THE PALEOCRAT TRIBUNE

This is a very brief and inadequate synopsis of Distributism. It will be my effort over the rest of the semester to deal with at least one aspect of Distributism on every program, as well as interviewing various Distributists such as Richard Aleman of The Society for Distributism,  Dr. Thomas Storck, John Medaille, and others.

NOTE: Dr. Thomas Storck will be defending Distributism over against Michael Novak, who will be defending Capitalism, and Dr. Thomas Clark, who will, for the sake of distinction, defend Democratic Socialism. For more information on the event, visit The Chesterbelloc Mandate.

Conservatism is, as Samuel Francis would write in a book by the same title, a beautiful loser. A movement with no creed, no agreed upon set of icons, and no consensus on just what they wish to conserve. Heaven forbid that I decry them for traits common to most all political movements. But to pretend that there is a consensus within the movement, as the more loud and proud would like everyone to believe, is to play the part of the village idiot.

The question I am often asked is where I believe myself to fit in amongst the conservative horde. This was never a difficult question to answer. I have always found myself somewhere between paleolibertarianism and paleoconservativism. Any way you went with it, “paleo” was the necessary prefix.

There were certrainly areas of tension. Finding my home on issues concerning was Wall St. and Main St., tariffs and laissez-faire, as well as restrictionism and amnesty was no easy task. There are still a number of unresolved tensions, but I presume this will be the case for the duration of my life. At any rate, I have found what I would generally refer to as home.

But it would be foolish of me to pretend that I am a cookie-cutter paleoconservative. I maintain a number of positions that may be considered anathema by many of the paleos. My preference for culturism over racialism hasn’t won me many brownie points amongst the more hardline of the crowd. My distaste for capitalism and tentative take on industrialism would place me in dock with many. But my positions on health care, environmentalism, animal treatment, labor unions, and a Just/Living Wage would possibly have me thrown to the gallows along with the ghosts of excommunicants past.

So what am I? Where do I fit? Not sure. But I don’t think I’d prefer it any other way.

What's the different between a pit bull with lipstick and Sarah Palin? A guilty verdict.

GUILTY:

Unlawful Abuse of Power

Not to worry. Character, integrity, and public trust mean very little anymore. And rest assured that the spin-doctors will create some hysterical story about partisan motives, employing Hannity-like slogans such as “smear machine” and to repeat ad nauseam that “they are out to destroy this innocent woman’s life.”

The real key, though, is whether or not the myth-makers can pin this bi-partisan commission the Palins were originally willing to work with connected to terrorists. Al Qaeda would be great… but Bill Ayers may do just fine.

SIDE NOTE: Even Todd is found guilty of being in on the dirty business! Just your typical American family…

Discussing pro-life “ends and means” with some partisans over at Catholic Answers… let’s just say that the reception committee wasn’t very welcoming.

I enter the debate as comment #507 on page 34.

The first televised debate between John McCain and Barack Obama was about as exciting as watching molasses run down the pine in mid-winter. It was loaded with sloppy sloganeering, pre-scripted wisecracks, and a seemingly endless number of awkward smiles from John McCain after having been called a liar, albeit in a manner that sounded more like a pillow fight than a smack across the face.

But while there were few (and let me stress few) real disagreements hashed out in the debate, what stuck out to me was just how much the two of them have in common. This is particularly true regarding the notion of American imperialism and the country’s divine right to play the part of Globo-Cop. The theatre of combat may change, at least in so far as emphasis is concerned, but the philosophical underpinnings of military interventionism is no less a reality in Obama than McCain.

Viewers were given the pleasure of taking an ideological trip on the War Hawk Express. Whether it concerned Russia’s so-called unprovoked and illegal aggression, the need to incorporate Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, the need to extend U.S. militarization, or the necessity of America playing the part of the sole global superpower, both of these men saw eye-to-eye. Imperialists through-and-through, neither wished to return to a humble foreign policy, or even a moderately arrogant foreign policy. The goal isn’t change in philosophy, but window dressing.

I presume that mastering the art of reading what isn’t there would be required to see those subtle differences they claim to be so very clear. This apparently leaves those of us who see things as they are in a constant sense of bewilderment, scratching our head in confusion as to why we simply cannot see what ought to be so evident. It may be much like those pictures requiring one to cross their eyes in order to see a hidden image. My fear, though, would be that the hidden image is even worse than the two donkephants rambling on about disagreements they simply don’t have.

The Republican election hustlers are pulling out all the stops this time around. McCain has gone from being a Goldwater-style antagonist towards the religious right to being, according to Eric Moore, director of Americans for Faith, a man led by his “quiet faith” all throughout his life, and particularly when considering public policy. Is Moore talking about the same fellow that said Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell were to the right what Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton are to the left? Was he referring to the McCain that compared James Dobson to head-strong union bosses who put their interests above those who they work for? Does he wish to imply that this is the same senator who, just as the Straight Talk Express got rolling, changed his tune on intelligent design, secularism, and the separation of church and state?  Surely this can’t be the same McCain that blew off endorsements from Protestant heroes such as John Hagee and Rod Parsley! If so, then Moore has gone beyond giving McCain a political makeover; he has given history a thorough whitewashing.

