDARE is single-issue on immigration. The Birchers are their own thing.
5.) As long as the American Heritage Dictionary defines paleoconservative as "extremely or stubbornly conservative in political matters," there's a problem.

Why? Is the American Heritage Dictionary definition canonical for Wikipedia? (Again, not a rhetorical question--it may be, for all I know.) Even if it is, are the editors of articles on, say, Catholicism, worrying about what the dictionary definition of Catholicism is, or are they defining it themselves?

By leaving those two columns in, we leave something for people to fight over. 21:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

>than the Jerry Pournelle and Tucker Carlson links, have there been debates? I haven't noticed any.<

I’m thinking long term, as this article will be here, in some form, indefinitely. People will fight over it. I have my doubts about Wikipedia’s ability to maintain quality, since it is essentially anarcho-capitalism applied to scholarship. Since paleo is the opposite of everything wikipedia stands for, there are bound to be problems. I was able to make the Pat Buchanan article decent, but that was an easier task.

I don't disagree with any of that, but if you take them out, someone else who knows little or nothing about paleoconservatism could come and stick his own list in, too. That's the nature of this game, and you've correctly identified the problem. But I'm not sure that the solution is to remove any material that someone might possibly fight about. It seems to me that we went down that road about a month ago... ;)

Most of the articles about the Right on here are really bad. I tried to start cleaning up neoconservatism, but it’s too much. Too many “editors” think the neocons are about how Richard Perle and Pat Robertson are Straussians in cahoots with big oil companies.

>> and then maybe only the traditionalist Catholics within the group. >Better watch it--you don't want the Lutheran Aaron Wolf on your bad side.

And there are people who won’t use the “paleocon” tag because they say it is a synonym for Latin Mass.

That's interesting. I've never run into such a person, but, in that same review where I predicted the breakup of the paleo alliance, I also predicted that the intellectual leaders of paleoconservatism would, contra Gottfried, increasingly be Catholic. (Again, this was three years before Tom Fleming's conversion to Rome.) So I guess I'm not surprised that such attitudes exist. --Scott P. Richert

Another descriptor: A paleo is a Republican whose job was outsourced overseas. Yakuman 17:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Paleolibertarianism can be seen as a different movement, rather I think it is done. It existed for a short period of time that pretty much existed between the end of the cold war and 9/11. They split from the paleos for a short time, but by now they are basically no different than any other libertarians except that they make some grumbles about how they hate lincoln. It seems that most paleolibertarians have abandoned support for immigration restriction, have started attacking middle americans as "red state fascists," embracing the left etc. It seems that most people who were paleolibertarians have either just became regular libertarians or else moved on to paleoconservatism. That being said from 89-96, it is hard to say that for the most part, Rockwell and Rothbard were more/less lockstep with the paleocons.

Hithisistoolong

This is easily the longest article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Please shorten it by a lot. Thanks. Recury 01:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

aybe it is too long. I will spin off some of the blockquotes omto the author's articles. Yakuman 22:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikiquote is the most suitable repository for quotes. -Will Beback 18:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The quoutes exists to show a position where rewording would wind up as wither OP or POV. Yakuman 19:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I see some of those blockquotes are now making other articles too long (i.e. Samuel Francis). They belong in Wikiquote. -Will Beback 18:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've cut it down considerably in the last few days. Also, the problem is when dealing with a controversial figure is that there's no real NPOV summary of what the guy says, so you have to let him speak for himself. Yakuman 19:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is way too long. I also think that a lot of the subjects that define "core" beliefs of paleoconservativism, seem to be extended discussions on what a few paleos happen to believe--i.e. Sam Francis and Paul Gottfried's (quite different view on the managerial revolution, what other prominent paleocon has really weighed in that much? and given that they disagree how is that a paleo view) A lot of this seems to be a real rehashing of scootchie's book, which I thought didn't give a great definition.

Really in terms of core paleo beliefs I would put 1) dectralism/federalism 2) america first foreign policy 3) opposition to mass immigration and 4) opposition to the idea of a credal nation, universal human rights etc. 5) The permissable dissent point, where you can mention attacking liberal icons like MLK and Lincoln, the willingness by some to discuss Jewish influence, racial differences etc. Anything beyond that really just gets into tangents.

