Special Section: Frum Forum

William A. Rusher

Former Publisher of NR

San Francisco, Calif.

David Frum's article "Unpatriotic Conservatives" (April 7) will serve the important purpose of compelling conservatives to consider more carefully just what their movement stands for, and who is entitled to claim membership in it.

In effectively reading the self-described "paleoconservatives" out of the conservative movement, Frum is simply formalizing a break they themselves have long since proclaimed. In the words of one of their leading spokesmen, Samuel Francis, "As for the movement, they can have my share of it, along with that of most other paleos -- we now have our own movement." It's not much of a loss -- the publication Chronicles, which Francis rightly calls "the main paleo magazine," boasts a paid circulation of 6,169.

Pat Buchanan is a somewhat more complicated problem. He still calls himself simply a "conservative" (indeed, he recently launched and now edits a magazine called, no less, The American Conservative), but in recent years he has steadily marginalized himself by opposing free trade and espousing a sort of neo-isolationism. In 2000, running for president against George W. Bush, Buchanan won just four-tenths of 1 percent of the popular vote. Yet, incredibly, the March 10 issue of his magazine contains a passionate call for an alliance of conservatives and, believe it or not, the whole anti-war Left, against Mr. Bush's policy in Iraq. (Call it "the Vidal-Buchanan-Baez axis.")

Robert Novak's differences with the administration, and with most conservatives, center on Middle Eastern policy. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is grossly unfair of Novak to pose as a perfectly standard conservative and then mystify the people who trust him by bashing George W. Bush. Let's have a little more truth in advertising.

One minor cavil: I think the adjective "unpatriotic," in the title of Frum's article, was unfortunate. These people are not unpatriotic. It is true, as Frum says, that "They began by hating the neoconservatives. They came to hate their party and this president." But they do not hate America. They are simply, desperately, wrong.

Charles R. Kesler

Professor of Government

Claremont McKenna College

Claremont, Calif.

David Frum's essay is a welcome indictment of the unpatriotic tendencies of paleoconservatism, made all the more powerful by his willingness to let the paleos speak for themselves. Conservative self- criticism is as important today as it was 40 years ago, when NR led the way in isolating and discrediting the John Birch Society.

To be sure, not every paleoconservative dwells in the fever swamps. But the more sensible among them don't restrain or upbraid the others, thus in effect inciting them. The entirely predictable storm of indignation that will greet this doughty essay would at least be more plausible if Patrick Buchanan or someone like him first noticed the beam in his own movement's eye.

If I have a criticism, it's that Frum rests his indictment a little too easily on the paleocons' ressentiment (pardon my French). Though acknowledging that issues of principle lurk in the background, he traces the emergence of self-conscious paleoconservatism to the squabble over places in the early Reagan administration. This treats the efficient but not the final causes of the dispute, however, and neglects two important considerations that Frum may well want to pursue later. First, the essay doesn't treat seriously what deserves to be taken seriously in the paleocons' argument, namely, their claim to represent the principles of the old, the genuine American republic, and not the improvident notions of the bastard American empire that has grown up since -- pick one -- 1989, 1973, 1964, 1954, 1932, 1917, 1860, 1787, or even 1776. Their arguments have roots that go deep in American history, that draw particularly on the political thought, literature, and social science of the antebellum South. Their contentions are, for the most part, wrong now and they were wrong then, but that doesn't make them insignificant.

Second, by focusing so much on the paleocons' own view of the conflict as one pitting them against the neoconservatives, the essay obscures another factor that is vital for conservatism as a whole. There is much common ground between the paleos and neos, whether for good or ill. Both sides boast of their distrust of rationalism, place greater social and moral faith in religion (though perhaps in different religions) than in reason, give at most two cheers for capitalism, and doubt seriously whether American principles of equality and liberty, derived from mere natural rights, can long sustain a decent republic. The neocons may be embarrassed by this common ground, and in recent years have in fact downplayed and even abjured some of it. But American conservatism as a whole remains unsure of its American roots, and so the paleocons' challenge deserves to be confronted on the level of principle, for the sake of our country and of the truth.