Jump to content

Talk:Paleoconservatism/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

FYI

The Paleo article has begat the children: paleoconservative worldview, managerial state, Neoconservative - Paleoconservative Conflict. Is it possible to create a textbox linking them? Yakuman 23:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I must note again that everything controversial, right wing or "on the side of the angels" is not necessarily paleoconservative:

1.) SSPX deals with a whole different set of issues.

2.) R.J. Rushdoony wanted open borders and spoke often about the evils of "protectionism" and "mercantilism." The Weekly Standard even gave him a complementary obituary!

3.) Alex Jones supports Pat Buchanan and attacks the neocons. On the other hand, he is first and foremost a populist conspiracy theorist in the tradition of Robert Welch and John Stormer. Whether or not a centralized plot exists to enslave humanity has no bearing on the validity of the paleoconservative worldview.

4.) AFAIK, none of the major party 2008 presidential candidates are paleocons. Ron Paul may be a paleolibertarian, however. In case I need to say it again, Alan Keyes is a pro-war neocon and a former student of Strauss. Also, Tom Tancredo is a pro-war Republican who supports immigration reform. Michael Savage is some sort of pro-war new age hippie.

Duncan Hunter is an interesting case. He seems to be his own man and may have some paleo-leanings. I dunno. He supported the Iraq invasion as "the greatest protection of human rights in this decade," which clearly puts him outside the camp.[1] Yakuman 23:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Savage is basically paleoconservative in nature. Hes only pro-war, because of his affection for Israel, but any Jew who isn't concerned about the existence of Israel could never truly be a paleoconservative in his soul.

In other words any Jew who is a true paleoconservative must be a neoconservative

Mark Brunskill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.227.127 (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"Anti-authoritarian"?

"Anti-statist" I can buy, but "anti-authoritarian" hardly seems the word for these spiritual and ideological descendants of Joseph de Maistre. mdumas43073 19:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Not even Le Pen is a follower of de Maistre. The paleocons are more like heirs to John Calhoun, Lord Salisbury, and John Randolph. The word anti-authoritarian was carefully chosen, in that it means "opposition to... [the] concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people." An authoritarian wants their chosen ruler(s) to take a stand and act unopposed.

That said, as Richert pointed out above, while opposing the centralization of political, economic, and social power, paleocons are also concerned with the tendency to undermine legitimate authority. The trouble is finding rulers who:

a.) make policy within their constitutional bounds, based upon a shared, traditional moral consensus,
b.) uphold the social ecology, while refusing to aid and abet its pollution,
c.) seeks to promote what Francis called "the survival and enhancement of a particular people and its institutionalized cultural expressions."

Oh, and the paleos also want immigration reformed, the foreign wars called off, multiculturalism reversed, the "culture of death" dissipated and all that. Yakuman 20:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the Joseph de Maistre article mentions that Pat Buchanan considered him a political influence. Maybe the term "populist" would be better? --BlarghHgralb 17:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Immigration Restriction

How about writing seperate subheadings for paleo views on immigration restriction in Europa and the US? Paleos fear that Europa has much more to loose (Christian identity) than USA (whose main Hispanic immigrant group is from a similar Christian culture). 212.183.134.209 23:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Not all paleocons. I happen to share most of my views with paleocons, but some are so anti-Zionist that they are allied with Muslims, so that they see immigration to Europe as an unmixed blessing. Similarly, some paleos, like Jared Taylor and Sam Francis, while writing courageous articles on race, are so fixated on race that they view it as the only issue. Therefore, Arabs, who are non-European Caucasians aren't as big a threat as Mexicans, who are half Indian.Comradesandalio 04:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that Paleoconservatives who didn't believe in the restriction of immigration are now neolibertarians. It's simply a matter of understanding labor. (It's intolerable that we still have slavery in the United States.)--12.227.237.140 (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

familial, religious, regional, national and Western identity?

I've never heard a paleoconservative talking about any of those things, most paleoconservatives I know seem more libertarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.140.4 (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Remember that Wikipedia articles reference documented sources. Original research should not be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.160.134 (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Muslims? "Urban Hippies"?