NOTE: I would agree with the old McCain’s remarks concerning the likes of Dobson, Robertson, and the late Falwell. In fact, my criticism of their masochistic tendency to hook themselves out to the GOP every election year makes McCain’s remarks look as harsh as a Larry King movie review. My beef  here is with so-called “people of faith” leaving their conscience at the door every election year in order to propagate mythical creatures like the “God-fearing John McCain.” Lying to yourself is one thing, but lying to others is quite another. Vote this year, but do so with your head hung in shame.

It wouldn’t be a stretch to say that everyone has had an “Oops, I spoke too soon” moment. This is especially true with political commentators. They are, too some degree, duty-bound to play the role of the forecaster. This often places them in the same vulnerable position as the weatherman, always open to the criticisms of those who have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight.

Srdja Trifkovic, an editor of Chronicles Magazine, provides us with a case-in-point. Following the lead of the magazine’s other editors, Trifkovic submitted his two cents worth on the “Palin Problem.” What had been dubbed “The Editor’s Roundtable” focused on the pros and cons of Senator John McCain’s choice of Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. There appeared to be a general consensus of pessimism amongst the editors. That is, until Trifkovic joined in.

This particular editor was more optimistic. He compared Ms. Palin’s foreign policy with those positions held by Senators Obama, Biden, and McCain. Then, being a realist of realists, he used statistics from insurance agencies and the Social Security Administration in order to demonstrate that a possible McCain death while in office would give Ms. Palin a whole new role in the White House. Once he had shown (statistically) that McCain has a 33-40% chance of dying during his first term in office, he concluded that Ms. Palin may be, when compared to the three aforementioned men, the best of all options.

According to Trifkovic, her positions couldn’t be any worse than theirs. He insisted that she was a tough nut to crack, making the neoconservative task of wooing or manipulating her more difficult than with former presidents. In fact, he went so far as to say that there was a 50-50 chance of her being a foreign policy realist.

Enter foot-in-mouth forecasting. Ms. Palin’s interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson demonstrated not only that he was a tad off, but that he was in a different ballpark altogether.

One could, and should, argue that her position is horrifically worse than any of the aforementioned men. Her belief that geographical proximity to Russia provides a level of experience in foreign affairs is as absurd as saying that people who have been to the top of Cedar Point’s Magnum rollercoaster gives them foreign policy experience with Canada on account of the fact that you can see the country landscape on a clear day. Ms. Palin’s inability to define the Bush Doctrine – she said it was “his world view” – and then, once having it clarified for her, going off on a scripted rant about people “hell-bent on destroying our nation” should cause even the most cultic “McCainiac” to wince. Admitting that she is generally ignorant of foreign policy 101 is an understatement.

If only she stopped here. Then she may have saved some face. But she went on to talk about Israel, Iran, Pakistan, and Russia. We aren’t to “second guess” Israel’s decisions, even if they have major economic and military ramifications for the United States. Iran is not only a threat to the region, but poses a threat to “the entire world.” The US shouldn’t take off the table the possibility of crossing over the border of Pakistan border without the approval of the Pakistani government, regardless of the fact that they are (at least at the moment) our allies. And, the worst of the worst, America should fight for the inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, regardless of the fact that this would jump-start Cold War II. When asked about whether or not we should go to war with Russia over Georgia, she replied, “Perhaps so.”

The remarks of Ms. Palin are grossly naïve and, were we to be honest, absolutely terrifying. This is not realism; this is a nightmare.

What does this say of Trifkovic’s forecasting? Not much, other than that he has a big, fat “F” on this particular prediction. No worry, it happens to the best of them.

The echo chambers continue to rattle with unfounded remarks about both candidates, but one curious bit of blabber that caught my attention was about Senator Obama. The rumor mill has it that his attendance in the Senate was one stop short of dismal. This may be true, and I am not here to defend one side over against another. On the other hand, I am here to shine light on the tricks of the political charade.

Let’s play it by the numbers:

1. McCain has left his senate chair vacant for vast amounts of time since he began campaigning. At one point he had allowed it to remain idle for over five weeks.
2. McCain recently surpassed North Dakota Senator Tim Johnson (D) as the senator with the highest level of absence. The difference being that Senator Johnson had a pretty decent excuse: he had a brain hemorrhage.
3. McCain’s absentee streak has also placed him in a position of honor amongst those who failed to vote this past session. In fact, he is the new King of the Hill.

Now let me make a personal admission. I happen to be of those persuaded that it is both predictable and acceptable for any and all running for the Oval Office to grant themselves a season of absence from their typical duties. The issue here, though, is with the misleading tactics employed by talking-heads and their brothers from a different mother over at Fox News. Actually, if I may be so brave, it is with those who latch on to what these hucksters have to say, never considering for even a moment what lies beneath the surface of arguments sounding too good to be true..

O, tempora! O, mores!