sign in sign up
<<
Home , Cato Institute, Ed Crane (libertarian), Fusionism, Lew Rockwell, Paleolibertarianism, Progressive conservatism

ROTHBARD-ROCKWELL REPORT

an old and valued friend and The ”New mentor of mine, was basically a ”: A libertarian, or, a far better term, what we would now call a paleo- Movement For libertarian. He believed in reason and , believed in indi- Our Time vidual and the , by Murray N. hated the public school system Rothbard with a purple passion, detested THE EAR At the historic first open hippie irrationality, believed in an by Sarah Barton meeting of the new John objective ethic, and You heard it Randolph Club (see below), JRC championed decen- first from the Ear: President Dr. Thomas Fleming, tralization and states’ that when Charles editor of Chronicles, referred to rights (including Murray was fired by the new paleocon/paleolibertarian those of the Old the Manhattan In- alliance as‘yhe new fusionism.” It South) against fed- stitute because is an excellent term for this out- eral tyranny. He was his research into standing new ideological and po- ardently in favor of, the mess litical movement, the very first rather than opposed strayed into the movement born of the glorious to, Christianity. (See h-o-t area of race new post-, post-Com- my Frank S. Meyer: and IQ, Murray munist era. For, as became evi- The Fusionist as called up his old dent at the JRC meeting and has Liberfarian, 1981, friend and fish- been clear for some time, this Burlingame, CA: ing buddy Eddie new movement is far more than Center for Libertarian “Sexual Diversity” an “alliance,” which implies two Studies, 1985.) And strategically, Crane. Remember that for years, inherently separate entities. Frank strongly opposed from Eddie had touted Murray far and and paleo- within the Buckley-National Re- wide as the big libertarian intel- is increasingly a viewpolicy of purging the conser- lectual, a non-doctrinaire moder- great coming together, afusion of vative movement of all “extrem- ate compared to the first R. But different but complementary ele- ist” groups: notably, the libertar- Eddie gave Charles Murray the ments. ians, the Birchers, and the cold shoulder, Murray finally Randians. Meyer had the unique winding up at the AEI. Problems of the Old gift of setting forth his own ideo- Monthslater,thestory broke Fusionism logicalposition with great strength big in

“ Fusionism” was originally and vigor, initiating ideological (November 30). Times writer acreation of the fertile mind of top debates with other conservative Jason DeParle interviewed National Reviewtheoretician and thinkers, while at the same time Manhattan Institute head Bill editor Frank S. Meyer. It was a trying to keep together all the Hammett who, pressed by call for a unified conservative factions within the broader move- DeParle, sounded increasingly movement based on a fusing of ment and maintaining personal inarticulate. First saying he the previously disparate and friendships with most of the worried about adverse publicity, seemingly antithetical libertarian clashing factions. Meyerforesaw Hammett finally stammered that and traditionalist wings of the that purging extremists would in- “when you say this stuff it just conservative movement. Frank, (Cont. page 3, col. 1) (Cont. next page,co/. 1) newsletter. The whole enterprise calls the statist cheat an sounds bad. I have to rethink thi may be next. Since Profs. Don --“ heir” to Locke, damn thing.” Next came old budd Lavoie and Jack High had used Jefferson, and DuBois. Eddie who tired to explain why hc Nobel-prize winner James In fact, King was an turned down Charles Murray flai Buchanan to force money out 01 intellectual heir only to DuBois, “It’s not an area I wish to ge Koch the last time their center was for King was a life-long involved in.” DeParle, trying to pi1 slated for the junk-heap, it has Communist fellow-traveler, and down one of these slippery think been on the death watch list. Dubois a long-time member of tankers, finally asked Eddic Buchanan is now retired. Note: the Communist Party’s central whether he shared Charle! wielding the knife on his own committee. Murray’s view that the entirt pe:>ple is Richie Fink, head minion “Forced integration,” says question of white-black IQ an( in Witchita. Joe Sobran, “is tlo racial harmony ***** in t e II ig e nce h ad ‘I un f o u na t e II what a shotguri marriage is to become taboo.”Said Eddie: “Ithin1 Last month, the Ear reported romance.” And King was holding that sometimes taboos serve i on & Freedom, the new the shotgun. legitimate social function.” Wha grassroots organization to be Why then would left- happened to the fearless searct funded by billionaire libertarians,who are supposed to for “truth,” Eddie? Isn’t that wha arid headed by Ed “Sexual believe in , your think-tank () i: Diversity” Crane of the Cato love King? Ear has a hunch that pursuing with your tax-exemp Institute. P&F was to wrap it’s King’s devotion to what Ed funds? libertarian