I quote:

"Paleoconservatives come from all walks of life, including Evangelical Christians, Calvinists, Traditionalist Catholics, monarchists, libertarian individualists, Midwestern agrarians, Reagan Democrats, Southern conservatives, Muslims and even "urban hippies.""

Say what? Is anyone aware of even a single Muslim or "urban hippie" that self-identifies as Paleoconservative? Paleoconservatism has a broad spectrum of views, from Pat Buchanan to LewRockwell.com to the CCC (abhorrent as the CCC is), but I'm not sure what was going through the mind of the person who wrote that in, and why it was never questioned. Since no one can corroborate the existence of any Muslims or urban hippies within this movement, this should be removed. There are, on the other hand, some Jewish paleos like Joe Sobran. Please comment. 12.64.0.52 20:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I recommend the term monarchists be removed as there does not appear to be any significant, or even fringe group, claiming to be monarchists and paleoconservative in the United States. It seemed very hard to find any source supporting a monarchy located within the United States and those I did find were lone individuals. Even those sites run by individuals supporting the idea of a monarchy were not seriously supporting a return to a monarchy within the United States nor did they claim to be paleoconservatives. Unless a source can be provided showing a monarchist group supporting the paleoconservative movement and located within the United States then I recommend the term be removed.12.64.0.52 18:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.195.234 (talk)

I agree with removing Muslims, monarchists and urban hippies from that list. Their presence doesn't make a lick of sense. Jogar2 (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Jewish Paleos Like Joe Sobran"

This revelation about Joe's ethnic background would come as a great surprise to Joe, who is Ruthenian.

But as for Muslims and "urban hippies" (whatever they might be), you're absolutely right. Go ahead and delete.

--Scott P. Richert

74.134.158.227 00:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I said Joe Sobran? I meant John Lukacs (who is Jewish, though religiously Catholic). Alright, I'll proceed to erase those two unsupportable designations. 12.64.108.202 20:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Just for the historical record, one of Lukacs's grandparents was Jewish, so he is a quarter Jewish. His parents were Catholic, and he was baptized shortly after birth.69.128.111.134 19:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, Lukac's article would say otherwise. He was born to a Jewish mother; he is Jewish according to unanimous Halakha. 12.64.114.95 19:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion on "paleoconservatism and antisemitism" is sorely lacking. I offer as a beginning source Linda Chavez' article from August 2003. http://townhall.com/columnists/LindaChavez/2006/08/03/the_new_anti-semitism The discussion regarding individuals being "Jewish, though religiously Catholic" would be quite interesting, if it were in a Holocaust museum. It is Kafkaesque in a discussion about an encyclopedia article regarding a current, American political philosophy. 75.3.225.225 (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Too many quotes

This is wikipedia. Why are there about 100 quotes? Contralya 07:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree there are far too many quotes. Extensive quotations may be appropriate for a journal article, but are not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. The article should consist primarily of prose. I'll add a quotefarm template to the article. Kaldari (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

History?

There's no history section for this topic, and instead the history is apparently scattered across various topical sections. It makes the evolution and fromation of this movement hard to follow. Next time someone undertakes a re-write I suggest making it more chronological, or at least creating a separate history section. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Paleoconservatism follows the precedant set by the 1940's Old Right led by Robert Taft, the most outspoken critics of the New Deal. The book "Betrayal of the American Right" (Murray N. Rothbard) is a good source of information. 12.64.0.52 20:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

David Duke, Paleocon???

I get the suspicion that some editors are trying to paint Paleoconservatism as a racist movement. The sections involved are mostly unreferenced.

