Re: Humorless Paleocon Plunders Supporters

Laurence and Tom,
The thing about paleocons is that for them, freedom is only incidental to their idea of the ideal society. They don’t value freedom for freedom’s sake, but value it because it is “traditional.” Like true conservatives, “order” (imposed by government if necessary) and not freedom, is their primary goal. Of course, freedom is the mother of order, not the other way around, as any classical liberal knows. However, paleocons aren’t classical liberals, they’re traditional conservatives. That is, they’re authoritarians.

Here is a basic breakdown of the general paleocon party line I’ve read in paleocon publications in recent years (number 9 is particularly hilarious):

1. Taxes are good (especially tariffs and sales taxes) – the government has a right to your money.
2. Trade barriers and protectionism are good – the government has a right to tell you what you should and should not buy.
3. Economic Nationalism is good.
4. Government police are wonderful. Whether it’s beating down immigrants or keeping “law and order” in America, we need armed government agents with vast power keeping people in line. Besides, we only care about the civil liberties of those superior “Nordic” races.
5. The world was much better before the industrial revolution when we all lived in little huts and scratched out a living in the soil 16 hours each day.
6. Bailouts are good!
7. Economic theory is meaningless. Protectionism is good because we say it is.
8. Multiculturalism is the greatest threat to civilization today. Indeed, enforced multiculturalism is the only big-government program we care about.
9. Interracial marriage is an important issue.

Share

10:58 am on January 2, 2009

Re: Humorless Paleocon Plunders Supporters

Tom, just last night I was reading the January issue of Chronicles and noticed that Scott Richert, the executive editor, was in favor of the Detroit bailout. He reasons that “the alternative is likely to be much worse.” Richert doesn’t mention unions in his article on the woes of the American automakers, but does lament the decline of tariffs. To counter this, a VAT should have been imposed.

Share

9:49 am on January 2, 2009