political ideas in the Crane praises as “sexual It seems that while “S-D cultural agenda of the left, but no diversity.” King bedded other Eddie is all in favor of Sexua more. Apparently it’s dead. men’s wives, other wives’ men, Diversity, he is not in favor o (E!xcuse Ear for a moment while underagedgirls, and young boys. intellectual diversity: in favor oi she changes into a black dress.) Ear‘s guess is ‘that even holes in intellectual taboos but not sexua Longtime Kochtopus’r the ground had to watch out. No ones. That’s left-. Sheldon Richman blames the inronder the LLs love him. ***** Ear’s “sabotage.” Flatteringas this *t*** When a famous journalisl i~i,the Ear knows the left-libertarian A famoirs conservative called the Cat0 Institute“libertarian extravaganzawas vetoed by Ed’s ournalist recently explained Ed neo-cons,” Ear was unpersuaded. DOSS, Richie Fink. 2rane’s attack on : Then hired Roger and Richie-a Koch Washington ‘Lew Rockwellthinks marriage is Juliana Pilon, the socialdemocratic ‘bbbyist-worried that P&Fwould ‘or men and women, rather than answer to Nicolae and Elena, and mean too much notorietyjust now, nen and men, or men and sheep.” placedthemin high positions. Then ,vith legal troubles looming for the ***** , The Funder, set up ?mpire, involving an alleged In- Jim Peron, who flew to a globalist think-tank and endowed lian oil scandal and hundreds of South Africa to work with the chair for ex-Fed official Manuel nillions of dollars. Stay tuned for ibertarian Free Market Johnson at urther developments! -oundation, is back in San University. Then apoliticalscientist ***** 3ancisco. Jim had leased his revealed that Cat0 gets $1 million Speaking of Sheldon ‘ree Forum Books to ISIL, the a year from Olin and other neocon Tchman, he and Bill Bradford nternational Societyfor foundations. Hmmm. lenounced the second R’s claim .iberty (the old Libertarian ***** hat left libertarians love Martin nternational), but the contract The Koch antiAustrianthink- -uther King. Now they fulfill the illowed Jim lo change his mind, tank at George Mason, the Market laradigm. Sheldon’s editorial in ind he has. Note: the contract Process Center, has closed down 3ill’s new Libertydefends King as lad stipulated that lSlL keep the its irrationalist academic journal the essence of ,” ~oypornography corner of the after the first issue, andits student looh-poohs his plagiarism, and rookstore in operation. 0

2 January1991 (Fusionism.. conf. from P. 1) munism and the Soviet Union did destruction; for the tough Marxist evitably lead to a conservative not only poison the conservative and Leninist-trained neocons movement shorn of all principle movement’s explicit foreign and were able, by paying lip service to except respectability and a seat military programs. For it led Frank, such venerable conservative at the trough of wen though personally strongly principles as the free market, to Power. anti-socialist, to embrace warmly destroy Meyer’s own conserva- But there wasonegreat flaw as comrades any wing of social- tiveguiding principlesand replace in Meyer’s fusionism that proved ists who were defectors from or them by warmed-over social de- to be fatal, and destructive of converts to anti-. In mocracy in the guise of “neo- fusionism itself. In short, Frank’s conservatism,” “global democ- an era when strategic focus, racy,” “the Opportunity Society,” many, if not most, The Enemy for “,” or conservative in- him and for the whatever other slogan of the tellectuals were conservative moment might prove opportune. defectors from movement, was In opposing the old fusion- Communism, not and ism, I tried vainly to argue with Frank took pride but conservativesthat the Enemy was in being the top Communism. not Communism or the Soviet cadre Communist Hence, it was Union but statism and socialism, of all. A veteran under Frank’s and that once one embraces that Communist who theoretical and widervision, it would become clear got his start as or- strategic aegis that the main enemy of both ganizer at the that the conser- American liberty and traditional London School of vative move- Americanism resided not in , Frank ment rushed to Moscow or Havana but in was a leading welcome and Washington, D.C. theoretician, a member of the honor any species of dangerous National Committee of the Com- socialist so long as they were The Main Menace: munist Party, USA, and head of certifiably anti-Communist or anti- from Communism to the CP’s second leading cadre Soviet. Under this capacious Social training school, the Workers’ umbrella, every variety of Marxian Whether or not I was right School of Chicago. As a top socialist, whether right-wing about the SovietlCommunist defector, Frank was deeply com- Trotskyite,Menshevik, menace, and I still believe that I mitted to total destruction of the Lovestonite, or Social Democrat, was, the course of God That Failed, up to and in- was able to enter and infect the has, thank goodness, now made cluding nuclear annihilation of the