I've removed that. The section was unreferenced. JASpencer 20:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If David Duke considers himself a paleoconservative and has similar views to theirs, why shouldn't he be included in that category? This has to be unbiased. You can't exclude someone just because he is embarassing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.214.106 (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Where's the evidence that David Duke considers himself a paleocon? You can't include someone just because you want to embarrass the subjects of the article. --98.213.111.240 (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge

This article should be merged with Roots of neoconservativism and all the other articles like neoconservativism and this, that and the other world view articles, that have all been written to make the same point. These are straw-man terms created and used to make a point. They can only be defined objectively by describing the views of the people who invented the terms and what point they are trying to make via straw-man arguments. Rogerfgay 20:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Where's the NPOV dispute over paleocons and Israel and foreign policy?

It says there is one on the article page, and for some reason I can't find the discussion. Where is it? Thanks.Songflower (talk) 03:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Israel

I deleted a sentence from the Israel section. The sentence is as follows... "Some paleoconservatives, like many leftists, also support the moral right of the Palestinians above that of Israel.",

This sentence is wrong for many reasons. 1. It is not sourced at all. 2. The view of "Some" paleoconservatives does not reflect the whole, and therefore should not be included in the article. 3. The "like many leftists" comment is obviously not NPOV. Even if it were true, there is no reason to include it in this article. 68.32.40.29 03:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Not that I doubt the validity of what your noting here,but I have to question for the sake of posterity,..Where on earth will anyone ever find a record of the views of "ALL" paleoconservatives? also..is the term only applicable as a self definition or can persons and entitites that "fit the general profile" also be categorized as paleos?67.175.183.241 (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

TL;DR

Conservatives have a knack for writing lengthy arguments about practically anything... So do Communists. Why couldn't they try thinking of the world in terms of pictures rather than simply words and arguments? just wondering. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 06:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That being said, would you consider Ronald Reagan or the fictional Archie Bunker to be paleocons? why or why not? 204.52.215.107 (talk) 06:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Such rubbish

Some tiny percentage of idiot duhmericans are even more uneducated than the bulk of the uneducated knuckledraggers. So what? It's like describing different colours of shit with pantone numbers. None of these yapping fools has any significance and yet this huge article packed with nonsense exists. Delete the fucking thing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.246.228 (talk • contribs)

Gosh. Are you English or Canadian? It's hard to tell the difference these days. Do you guys have some kind of "I hate America more than anyone" contest going on? Good for you. How grown up it must make you feel.63.167.255.200 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

wth and how did I end up on this epically retro-significant topic's page and why on earth am i participating in the talk section at all?!..i must be really bored all of a sudden :\

Npov

In the affirmative action and foreign policy... "some"...

Also passing quotes as statements\facts.

I'm rewriting the AA section , you decide what to do with the other —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.110.110 (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Source # 156 is a blog entry, originally published as an op-ed in a student newspaper, not a source. In the Affirmative action section, it is used to back up a claim that Asians have been "demonstrated" to be harmed by affirmative action. On the blog, the only "survey" cited shows that there was no change in homogeneity in the school. This "survey" is not a survey of american colleges, in fact it's not even a survey. It's merely the mention of enrollment stats in the context of a blog rant about affirmative action. It is Original Research, which is forbidden under wiki guidelines. I will remove the forbidden text, and place the text and link here, lest anyone think my actions were unjustified.

In addition to its detrimental effects on White Americans, affirmative action has been demonstrated to negatively affect Asian-Americans [156]
The link: http://www.dailycal.org/article/21236/the_curse_of_the_model_minority72.78.20.31 (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You should remove some names on the list

Not all non-neoconservative conservatives fit the description of a paleoconservative. Here people like Dwight Eisenhower (Taft's opponent!), Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush are listed as paleoconservatives, which they in my opinion can't be be described as. --195.0.220.117 (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. 70.157.230.114 (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Paleoconservatives

I have removed the list of Paleoconservatives as it was completely unreferenced. A list of Paleoconservative individuals would be valuable but only if it is accurate and sourced. An unsource list based on someone random person's opinion is not valuable (and I could see a ton of errors and questionable additions) and that is why I have removed it. Build it from scratch completely referenced or don't include an explicit list. Some of the additions to the list look like they are purely racist and thus have been added to smear the others on the list, another issue with an unsourced list.

The list of Paleoconservative organizations is also faulty and should be removed. --John Bahrain (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have also now removed the list of organizations. It was a mishmash of non-Neoconservative conservative groups, but that doesn't make them Paleoconservatives. Create a sourced list to replace the non-sourced list I have just removed. --John Bahrain (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with clearing out the lists of unsourced entries. I've started creating a new list of sourced entries, and encourage others to add to it as well. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Having a sourced list isn't enough. Someone wrote an article about paleocons, and people are simply adding anyone who was mentioned in the article to the list.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Comradesandalio (talk • contribs)

Certainly being called a "Paleoconservative" by David Frum doesn't necessarily mean that one matches all definitions of that term. OTOH, how else can we compile an encyclopedia except by relying on reliable sources? The prohibition on original research prevents us from deciding on our own who qualifies. So any list like this is really of "people called..." That's an inherent limit in how Wikipedia is compiled. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed Congressman Ron Paul from the List of Prominent Paleoconservatives. His positions line up more with what is now viewed as traditional Conservatism in the modern American sense (the Conservatism of WFB), such as trade and drug policy, than the Paleoconservative principles promulgated by Mr. Buchanan. I also have reservations about Mr. Kirk, but I have not removed him as he is known to have espoused a more Old Right view than the fusionism of Meyer and WFB, although they were colleagues.--NebraskaDawg (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You're using the wrong standard. We don't make edits to Wikipedia based on our personal assessments of reality. We make them based on what we find in reliable sources. In a quick search of Google Books, I see Paul listed as a libertarian, but not a paleoconservative.   Will Beback  talk  19:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
With respect, I am not using mere personal opinion in this matter, but rather an examination of factual reality. Any of the prominent right-wing third parties in the United States (Constitution, America First, etc.) support so-called "Fair Trade" as opposed to free trade. Ron Paul does not support NAFTA, but his opposition is based on his personal judgement that the treaty is an abridgment of national sovereignty, not an opposition of free trade, which he vociferously supports. I would also assert that no right-wing third party that would be able to be taxonomized as "paleoconservative" would support drug legalization and/or decriminalization. Congressman Paul has stated publically that morality cannot be legislated, and with the strong Christian undertones of the Constitution Party, it is likely that they would disagree.--NebraskaDawg (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Please excuse my confusion, but were you agreeing with me that Paul is not a paleoconservative or were you disagreeing with me that he is a traditional WFB conservative?--NebraskaDawg (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I am disagreeing with your method, but not with your conclusion. I could not find any source that called Paul a "paleoconservative", and if there are no sources he shouldn't be on the list. But we shouldn't add or subtract people simply because of our own conclusions. It's easy to say that "no true paleoconservative" would hold position X of Y, but that'd violate WP:NOR. We're not here to make determinatins of that type, just to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  03:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your attempt to give me credit for the material, but I can't take it. I didn't merely say "no true paleoconservative would hold position X or Y." What I listed was commonly held positions by such political parties and Pat Buchanan in particular. I do not believe my editions were "original though" per se, just an observation of the consensus regarding the tenets of paleoconservatism, and that Congressman Paul does not neatly fit into that box.--NebraskaDawg (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Skousens

I think someone should mention the Skousen families (Mark Skousen, Cleon Skousen, Joel Skousen, Royal Skousen, Glenn Kimber, etc.) and their affiliated groups and companies (including FranklinSquires, The Free Capitalist Project, etc). Google them and you'll find some granddaddies of constitutional conservatism. I may also argue that their buddy Barry Goldwater should be on the list, although he may have been blackballed for surviving in the existing system... --Mrcolj (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Shortening

I think this aticle is far too long and should be trimmed substantially. However this edit, [2], marked as "minor", cut the article by a third with no clear strategy and with not prior discussion at all. Let's work together to make this a more readable and less didactic article. to begin with, are there entire sections that can be spun off into sub-articles? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Is paleoconservatism just an American term for national conservatism?