The reason this article is so long is because there's lots of misconceptions, generalizations, over-simplifications, mislabeling, and a whole host of irrelevancies thrown together to try and define some directionless subject. It needs massive cleaning and I would be happy to help if we can get some general agreement that what this article should be about is "Constitutional Conservatism" and not some ridiculous thing called "paleoconservatism" that no one seriously considers themselves a part of. Jtpaladin 21:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Way way way too long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.221.142 (talk) 05:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Paleo talk radio

I know of only two talk radio hosts in the US with paleo vieews: Ron Smith in Balitimore and Charles Goyette in Phoenix. Are there others? Yakuman 05:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

the political cesspool out of memphis is pretty paleo and has guests like Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Virginia Abernethy etc. but they also have White nationalist leanings as well. thepoliticalcesspool.org Take a look

Those guys are Cartoistas, as in supporters of Willis Carto, the godfather of American-style national socialism. Not paleo. Yakuman 16:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I just listened to an interview with Pat Buchanan on the Alex Jones show out of Austin. He called himself a paleoconservative, but then looking at the site it seems a bit more eccentric, but again, I'll throw it out there and let others judge

http://www. . /watch?v=eDA1dyOdTwU&mode=related&search= www.infowarscom/

Jack Hunter, the "Southern Avenger" on 1250 WTMA in Charleston, SC is a paleo who has had Chuick Baldwin, Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and Bob Barr on his show frequently.

The Political Cesspool also hosted David Duke, Ted Pike, Thomas Robb, Michael Bray, among others... rock8591 09:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs)

Overdoing the Wikipedia Article on Paleoconservatism

Okay-- I've been a major contributor to this article since a year or two ago, and some others have made some really good and informative content additions. However, whoever is continuing to broaden this page, is just giving too much depth. Moreover, there are too much nunaced details that are banal and trivial. Too much repetition of statements that say essentially the same thing. It's novel that you can find quotes on paleoconservatism but frankly, not everything needs to be quoted. For example, regarding the exceeding length, I know what is said of Sam Francis is fairly accurate, but the article doesn't need some much nunaced non-sense on every facet of his beliefs. Put it on the page dedicated to him.

Also, the New Right in Europe is not the American paleoconservative movement, and they are not an antecedent of paleoconservatives by any stretch of the imagination, and beyond their immigration reform stance, they are philosophically influneced by the Left in Europe. We've been over this before, and reminded people that paleoconservatism is a distinctively American movement. Yes, they had European influences like Burke and Althius.

Now, that it has been broadened, the focus needs to be on trimming it for brevity and keeping only pertinent statements. Eliminating superflous, redundant information. Or transferring content that is too detailed in another article stub specific to the related topic.

Rsetliff 12:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Editors could also consider splitting out various parts of into seperate articles. JASpencer 23:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no need either for the detailed etymology of paleoconservatism, and quoting the American Heritage Dictionary. Who cares about such banality? 71.53.200.133 09:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, shorten this page

This page is too long. In fact, it is the longest non-list article in all of Wikipedia! Floaterfluss 20:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the ideal version was floating around in time about spring-summer 2006. Much of the expansive material is just trivial quotations and it lacks structure. Brevity and straightforwardness is by no means a weakness in an article. The idea is to echo the core themes, not offer every nuanced particular. I'm going to start by trimming all of the non-sense about the eytmological origins of the word paleoconservative. It's unnecessary. Rsetliff 11:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think "paleoconservative" can be most easily described as someone who thinks the Antebellum South was Utopia, when real men didn't have to listen to those uppity women and darkies, and the Bible was the ultimate law (at least those parts that didn't contradict their myopic worldview). This whole "philosophy" seems to just be a desire to turn the clock back 200 years, when white landowners were the only people who mattered, and even then only if they prayed to the correct God. Lots of circumlocution and "code phrases", but that's the gist of it. Just my own interpretations, and firsthand observations, having been born and raised in the South, as well as a lifetime of attempted indoctrination from a Goldwater Republican ("Extremism in defense of Liberty is no vice") father. So, yes, the article is waaaay too long, as well as redundant. My $0.02. Gil gosseyn (talk) 05:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Traditional conservatism

Suggest that Traditional conservatism have it's own wiki not a redirect, because lumping Traditionals with Paleos is confusing other conservatives and liberals in debates online, especially of the differences between these two wings of conservatism. Too many debaters/readers are associating each as being one of the same (which they are not).

If this wiki must be divided, strongly suggest Traditionals get their own entry. FResearcher 05:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of fishing out materials from this article and simply placing it on pages pertinent to , rather than starting another subcategory of conservatism on wikipedia. I would be hard pressed to distinguish between paleos and traditionalists. I won't contribute to such an article.

I frankly think entries on conservatism is to nuanced now anyway. The quality of this article has suffered, because someone wants too much detail. I'm impressed that they found the time to do this, and offer footnotes, but not impressed with the overall structure and quality of the major expansions since the summer. As Russell Kirk would surmise, this obsession with abstract labels would be ideological and not conservative. Rsetliff 11:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Traditional conservatism has distinct differences from Paleo-Conservatism. Traditionals can and do blend with the society today, where Paleo-Conservatives believe in a government and social policies prior to 1950 (and revoking the 1964 Civil Rights Act). Because these distinctions aren't made, it's a disservice for Traditionals to be associated with the extreme Right (which Traditionals aren't a part of -- Right of Neo-Conservatism, but Left of Paleo-Conservatism). Traditionals are more a kin to classical Liberals and populists (i.e., the content of Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs, for example).

If I have time I'll contribute to the Traditional side, but this disagreement isn't about label differences, but distinct differences in ideology. FResearcher 17:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

NPWest - I started a entry for "Traditionalist Conservatism" here on wikipedia that will need to be edited. We need to remember that paleoconservatives are traditionalists, but not all traditionalists are paleoconservatives.

Paleoconservatism = Constitutional Conservatism

ISSUES: I spent some time trying to alter this page to adhere more to a real-life belief system rather than some type of conservatism that no one really has ever heard of or actually uses in typical conversation defining conservatism. Has anyone actually ever heard of someone using the term "paleoconservative"? Anyone walk around telling people that they are a "Paleoconservative"?!! I've heard of "conservatives", "neoconservatives", "fiscal conservatives", "social conservatives", and even "Americanists", but never, never heard anyone referring to or stating that they are or know someone who goes around calling themselves a "Paleoconservative". I've been a conservative for decades and I have never heard or used that term in any fashion. According to this article, "The earliest mention of the word paleoconservative listed in Nexis is a use in the October 20, 1984, issue of The Nation, a Left-Wing publication, referring to academic economists who allegedly work to redefine poverty."

Certainly, I would have great apprehension in allowing my politics to be firstly defined by a Left-Wing periodical. I think that this alone should be taken into consideration when titling this aspect of "conservatism".

The point being that the term "Paleoconservatism" is not in wide use in scholarly and non-scholarly environments and can not be taken seriously as a real label of any type of conservatism. Sure, there are some authors that use that term, but only in trying to describe an aspect of "conservatism", not as a functioning description of a real-life movement or practical idealogy.

ACTIONS TAKEN: I tried to alter the article a bit to try and make the topic adhere more towards what would be a simplification of this issue, and that is basic "Constitutional Conservatism". In fact, there's a "Constitution Party" in the U.S. in existence who, in their platform statement, pretty-much define what "Constitutional Conservatism" is really all about. So, if you're looking for a so-called "Paleoconservative" perspective, I would refer people to their platform at http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php. Even though this is a small political party, much of the Constitution Party's platform is either included in the platform of the Republican Party and/or an aspect of "U.S. main street thinking".

I also removed some statements that do more to confuse the reader than help the reader understand the subject. Especially statements like:

Paleocons reject attempts by Rush Limbaugh and others to graft short-term policy goals -- such as school choice, enterprise zones, and faith-based initiatives -- into the core of conservatism.

First of all, specific issues that arise and the method of handling them are part of what defines any particular "ism". In this case, the solutions may or may not be part of the "paleoconservative" solution but even more importantly, the referred article does not support the statement that the author made. There's nothing in that cited article that discusses the yeas or nays of short-term policies within the "paleoconservative" movement.

I have found a number of such disassociated articles which I ended leaving alone until there's some additional discussion of the direction of this article.

OBSERVATIONS: I happened to notice that the article on "Conservatism" doesn't even devote a paragraph to the U.S. Constitutional aspects of Conservatism. A true conservative bases his belief system on the U.S. Constitution. Sadly, the article on "conservatism" leaves out that essential aspect on conservatism and in such a discussion is simply negligent.

I think that this article is best combined with the article on "Constitutional Conservatism" because there really is no difference in the two. Also, a topic within the page on "Conservatism" regarding the "Constitutional" perspective of conservatism should be added.

I admit that I didn't consult this discussion page before making changes (I always do consult discussion pages prior to making changes, so I apologize if anyone is upset about my changes) and had I seen the disclaimer at the top and the direction some of the editors wanted to take regarding this article, I probably wouldn't have spent so much time editing the subject and then, subsequently performed a thorough explanation in this discussion section, until a direction had been agreed upon. Although, there were and still are a few inaccuracies, and even irrelevancies in this article,`this really is a good basis for a thorough explanation of constitutional conservatism.

POSSIBLE ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN: Nevertheless, I urge for editors to EITHER simply eliminate the "Paleoconservatism" page AND add it all to the page on "Conservatism" (certainly a HUGE sub-topic within an article) OR Re-title this page to "Constitutional Conservatism" and just address this subject in such a manner to explain what is a "constitutional conservative" and how it may or may not be different than simple "conservatism" and elaborate in detail (much like has already been done here) on the history, beliefs, etc. of "Constitutional Conservatism" OR add a sub-topic into the article on "conservatism" regarding the "constitutional" aspects of "conservatism" by adding major points from the "paleoconservativism" article.

Certainly, if we are trying to provide valid, accurate, helpful, current, relevant information that perfectly describes the trio of subjects of "conservatism", "paleoconservatism", and "constitutional conservatism", I highly recommend one of the above actions be taken. My preference would be to re-label this article to "Constitutional Conservatism" and define it as a sub-topic of conservatism. Then, to relegate any info regarding "paleoconservatism" into the newly defined "constitutional conservatism". Jtpaladin 20:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

To an extent, I believe "paleoconservatism" is simply the more academic term. Since it apparently predates "constitutional conservatism" (and has the advantage of being shorter!) it will probably be retained as the normative term. I don't think merging the entire contents of this article to conservatism is wise at all—this article is itself probably getting too long. Constitutional conservatism now redirects here, and I think that should take care of most of the issues you raised. ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

References

COMPLETELY OFF THE MARK

JTPaladin, you should have consulted the discussion page, or at least done a minimal amount of research before you began "editing" this page. The fact that you don't use the word "paleoconservative" or know what it means does not mean that it isn't used or doesn't have a commonly accepted definition. Even reading the article itself before you began to change it might have helped.

Familiarize yourself with Chronicles and the American Conservative, the two chief paleocon magazines. Read our Roundtable in the January 2001 issue of Chronicles, entitled, "What Is Paleoconservatism?" (It's repeatedly linked off of this very page!) Read the entries on paleoconservatism, Chronicles, The Rockford Institute, AmCon, and associated people in ISI's new Encyclopedia of American Conservatism. Then come back and contribute. In the meantime, I'm reversing out all of your changes, since you admit on this page that you've never even heard anyone use the term "paleoconservative," much less have any idea what it is. --Scott P. Richert, Executive Editor, Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture

Scott, feel free to undo any changes I made but in doing so you sweep a wide net over basic issues like the fact that "paleoconservatism" is not only anti-authoritarian but shouldn't it also be anti-communist? You eliminated my reference to the "anti-communism" aspect, which makes one wonder, why? Also, as others have mentioned, this article is incredibly long and includes information that is redundant and irrelevant. The quote that I pointed to regarding Rush Limbaugh and short-term goals is just one small example. The citation is completely devoid of anything that would seemingly back up that statement. Also, your insistence that "paleoconservatism" is dedicated to "Christendom" when in fact "Judeo-Christian" is more accurate, is another example of confusion over the basic aspects of any conservative philosophy. The other comment that I removed that cited a source as a basis for referring to "paleoconservatism"; I thought a political philosophy first defined in Nexis by a Left-Wing magazine would clearly indicate to anyone how suspicious it would be for any conservative adhereing or even justifying it as a so-called Right-Wing philosophy. The mere fact that "paleoconservatism" is not in popular usage and non-scholars don't use it as a self-indentifying philosophy, should alert anyone trying to create a definition that this is something perhaps that needs better defining or combined as an aspect of conservatism. The article reads like a mish-mash of made-up ideas and tenets strewn together to form a phoney type of conservatism. Conservatism in its' very essence does not need one of the largest articles in Wikipedia to help define it. It's a simple yet basic philosophy to which the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are basic foundations. One source cited considers France a better nation than the U.S. That citation rambles on about essentially nothing. Another source rambles on about the essential greatness of the U.S. Well, which is it?

In the very openning of "paleoconservatism's" definition, the most obvious association would be in referring to it as the "Old Right". Sadly, it doesn't make it. Anyway, since you seem to assert yourself as an expert, I won't bother helping in cleaning it up without spending even more hours trying to unravel the focus of this unweildy article. However, if I were you, I would seriously consider making sure that the statements that are made here can actually be supported with proper citation that actually have relevance to the quote being made. And, do what others here in the discussion section have been clamoring about and that is, trim this article down to a degree that makes the point without having to make odd references to things like "Star Wars". Jtpaladin 20:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

JTPaladin, you seem to be missing the point. You've admitted on this page that you don't know what paleoconservatism is, you've never heard anyone use the term, and you don't know anyone who self-identifies as such. How, then, can you make assertions about what is correct or incorrect in this entry? For instance:

Also, your insistence that "paleoconservatism" is dedicated to "Christendom" when in fact "Judeo-Christian" is more accurate, is another example of confusion over the basic aspects of any conservative philosophy.

Absolutely not. Again, read Chronicles for a little while. Or even just look up the definition of Christendom, which is a proper noun, and the definition of Judeo-Christian, which is an adjective. There's a reason that the original editor (who was not me) phrased it that way.

As for the article being too long and involved, we're all in agreement there. If you look back through the archives of the talk page, you'll see that that came about because one user suddenly started inserting cite tags everywhere, and threatening to delete most or all of the article. Trying to forestall that, another user (Yakuman) responded with citations, including expansions of the text. Several of us, including Yakuman, warned that the first user's demands would make the article unwieldy, but a number of respected Wikipedia editors sided with the first user instead. Thus, they bear the responsibility for the length of the article. Perhaps they should come in and help undo what they brought about.

I'm perfectly happy, when I have time, to try to trim it down and to move some material to other articles. If you read the discussion page, you'll note that I've already made some suggestions how it can be done. But I don't have the time in the foreseeable future. That doesn't mean, however, that users who freely admit that they know nothing about the topic should come in and start rewriting the article in their own image. --Scott P. Richert, Executive Editor, Chronicles. 74.134.168.94 21:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Scott, I know what "paleoconservatism" actually is. You misunderstood the point I was making and that is that this is not a commonly used term among conservatives, and only seemingly tends to further categorize conservatism mush to the glee of the media. I would bet that if you went into any "conservative conversation" and suggested that you were a "paleo", you would get some bizarre looks. Why? Because it's an attempt to place yourself in some high-browed intellectual category of conservatism. A conservative is a conservative, and don't include neo-conservatives in this distinction. It's a simply belief system. It's far easier to explain conservatism than liberalism. When you have an article this massive to try and explain something so simple, you lose your audience. Much of what is stated here is basic conservatism. I've read the excellent article, "What Is Paleoconservatism?". It's a great article from which you could easily extract all you need to know about what "paleo...ism" is all about. The problem is that this is simply "Constitutional Conservatism" blended with past and current issues, such as the "Old Right". But the the "paleo...ism" article in Wikipedia goes way overboard in throwing things in that are clearly outside conservative thinking. Again, the first reference of "paleo..." in Nexis is by "The Nation"!! Thanks, but no thanks. Perhaps you want to utilize the Communist Party U.S.A. as a source as well?!! Heck, reference is made to Eugene McCarthy as someone encompassed in "paleo...ism", and Richard Nixon is mentioned as well, who was no friend of conservatism. This is further evidence that "paleo...ism" is a manufactured, unweildy, and often times contradictory belief system.

But for whatever reason, you've ignored some of my other points regarding statements made and how the citations do not correspond to the statemtent and do nothing to support said statement. As for "Christendom" vs. "Judeo-Christian values", you're confusing the issue. Without getting into a detailed discussion of that, let's just say that it serves to confuse the reader more than clarify the matter. Anyway, this is an argument that can be a whole topic onto itself. Aside from the other points I made which you either ignored or preferred not to answer, let me leave you with this honest and serious concern: As you acknowledged, the article is far too long. I realize there was some debate about the aspects of this article which sounds like it caused this article to be longer than what you would like.

The fact is that much of the information in this article is great stuff. But, if you see how "paleo...ism" is so different than American conservatism, then I would like to see a section that outlines the differences in the "paleo...conservatism article. Or, heck, let's discuss it here for the time being. I imagine that it would not be much of anything worth mentioning because of the similarity in the two subjects, but perhaps you can find something worthwhile listing. Lastly, if "paleo...conservatism" is "anti-authoritarian", why is it that you deleted my addition to the article that "paleo...conservatism" is also "anti-totalitarian"? I found that odd. Can you explain? Thank you. Jtpaladin 18:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

JTPaladin, which is it:

Has anyone actually ever heard of someone using the term "paleoconservative"? Anyone walk around telling people that they are a "Paleoconservative"?!! I've heard of "conservatives", "neoconservatives", "fiscal conservatives", "social conservatives", and even "Americanists", but never, never heard anyone referring to or stating that they are or know someone who goes around calling themselves a "Paleoconservative". I've been a conservative for decades and I have never heard or used that term in any fashion.

Or:

Scott, I know what "paleoconservatism" actually is.

Those two statements seem mutually exclusive.

As for:

I would bet that if you went into any "conservative conversation" and suggested that you were a "paleo", you would get some bizarre looks.

I can assure you that I go into "conservative conversation" all the time, and I self-identify as a paleo. Used to be--say, 10 years ago--that people didn't know what that meant. Nowadays, even people not familiar with Chronicles almost always say something like, "Oh, you mean like Pat Buchanan?" At which point I reply, yes, and point out that Pat has been a subscriber for 25 years and has publicly stated that he got his ideas on trade and immigration from Chronicles. People may indeed give me bizarre looks, but I assure you that has nothing to do with the label.

Lastly, if "paleo...conservatism" is "anti-authoritarian", why is it that you deleted my addition to the article that "paleo...conservatism" is also "anti-totalitarian"? I found that odd. Can you explain?

Yes--As I noted on this page, I reversed your edits wholesale, because you had stated that you a) "have never heard or used that term in any fashion"; and b) "never heard anyone referring to or stating that they are or know someone who goes around calling themselves a 'Paleoconservative.'" And I suggested that you learn something about the topic before you edited the page.

I would never consider editing a page in Wikipedia which concerned a term that I readily admitted I had never even heard, because even if I made an edit that turned out to be correct, it would essentially be by accident. I'd leave the editing of such pages up to people who a) had heard the term; and b) knew something about the subject. --Scott P. Richert, Executive Editor, Chronicles 69.128.111.134 20:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Scott, to further qualify my statement, I did look into the definition of "paleo...ism" as you requested (I read several articles of the articles post here, including, "What Is Paleoconservatism?". It was a fine article but as I mentioned, it didn't differ that much from what a traditional conservative really is. Sadly the "paleo...ism" article is full of stuff that it is certainly not. A serious edit of this page is long-overdue. And the simple fact that you still haven't added "anti-communist" to the definition makes me wonder what's holding you up. Because if you entered into a discussion with me and other conservatives and you defined "paleo...conservatism" without including "anti-communism", you would certainly get the looks to which I am referring. Let me ask you this: Is there a quick list of additions or deletions that you would like to see happen to this article? Heck, if you have the time, we can get on the phone and go through the article one piece at at a time and question each item as to its' appropriate relevancy. In fact, I would love to chat with you over the phone and take a little time to get to know a fellow "paleo" and help you with this article. Is there any chance you would be open to that kind of communication? I would gladly post my email and then give you my phone number if you thought we could make this the kind of definitive article that it deserves to be. Thoughts, please? Jtpaladin 15:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Scott, I added "anti-communism" as a tenet of "paleo...ism" since people like Pat Buchanan who are considered "paleo", are very much anti-communist. I'm sure if you look, there are plenty of other sources to support that description. Jtpaladin 15:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a case in point I'd like to point out that just because someone "claims they don't know anything about an article's subject or discussion doesn't mean that you can sweep whatever changes they've made under the rug(but I guess you CAN)..that is intellectual elitism..If you wish to clean up after them, you should still pick through their changes and realize what is fact,fiction,pov,relevant or irrelevant changes and information..if they are presenting facts without presenting sources then I was under impression that on wikipedia you request that someone can supply a valid source,source it yourself or delete when you find valid sourcable conflicting info..not just: delete. Are we now using the delete function as a wide angled tool to punish editors who don't do it the way we like? or is it still for the purpose of making articles presentable and informative..i-j-s. Quite frankly i actually think the editor in question is trying to legitimize..-I'm not sure it even deserves an article at all but the sheer mass buffonery of the population probably assures its existence as a popular movement so examining the facts would probably force me to digress on that point.)..-what so many wiki visitors would likely consider a primative backward historically delusional sociopolitical ideology and simultaneously take ownership of the U.S.A. constitution for their agenda..by urging wikipedia to rename it something that doesn't remind readers of what cave-man era notions these really are..preferring "constitutional conservatism" instead because it sounds more patriotic and less "fred flintstone", but theres probably validity to that title (IMO very many right wing zealots DO seem to use the U.S. constitution as miraculously flawless and may as well be the "10 commandments" like a sort of prophecy or religious bible..but that's just "patriotism" and most assuredly/definitely not limited to conservatives. ) I don't have any research of this editors track record to back it up nor do i care to try, and I accuse it out of my own POV and realize this article should never be about my own POV of the editor's motives anyway..the real question here among others I suppose, is this: Does it matter how much a person "Knows" to edit an article? who is the judge criteria? DO I now need a degree in something to edit wikipedia? Do the edits fit the format and purpose of the article and wikipedia's increasingly refined standards, and academically I think the person raises the questions(whatever the motives)..: Are the ideologies/histories/origins/institutions of the two(or more?) terms the same, and if so which is the more legitimately adopted term as far as authoritive sources, posterity,history,and general popularity of consensus, and\or whatever else covers the guidelines for terminology of socio-political movements among humanity as far as wikipedia's standards are concerned, which term fits more into the scope and scheme of wikipedia's format for reporting information on psycho-socio-political movements, etc. which ever term does a better job of conveying that truth of encyclopedic information should be the one that gets the article and the other or both should get redirects..even if the only thing they have in common is distinctly wiki-able phenomenon of mass confusion of the terms. There.done. Its all my POV here but pov doesn't make something invalid, POV offers insight and can be arguably relative to the information but not necessarily wiki-able..we an put our pov on the talk pages as long as it relates directly to the article and the editing of it..as I might someday be quoted saying: "languages are a collection of mass adopted opinions". or how about "reality precedes definition..communication also precedes definition." I don't have to know your name to know your nuts"..I could go on like this forever but thankfully I won't. advice its always more respectful to join or at least view the talk page before sage-ing your expertise on wikipedia imo it saves alot of deleted typing and argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.183.241 (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Praise for this article

