The future of the past II

Okay, so I’ve provide quite a lot of highlights; highly relevant highlights, though for sure. I feel as if, having regurgitated so much for my readers, I ought to offer a least a few thoughts of mine own. So here I go:

I certainly agree with Daniel McCarthy that we need to work on building infrastructure, but before that can occur, I believe that we need, at least broadly (even paleoconservatism, is, of course, a coalition), to agree, as Mr Dougherty notes, on what the mission and values of our ideology are. On economics, are we Chester-Bellocian Distributists? (I consider myself to be one.) Closely related agrarians or ordoliberals? (I really need to read the Agrarians, as I have Wendell Berry; Röpke is on my bookshelf, awaiting his turn.) Or do we embrace Buchananite protectionism? Need conflict arise between the two? The most extreme (by present-day standards) wish of the Distributist and, particularly, the Agrarian, videlicet, the return to a truly agrarian society, is, barring the not-so-likely catastrophe, little more than just a dream. A more appropriate, wide-spread distribution of property (and of ownership in other senses) and the return of the family farm, rather than agri-business (and a return to the land by many), though perhaps improbable without a long fight, a fight more than worth the while. Perchance, then, middle-ground between the essential autarky of the more traditionalist perspectives and trade-based economic nationalism of Buchanan ought to be our general home on economic policies. How we’ll — if we should so like — maintain any sort of alliance with the paleolibertarians — or even self-styled paleocons less averse to classical liberal policy (After all, as I contended above, we are a coalition!), then, poses another problem. Whether we should care, of course, is worthy of consideration: From the practical standpoint, the answer, of course, is that we should; moreover, they do share many opinions with us. However, I don’t believe that real, cultural conservatism can be achieved without concomitant dedication to an economic system focused on the local and the particular.

If we successfully agree on where we stand economically (With perhaps a few minor exceptions, I believe that paleos hold sufficiently similar views on immigration, war and interventionism, social issues, and Federalism and States’ Rights issues.), we then can successfully begin to build the infrastructure, working from the starting points provided by TAC and Chronicles and The Rockford Institute.

I’ll defer to Mr McCarthy’s forthcoming article here: I’m not sure where to begin this immense long-term project. I have one thought though: We need to desert the G.O.P.

As I read the many opinions offered in the thread, I couldn’t help thinking about The Free State Project. Ought we paleos to adopt a similar plan, attempting to relocate en masse to a smaller state where we might be able to gain political control? I realize that the Libertarians failed at this in New Hampshire, and that it may be an inherently flawed plan. Furthermore, we seek to rebuild our country (our countries, as some may prefer to suggest — though we can hope to rebuild the nation simultaneously), rather than one or two states. However, we need a starting point, and one state or another might be appropriate. Which, I do not know.

Jim and his respondents have provided quite a bit for us to contemplate. I hope that I’ve offered something relevant to the discussion.

5 Responses

  1. […] commentary from an crunchy, educated hick inside the Beltway « The Joy of Creating The future of the past II […]

  2. The libertarians (small-l) *haven’t* failed in New Hampshire. People continue to move at a steady pace (the in-state count is well over 500 now) and the list of successes directly attributable to their presence is getting too long to read. The more people that come here, the more successful it will become. That said, I imagine it’ll be years or even decades before people say, “woah, what happened there?” (like they are now in Vermont).


  3. Varrin,

    Thank you for visiting, and for offering the corrections. Perhaps I was hasty in using the word “failed”; however, five hundred is hardly the twenty thousand that, if I recall, organizers had hoped to see. I certainly hope that the movement succeeds: thought not a L/libertarian, I have sympathies, and am happy to see any fruitful attempts at organization by liberty-loving groups.

  4. Why do you have to desert the GOP? Why not transform it from the inside with your ideas? You’re trying to change America from the inside which is great, but you might find that changing a political party is easier. Both tasks are admittedly daunting.

    The Ron Paul thing isn’t really a “revolution”, but it will have an effect on the future of the GOP just like the Goldwater run did.

    My opinions.

  5. Pauli, thank you for stopping by and for offering your thoughts. I’ve actually meant for a few days now to expound upon my suggestion that we must desert the GOP, as well as to offer points conceding the difficulty of such a measure, but, alas, I have been remiss in my duties as an amateur blogger. I shall in the next few days tend to this, though. Thanks!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: