Green Mountain Hard Right!

"Pitchfork Pat" Takes Bush On Over "Islamofascist" Quote

2006-08-28T21:24:00.000-04:00

In the latest issue of The American Conservative, Pat Buchanan delves into the faulty rhetoric of President Bush, whose use of the word "Islamofascist" is based more on hype than in reality.

Link to Pat Buchanan column in The American Conservative:
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_09_11/buchanan.html

A Vermont Renewal Picnic

2006-08-28T19:38:00.000-04:00

After Mass on Sunday I took a drive up to the backwoods of Chittenden where it was rainy but the weather hadn't dampened the festivities at the annual Vermont Renewal Cookout. Vermont Renewal, for those who don't know, is a New Right grassroots activist organization that focuses on social values issues such as pornography, the homosexual agenda, physician-assisted suicide, abortion and parental notification, sexual education taught in schools, judicial activism, and religious freedom of speech among other problems facing Vermonters. It was born out of the anti-civil unions controversy and the Take Back Vermont Movement of 1999 and 2000. Its president is conservative activist Stephen Cable, its vice president (and editor of the organization's flagship publication, A Closer Look) is Judith Sargent, and its executive director is Kevin Blier. Kevin, incidently, is a veritable Machiavelli of the Vermont New Right which drives the homosexual lobby and the loony Left up the wall. He has fueled the Left's anger so much that in late 2005 they set up a venomous and wildly hysterical blog designed to attack their latest bugaboo called Blierwatch. Needless to say Kevin and his compatriots at Vermont Renewal continue stand athwart decadence and depravity despite the attacks of the loony Left.

Which is why going to the annual Vermont Renewal Cookout, even on a dark and rainy Sunday afternoon, was so much better than reading the daily diatribes of Green Mountain Daily or Freyneland (I give Vermont Daily Briefing a pass since he is so erudite and is writing a novel that will include a personal literary favorite of mine, Dr. Johnson). When I arrived the usual crowd of right-wingers were assembled (mostly from Rutland County) as well as a few big wigs from the State GOP and candidates for high office. In attendance were Windsor County GOP Chairman Suzanne Butterfield, Governor and Mrs. Douglas, U.S. Senate candidate Greg Parke, Bennington County State Senator and U.S. House candidate Mark Shepard, Attorney General GOP primary opponents Dennis Carver and Karen Karin, Chittenden County State Senate GOP candidate Agnes Clift, and Brandon State Representative Joe Acinapura. Curiously there was no appearance made by Rutland County GOP Chairman Jonathan Wallace.

The interesting part of the cookout was when former Adjunct General Martha Rainville decided to show up to eat hamburgers and potato salad the assembled red-headed stepchildren of the Republican Party (Christians and conservatives and anti-abortionists, oh, my!). It was clear that Rainville was trying to gain a few votes at theevent, an irony given that she has virtually ignored most conservatives during her whole campaign (except to kiss the ring of a few who for some reason her campaign believes are "key" Movement figures.

Rainville was introduced by former Chittenden County GOP Chairman Rand Larson, who did his best to convince Vermont Renewal's guests that Rainville's stripes were redder than the shade of blue most of us perceived them to be. It reminded me of the greedy relative who goes to see their rich aunt in the nursing home every few years in hopes of finding out that they are still in the Will. Only in this case it was a middle-of-the-roader holding her nose in hopes of getting a few votes and maybe some footsoldiers. It was rather comical, the attempt to mask Rainville's Ripon Society links by associating her with a pro-lifer. Not even invoking the name of Phyllis Schlafly could convince me of that one. Whether Rainville picked up any votes from her appearance at the Vermont Renewal Cookout remains to be seen, but I wonder how many she will lose once pro-choice former First Lady Barbara Bush comes to Vermont on her behalf. Knowing this (and that at least three pro-choice PACs have given her money), I remain doubtful that the conservatives will be flocking to the Rainville camp if she wins September 12. We've been fooled and stabbed in the back too many times to go that route again.

Sunday Mornings with Sinatra & The Latin Mass

2006-08-28T18:20:00.000-04:00

One of the reasons I enjoy driving over such a distance to attend Mass is that on a golden oldies radio station out of Albany they play the best of Frank Sinatra on Sunday mornings. I am a big fan of the sound of Sinatra and on this particular day the station (100.9 FM) had one of my favorite Sinatra hits in rotation: "It Was a Very Good Year" from 1965. Needless to stay it started my morning off right.

Mass was pleasant and inspiring as usual. Fr. Sipperly was celebrant (Fr. Gorman's mother is deathly ill, God bless her soul, so my prayers are with him and his family) and as is my usual custom I sat with Michael and his fiance for the service. After Mass I was introduced to a nice couple from Sunderland, Vermont and found out that another member of the parish has recently noticed my blog. Lunch was a merry affair and I parted with a full stomach and high spirits.

VTPaleoCon's Recommended Movie List, Part Three

2006-08-26T20:23:00.000-04:00

Since I am on a role here I might as well keep going...

Directed by Michael Curtiz:

White Christmas (1954) starring Rosemary Clooney, Bing Crosby, Vera-Ellen, and Danny Kaye.

Directed by Richard Lester:

The Three Musketeers/The Three Musketeers: The Queen's Diamonds (1973) starring Richard Chamberlain, Geraldine Chaplin, Sybil Danning, Faye Dunaway, Frank Finlay, Charlton Heston, Christopher Lee, Oliver Reed, Raquel Welch, and Michael York.

The Four Musketeers/The Four Musketeers: Milady's Revenge (1974) starring Richard Chamberlain, Geraldine Chaplin, Sybil Danning, Faye Dunaway, Frank Finlay, Charlton Heston, Christopher Lee, Oliver Reed, Raquel Welch, and Michael York.

Robin and Marian (1976) starring Sean Connery, Richard Harris, Audrey Hepburn, Ian Holm, Robert Shaw, and Nicol Williamson.

The Return of the Musketeers (1989) starring Kim Cattrall, Richard Chamberlain, Geraldine Chaplin, Frank Finlay, C. Thomas Howell, Christopher Lee, and Michael York.

Directed by Leo McCarey:

Going My Way (1944) starring Bing Crosby, Barry Fitzgerald, Gene Lockhart, and Frank McHugh.

The Bells of St. Mary's (1945) starring Ingmar Bergman and Bing Crosby. Sequel to Going My Way (1944).

Directed by John Milius:

The Wind and the Lion (1975) starring Candice Bergen, Sean Connery, John Huston, and Brian Keith.

Directed by Mark Sandrich:

Holiday Inn (1942) starring Fred Astaire, Bing Crosby, and Marjorie Reynolds.

Directed by Sidney Lumet:

Murder on the Orient Express (1974) starring Lauren Bacall. Ingmar Bergman, Jacqueline Bisset, Sean Connery, Albert Finney, Sir John Gielgud, Anthony Perkins, Vanessa Redgrave, Richard Widmark, Michael York.

Directed by John Guillermin:

Death on the Nile (1978) starring Bette Davis, Lois Chiles, Mia Farrow, Olivia Hussey, George Kennedy, Angela Lansbury, David Niven, Maggie Smith, Peter Ustinov, Jack Warden.

James Bond film that is most faithful to its literary source; directed by Peter Hunt:

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) starring George Lazenby, Bernard Lee, Desmond Llewelyn, Lois Maxwell, Diana Rigg, and Telly Savalas.

Sir Alec Guinness picture directed by Ennio De Concini:

Hitler: The Last Days (1973) also starring Adolpho Celi, Julian Glover, and Simon Ward.

Sir Alec Guinness picture directed by Charles Crichton:

The Lavendar Hill Mob (1951) also starring Alfie Bass, Audrey Hepburn, Stanley Holloway, Sid James, and Robert Shaw.

Sir Alec Guinness pictures directed by Robert Hamer:

Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949) also starring Joan Greenwood, Valerie Hobson, and Dennis Price.

Father Brown/The Detective (1954) also starring Peter Finch, Joan Greenwood, Bernard Lee, and Cecil Parker.

Sir Alec Guinness picture directed by Ken Hughes:

Cromwell (1970) also starring Timothy Dalton, Frank Finlay, Charles Gray, and Richard Harris.

Sir Alec Guinness pictures directed by David Lean:

Great Expectations (1946) also starring John Mills and Jean Simmons.

Oliver Twist (1948) also starring Robert Newton and Kay Walsh.

The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) also starring Jack Hawkins and William Holden.

Lawrence of Arabia (1962) also starring Peter O'Toole, Claude Rains, and Omar Sharif.

Doctor Zhivago (1965) also starring Geraldine Chaplin, Julie Christie, Omar Sharif, and Rod Steiger.

Sir Alec Guinness picture directed by Alexander Mackendrick:

The Man in the White Suit (1951) also starring Michael Gough, Joan Greenwood, and Cecil Parker.

The Lady Killers (1955) also starring Danny Green, Herbert Lom, Cecil Parker, and Peter Sellers.

Sir Alec Guinness picture directed by Anthony Mann:

The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964) also starring Mel Ferrer, Sophia Loren, James Mason, Christopher Plummer, and Omar Sharif. Peter Franzoni of Rutland got an Oscar for Gladiator (2000) by ripping off the story to The Fall of the Roman Empire. That said Gladiator was a great film.

Sir Alec Guinness picture directed by Robert Moore:

Murder by Death (1976) also starring Eileen Brennan, Truman Capote, James Cromwell, Peter Falk, Elsa Lanchester, David Niven, Peter Sellers, and Maggie Smith.

Sir Alec Guiness picture directed by Carol Reed:

Our Man in Havana (1959) also starring Noel Coward, Burl Ives, Ernie Kovacs, and Maureen O'Hara.

Sir Alec Guinness picure directed by Steven Soderbergh:

Kafka (1991) also starring Ian Holm, Jeremy Irons, and Jeroen Krabbe.

Sir Alec Guinnes picture directed by Charles Sturridge:

A Handful of Dust (1988) also starring Dame Judi Dench, Rupert Graves, Anjelica Huston, Kristin Scott Thomas, and James Wilby.

Sir Alec Guinness picture directed by Franco Zeffirelli:

Fratello Sole, Sorella Luna/ Brother Sun, Sister Moon (1972) also starring Judi Bowker, Graham Faulkner, and Leigh Lawson.

VTPaleoCon's Recommended Movie List, Part Two

2006-08-26T17:23:00.001-04:00

Here are some more recommended movies:

Directed by Victor Fleming:

Gone With the Wind (1939) starring Cark Gable, Olivia de Haviland, Leslie Howard, Vivien Leigh, and Hattie McDaniel.

Directed by John Ford:

My Darling Clementine (1946) starring Walter Brennan and Henry Fonda.

Directed by John Huston:

The Unforgiven (1960) starring Audrey Hepburn, Burt Lancaster, Doug McClure, and Audie Murphy.

The Misfits (1961) starring Montgomery Clift, Clark Gable, Marilyn Monroe, and Eli Wallach.

Sinful Davey (1969) starring Nigel Davenport, Fionnula Flanagan, John Hurt, and Anjelica Huston.

The Man Who Would Be King (1975) starring Michael Caine, Sean Connery, and Christopher Plummer.