Paleoconservatism appears to be to be just an American version of national conservatism, an ideology stressing conservative social values with nationalism. Is this assessment correct? And if so, should paleoconservatism be listed as a branch of national conservatism?--R-41 (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC) I dont think paleoconservatism is the same as nationalism. (mark brunskill)

While paleoconservatism overlaps with national conservatism on a few issues, they are not identical. For example, Ron Paul, a prominent paleocon, is a strong proponent of free trade. -- LightSpectra (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would argue your point about Congressman Paul would give credence to the view that he his not a paleoconservative. I would classify him merely as a "conservative," more along with fusionism of Old Conservatism (paleoconservatism) and Libertarianism. Free-trade and Paleoconservatism are not compatible.--NebraskaDawg (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

John Birch Society influence?

It is arguable that the society has had some influence on the ideology of the "Old Right". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.227.237.140 (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Paleo views on race and intelligence - Possible White Nationalist connection?

Well known paleos such as Jared Taylor, Kevin MacDonald, and Steve Sailer often and stridently defend that there is a correlation between race and intelligence, and that this correlation is in fact a casuality caused (in part by) genes that also influence race. Paleo publications such as Chronicles, TakiMag, and VDare.com frequently publish articles dealing with it. In fact, earlier this year there was a big spat (and there are often smaller ones) between paleo commentators over it at TakiMag[3][4][5][6].

Also, the libertarian-conservative writer (who also holds paleo views on immigration restriction) Ilana Mercer often writes, in a fashion similar to J. Taylor, about the consequences of black rule in South Africa[7], as a threat to more 'civilised' white peoples.

If there is a significant connection, what is the connection between paleoconservatism and the far right/white nationalism(and not simply euro-nationalism which is a bedrock of paleo ideology because of US peoples' european origin) and is it significant to this article? I find it odd myself that many prominent white nationalists like Don Black and David Duke hold viewpoints which can be considered paleoconservative. What is the correlation? Is there an "alliance", at least in their publications, between them? Or, could contemporary American white nationalism have influenced paleoconservative though to some extent?

Euro-nationalism is very different from US Paleoconservatism and the Old Right. Isolationism would be the first in a string of differences. But in regard to white separatists such as David Duke and Paleoconservatism I would think that links to the Confederacy/Old South and what it stood for would be the connection. A Union/Northern Paleoconservatism would have a different background, viewpoint and beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.195.234 (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed a problem. There is no doubt racists have attached themselves to paleoconservatism. My question concerns the section on genetic inheritance. The section seems clearly racist, or, if you prefer, essentialist. Is this an integral part of paleoconservatism? If so, why not label it clearly. If not, why am I seeing no discussion of cleaning up the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahgsu (talk • contribs) 01:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Chronicles (magazine)

Since January 2009, an anonymous editor with an unfixed IP address has been removing any mention of "paleoconservatism" in regard to Chronicles.[8] I've improved the references but there doesn't appear to be any real dispute over whether the publication is "paleo" or not. I see that an editor identifying himself as Scott P. Richert, now executive editor of Chronicles, has appeared on Wikipedia and described the magazine as "one of the two chief paleocon magazines". See Talk:Paleoconservatism/Archive#Sources. Even Google describes it, "Leading paleoconservative journal, published by the Rockford Institute."[9] I've posted to the talk page but he hasn't responded. We can't block the user and the only alternative is a longterm semi-protection of the article, which isn't ideal either. Does anyone have any thoughts on this issue?   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Since everyone is supposed to assume the best intentions of fellow Wikipedia editors and is not supposed to speak from personal experience, feel free to disregard these remarks. :) I've been watching the changes made to this article, the Chronicles article, and the Thomas Fleming and Clyde Wilson articles, and we here at Chronicles know who is responsible. There's a fellow with a chip on his shoulder who was banned from participating in the comments section on our website because of racist remarks and general bad behavior, and he's been wreaking havoc in all of these places, under several different named accounts and anonymous IPs. In the process, he's implanted much misinformation (for instance, about the reason behind our publication of a handful of articles in Spanish translation on ChroniclesMagazine.org) that has been allowed to stand. Since we're obviously interested parties, we've kept our hands off, but it is quite frankly frustrating to see distortions and outright lies inserted into entries that concern us. (Some of the lies are incredibly obvious, and yet they are allowed to stand--this fellow has edited the entry on Thomas Fleming to state that Dr. Fleming is both a sedevacantist and an advocate of papal supremacy, two positions which are in contradiction.)
In any case, I'm happy to offer whatever assistance I can to help clean up the mess, though I realize that such an offer may violate Wikipedia's rules. Let me know if you'd like any help. (And though I don't have an account, you can verify that this is coming from the Chronicles/Rockford Institute offices by checking the IP.) --Scott P. Richert, Executive Editor, Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture 69.128.111.134 (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that background. I'm glad to know that I wasn't making the wrong call here. Your comments also let me know about the problems with Fleming's bio, which I'll watch more closely. I applaud your restraint and I encourage you to keep a relatively hands-off approach. While I know it must be difficult to stand on the sidelines when there are obvious mistakes, getting involved in editing an article about ones own organization can become problematic. Please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page anytime you notice a similar problem. As a disinterested outsider, it's not always obvious what's nonsense and what's legitimate.   Will Beback  talk  05:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The "Further reading" section had a large number of broken and outdated external links, most of which I've fixed using Google and the Internet Archive. There are two, however, which I can't find replacements for:

I've de-hyperlinked these, since the links are broken anyway. If anyone has a replacement, feel free to make use of it.

Also, there is a copy of "The Pornography ..." online, sort of, here. The article's text is reproduced interspersed with negative commentary, which makes it unusable. --darolew 13:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Can this list be trimmed back considerably? See the recent discussion at WT:LAYOUT#How to limit the size of Further reading for a general topic? ✤ JonHarder talk 11:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixing broken references

Resolved

Does anybody know what <ref name=nr2003/> is supposed to mean? It appears that it should point to some publication with a list of alleged paleoconservatives, but it shows up in the References as

158 ^ Cite Error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named nr2003.

--Cherlin (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Updates

I made a few minor changes here and there.--Gt2003 (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the source for Steve Sailer being a paleoconservative?   Will Beback  talk  05:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sailer is a bit hard to classify. He runs in paleo circles, Chronicles links to his blog, etc. If you do a google search for "steve sailer" and "paleoconservative" you can see that many consider him a paleoconservative:

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/04/lets-try-this-again/ http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2007/05/immigration_lin.html http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/24730-nro-v-vdare.html --Gt2003 (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I also alphabetized the names under prominent people.--Gt2003 (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for alphabetizing them. The sources you linked to above are not acceptable for Wikipedia purposes. Blogs and forum postings aren't sufficient. We've previously had a problem with editors adding unsourced names. I'm going to delete the undsourced names. Feel free to restore any for which we can find reliable sources. (I'll also delete the Sailer quotes, since it isn't clear he's a Paleo.)   Will Beback  talk  20:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sailer generally is considered a paleoconservative, as any google search will indicate. I have included sources from the journal Social Contract, the LA Times and National Review identifying Peter Brimelow and Steve Sailer as paleoconservatives.

I also want to add back Sailer's definition of race -- only because one regularly sees it quoted in paleoconservative articles and on paleoconservative blogs.--Gt2003 (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That Social Contract source is sufficient. I see it makes a disticintion between "Northern" and "Southern" paleoconservatives - perhaps that's something we should add to the article.   Will Beback  talk  03:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: prominent people. I added references for Bob Conley and Chuck Baldwin but deleted the other people without proper references. --Gt2003 (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Tom Tancredo

Tom Tancredo cannot be considered as Paleoconservative given that his position is pretty Hawkish in U.S. Foreign Policy while Paleoconservative support isolationist policy and oppose to U.S. intervention in world affair. There are source that considered Tom Tancredo as Neoconservative while some source claimed he is a Paleoconservative. Tom Tancredo should just be considered Conservative.--71.249.247.144 (talk) 11:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Granted, but Tancredo is on the same page as paleos on immigration, is on friendly terms with the Buchanans (works with Bay Buchanan), and is the honorable chair of the paleoconservative Youth for Western Civilization. --Gt2003 (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not for us to decide. We're just reporting what appears in reliable source. The source in this case is "Profiling In an Age of Terrorism " The Social Contract Press By Carl F. Horowitz Volume 17, Number 1 (Fall 2006). It could be argued that the SCP is not truly a reliable source because it's an advocacy publication. If we can a source calling Tancredo a Neoconservative, or saying that he isn't a Paleoconservative,. then we could add that to the entry.   Will Beback  talk  06:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps someone could add to the footnote for Tancredo that he's in agreement with paleoconservatives on immigration, but not on interventionism.--Gt2003 (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Find a source which says that and we can add it.   Will Beback  talk  20:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the best compromise is to let Tom Tancredo be label as conservative, not Neo or paleoconservative. Just because he spoke at Constitution Party national committee or his agreement with Pat Buchanan on the issue of illegal immigration doesn't make him a paleo-conservative since paleoconservative, neoconservative, conservative libertarian and christian right agree on the issue on illegal immigration, tax cut, and abortion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera m117 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's an article about Tom Tancredo who share similar position as neoconservative —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera m117 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As of July 2010, Tancredo is officially a paleoconservative. He is running for Gov. of Colorado under the Constitution Party, called himself paleoconservative in radio interview (looking for source), and and is the honorary chairman of the paleoconservative Youth for Western Civilization. --Gregory0987 (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rename from Paleoconservatism to Traditionalist Conservatism

Paleoconservatism is clearly a name with a negative bias. Wikipedia articles must obey a Neutral Point of View, therefore I believe that the policy of Wikipedia directs us to use the neutral term "traditonal conservatism". Apparently all points which do not obey the main principles of Wikipedia do not require consensus so I will be bold and rename the article immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeromeDupelourienne (talk • contribs) 09:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. It's about a particular philosophy called paleoconservatism, not about traditional conservatism. Don't even think about it. Dougweller (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

if its a philosophy or ideology. Movement or institution/faction then many things have to be considered including its popular usages..am i right? please everyone (except me), read the guidelines governing article titles for this kind of subject on wikipedia..but i would think if the article is ABOUT the movement then its debatable but if the article is primarily about the term itself then there should be NO changing it.67.175.183.241 (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Intro line

"Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleo or paleocon when the context is clear) is a term for a conservative political philosophy found primarily in the United States stressing tradition, limited government, civil society, anti-imperialism and anti-federalism, along with religious, regional, national and Western identity.[1]"

This seems to be half wrong from my usage with the word. Paleocons tend to be "anti-national government" not anti-federalism. Religious, regional, national and Western identity are modern conservatives and NOT paleocons.

Paleocons are against the welfare state and the for loosening immigration restrictions for example, which is in contrast to the protectionist views shown in the current first line.

Paleocons also do not stress tradition, as much as rolling back to smaller government, hence the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsuraci (talk • contribs) 14:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Then you guys should make the changes to the article, if someone has a problem a debate can be started.Meatsgains (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is terrible

See rsetliff remarks from 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.219.109 (talk) 13:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

White Male Political Philosophy?

How far back do these paleoconservatives want to go in terms of "tradition"? They sound nostalgic about antebellum South and this view of a European heritage completely ignores the contributions of African-Americans to the development of the U.S. and the fact that much of the United States was once New Spain. Maybe we should return the Southwest back to Mexico. That includes you, Texas.

Seriously, are there any paleoconservatives that aren't white men? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Paleocons = Old Right?

With all due respect I have heard from numerous paleoconservatives and I see absolutely no evidence that they support the views of the "old right". Most of them hate corporations and the rich, something the old right certainly did not. Also they oppose empire building even though the old right were the ones who began empire building in the Spanish-American War.

