• Paleo-what?

    Email Print
    Share

    Back
    before my time, in the halcyon days of inflation, disco, and the
    draft, there was an ubiquitous question in the country's political
    discourse: Jimmy who? Of course, the interrogative was directed
    towards the candidacy of Georgia's favorite son, Jimmy Carter, peanut
    farmer and future president. I was abused as a child, since my very
    first memory is of my mother and father talking about the 1980 presidential
    election, and my father cautioning me against the blind sentimentality
    of my mother and grandparents, who voted for Carter out of loyalty
    to state (Georgia was the only state of the Confederacy to cast
    its ballot for Carter). Over the next two decades I was raised on
    a diet of dinner table political discussion, the mother and grandparents
    pretty much falling back into character and supporting conservative
    Republicans, except for my grandmother's inability to overcome a
    debilitating Pavlovian reflex to praise FDR, she being an impressionable
    young woman during the Depression and such.

    Considering
    my checkered background, it's no wonder that I chose the suspect
    road of applying to graduate school to study philosophy, and in
    particular political philosophy. After four years as an undergrad
    I've just been able to teach my parents the distinction between
    philosophy and psychology. The devotees of the first discipline
    sit around dreaming up bogus theories, while the practitioners of
    the second set about applying them to susceptible victims. Anyway,
    as a spectator at the games of life (what Pythagoras called the
    philosopher) I have developed quite a reputation as a junkie, like
    those poor fans who go to see the Falcons lose year after year and
    still keep the faith, one Super-Bowl appearance notwithstanding.
    So, it's no surprise that a number of fans who cheer for different
    teams than I do have engaged me over the years for the sake of friendly,
    and sometimes not so friendly, conversation.

    Usually
    it begins with a, "I hear you're one of those conservative
    Republicans?"

    "Well,"
    I reply. "A lot of my views would probably be described as
    conservative, and I certainly believe in the legitimacy and utility
    of a republican form of government, but, although most of the votes
    I've cast have been for Republican candidates, and for two years
    I was active in College Republicans, I'm no longer a card-carrying
    member of the Republicrats."

    "The
    Republi-who's?"

    "The
    Republicrats," I explain to him, "are the established
    party, masquerading as left and right, that monopolize control of
    the political system through restrictive ballot access laws and
    a system of spoilage that is only armed robbery on a grand scale."

    "Oh,
    so you mean to say that you favor third parties, like Ralph Nader
    and the Greens?"

    "Not
    exactly. Look, I'm all for freedom, and the right of nuts like Nader
    to espouse their anti-capitalist bigotry, though Nader is sound
    on the issue of American imperialism. And it would be a blessing
    for democracy to open up the political system to more voices. However,
    even parties organized around the greatest principles tend to degenerate
    over time, because popular groups gravitate toward the lowest common
    denominator. I'm all for individual choice."

    "Then
    you're a pro-choice liberal?"

    "Exactly,
    but not how you use those terms. What you call choice is merely
    state-mandated and subsidized murder."

    "Whoa,
    hold on a minute," my interlocutor objects. "What kind
    of religious fundamentalist are you?"

    "The
    type that my sister says is going to Hell along with my Hindu girlfriend,
    because we don't subscribe to her brand of Baptist. In fact, I grew
    up thinking I was quite liberal in religious matters until I went
    to college and realized that even the irreligious from the South
    are more concerned about God and Eternity than your average minister,
    priest, or Rabbi from yankeedom."

    "The
    South. Why in the world would you want to associate with the South?"
    And, if they are in my apartment and haven't been scared off by
    all of it, they might ask about my picture of Robert E. Lee and
    REAL Georgia State flag hanging on the wall.

    "The
    South," I answer, beginning to turn red, "despite all
    the injustice done to it and unfair portrayals to this day, is the
    bastion of American civilization and of the idea of limited government
    and liberty. Everyone has a right, a duty, to honor their ancestors.
    Southerners no less than any other people. We have a lot to be proud
    of, including our War for Independence, fought to protect against
    foreign invaders, and NOT to preserve slavery, as anyone with one
    eye and half a brain could find out for themselves!"

    If
    my partner hasn't stormed off by now, or been knocked unconscious
    by intellectual overload, they'll usually mumble in a dazed stupor,
    "This is all very confusing. You're not a Republican and you're
    not a Democrat. You say you're for individual choice, but you don't
    approve of abortion. And you demand freedom of conscience, while
    freely identifying with Southerners who are the main purveyors of
    hate and intolerance."

    I
    give up by this point. Still, I might as well let him in on the
    secret. "I'm a paleo-libertarian."

    "A
    paleo-what?" He grimaces as he slinks off to take succor from
    his socialist buddies on the sidelines.

    And
    so we come back to the question recalled at the beginning of this
    article. "Jimmy-who?" In the intervening decades since
    his election a lot has changed. Jimmy discovered marksmanship, Habitat
    for Humanity, and third-world immunization, which all goes to show
    that it's never too late in life to learn what you're good at. My
    conservative Republican father has come to be convinced of the futility
    of American interventionism, the War on Drugs, and the minimum wage,
    to the degree that his basic philosophy is now paleo-libertarian.
    My Indian girlfriend, who started out as a moderate Republican,
    now reads Chronicles and The American Spectator, plus
    the articles I e-mail her from LewRockwell.com. She even found herself
    defending the Confederacy to a black student at Vanderbilt when
    she was visiting her sister. Of course, she had the added advantage
    of being born and raised in Alabama, the heart of Dixie, while I
    grew up in the New South capital of Atlanta, unfortunately without
    even acquiring a southern accent, according to my parents, though
    my former Jewish roommate from New Jersey would disagree.

    If
    the best defense is a good offence, then we are doing a good job
    of assaulting the underlying inconsistencies and uncovering the
    fanciful lies at the heart of statism and the status quo. The game
    isn't over by any means. When Lee surrendered at Appomattox, that
    disaster didn't kill Southern nationalism. Bubba still proudly waves
    the Rebel banner today. The Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD
    and along with it any realistic hope of a Jewish nation. Never mind.
    1948 Palestine. The Athenians condemned Socrates to drink the Hemlock.
    So what? That didn't deter Plato from persevering in his philosophical
    inquiries and transforming the entire history of the West. So, next
    time anybody says to you, "paleo-what?" just remember
    who beat Gerald Ford in 1976.

    August
    7, 2001

    Email Print
    Share