Wise Blood (1979) starring Ned Beatty, Brad Dourif, and John Huston.

The Dead (1987) starring Anjelica Huston and Colm Meaney.

Directed by Elia Kazan:

On the Waterfront (1954) starring Marlon Brando, Lee J. Cobb, Karl Malden, Eva Marie Saint, and Rod Steiger.

Directed by Charles Laughton:

Night of the Hunter (1955) starring Lillian Gish, Robert Mitchum, and Shelley Winters.

Directed by Sam Peckinpah:

The Wild Bunch (1969) starring Ernest Borgnine and William Holden.

Directed by George Stevens:

Shane (1953) starring Jean Arthur, Alan Ladd, and Jack Palance.

Directed by John Sturges:

The Magnificent Seven (1960) starring Charles Bronson, Yul Brynner, James Coburn, Steve McQueen, Robert Vaughn, and Eli Wallach.

Directed by Orson Welles:

The Magnificent Ambersons (1942) starring Dolores Costello, Joseph Cotten, George Holt, and Agnes Moorehead.

Directed by Fred Zinnerman:

High Noon (1952) starring Lloyd Bridges, Lon Chaney, Jr., Gary Cooper, and Grace Kelly.

VTPaleoCon's Recommended Movie List, Part One

2006-08-26T17:23:00.000-04:00

It's been a boring Saturday so after reading the blogs I figured I would post something new on mine. Considering that I don't actually feel like delving into deep socioeconomic theory (distributism) or another rant about neo-conservative machinations, I figure why not go with something light: movies.

I have to admit I am a big movie buff, especially the classics (pre-1965, or as I view it, before The Deluge). So without further ado, here are some of my recommended favorites.

Jimmy Stewart pictures directed by Frank Capra:

You Can't Take it With You (1938) also starring Jean Arthur and Lionel Barrymore.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) also starring Jean Arthur and Claude Rains.

It's A Wonderful Life (1946) also starring Lionel Barrymore and Donna Reed.

Jimmy Stewart pictures directed by George Cukor:

The Philadelphia Story (1940) also starring Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn.

Jimmy Stewart pictures directed by Andrew McLaglen:

Shenandoah (1965) also starring Doug McClure and George Kennedy.

The Rare Breed (1966) also starring Brian Keith and Maureen O'Hara.

Cary Grant pictures directed by Alfred Hitchcock:

North by Northwest (1959) also starring Martin Landau, James Mason, and Eva Marie Saint.

Directed by Robert Aldrich:

Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962) starring Victor Buono, Bette Davis, and Joan Crawford.

Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte (1964) starring Victor Buono, Joseph Cotten, Bette Davis, Bruce Dern, Olivia de Haviland, George Kennedy, and Agnes Moorehead.

The Dirty Dozen (1967) starring Ernest Borgnine, Charles Bronson, Jim Brown, John Cassavetes, George Kennedy, Lee Marvin, Telly Savalas, and Donald Sutherland.

John Wayne pictures directed by John Ford:

Stagecoach (1939) also starring George Bancroft, John Carradine, and Claire Trevor.

Fort Apache (1948) also starring Ward Bond, Henry Fonda, and Shirley Temple

She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949) also starring Joanne Dru.

Rio Grande (1950) also starring Maureen O' Hara

The Quiet Man (1952) also starring Maureen O'Hara.

The Searchers (1956) also starring Ward Bond, Vera Miles, and Natalie Wood.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962) also starring Lee Marvin, Jimmy Stewart.

Donovan's Reef (1963) also starring Dorothy Lamour, Lee Marvin, Cesar Romero, and Jack Warden

John Wayne picture directed by Henry Hathaway:

North to Alaska (1960) also starring Stewart Granger.

The Sons of Katie Elder (1965) also starring Dennis Hopper, George Kennedy, and Dean Martin.

True Grit (1969) also starring Glenn Campbell, Robert Duvall, and Dennis Hopper.

John Wayne picture directed by Howard Hawks:

Red River (1948) also starring Walter Brennan, Montgomery Clift, and Joanne Dru.

Rio Bravo (1959) also starring Walter Brennan, Angie Dickinson, Dean Martin, and Ricky Nelson.

El Dorado (1966) also starring R. G. Armstrong, Ed Asner, James Caan, and Robert Mitchum.

Rio Lobo (1970)

John Wayne picture directed by Douglas Hickox:

Brannigan (1975) also starring Richard Attenborough and Mel Ferrer.

John Wayne picture directed by John Huston:

The Barbarian and the Geisha (1958)

John Wayne picture directed by Andrew McLaglen:

McLintock! (1963) also starring Yvonne de Carlo, Maureen O'Hara, and Jerry Van Dyke.

Chisum (1970) also starring Forrest Tucker.

Cahill U.S. Marshall (1973) also starring George Kennedy.

John Wayne picture directed by Stuart Millar:

Rooster Cogburn (1975) also starring Katharine Hepburn, Lane Smith, and Anthony Zerbe.

John Wayne picture directed by Don Siegel:

The Shootist (1976) also starring Lauren Bacall, Ron Howard, and Jimmy Stewart.

John Wayne picture directed by John Sturges:

McQ (1974) also starring Eddie Albert and Diana Muldaur.

John Wayne picture directed by John Wayne himself:

The Alamo (1960) also starring Frankie Avalon, Laurence Harvey, and Richard Widmark.

The Comancheros (1961) also starring Stuart Whitman. Wayne took over directing from Michael Curtiz.

Big Jake (1971 ) also starring Maureen O'Hara.

John Wayne picture directed by William Wellman:

The High and the Mighty (1954) also starring Robert Stack and Claire Trevor.

Films directed by Sergio Leone:

Once Upon a Time in the West (1968) starring Charles Bronson, Henry Fonda, and Jason Robards

Readings in Distributism and its Catholic Origins

2006-08-25T12:12:00.000-04:00

While I would like to give Chesterton and Belloc, the Distributist League, and others all of the credit for wedding Roman Catholic Social Doctrine to socioeconomic theory, even they acknowledge that the Church said it first. So, without further ado here are the Papal Encyclicals that every budding distributist should read:

Link to Pope Leo XIII's Papal Encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891):
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html

Link to Pope Pius Xi's Papal Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno (1931):
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno_en.html

Link to Pope John XXIII's Papal Encyclical Mater et Magistra (1961):
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_15051961_mater_en.html

Link to Pope John Paul II's Papal Encyclical Centesimus Annus (1991):
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html

My advice is to read Rerum Novarum first, then read the following:

Catholicism and Socialism: Second Series (1910) by Hilaire Belloc
The Servile State (1912) by Hilaire Belloc
A Miscellany of Men (1912) by G. K. Chesterton
Utopia of Usurers (written 1913-1915) by G. K. Chesterton
Ethics and the National Economy (1917) by Fr. Heinrich Pesch
An Essay on the Economic Effects of the Reformation (1923) by George O'Brien
Economics for Helen (1924) by Hilaire Belloc
The Outline of Sanity (1926) by G. K. Chesterton
The Church and the Land (1926) by Fr. Vincent McNabb

From there read Quadragesimo Anno followed up by:

Flee to the Fields (1934) by various, with an introduction by Hilaire Belloc
Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism (1935) by Dr. Amintore Fanfari
An Essay on the Restoration of Property (1936) by Hilaire Belloc
The Crisis of Our Civilization (1937) by Hilaire Belloc
The Church and Socialism (1938) by Hilaire Belloc
The Alternative (1940) by Hilaire Belloc

Then read Mater et Magistra and Centesimus Annus.

And for American views of distributism be sure to read the works of the Southern Agrarians, Herbert Agar, the essays of Wendell Berry, and the writings of Dorothy Day.

Dues, refugium nostrum et virtus; adesto piis Ecclesiae tuae precibus, auctor ipse pietatis, et praesta: ut, quod fideliter petimus efficaciter consequamur. Per Dominum nostrum ...

Bill Kauffman's New Book Asks Us To "Look Homeward America"

2006-08-23T22:14:00.000-04:00

Call him a libertarian populist, a left-wing paleo-con, a radical Jeffersonian decentralist, or a reactionary regionialist, Bill Kauffman is one of the Northeast's most provacative and lucid writers. Between defending isolationism, localism, provincialism, and the "small is beautiful" philosophy that fights against Wal-Mart and the State, Kauffman finds time to write for The Wall Street Journal, The American Conservative, and even Counterpunch.

Kauffman's new book, Look Homeward America: In Search of Reactionary Radicals and Front-Porch Anarchists lauds the forgotten heroes of reactionary radicalism (no, not Sen. Joe McCarthy). People like the pro-life, pro-family Mother Jones who despite being a socialist found time to oppose women's suffrage. Others include like Burkean Irish Catholic statesman Eugene McCarthy, the former Minnesota senator who bravely challenged LBJ and the Viet Nam War only to be abandoned by the McGovernite wing of the Democratic party and write for Chronicles; the hidebound Whig President Millard Fillmore, a pacifist conservative who ran as a Know-Nothing against Lincoln and like Kauffman is from western New York; agrarian Christian regionalist, poet, novelist, and essayist Wendell Berry; Carolyn Chute, the militia-building, gun-packing author of The Beans of Egypt, Maine, American Distributist and Catholic Worker founder Dorothy Day, and others.

The link below is an excerpt from Kauffman's new book; a chapter on American Regionalism and the "American Scene" painter Grant Wood (of American Gothic) fame. Incidently this style of painting is one of my favorites. Paul Smith, an American Scene painter and former summer resident of Vermont who painted in this style did a piece called Church Supper which I saw featured in an Orton Family Foundation publication a few years ago. It depicts a rural Vermont church supper with its hardy peasants being descended upon by dark clouds and the fancy cars and clothes of rich out of staters...hmmm, even today, seventy years later that sounds familiar....

Link to The New Pantagruel's excerpt of Bill Kauffman's new book, Look Homeward America: In Search of Reactionary Radicals and Front-Porch Anarchists:
http://www.newpantagruel.com/2006/05/return_from_boh.php

Defending Dame Agatha's Literary Honor

2006-08-21T15:47:00.000-04:00

Finally somebody has had the temerity to take to task PBS' recent gallingly appalling revisionist adaptations of Agatha Christie's Miss Marple series. As an avid fan of Christie's brilliant mysteries I have enjoyed past productions of her works, especially those of David Suchet as Hercule Poirot and Peter Ustinov's version of the same character in "Murder on the Orient Express".

Chris Chan from Gilbert! magazine has sent a letter to the estate of Agatha Christie asking that a more orthodox interpretation of Dame Christie's work be used for further movie and television productions. I couldn't agree more! In its attempts to modernize Miss Marple Mystery! has introduced themes not in keeping with the original intent of the author. Instead of detailing all of the flaws in the modern "adaptations" of the texts, I recommend that those interested should first read By the Pricking of My Thumbs or The Body in the Library and then watch the latest televised version. It is like reading Jurassic Park by the conservative author Michael Crichton and then seeing the watered down version that Steven Spielberg made in 1993.

Just as an aside I should point out that the BBC has had two Celtic drama/comedies that have aired in the Green Mountains and are worth viewing. The first is Ballykissangel, which focuses on the denizens of a small Irish Catholic village. The second is Monarch of the Glen, loosely (very loosely) based on the "Highland Novels" of Sir Compton Mackenzie, the right-wing co-founder of the Scottish National Party and a Roman Catholic traditionalist, which looks at the MacDonald clan of Glenbogle Castle and their various attempts to keep their estate afloat in modern Scotland.

Link to Chris Chan's "An Open Letter to the Agatha Christie Estate":
http://www.gilbertmagazine.com/page_13.html

Pitchfork Pat is Back Online!

2006-08-21T10:47:00.000-04:00

Linda Muller from For the Cause contacted me this morning and let me know that Pat Buchanan's website is back online. Please be sure to visit it and if possible get a new copy of his latest book, State of Emergency, which details our current illegal immigration crisis.

Link to Pat Buchanan's new website:
http://www.buchanan.org/

Upcoming Events at Vermont Renewal

2006-08-19T14:36:00.000-04:00

Vermont Renewal is hosting two major events that should be of interest to conservatives and people of faith:

The Annual Vermont Renewal Cookout
When: Sunday August 27, 2006, 4:00 PM
Where: Dave & Judy Sargent's in Chittenden
Notes: To RSVP and for more info call 802-775-6247.

Restoring Vermont: An Interfaith Conference
featuring nationally renowned speakers Dr. Rick Scarborough, Rev. Lawrence White, and Ambassador Alan Keyes.
When: Monday September 25, 2006, time TBA.
Where: TBA
Notes: By invitation only. Call 802-775-6247.

Be sure to check Vermont Renewal's website (see link) to learn about where and at what time the Conference will be held. Also make a point to visit the website of Vermont Renewal's sister organization, The Center for American Cultural Renewal.

Life's Little Blessings

2006-08-19T09:31:00.000-04:00

On Thursday, while I was sitting at my desk working on another mundane spreadsheet, a little miracle occured in my family. That afternoon, at 4:00 PM my brother and his wife welcomed their first child, a baby boy, into the world. My sister-in-law wasn't expected to deliver until later in the month so when I randomly called my mother that evening to see how things were going I was pleasantly surprised to hear that the baby, Jonathan Robert, had already been born.

The birth of a child is a joyous occasion and my only regret is that my brother and his wife live so far away which makes regular visits difficult. As soon as my mother told me of the good news, however, I immediately contacted Ian and congratulated he and Rachael on their new bundle of joy. It reminded me of when my sister first began having her children and all the excitement in the household when she brought home my eldest niece.

What makes this story of familial happiness a bit bittersweet is that my brother is in the National Guard and his unit is leaving to secure the border in Arizona this fall. While I was one of the earliest proponents of him entering the Guard two years ago I was worried when initally it looked as though he would be sent to Afghanistan. In the end only a portion of his unit was sent to Afghanistan and while I pray for their safe return, I have to say I am relieved that my brother is instead going to the southwest border to defend the U.S. against illegal aliens.

Invoking the Spirit of George Kennan: Why Isolationism May Actually Be Just Plain Common Sense

2006-08-18T09:32:00.000-04:00

I have often been accused by friends and enemies alike of being an "isolationist". While I do not deny that I prefer that the United States does not on global missions of revolutionary democratization I prefer to call myself an "anti-interventionist" rather than a "isolationist". So when I ran across this little post by Christopher Preble on why isolationism is really a misnomer I thought I would provide a link to it from my blog.

Link to Christopher Preble's blog post on "isolationism":
http://blog.psaonline.org/2006/08/02/isolationism-hardly-realism-maybe-common-sense-definitely/

Driver Attacks Minuteman Spokesman

2006-08-18T08:40:00.000-04:00

Read this story and then think about how many times you actually hear of a Minuteman volunteer physically attacking an illegal immigrant.

Link to story and photos of attack on Minuteman Spokesman Raymond Herrara.
http://www.minutemanproject.com/default.asp?contentID=129

Bryanna Bevens Applauds Politically Incorrect Comedy of Carlos Mencia

2006-08-17T18:53:00.000-04:00

Bryanna Bevens has a great post on why "The Carlos Mencia Show" on Comedy Central is a must-see for paleo-cons. I have to agree with Bryanna that Mencia's frank and honest jokes and sketches make for a hilarious half hour of television. I do not know if Mencia is a conservative himself, but his routine sure has a flavor of right-wing wit.

Bryanna Bevens commentary on "The Carlos Mencia Show" on Comedy Central:
http://www.vdare.com/bevens/060801_mencia.htm

Bill Buckley Sees the Light

2006-08-16T17:51:00.000-04:00

It took William F. Buckley, Jr. a while to realize that President Bush was as much of a sell-out as his father was, but recently he has been letting his feelings on the subject more readily available. While the magazine he founded in 1955, National Review, continues to allow the neo-cons to propagandize their neo-Wilsonian foreign policy (when they are not attempting to purge the Right of its "unpatriotic conservatives"), Buckley himself has at least had the sense to see that the democratic imperialism of the Administration is rooted in folly.

CBS News has recently interviewed Buckley about his views on Bush, Bush's conservative credentials, and the War. He makes it clear where he stands and I think that shows just how far this conservtive icon has come from where he was a few years ago in standing by the president and his war.

Incidently, I would just like to make a few side comments on the news company that interviewed Buckley. CBS News is owned by the same media giant that owns the mind-rotting and sound-grating MTV and VH-1 as well as the History Channel, which spends as much time on UFO abduction stories and Da Vinci Code-inspired conspiracy theories as it does on WWII documentaries and fluff pieces on the presidency. In addition CBS News also provides news updates to the homosexual cable channel LOGO. Needless to say I will not be watching Katie Couric (who actually got into an argument with Bill Buckley on C-SPAN a few years ago) on the CBS Evening News.

Link to CBS News story on Bill Buckley's statements on President George W. Bush not being "a true conservative":
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/22/eveningnews/main1826838.shtml

Some Thoughts on the Anti-Semitism of Mel Gibson

2006-08-14T18:09:00.000-04:00

Now that the Mel Gibson furor has cooled down and the media has chosen to focus on the latest celebrity break-up news, I figured I would put my two cents in about Hollywood's favorite boogey-man.

It should come as no surprise to anyone who has read this blog that as a traditionalist Catholic I am a fan of Mel Gibson's 2004 Biblical blockbuster, The Passion of the Christ. At the time I strongly defended the film against the hysterical charges of anti-Semitism by blowhards like Abe Foxman and Frank Rich, thinking then as I do now that the film was an example of how the culture war has divided America. Yes it was violent and difficult to watch, however, I fail to see how the torture and the crucifixtion of our Lord wouldn't have been violent and difficult to watch. Gibson's film was a artistic homage to Western Christendom and for that alone it should be appreciated.

Despite this, however, I cannot defend Mel's recent ethnic/religious slurs. It has long been established that Mel has said some provacative things (although some of these provacative statements I can say really haven't been that provacative in my view, but rather pretty humorous). However for Mel to rant and rave about the oldest conspiracy known to man (that Jews control the world and start all the wars) is really more stupid than disturbing. Everyone--especially the media--became so fixated on the anti-Semitic slurs that a few other aspects of the case were not even discussed. For example, why was a fifty-something year old man out late at night boozing it up with strange women while his wife and seven children were at home? Where was the media on this fact when they were so wrapped around the axle over Mel's ignorant statements?

Likewise, the focus of real anti-Semitism (not just a few dirty slurs from a famous drunken bigot) by the media should have been on the Jihadist Muslim who gunned down a group of Jewish Americans out in Washington State that same day. No one can excuse Mel Gibson's statements, and one can only hope that he finds the source of those demons and has them excorcized, but it seems to me that the real story that day was not Mel Gibson yelling epithets at a cop, but American citizens being killed by a Muslim extremist.

Thomas Fleming had a very insightful commentary on the Gibson fiasco on his Hard Right! blog (the namesake of this blog) on the Chronicles website. I should warn those who read it that it is very strongly worded and so consequently should probably be read two or three times to get the full meaning of what Fleming is trying to say.

Link to Thomas Fleming's Hard Right! post on the Mel Gibson controversy:
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/hardright.cgi/2006/08/03/Mel,_Poor_Mel

Why I'm Not Crying In My Coffee Over Joe Lieberman

2006-08-12T08:38:00.000-04:00

Well there seems to be quite a few so-called "conservative" Republicans who are upset that Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) lost his primary race. In fact, with Sens. Clinton and Schumer running as far a way from the 2000 Democratic Vice Presidential nominee and RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman and White House puppetmaster Karl Rove rushing to embrace him, it would seem that politics these days are indeed making strange bedfellows.

Of course all of these conservatives forget that Sen. Lieberman has consistently towed the progressive line on abortion and gay rights and the economy and that it is only his support of the neo-cons' Excellent Adventure (Party Time! Excellent!) where he seems to find the sharpest division with the Dems. Progressives like to paint Lieberman as some tool of the GOP, especially the far right. The funny thing is, however, that the Left, especially here in Vermont, do not seem to have a very good idea as to what the far right is (when they call President Bush a fascist then you know they are out of touch with not only reality, but with the basics of fascist political theory.

Now I don't know if some on the Left are dimwitted enough to think that just because you start a war and pay lip service to the Religious Right that that automatically gives you a membership card into the "vast right wing conspiracy", but it sure looks as though the vast majority of them believe that. The longer the Left focuses on celebrity journalists like Bill O'Reilly and Joe Scarborough and on mediocre Republican politicians like President George W. Bush and others in the Adminstration, the less time they have to educate themselves by reading the works of Russell Kirk and Robert Nisbet, which makes them easier targets to poke fun at (sort of like the village idiot yelling at the town drunk).

For example, anyone with any sense of history knows that President George W. Bush is a part of the GOP's Eastern Establishment. His academic credentials (prep school, Yale, Harvard MBA, etc.) is evidence enough, but the Progressive Left forgets that Bush's grandfather, former Connecticut Sen. Prescott Bush, was a supporter of abortion rights back in the 1960's and was friends with the plaintiff in the landmark "reproductive rights" case Griswold v. Connecticut. In fact, at that time abortion "rights" were staved off in the state of Connecticut not by the Establishment WASP Republicans but rather bythe minority ethnic Catholic Democrats (my begrudging thanks to neo-con David Frum for providing this info in one of his books).

Second, President Bush's father, former President George H. W. Bush, followed in the footsteps of Sen. Prescott Bush by going into politics himself. When he campaigned against then former California Governor Ronald Reagan it was as the Establishment candidate (in the vein of Rockefeller and the rest) who favored abortion "rights" and disapproved of Reagan's economic theories, dubbing them "voodoo ecnomics". The Left also forgets that former First Lady Barbara Bush is openly pro-choice (as is her daughter-in-law, First Lady Laura Bush, who also told the press that Republican candidates should not be running on the gay marriage issue in 2006). George H. W. Bush only took up the mantle of "conservative" in 1988 when the Reagan Coalition fractured and he needed the majority of support from the likes of Pat Robertson and Jack Kemp (Robertson eventually was able to give Bush the votes from the Religious Right and Kemp was rewarded with a plum position in the Administration). It was only when Bush, Sr. showed his true colors with the Gulf War, his various big government programs, and his breaking of the "no new taxes" pledge that the Right revolted and the presidential candidacies of Pat Buchanan and H. Ross Perot emerged. Bush went down to defeat. In 1996 the Religious Right would play a key role in scuttling Pat Buchanan's presidential bid on behalf of former Senator Bob Dole, thanks in part to Ralph Reed, Robertson's protege.

Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld also come out of the Eastern Establishment tradition, having worked for moderate Republican President Gerald Ford. In fact, the second New Right (c. 1964 to the present) under the leadership of William Rusher, Paul Weyrich, and Richard Viguerie gained traction during this period in response to Ford's presidency and his choosing of liberal GOP nemesis and former New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller as his vice president. Every good conservative remembers that this was when Ronald Reagan first challenged the GOP establishment. To be seen as a little more conservative Ford was forced to dump Rockefeller as his running mate in the general election.

Flash forward to 2000. Then Texas Governor George W. Bush was itching to be president to vindicate his old man and the GOP powers that be were more than ready to pave the way for him. Getting behind him was the Beltway Right and the Neo-conservatives. Into the mix was added the Religious Right, which practically gave the president--a mainline Methodist--a free pass for saying Jesus was his favorite philosopher (last I checked Jesus was the Son of God, not a philosopher, but how can I quibble with a man who uses terms like "Islamic fascist" with a straight face). So when I hear the Left and the mainstream Right say that the Bush Administration is conservative I have to laugh since it is obvious that neither faction seems to read much Modern Age (or the writings of true conservatives like Russell Kirk, Robert Nisbet, and Richard Weaver) which would clearly show how un-conservative the Bush Administration actually is.

If Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman really want a progressive like Lieberman to accept help from the GOP then I think that that reflects less on Lieberman's left wing bonafides than Rove and Mehlman's lack of conservative credentials. Rove, for instance, was an Establishment lackey who got his start with former President Nixon (no ally of the Reagan and Goldwater conservatives and certainly no ally of the Taft conservatives). Over the years he has used various social issues to wedge support for his golden boy, President George W. Bush, but one has to wonder if Rove really is a true believer in the cause or is just interested in power. Is the Lieberman situation another example of where Rove is more interested in power than principle? After all, why would a principled conservative rush to the aid of a Democrat who has only broken with his party on the issue of the Iraq War?

In the end I think Connecticut Democrats did what they thought was best for their party and for their belief system. This is why I'm not crying in my coffee over Joe Lieberman losing his senate race and why I'm seriously wondering why so many conservatives are. It would seem that it isn't Joe Lieberman who is selling out, but rather it is the Republican Establishment. And that is something for conservatives to start paying attention to.

Old NRO Interview with TIP Founder

2006-08-10T22:41:00.000-04:00

Surfing the net I found this little gem from 2000 where my political compatriot Craig Bensen of Take It to the People (TIP) was interviewed by National Review Online.

Link to NRO interview with TIP founder Craig Bensen:
http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory103000.shtml

The American Conservative Symposium on the Meaning of "Left" and "Right"

2006-08-10T15:45:00.000-04:00

The new issue of The American Conservative is solely focused on the issue of whether the terms "Left/liberal" and "Right/conservative" are out of date. The magazine features a variety of writers who give their perspective including "Crunchy Con" Rod Dreher, Paul Gottfried, Phyllis Schlafly, Pat Buchanan, John Lukacs, Jeffrey Hart, James Pinkerton, Taki, Kevin Phillips, and many others.

Link to The American Conservative:
http://www.amconmag.com

Two Additions to the Vermont Paleo-conservative Pantheon

2006-08-07T21:21:00.000-04:00

Recently I came across another prominent paleo-conservative from Vermont, one who proudly wears the label and says he is inspired by Pat Buchanan. His name is David White, the former editor of Vermont Commons, the Green Mountain seccessionist journal that traditionalists such as Donald Livingston and Wendell Berry have contributed to. Having read some of Mr. White's writings (and then learning of his status in the Vermont Independence Movement) I think it only fitting to place him in the pantheon of Vermont paleo-cons.

In addition to Mr. White, my good friend Martin Harris, architect and columnist for The Addison Eagle and The Rutland Tribune, should also be included as a prominent Vermont paleo-con. Martin has been a valiant fighter for property rights and individual liberty here in Vermont. For many years he has served as a board member for Citizens for Property Rights (see their link) and been a member of the Republican Assembly of Vermont. Unfortunately, he will be leaving the Green Mountains this fall, a loss for the Movement and for the Hard Right in Vermont. Be sure to read his columns weekly!

A Great Day for C-SPAN's Book TV

2006-08-06T22:39:00.000-04:00

I had the opportunity to watch C-SPAN's Book TV this evening where Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) was the featured guest. He was interviewed by some liberal reporter for the Denver Post about his new book In Mortal Danger. The book is about the illegal immigration crisis in the United States. Tancredo is rumored to be running for president in 2008, which might give us paleo-conservatives a candidate of national standing (Michael A. peroutka of the Constitution Party might run again and there is rumors that "Pitchfork" Pat might even be back, so I'll have to wait and see. Speaking of "Pitchfork" Pat, he also has a new book out on the illegal immigration crisis, titled State of Emergency.

On a side note I should mention that earlier in the day I happened to get the chance to watch Ann Coulter give a speech to the Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute on her new book Godless. As usual, Ann roundly thrashed the Left during her Q & A session. Watching her really flay the Dems and the libs (and even George W. Bush and the GOP Congress, as she did in this presentation) is a real treat. It also helps that she is easy on the eyes. Sort of makes you glad she's on our side and that the Progs get frumpy and ill-tempered Jeanine Garofalo instead.

Update On 21st Century Paul Revere Ride

2006-08-05T19:25:00.000-04:00

In one of life's little ironies I was not able to attend the 21st Century Paul Revere Ride this past Friday in Montpelier. I got a call from a friend in Ludlow who needed help moving so not only did I miss the chance to see Alexandra Thayer and her "anti-racist" brigade protest Frosty and Howard on the State House steps, but I missed the chance to hear some good speeches on securing our nation's borders. Oh, well...at least I garnered some publicity for the event with my earlier post. Best of luck to the riders as they head to Washington.

Scott Richert of Chronicles Discusses the "Forgetten Victims" of the Israeli-Lebanese Conflict: Christians

2006-08-03T15:16:00.000-04:00

Chronicles magazine has to be by far one of the most erudite publications in conservative circles today, a fact that most conservatives overlook in their zeal to get subscriptions to National Review, The Weekly Standard, or Commentary. But then when you don't tow the Administration line like most conserative publications do, you can't expect a wide circulation among GOP party loyalists. So per my usual routine I spent time today surfing the web for interesting articles when I came across a column on Chronicles' website by Scott Richert. Richert is Chronicles' executive editor and was one of the first to tell me first-hand where the term "paleo-conservative" came from (see posts The Roots of Paleo-conservatism, Part One and Two). Anyway, Richert's column addresses an often overlooked aspect of the Israeli-Lebanese conflict: those Christians who live in Lebanon who are caught in the crossfire between the Israeli government and the Hezbollah.

Richert begins by noting the interesting paradox of so-called "conservative" Christians, especially Catholics, who support the War in Iraq. He correctly shows the hypocrisy of American "conservative" Catholics who have rejected the Vatican's call for peaceful resolutions concerning the first Gulf War, the War in Iraq, and most recently, the Israeli-Lebanese conflict. Such hypocrisy, where the "conservative" Catholic backs the Administration's war out of blind loyalty to Bush, the GOP, and a misguided view of patriotism, parallels the "liberal" Catholic who firmly backs the Democrats' egalitarian stand on homosexual rights and stands unwavering on the pro-choice side of the abortion issue. Both sides go against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and should therefore be condemned equally.

Richert then goes into some detail of the history of the Christian community in the Middle East and their plight to survive amidst continuing conflicts between Jews and Muslims. He ends with an example of how Israel's acts of disproportionate violence against Lebanon has effected traditionalist Right here in America. Richert cites a letter where Andrea Kirk Assaf praises a recent editorial by paleo-con journalist Pat Buchanan. In the editorial Buchanan sheds light on the plight of Lebanese Christians who are innocent casualties of war courtesy of the Israeli government and the Lebanese terrorists. For those who do not know, Andrea Kirk Assaf is a journalist and the youngest daughter of traditionalist conservative scholar and paleo-conservative icon, Dr. Russell Kirk. Her husband, a Lebanese Christian journalist for Zenit, has family living in Lebanon as this current crisis is unfolding. I frequently read her blog to get an understanding of the situtation in Lebanon, especially from the perspective of a woman who intimately understands what the Lebanese people have been going through. My prayers are with her, her family, and her in-laws, as well as with those innocent civilians in Lebanon who have been devastated by this most recent tragedy.

Ne despicas, omnipotens Deus, populum tuum in afflictione clamantem: sed propter gloriam nominus tui, tribulatis succurre placatus.
Per Dominum nostrum.

Link to Scott Richert's column:
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/rockfordfiles.cgi/The%20World%20Beyond/Lebanon/2006/07/30/The_Forgotten_Victims

Not All Neo-Cons are Wrong--Just the Ones I Don't Know

2006-08-01T15:47:00.000-04:00

Recently a friend asked how I could take such a hard line when it comes to the neo-conservatives. I quickly pointed out to this friend that while I have deep philosophical and political disagreements with neo-conservatives, especially regarding foreign policy and the role of the welfare state, I do count two as close associates in the Vermont Conservative Movement. He seemed genuinely shocked to hear that I knew any actual neo-conservatives, let alone that I had cordial relations with them considering my membership in The Rockford Institute and my enthusiasm for Pat Buchanan and other paleo-conservatives.

I explained that I had met these two men while assisting in the creation of a conservative discussion group in my home county, a group that consisted of a number of different sorts of conservatives: New Right activists like those at Vermont Renewal, paleo-cons like myself and a known Vermont political columnist, a few libertarians, some Bushites, some regular Republicans, a few Christian conservatives, and, of course, my two friends from the neo-con sphere of influence.

Both of these men are brilliant and accomplished in their own right, having either been published in national journals and magazines, written books, or both. One was a professor at the University of Chicago and the other is a fellow with The Project for a New American Century and has worked with Paul Weyrich at the Free Congress Foundation. Both men have a unique (but typical) backstory of either youthful radicalism or youthful liberalism. The first was a syndicalist who became a Truman Cold War liberal and then by the sixties had changed his stripes to match those of his friend Norman Podhoretz (who published his work in Commentary). The second was a typical liberal from the 1980's who after the Cold War saw that President Reagan had been right all along with his strategy of "peace through strength" and so began to drift toward the Right (my paleo-conservative mentors wouldn't call that a drift to the Right but I can't begrudge a friend for finally thinking Ronald Reagan was a good president).

Having gotten to know each of them quite well these past few years I can say with certainty that while I disagree with them with regards to the Middle East and America's overall foreign policy, we see eye to eye when it comes to most social issues. Where some of my paleo-con colleagues would seeth at the thought of breaking bread with an ex-syndicalist, I have no problem. I like to point out to some of my paleo-con friends that Thomas Fleming was once a radical in his early days and even Russell Kirk voted for Norman Thomas once (although I doubt Kirk was ever much of a socialist).

On a side note I have often heard it mentioned by prominent neo-conservatives (most recently Mona Charen) that criticism of neo-conservativism was really a cloaked criticism for Jews. Now I can't speak for some paleo-cons who criticize the neo-cons, nor can I speak for others on the Right who criticize the neo-cons, but I know for myself that I do not endorse anti-Semitism nor do my attacks on neo-conservative philosophy and policies have to do with any undercurrent of anti-Jewish sentiment. My view is quite clear on the matter: 1.) Certain past and present members of the Bush Administration are neo-conservative. 2.) A good majority of these neo-conservatives happen to be Jewish. 3.) Some of the neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration (not all, and probably not all who are even Jewish) have an attachment to Israel that could be interpreted as a dual loyalty. This latter fact I find problematic.

Iirregardless if one has an attachment to Israel, Ireland, Cuba, or any other country--especially through heritage--that individual's loyalty should still be 100% to the United States. My ancestry is that of English and Swedish, so, should I have a dual loyalty to the King of Sweden or the Queen of England and the socialist parliaments that runs their nations in addition to the United States? Of course not! While I recognize the unique nature of the origins of the Israeli State and I sympathize with Jewish fears of Palestinian terror, I think that a U.S. citizen's loyalty should still remain with the U. S. and not with both America and another nation. This is not anti-Israel and it is not anti-Jewish. It is pro-American plain and simple.

In the end, though, whatever my disagreements with the neo-conservatives, and more specifically the neo-conservatives I know personally, the main task for conservatives is to redefine Vermont's politics by restoring order and liberty to a state long-overrun by radicalism and social engineering. Therefore I have to amend my earlier posts against the neo-cons by saying that not all of them are wrong---just the ones I don't know (and that would seem to be the majority).

POSTSCRIPT: I wish one of these men the best of times as he and his family leave for London to spend some more time abroad.

The Joys of the Latin Mass

2006-07-30T19:27:00.000-04:00

I attend the Tridentine Parish of St. Peter's Roman Catholic Church in Troy, New York. It is quite a drive, but it is the nearest Vatican-approved Latin Mass church and while it would be easier to attend a nearby church that practices the Novus Ordo, I much rather prefer the reflective mystery of the old rite to the modern liturgy. This amuses my modern Catholic friends who find it funny that an Evangelical Lutheran turned Anglican would choose to convert to pre-Vatican II Catholicism. I tend to approach this from a more academic angle than some, believing that Vatican II was initiated with good intentions, however once the reformers got to moving in the church they just couldn't help themselves and soon the changes that were brought in caused a crisis that have divided traditionalists from modernists for decades.

St. Peter's is like a diamond in the rough. It is a spectacular brick church that stands out amidst the poverty and urban decay of the city of Troy. One notices the stark contrast between the two immediately and feels an overwhelming sense of despair at what the average man in downtown Troy must have to endure. Seeing such suffering fills one's spirit with Christian charity.

The interior of St. Peter's is lined with beautiful carvings finely detailed stained glass. The central focus, of course, is the main altar, which overwelms you as you walk into the church with its stunning white marble crucifix of Christ and its elaborate display. The awe it inspires would have forced me to genuflect even if I was a Puritan philistine from Cromwell's army looking to "strip the altars". To your right is an intricately carved wooden shrine to St. Theresa.

I usually sit near the front, off to the right, where the altar of Our Lady offers comfort from her sublty carved gaze . Michael, a former seminarian who was educated in Rome, and his fiance, usually join me. On this particular Sunday it was very hot and very humid and I am having a hard time hearing Fr. Sipperly conduct the Mass. I follow along as best I can due to the accoustics (I enjoy reading portions of the Latin which I vaguely remember from my high school days). Then I look up at St. Mary and remember that no matter what little suffering of heat and humidity and hearing I may be facing at this moment, it pales in comparison to the suffering of Our Lord which she was a witness to. For this I am humbled.

Regina coeli, laetare, alleluia.

Link to the Tridentine Parish of St. Peter in Troy, NY:
http://stpeters-troy.tripod.com/

Support for Third Party Candidates Enlivens State and National Debate

2006-07-29T20:11:00.000-04:00

In the 2004 U. S. presidential race I submitted a "protest vote" against President George W. Bush by voting for a third party candidate. My decision had been made months earlier after about a year of contemplating what I actually thought about the War on Terror, the War on Iraq, and the Administration's overall neo-Wilsonian foreign policy. Even though I had voted for Bush in 2000, I realized that I was having a growing disillusionment with the domestic and foreign policies of the Administration. Therefore I decided to begin the process of doing something totally out of character for me: I chose to look outside of the Republican Party for a presidential candidate. This whole concept and process was new to me since I had been a loyal member of the GOP since the Dole/Kemp campaign back in 1996 and came from a long line of Republicans going back to just before the Civil War. In some ways it was rather painful to leave behind a party that had nurtured my political ambitions for almost a decade.

My family was irritated--after all we had had two members of the family serve in the state house from Weybridge and to even contemplate voting for another party was like converting to Catholicism...it just wasn't done--(incidently I managed to disappoint on the latter familial taboo as well). Where my family was worried about my leaving the S. S. Republican for uncharted waters, however, some of my friends thought I was either throwing away a good political career or just being foolish. One friend, a New Hampshire Republican, asked how I could have worked so hard in the Party only to walk away when it needed my support the most (meaning that in a state like Vermont that is overrun with not just liberal Democrats, but radical Democrats, how could even contemplate leaving the GOP, supposedly the only outlet for conservatives). She must have thought I was reading too much of The American Conservative and not enough National Review. Another friend, an old college buddy who works in the Pataki Administration, was just as vexed and seemed to find the whole thing rather amusing, despite the fact that I never returned to the GOP in time to vote for Bush II.

The truth of the matter was that in the three years since President Bush first came into office I had doubts about not only his leadership and vision, but about the direction of the national, state, and local Republican apparatuses. So when I came upon a third-party candidate who seemed to speak for me and my principles I immediately began to gravitiate toward him and the political party that was backing him. He had a long shot at winning the presidency (but in the end came in third nation-wide) and his theme of "God, Family, Republic" spoke to my old-fashioned patriotic and religious values. His name was Michael A. Peroutka and even though I had to write his name in on the ballot, voting for this obscure conservative Maryland attorney re-engaged me in the political process. His candidacy was also the first in which I had ever contributed to. It certainly was a milestone for me politically.

Having the option to vote for Mr. Peroutka, the pro-life, anti-war candidate, allowed me to not have to vote for the lesser of two evils (in this case the pro-life, pro-war Bush over the pro-choice, anti-war Kerry). Being a traditionalist I could not in good conscience vote Libertarian nor could I take serously the Green Party. I was also able to learn why I didn't want to support the candidates from these other parties thanks in large part to media outlets such as the internet and television coverage outside of the "big five" networks. If it wasn't for C-SPAN or PBS (which I begrudgingly have to give credit to their program "Now" for holding a debate with the four representatives from the Constitution, Libertarian, Green, and the then-Natural Law Parties), the messages of these third party candidates might have never gotten out to a broader audience.

Why do I mention this incident? Well, recently Vermont Secretary of State Deborah Markowitz has decided to lead the charge against third parties in the state (her reasoning that it is too expensive and the system as it currently is needs to change). While there may or may not be some validity to what the Secretary has to say on this issue, I tend to agree with the Vermont Progressive Party's chairman, Anthony Pollina. Pollina argues that third parties such as his own are working to bring more people into the political process while what Markowitz is proposing will only serve the two major parties and as a consequence drive some people away. In my view having an honest and open exhange of ideas is what is best for all citizens. This means having the options of alternative political parties available, whether it is the Vermont Progressive Party or the Liberty Union Party over the Democrats or the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party over the Republicans. I might not personally ever vote Progressive or Liberty Union, but the State shouldn't be seeking ways to make sure others can't.

In the meantime my hope is that the Republican Party in Vermont will start taking less trips to the country club and start taking more trips to church. If that doesn't happen I welcome a third party that would represent conservatives here in Vermont and I think the America First Party, the Constitution Party or the Conservative Party (of New York) would fit that bill just fine.

Anti-illegal Immigration Group Coming to Vermont, Incurs Libel By Seven Days Smearmeister

2006-07-27T20:13:00.000-04:00

It was only today that I caught wind of Seven Days smearmeister Peter Freyne's July 19 column on the Vermont Chamber of Commerce promoting a so-called "racist" biker group. The group in question that Freyne libels is the "21st Century Paul Revere Ride", which bills itself as "a summer-long cross-country motorcycle ride that will visit all state capitols to inform the public and their elected public servants of the severity of the illegal immigration crisis."

A quick perusal of the group's website fails to reveal any hint of racism: I didn't find it anywhere in the Blog / journal section, it is not seen in the Photos section, it is lacking among the Questions, it is not in the brief bios of the Team & riders, and it is mysteriously missing from the section entitled Why the ride? . The simple fact is that there is not a hint of "racism" anywhere on the 2st Century Paul Revere Ride website--which makes the attacks by Peter Freyne and those on the Progressive Left (who pressured the Chamber to drop the "Ride" from the Chamber's events calendar) downright ridiculous. So why did Freyne libel the 21st Century Paul Revere Ride? The answer is simple. He lacked a decent defense for rampant illegal immigration into the United States. Therefore his only recourse was to regurgitate the same old Progressive Left agit-prop to undermine the Riders' organization.

Instead of engaging in an open dialogue with the Riders about the problem of illegal immigration it was easier for Freyne and his ilk to demonize and delegitimize the Riders' cause by simply calling the Riders "racists". Apparently the tactic worked, though, since now the "racist" Riders are not being promoted by the Chamber. Somehow I don't think the Riders will be too devastated over that news, especially when they realize how easy it is to get the Chamber to capitulate to the tactics of the Progressive Left.

I, however, have no problem with telling those who read this blog that on August 4, 2006 from 9:00 AM to 10:00 AM the 21st Century Paul Revere Ride will be bringing its message of secure borders and more effective enforcement of current immigration laws to Montpelier. In fact I hope you will join me by attending the event in support of the Riders if for no other reason then to stick it in Peter Freyne's eye.

Link to 2st Century Paul Revere Ride:
http://www.21stcenturypaulrevereride.us/index.html

I'd Rather Be Roasting Heretics and Other Sentiments About the Soft Right, the Progressive Left, and the Culture War

2006-07-25T22:45:00.000-04:00

The Conservative Movement in Vermont needs a shot in the arm. I don't mean a little shot designed to innoculate itself against just the Progressive Left, but rather a large shot designed to purge the conservative body politic of its "moderate" opportunists, that political faction supposedly on the conservative side of the spectrum that traditionalists and paleo-conservatives refer to as the "Soft Right".

Probably the quickest way to purge the conservative body politics is to isolate the Soft Right who work so vigorously to undermine their adversaries within the Hard Right. There should be no more alliances of convienence or consensus-building with moderate "conservatives". There should also be no more alliances with think tanks and public policy organizations whose whole focus is on economic matters and policy issues at the expense of the "Permanent Things". Coalition-building is useless for a traditionalist if he is making common-cause with the advocates of Mammon. Likewise, there should be no more alliances with renegade "conservatives" only seeking publicity and/or credit for conservative victories (notice that the Left works as one very well-oiled machine in the Green Mountains because they have end goals in mind, which means that petty personality conflicts and little games of one-up-manship usually take a back seat) instead of toward a unified Hard Right. And finally there should be no more endorsements of conservative political candidates who do have not an efficient and workable campaign strategy (from fundraising to a grassroots apparatus to a unified theme) prepared at least a year before the next upcoming election.