My impression is that the average paleocon is just a leftist who happens to not hate white people.

CJK (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Paleoconservatism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Removed white nationalism

I cleaned up the page and removed some white nationalist organizations from the page. Among them were American Renaissance, The Occidental Observer, Counter-Currents, Radix Journal, and The Political Cesspool.

I don't see how those organizations are paleoconservative. In my reading of The American Conservative, and Chronicles, I've never found anything supporting racial nationalism - just the opposite, in fact. Paleos seem to be unabashed cultural nationalists, but that is not the same thing as racial nationalism. It seems that white nationalists like to latch onto the "paleo" label as a way of sounding more respectable, but there is a difference between upholding European culture - which are ideas and norms which can be held by someone of any ethnicity - and upholding an identity politics for people with white skin.

Further, it is possible to come to the same positions on some issues, and start with different premises. For example, paleos seems to oppose free trade out of a sense of economic nationalism, whereas white nationalists oppose free trade because they fear that products crossing borders will also lead to (non-white) people crossing borders - or so says David Duke, a definite white nationalist.

Similarly, both groups oppose multiculturalism as it exists, yet where paleo-cons fear balkanization and prefer a world where everyone is seen as a citizen of a defined nation and culture, rather than a member of an ethnic group, white nationalists only oppose multiculturalism because it undermines the racial "will to power" they support. They mostly support balkanization on racial lines, and are fine with "multiculturalism" so long as whites are included as an identity group. As a professor I once had told me in a class on "diversity", the norm to be challenged is "Straight, White, Christian, Male". The paleoconservative opposes undermining this norm because a) they usually don't believe that homosexuality should be encouraged (often on religious grounds; b) are unapologetic about the truth of Christianity (and at the very least see it as a major source of western values); and c) see "male" as implying advocacy of feminism, which they generally oppose on the grounds that it promotes an artificial social environment between sexes which will be policed by government bureaucracies, advocates the notion, in some forms, that gender is merely a blank slate, and promotes abortion. The paleo sees the "white" part, and fears a call for racial balkanization - whereas the white nationalist hears that above all else and fears a challenge to their racial identity ideology.

The main difference is that paleoconservatives are concerned with cultural identity (ideas) - primarily Christian and Western notions of how one lives, and the reasons for doing so - whereas the white nationalists are concerned primarily with the skin color of people. Also, with regards to starting from different principles and ending up at the same place - libertarians and paleoconservatives largely agree on roughly 75% or more of the issues. However, they start from different philosophical premises, and no one considers them part of the same movement.

Anyway, I know that there is some gray area. Samuel Francis was a paleo-con with strong white nationalist sympathies, VDARE is a white nationalist site, although it runs many paleo authors and generally seems to be within the paleo-con orbit. Paul Gottfried has spoken to at least one American Renaissance conference in recent years. However, I'd say that American Renaissance, The Occidental Observer, and The Political Cesspool are unambiguously white nationalist, and don't belong on this page. They have different goals and different premises - even if Pat Buchanan might be invited every once in a blue moon.

Radix Journal and Counter-Currents were a little more ambiguous, but they seem to have white nationalist ties, looking at their websites and authors, so I removed those as well.

Any thoughts?

Generally "white nationalism" should only be included if there are sources supporting a strong connection. Anything else is POV. Dimadick (talk) 08:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

_____________________________

Just to add some additional evidence to support my thesis. The latest issue (Feb. 2016) of Chronicles, the premier intellectual outlet for paleocons, seems to be devoted to the topic of white nationalism. They have two articles from it available online, both critical of white nationalism. Read them here, and here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.114.37 (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Paleoconservatism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 18 external links on Paleoconservatism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Primarily American?

Is it correct that paleoconservatives is a philosophy found mostly in America? Is it not more accurate to describe it as an American political theorey?Royalcourtier (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Paleoconservatism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Paleoconservatism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Paleoconservatism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Paleoconservatism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Paleoconservatism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paleoconservatism/Archive_3&oldid=1137067676"