In an article titled "What the Heck is a Paleoconservative and Why You Should Care" in the Intellectual Conservative, Dec. 8, 2006, Dan Phillips writes:

First of all, this is a topic about which a book could easily be written, and some have. It is not my intention to be exhaustive or to reinvent the wheel. For a more exhaustive treatment, see the Wikipedia entry on paleoconservatism. I know Wikipedia can be a bit hit and miss, but the paleoconservative entry is fantastic. (No I did not write it.) It was updated recently, and the first half is particularly well done. [1]

He includes a hyperlink to the Wikipedia article. I thought that those of you who've worked on this article should be aware that notice was taken! JamesMLane t c 02:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the best articles I've ever read on Wikipedia! 72.190.106.230 02:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism for this article

It's a shame this article isn't flash-frozen and returned to about a year ago. I'm tired of tweaking it. Simply put, it's too much extraneous stuff. I don't purport to be the discerner of what's always right regarding paleoconservatism and the Old Right. But 25% of the material recently added could be removed, and it's a lot of redundancy. It's just too much trivial details and banal insignificant banter coming on as of late. Even if I agree with some of it; I fail to see the point of such long-winded exasperation. Wikipedia like the rest of the world suffers from entropy and decay. This article is no different.

RSetliff - InternetPundit.com - A New Voice for the Old Right 69.160.103.119 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I do get the feeling that there's a bit too much quoting going on in the article. Bi 07:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

1.) I simply don't have the time to work on this material in detail, but I did change "paleoconservatism ideology" to paleoconservative worldview. The reasons should seem obvious, in that paleos are anti-ideological.

2.) With all due respect, Mr. Setliff, I don't understand why you consider the added material to be "trivial" and "banal." This is a complex topic. I even tried to make it spinning off new artcles, such as managerial state. If there is a time to be encyclopedic, this is it.

Look, if details aren't given, others with less pure motives will get to rewrite history. To the extent that they are not dropped down the memory hole, I fear paleos will be remembered as a bunch of racist sexist homophobes who took up criticism instead of cross-burning. Many, many people of our age do not understand that a worldview can be both right-wing and anti-authoritarian.

3.) I was forced to overquote because there are serious differences in interpreting what this or that idea means. Since the paleos value rhetoric over technics, it made sense to cite primary sources. Yakuman 23:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)