Once these strategies are implemented the Hard Right should acknowledge that all of its members are already in agreement on what Sam Francis calls "the Moral Issue" (which includes aborton, school prayer, pornography, the homosexual agenda, etc.) so the next logical step is to then move on to the larger problem facing Vermont and its traditions: the Cultural Issue. This does not mean that the Hard Right does not address the Moral Issue, it just means that it adjusts its focus to encompass the whole of the Revolution and not just single parts of the Moral Issue which can bog down any movement for effective change. Christendom and Western Civilization will not be brought to its knees by these various social ills individually, but rather from a continued combination of them under the direction of secular humanism (or humanitarianism, as Irving Babbitt correctly calls it).

The Hard Right also needs to recognize that the Moral Issue is separate from the Cultural Issue (Sam Francis pointed this truth out last year in an issue of Chronicles) and therefore when speaking or writing of the latter do not confuse it with the former. For example, sometimes when discussing abortion there is often a phrase bandied about called the "the abortion culture". This, like the "the gay/lesbian culture" is a misnomer. Culture, as T. S. Eliot once noted, derives from a cult, and a cult derives from a religion. Abortion is not a religion and homosexuals are not a religion. In addition Eliot mentions that culture is often limited to a specific geographic area (i. e. New England, Great Britain, China). Abortion, being a medical procedure, is not limited to a geographical area, and neither is the behavior known as homosexuality. Therefore, by Eliot's definition, there is no "abortion culture" and there is no "gay/lesbian culture". Instead there isan American culture that has declined in its morals to the point that its citizens tolerate and sometimes even accepts abortion and homosexuality. This tolerance and acceptance of barbaric and perverse practices is what makes abortion and homosexuality fall under the rubric of the Moral Issue rather than the Cultural Issue.

While the Moral Issue is related to the Cultural Issue, the Cultural issue is concerned primarily with what sort of culture do we want to have and furthermore, who do we want to shape that culture--the Progressive Left and their fellow-travellers on the Soft Right, or those on the Hard Right who stand for the traditions inherited from Christendom and Western Civilization? Do we as Americans and Vermonters want a polyglot society of discontented multi-culturalists who are balkanized in their little ethnic, racial, and religious boxes? I am inclinded to think not, wanting to believe instead that human biodiversity and its varied cultures can be appreciated without having to self-segregate oneself from others. So with that in mind let me digress on the sort of American culture I advocate and cherish, an American culture the Progressive Left abhors and the Soft Right is uneasy about but is unwilling to fight against.

The sort of American culture I advocate for and cherish celebrates the unique brand of federal republicanism that melds regional diversity with national unity. It is a culture that rejects the crass commericalism and materialism that eminates from New York and Los Angeles and instead looks to Middle America and Main Street for its values and inspiration. It is a culture where "Piss Christ" is not considered art but the the work of Grant Wood and Norman Rockwell is. It is a culture where burning the American flag is not considered patriotic but flying it is. It is a culture where Presidents Day, Loyalty Day, and Memorial Day mean more than Martin Luther King, Jr. Day or Women's History Month. And it is a culture where the defense of the natural family is paramount in light of the numerous assaults upon it: infidelity, divorce, alcoholism, spousal abuse, drug use, abortion, homosexuality, etc.

Probably no sentiment wraps up my view of having to fight in the Culture Wars more then the caption on a t-shirt I purchased recently from The New Oxford Review website. It features a cartoon of a 1950s-style BBQ. The words written in the caption capture amusingly the current crisis of the Culture Issue: "I'd Rather Be Roasting Heretics!"

I would have to agree.

John Lukacs: A Reactionary Historian's Assessment of America's Nationalistic "Conservatism"

2006-07-23T21:36:00.000-04:00

Last winter as I was rummaging through the Vermont reference section of my local library (partaking in my very traditionalist hobby of genealogical research) and came across a small book randomly left on a nearby table entitled Democracy and Populism: Fear and Hatred. The author was Hungarian-born historian and self-described reactionary elitist John Lukacs. Apparently Lukacs had written the book in response to the growing "conservative" nationalism of the American Republican Party, especially as manifested in the Bush Administration. Rather than go into the many details of why this book is important in light of our current foreign policy crisis and why Lukacs's assessment of British, European, and American history is breathtakingly brilliant, I decided to provide a link to an article about Lukacs in the Boston Globe from March of 2005.

Link to the March 6, 2005 article in the Boston Globe by Jeet Heer where reactionary historian John Lukacs is interviewed.
www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/03/06/the_anti_populist?mode=PF

Green Mountain Hard Right! Recommended Summer Reading List 2006

2006-07-23T11:07:00.000-04:00

Some thoughts on summer reading...

Finding time to relax and read a good book during the summer is par for the course, so I figured now that I finally have this blog up and running and summer is a little more than half over it would be a good time to recommend a few good books. Keep in mind that these recommendations will not include the mindless drivel churned out by the likes of John Grisham, Stephen King, Danielle Steele, or Dan Brown, but rather what I consider to be quality non-fiction and literature.

Anyway, the list is compiled from those books I have recently read as well as those I have not read, but intend to read now that I have purchased them.

SPOILER: none of these books are written by Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, John Gibson, Bill O'Reilly, Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson or any celebrity "conservative" media figure. I figure you are inundated with enough of their propaganda via cable news so you don't have to read it as well.

Recently I have read:

The Southern Essays of Richard Weaver (1987) by Richard Weaver, George M. Curtis, III, and James J. Thompson
Being from the North I have always had a rather mixed view of the South and the Civil War. Thanks to this anthology of essays by Richard Weaver, a student of the Southern Agrarian School of American conservatism, I have come to better see that Southern conservatism and the "War Between the States" was not just about slavery. Weaver was also instrumental in showing me that Daniel Webster was not the Northern conservative icon I thought him to be.

The Twilight of Authority (1975) by Robert Nisbet
Nisbet, as he has done previously with his traditionalist communitarian sociological analyses in such books as The Quest for Community and The Present Age, takes on the rise and growth of the State and the simultaneous decline of what he refers to as "intermediary associations" (family, the church, the workplace, civic organizations) since the Renaissance through to the Watergate Scandal.

I'll Take My Stand (1930, 1978) by the Twelve Southerners
Modernity, progress, industrialism, secularism, materialism, and the Northern view of history come under attack in this monumental anthology of essays by such literary giants as John Crowe Ransom, Robert Penn Warren, Allen Tate, Donald Davidson, and others. A true defense of the agrarian cause and one in which could use closer examination today in light of America's vapid, technology-driven, consumeristic society.

I Am Charlotte Simmons (2004) by Tom Wolfe
A voluminous ficitonalized look at contemporary collegiate life as seen through the eyes a intelligent but naive young woman from North Carolina. Wolfe's creative prose style, fluid pace, and colorful cast of characters bring this modern morality tale to life in vivid detail.

The Napoleon of Notting Hill (1904, 1991) by G. K. Chesterton
A wonderful defense of the "small is beautiful" philosophy of life long before Schumacher took up its cause and the countercultural Left bastardized it. It is a comic fantasy tale about a futuristic Great Britain that has given in to modernism and progress and as a result finds itself at war with a defiant neo-medievalist London suburb.

The Conservative Affirmation (1963, 1985) by Willmoore Kendall
An anthology of essays on a variety of topics including: "What is Conservatism?", the philosophy of John Locke, McCarthyism, the "Social Contract", and Christian Pacifism. Included is a series of book reviews, one of which is on Richard Weaver's classic 1948 tome, Ideas Have Consequences.

I have just finished:

That Distant Land (2005) by Wendell Berry
A really delightful collection of short stories about the multi-generational lives of the citizens of Berry's fictional Port William, Kentucky.

I have recently purchased and am set to begin:

American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia (2006) edited by Bruce Frohnen, Jeremy Beer, and Jeffrey O. Nelson
This magnum opus of conservative scholarship was recently completed after fifteen years of research. It is almost 1,000 pages and has citations on practically every book, issue, organization, philosophy, publication, and thinker that are in some way related to conservatism. Incidently, one of the editors, Jeffrey O. Nelson, is the son-in-law of the late great traditionalist scholar Russell Kirk.

The Crisis of Civilization (1937, 1992) by Hilaire Belloc
An attack on capitalism and socialism as seen from the perspective of a Roman Catholic historian. Belloc challenges the "Whig view of history" by asserting that it was the Roman Catholic Church that saved Graeco-Roman civilization from ruin by leading it to the Faith. He then proceeds to argue that the Protestant Reformation--which in his view fractured Western Christendom--contributed the collapse of the guild state and the development of free-market capitalism. Socialism followed soon after in response to the inequities of capitalism. For Belloc the "crisis of civilization" lies in the West's capitalist/socialist dichotomy, a problem we face even today.

An Essay on the Restoration of Property (1936, 2002) by Hilaire Belloc
A follow-up to Belloc's The Servile State, which challenged the Western economic dichotony of capitalism and socialism by offering a "third way" that he labeled "distributism". Distributism is a socioeconomic system designed to bring about widespread private property ownership. In An Essay on the Restoration of Property, Belloc expands on the distributist creed by arguing for a "proprietary state" to replace the capitalist and socialist economic models.

Distributist Perspectives, Volume One (2004) by Fr. Lawrence Smith, foreword by J. Forrest Sharpe, edited by Derek O'Huallachain, preface by Thomas Naylor
An anthology of essays by various distributist thinkers from the early 20th-century, including Hilaire Belloc, G. K. Chesterton, Fr. Vincent McNabb, Herbert Shove, and others. The preface is by Thomas Naylor, one of the founders of the Vermont Independence Movement and a former professor at Middlebury College and Duke University. In his preface he mentions how Vermont has adapted well to the "distributist" philosophy.

Crunchy Con Defends Traditional Conservatism A.K.A. Stop Watching Fox News and Instead Read More Russell Kirk

2006-07-21T11:11:00.000-04:00

For you Lefties out there who don't know, a "Crunchy Con" is a traditionalist conservative who is not only pro-religion, pro-life, and pro-family, but also is pro-environment, anti-war, and favors free range and organic farming, localism, and the "small is beautiful" philosophy of Roman Catholic convert E. F. Schumacher. Anyway, Rod Dreher, one of my favorite bloggers, invented the term a few years ago in a National Review article. Recently he published a little book about the Crunchy Con movement that I would recommend to anyone, Right or Left, who is interested in what some traditionalist conservatives are doing today. Below is a post on Dreher's blog that addresses how modern conservatism with its emphasis on celebrity and power is not the traditionalist conservatism he advocates for. Austin Bramwell's book review of John Dean's outrageous new book on conservatism is his inspiration. Enjoy!

Link to Crunchy Con-Red Dreher column inspired by Austin Bramwell's review of John Dean's new book.
www.beliefnet.com/blogs/crunchycon/2006/07/what-is-conservatism.html

Link to book review of John Dean's Conformity Without Conscience by Austin Bramwell in the July 17, 2006 issue of The American Conservative.
http://amconmag.com/2006/2006_07_17/review.html

Paleo-conservatism in Vermont, Part Two

2006-07-19T08:29:00.000-04:00

By the late 1940's politics in Vermont had drastically began to change. The split in the once-dominant Vermont Republican Party between the Proctor Old Guard and the Gibson-Aiken Progressives (in the tradition of Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose Progressives) was rapidly leading to enough of a divide that in the early 1960's a New Frontier Democrat, Phil Hoff, was elected governor. This was not to be the only change Vermont would see in the 1960s as the protest movements concerning the escalating Viet Nam War, the civil rights movement, and student radicalism that were happening around the nation began to drift up to the Green Mountains.

One of the few Old Right dissenters at the time was Vermont Country Store founder Vrest Orton. He founded the business in 1946 and marketed it as a mail-order company that were "purveyors of the practical and hard-to-find". A literary fellow as well as an entrepreneur, Orton had been good friends with Old Right literary icons such as H. L. Mencken and Robert Frost, and in 1979 gathered various columns that he included in his VCS catalogues and printed them as "The Voice of the Green Mountains : A Collection of Philippics, Admonitions and Imponderables". Orton played a key part in the restoration of the Calvin Coolidge Historical Site and was associated with both Vermont Life and the Vermont Historic Sites Commission. Interestingly, 1952 he supported General Dwight Eisenhower for president instead of the Old Right standard-bearer Sen. Robert Taft (R-OH) .

In many ways Orton was one of the last of the Old Right in Vermont. While Sen. George Aiken has recently been lauded by paleo-conservative writer and journalist Bill Kauffman, Aiken was more of a Progressive Republican than a traditionalist conservative. It is notable, however, that Aiken shared many of the qualities of a agrarian traditionalist and his opposition to the Viet Nam War echoes the sentiments of two Burkean Roman Catholics: the traditionalist scholar and critic Russell Kirk and former Sen. Eugene McCarthy, at one time both Chronicles contributors.

Kauffman has also pointed to University of Vermont political science professor Frank Bryan as an Old Right figure from Vermont, however, Bryan seems more inclined to view himself as a decentralist than an outright paleo-conservative. Bryan is noted for his humorous Real Vermonters Don't Milk Goats and the political tome The Vermont Papers: Recreating democracy on a human scale (co-written with Ethan Allen Institute president John McClaughry). Bryan, in a 2004 article of The American Conservative written by journalist Bill Kauffman, criticized the modern Republican Party, deeming it the party of "war and Wal-mart", an assessment most "Main Street Republicans", paleo-conservatives, traditionalists, and members of the Old Right would agree with. In fact in the early 1990's he contributed an article to Chronicles, paleo-conservatism's flagship publication.

Recently an effort was led in the State of Vermont by former Middlebury College and Duke University economist Thomas Naylor to have the Green Mountain State seceede from the Union. Dubbed "The Second Vermont Republic" Naylor and his fellow secessionists drafted what they referred to as "The Middlebury Declaration", which laid out SVR's call for a renewed Vermont independence. Its members included various prominent Vermont Leftists as well as the neo-Luddite Kirkpatrick Sale of The Middlebury Institute. Sale, the author of Human Scale, also contributed to Chronicles in a 2005 article about secession. The SVR also began to publish a journal, Vermont Commons, whose contributors included Wendell Berry, the Christian agrarian writer and critic from Kentucky (who like the New Conservatives and the paleo-conservatives had been deeply influenced by the Southern Agrarians), Bryan, McClaughry, as well as Donald Livingston of the Southern paleo-conservative Abbeville Institute. Naylor himself was something of an advocate for distributism, the socioeconomic system founded as a "third way" between capitalism and socialism by British Roman Catholic apologists Hilaire Belloc and G. K. Chesterton.

Link to article entitled "Democracy in Vermont: Small is beautiful in the Green Mountain State" by Bill Kauffman in the September 13, 2004 issue of The American Conservative.
http://www.amconmag.com/2004/2004_09_13/article1.html

Link to article entitled "The Case for American Seccession: Still a good idea" by Kirkpatrick Sale of The Middlebury Institute in the November 2005 issue of Chronicles.
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/www/Chronicles/2005/November2005/Sale.html

Link to article entitled "Free Vermont: Green Mountain Boys ponder secession" by Bill Kauffman in the December 19, 2005 issue of The American Conservative.
http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_12_19/article.html

Paleo-conservatism in Vermont, Part One

2006-07-17T13:05:00.000-04:00

The beginnings of Vermont traditionalism and paleo-conservatism did not, of course, begin with the conflicts within the American Conservative Movement of the 1980's. Traditionalists such as former Federalist Party senator Nathaniel Chipman of Tinmouth, Roman Catholic Bishop Louis De Goesbriand and Vermont-born Roman Catholic apologist Orestes Brownson were prominent nationally in the centuries prior to the rise of the Old Right. Chipman was a close associate of former U. S. Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and was instrumental in gaining Vermont's entry into the Union. He, along with former Governor Isaac Tichenor of Bennington, led the Federalist Party against Ethan Allen, former Governor Thomas Chittenden and their Jeffersonian Republican "Arlington Junto". The ultra-montane De Goesbriand was the first Roman Catholic bishop of the Diocese of Burlington as well as a prolific Catholic apologist. Brownson, early in his years a Protestant radical, socialist, and member of the Transcendentalist Movement, converted to Roman Catholicism, and wrote The American Republic.

In the early 20th century Vermont found itself as either a home or a stopping point for many Old Rightists and traditionalists. Chief among them was poet and self-described "Yankee Agrarian" Robert Frost. Frost, while not a native Vermonter, came to be associated with the Green Mountains through his time teaching at Middlebury College's Bread Loaf School of English, which he helped to found, as well as his various homesteads around the state where he wrote some of his most famous poems. Frost, like many agrarians, distrusted the materialism, industrialism, and general progressive nature of modern America. Like his contemporaries, the Southern Agrarians, he distrusted the social democratic policies of the New Deal, and strongly advocated a return to the rural way of life. Frost is buried in Bennington, Vermont.

One of Frost's close associates who also taught at Bread Loaf was reactionary poet and critic Donald Davidson, who had written Attack on Leviathan and Still Rebels, Still Yankees. Davidson was one of the Twelve Southerners who in 1930 had contributed to an agrarian/distributist anthology entitled I'll Take My Stand. The volume included pieces by Allen Tate, Lyle Lanier, John Crowe Ransom, and Robert Penn Warren (Warren would also gravitate to Middlebury College and is buried in Stratton, Vermont). Davidson was also good friends with traditionalist conservative Russell Kirk, as was Cleanth Brooks, a traditionalist scholar and New Critic who also taught at Bread Loaf for a time.

In the 1940's Eric Voegelin, a classical conservative scholar from Europe and author of The New Science of Politics, taught for a brief time at Bennington College in Bennington, Vermont. Voegelin argued in The New Science of Politics that the ancient heresy of gnosticism had manifested itself in the 20th century through such nationalist movments as communism, fascism, and national socialism. After leaving Bennington College, Voegelin taught at Louisiana State University, where Cleanth Brooks also was a professor.

The Roots of Paleo-conservatism, Part Two

2006-07-15T12:32:00.000-04:00

The conflict between paleo-conservatives and neo-conservatives in the 1980's intesified as many Old Right figures came under attack for unfounded charges of anti-Semitism. Paleo-conservative figures found themselves repeatedly on the receiving end of neo-conservative harangues whenever they criticized the pro-Israel stance of the United States--even when the issue at hand was not about Judaism, but rather loyalty to American interests. Norman Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary magazine, and his wife, Midge Decter, were at the forefront of these attacks, especially on Russell Kirk, the journalist Joseph Sobran, and Patrick Buchanan.

In 1989 the Rockford Institute--which had been founded in 1976 by former Rockford College president John Howard and at the time was overseen by traditionalist scholar Allan Carlson-- found itself challenging the conservative mainstream on the issue of illegal immigration. The stance that TRI and its flagship publication, Chronicles, took concerning the issue brought down the wrath of neo-conservative critics and the Beltway Right. Richard John Neuhaus, who headed one of TRI's centers, turned on his employer by echoing the critics. In a very public move, TRI let Neuhaus go from the center, relocated the center to TRI's midwest headquarters, and embraced paleo-conservatism as its operating philosophy.

By the early 1990's the split in conservative ranks was virtually impossible to overcome. The Beltway Right and the neo-conservatives worked together effectively as the new "voice" of modern conservatism and the face of the Republican Party. Traditionalists were sidelined and forced to create their own "shadow" institutions to continue the Old Right tradition. The Rockford Institute, in conjunction with the paleo-libertarian Ludwig von Mises Institute, formed The John Randolph Society in response to the compromised Philadephia Society. Patick Buchanan, after his failed attempt to defeat President George H. W. Bush in the 1992 Republican primary, formed The American Cause to promote his paleo-conservative activism. The majority of Old Right figures and institutions, from Robert Nisbet to Russell Kirk to Patrick Buchanan to Robert Novak and The Rockford Institute also came out against the Persian Gulf War and criticized President William J. Clinton for his "humanitarian" war in the Balkans.

The 1990's eventually also saw the passing of Old Right traditionalists such as Russell Kirk, Robert Nisbet, and Melvin Bradford. To carry on their legacy various paleo-conservative figures continued to push forwardin defense of the Permanent Things and American interests. At the Rockford Institute and in Chronicles, Old Right successors such as Allan Carlson, Bryce Christensen, Thomas Fleming, Chilton Williamson, Jr., Samuel Francis, Paul Gottfried, Clyde N. Wilson, Srdja Trifkovic, James O. Tate and others strived toward a genuine conservatism. At the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (founded in 1953 by libertarian journalist Frank Chodorov) tradionalism also continued to flourish, especially in the writings of traditionalist scholars such as George A. Panichas, Gregory Wolfe, Claes G. Ryn, George W. Carey, Stephen Tonsor, Peter J. Stanlis, Marion Montgomery and others whose work graced the pages of such ISI publications as The Intercollegiate Review and Modern Age. Annette Y. Kirk founded The Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal after her husband's death in the mid-1990's, continuing Kirk's efforts to bring cultural restoration to a nation facing continued decline in educational and cultural standards. And in 1998, The Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society (named for TRI founder John Howard) was founded by Allan Carlson--whose tenure as president of TRI was succeeded by Chronicles editor Thomas Fleming--for the purpose of defending the ever embattled traditional family. By the turn of the century all appearances seemed to be that a saving remnant of the Old Right, as found in paleo-conservatism, was was beginning to grow.

Then in 2001 the United States was attacked by Muslim terrorists. In response, the U. S. government under President George W. Bush followed a neo-Wilsonian foreign policy of democratic imperialism that had been advocated since the fall of the Cold War by the neconservatives. For the neo-conservatives, strategically altering the cultural and political make-up of nations they deemed part of an "axis of evil"--particularly in the Middle East--was the end goal. After launching an offensive against the militant Muslim government that backed the terrorists who attacked the U. S., the Bush Administration announced that it would set its sights on Iraq. By the time the U. S. military rolled into Baghdad Patrick Buchanan, journalist Scott McConnell, and European publisher Taki Theodoracopulos had already launched The American Conservative, a new bi-weekly broadsheet designed to counteract the pro-interventionist neo-conservative Weekly Standard. Robert Novak, a long-time paleo-conservative journalist, joined The American Conservative and other Old Right institutions in condemning the War in Iraq, which gained them the ire of Candadian neo-conservative journalist David Frum, who dubbed them the "unpatriotic conservatives" in a 2003 issue of National Review. The Intercollegiate Review and Modern Age, together with Chronicles, also seriously questioned the War in Iraq and the Bush Administration's overall foreign policy of preemption and democratic imperialism.

With the nation at war, the neo-conservatives, in conjunction with the Beltway Right,were able to further tighten their grip on the whole of the Conservative Movement. Through news outlets such as National Review, The Weekly Standard, Commentary, First Things, The National Interest and Fox News Channel (which featured an endless parade of neo-conservative talking heads from Brit Hume to William Kristol to William Bennett to Charles Krauthammer), the Old Right message was relagated to a few traditionalist journals, organizations, and websites and only Novak, MSNBC's Patick Buchanan, and CNN's Lou Dobbs were able to maintain a prominent public presence.

Link to column entitled "NRO [National Review Online] at war: a response to David Frum" by Thomas Fleming posted March 21, 2003 on the Chronicles magazine website.

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/HardRight/HardRight032103.html

Link to column entitled "Neocons march left" by Timothy P. Carney posted on the American Conservative Union Foundation website in response to Frum article.
http://acuf.org/issues/issue21/040929news.asp

Link to column entitled "Revolt against the neocons - Backlash on the right: mainstream conservatives reject Frum purge, oppose neo-imperialism" by Justin Raimondo posted May 21 on Antiwar.com in response Frum's article.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j052103.html

Link to column entitled "The Bum Frum" by Taki Theodoracopulos in the April 21, 2003 issue of The American Conservative in response to Frum's article.
http://www.amconmag.com/04_21_03/taki.html

Link to article entitled "Among the Neocons: A foot soldier in the ideological wars relates what went wrong with neoconservatism" by Scott McConnell in the April 21, 2003 issue of The American Conservative in response to Frum's article.
http://www.amconmag.com/04_21_03/cover.html

Link to the article entitled "Unpatriotic conservatives - a war against America" by Canadian neoconservative David Frum in the March 19, 2003 issue of National Review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum031903.asp

The Roots of Paleo-conservatism, Part One

2006-07-13T18:04:00.000-04:00

In contemporary American conservatism there are numerous intellectual branches (for the best historical record of these categories, read George H. Nash's The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945 and Paul Gottfried and Thomas Fleming's The Conservative Movement). It is generally accepted that one of these branches is known as "traditionalism". Traditionalism emerged in the academic institutions of post-World War Two America as a response to what scholar and critic Russell Kirk deemed "enemies of the Permanent Things" (i.e. transcendent faith, moral law, tradition, order, natural hierarchy, etc.).

Kirk, together with other traditionalists such as Richard Weaver and Robert Nisbet, were among those whose ideas garnered attention as the "New Conservatives". In books such as Kirk's The Conservative Mind from Burke to Eliot, Weaver's Ideas Have Consequences, and Nisbet's The Quest for Community, the New Conservatives effectively made the case for the conservative cause, despite the prevailing ideologies of the day. In the minds of most traditionalists they were the heirs to the New Humanists, the Southern Agrarians, Ralph Adams Cram, and numerous other disparate conservatives who never came together as a cohesive intellectual force in the early 20th century.

From the mid-20th century until the around the early 1980's traditionalists were able to maintian commom cause with the various other branches of American conservatism. Then in 1981 former California governor Ronald Reagan became president and with Reagan's entrance into the White House came a variety of new policy makers and government officials, not all of whom shared the traditionalist perspective. Despite this, however, Reagan nominated scholar Melvin Bradford, a Southern traditionalist, to head the National Endowment for the Humanities. Reagan's nominaton came under fire not only from the media and the post-McGovern Democratic Party, but also from "neo-conservatives", former socialists and Cold War social democrats (modern liberals) such as Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, George Will, and Terry Eastland. These neo-conservatives had drifted into the conservative camp in the 1960's and 1970's as they came to reject the excesses of the New Left while retaining an admiration for the social democratic policies of the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Frontier, and the Great Society. Bradford was eventually maligned to the point where the Reagan Administration withdrew his nomination (despite having been backed by numerous Old Right leaders such as Russell Kirk and Thomas Landess) in favor of the neo-conservatives' choice, William Bennett. Not long after this incident the neo-conservatives began a systemic attempt to work against the traditionalists in the Conservative Movement.

The term "paleo-conservative" first started appearing around the mid-1980's as a way for traditionalists (also referred to as the Old Right) to differentiate themselves from the neo-conservatives. In 1986 traditionalist scholar Stephen J. Tonsor published an article in National Review entitled "Why I too am not a neoconservative" that took neo-conservatism to task on its credentials. That same year a symposium sponsored by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute featured such traditionalist scholars as Russell Kirk, Melvin Bradford, Gregory Wolfe, Clyde Wilson, Paul Gottfried, Gerhart Niemeyer, George Carey, and George Panichas who discussed many of the problems facing conservatism since the rise of the neo-conservatives and the "Beltway Right". This was followed up by a raucus meeting of the Philadelphia Society, where paleo-conservatives and neo-conservatives debated viciously over the merits of neo-conservatism being a genuine form of conservatism.

Link to column entitled "Mel Bradford, Old Indian Fighters, and the NEH" by Thomas Landess from a 2003 post on LewRockwell.com.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/landess1.html

Link to article entitled "Why I too am not a neoconservative" by Stephen J. Tonsor from the June 20, 1986 issue of National Review.
http://www.highbeam.com/library/docFree.asp?DOCID=1G1:4282899

Link to article entitled "Gang warfare in Chicago - Philadelphia Society's national meeting at the Drake Hotel in Chicago" by Dartmouth College professor Jeffrey Hart from the June 6, 1986 issue of National Review. The article is an account of The Philadelphia Society meeting in Chicago that stirred dissention between the Old Right and the neo-conservatives.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_v38/ai_4270404

Link to the Spring 1986 issue of The Intercollegiate Review which featured "The State of Conservatism: A Symposium".
http://www.isi.org/journals/archive/issue.aspx?id=49de631c-e7d8-4639-a1a5-9874b6697a0b

Bringing a Hard Right to the Green Mountains

2006-07-11T17:06:00.000-04:00

It was Samuel Francis, a populist paleo-conservative scholar in the vein of anti-communist and "neo-Machiavellian" intellectual James Burnham who first phrased the term "Hard Right". The Hard Right for Francis was a loose coalition of individuals, organizations, and publications who dissented from the prevailing mainstream conservatism in America. It was not really organized like the neo-conservatives or the Beltway Right and as a consequence found itself yelling from the sidelines of American politics. That was until the War in Iraq and the Right found itself in open warfare amongst itself over intervention in Baghdad and "saving the world for democracy", a lesson most traditionalists and paleo-conservatives thought the United States would have learned after many previous botched attempts at humanitarian military missions.

Green Mountain Hard Right! is designed to be my own personal little soapbox against Revolutionary (modernist) impulses in Vermont. As a self-described reactionary and counter-revolutionary, I am doubtful of "liberty, equality, and fraternity", the "natural rights of man", "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and other feel-good notions of Enlightenment liberalism. Instead I value communitarian values based on localism, natural hierarchy, custom, and prescription. I prize social authority--not authoritarianism, but rather the authority which one's faith, family, and community place on a person--over atomistic individualism. I agree with Simone Weil that "order is the first need of all" and that Christian humanism is a more appropriate response to human suffering than humanitarianism (read Irving Babbitt for a better understanding of the fatal flaw of humanitarianism).

This said I feel that the Right in the Green Mountains is in a state of disarray, which has allowed the Revolution to move itself in and supplant traditional culture and morality. Traditionalists saw this with the Act 60 bill of the late 1990's and the civil unions legislation that followed. My own view of the civil union controversy was quite simple: homosexuality is sinful as well as dangerous sociobiologically. Despite this, however, I was not fully on the side of the conservative populists who led the charge against the Left on this issue.

The reason for this was that I held a rather Burkean view of representative government. As I saw it, in a society where one person elects another person to represent him in government, the constituent elects a candidate with full knowledge that when that candidate becomes a representative he will use his own judgement when passing legislation. While the constituent might make his opinion clear on how he views on an issue or policy decision, the constituent clearly knows and accepts that it is up to the representative to decide how he will vote, irregardless of whether that vote correlates to what the constituent wants. Consequently, it is during the next election cycle that the constituent is to decide whether or not to re-elect the representative based on his voting record.

The argument I heard most from voters and the populist Right (most of whom have not read Edmund Burke let alone have heard of him) was that the 2000 legislature did not "listen" to how their constituents wanted them to vote. In fact, most of the representatives did listen to their constituents, they just didn't take those views into serious consideration when they decided to put civil unions into law. Following the Burkean view of representational government, the legislators fulfilled their obligation representative duty by using their own judgement and voting accordingly. And that fall, when election time rolled around, the outraged citizenry fulfilled their obligation as well by voting the majority of pro-civil union legislators out of office.

This should have been the strategy of the Right on the issue from the very beginning, however the fast and easy approach of populism and zealotry was used instead. The end result, of course, was a vicious smear campaign against the GOP's gubernatorial candidate, Ruth Dwyer, and a short-lived State House victory for the Republicans that was ultimately undercut by its own social democratic wing. Since then the Left has increased its power base and further attempts to carry forward the Revolution have continued.

This is where the need for a Hard Right comes in. A Hard Right is distinguished from a Soft Right in that the Soft Right are social democratic Republicans (Rockefeller Republicans, RINOs, liberal Republicans, Ripon Society Republicans, etc.) or other Leftist fellow travellers (the Beltway Right, neo-conservatives). The Soft Right either intentionally thwart genuine conservative victories or "go-along to get-along" for the sake of political expediency or sheer opportunism (the Soft Right is fond of referring to themselves as moderates despite the fact that there is nothing moderate in aping the policies of the Left).

The Hard Right, in contrast, recognizes that there are first principles to be defended, first principles that are under constant attack by the forces of modernity and progress. For example, here in the Green Mountains, the assault on traditional morality and Christianity reached a crescendo a few years ago during the civil unions controversy when a sitting governor had the temerity to try and intimidate a Roman Catholic bishop over the latter's courageous defiance against state-sactioned heresy. As the Republican Party has continued to lose seats in the legislature and its legislators have continued to acquiesce to the Left, the need for a Hard Right in the Green Mountains is becoming more necessary. Conservatism in Vermont needs resuscitating and it will not come by way of a tax cut or new jobs. It will only come by an appreciation of eternal verities and a return to the "Permanent Things".

Link to Samuel Francis's column, "Toward a Hard Right" in the February 2005 issue of Chronicles magazine where he outlines the a future strategy for those paleconservatives opposed to the direction of mainstream conservatism.
www.chroniclesmagazine.org/www/Chronicles/2005/February2005/0205Principalities.html