conservative movement. The in- that argument obsolete and anti- Soviet Union. Hence, Frank not vasion and conquest of the con- quarian. The sudden and heart- only disagreed with the Old Right servative movement by Truman- warming death of Communism in foreign policy of , his Humphrey social democrats call- the Soviet Union and Eastern Eu- major interest was to reverse it, ing themselves “neo-conserva- rope has put an end to the Com- and he was the most pro-war of tives” happened after Frank’s munist menace. We have all the myriad war hawks of Na- death; but the way had been stressed in these pages the enor- tional Review and the conserva- paved for that conquest by the mous implications of this revolu- tive movement. Being militantly uncritical embrace of anti-Stalinist tionary event for our foreign and pro-war also meant being in favor socialists that Meyer’s theoretical military policy, and for making of U.S. and of all-out and strategic vision had called for viable, more than ever, the Old military statism in the U.S. and orchestrated. And so tragi- Right policy of “isolationism.” We Frank Meyer’s devotion to cally, Meyer’s fusionist doctrine have also discussed the fact that the global crusade against Com- had paved the way for its own the death of centralizing commu- January 1991 3 -nism in these countries has liber rediJCed to the status of adebatiy In short, on all crucial issues, ated the long suppressed and op society, and became an institutior social democrats stand against pressed ethnic and nationalit) hated and reviled both by the liberty and tradition, and in favor of groups, each of whom are oncc conservatives and by socia statism and Big Government. They again demanding freedom and in. democrats. But now tha are more dangerous in the long dependence from their nationa Communism and the Cold Wa run than the Communists not sim- oppressors. In many ways, we arc are ended, the U.N. is back, hailec ply because they have endured, living in a ‘%mewarp,” as 1990 anc as the governor of the new work but also because their program beyond take on many of the fea. order by aconservative movemen and their rhetoricalappeals are far tures of 1914 or 1919 or 1945. that has now been captured anc more insidious, slnce they claim to But another vital aspect oi ruled by the social democrat neo, combine socialism with the ap- this new post-Communist world is cons. pealingvirtues of “democracy and that The Enemy of liberty and Social demo- freedom of in- tradition is now revealedfull-blown: crats are all around quiry. For a long . For social us, and so it is all while they stub- democracy in all of itsguises is noi too easy to discern bornly refused to only still with us and has proved their reaction to the accept the liber- longer-lived than its cousin, great problems of tarian lesson that Communism, but now that Stalin the post-Cold-War economic free- and his heirs are out of the way, era. Whether call- dom and civil lib- social democratsaretrying to reach ing themselves erties are of a for total power. They have to be neoconservatives piece; but now, in stopped, and one of the objectives sr. neoliberals, they their second line of the new fusionism of the paleo- stand foursquare in of retreat, they libertarian and conservative iavor of statism in give lip service to movement is indeed to put a stop svery instance: that some sort of to them. s, strongly opposed “market,” suitably At the end of World War II, at :o isolationism and taxed, regulated, a moment in history when social n favor of U.S. in- and hobbled by a democrats and Communists were :ervention and war, massive welfare- allied, what is now called “the new almost as a high warfare State. In world order” was already prepared irinciple; and sec- short, there is little for us. The idea was that a new indly, as bitter opponents of the jistinction between modern social United Nations, the old League of 3thnic liberated ai jemocrats and the now-discred- Nations plus enforcement power, ong last by the collapse of central- ted “market socia1ists”of the 1930s would function as an effective world zing communism. Read a social Nho claimed to have solved the government in the form of a jemocrat anywhere, and you will atal flaw of s40cialismfirst pointed condominium of the world’s ind hysterical attacks on national- iut by : the im- superpowers, those blessed with sms and national aspirations as iossibility of socialist planners a permanentseat and a permanent igainst centralism everywhere, :alculating prices and costs, and on the Security Council: the whether it be in , Croatia, herefore planning a functioning United States, the Soviet Union, Ahuania, the Ukraine, or the Rus- nodern economy. Britain, France, and . The iian Republic. And the great smear In the collectivist arsenal of United States, in short, was to run vhether it be within the United he world of the 20th century there this world government in States or against emerging East- Jsedto bevariouscompetingstat- collaboration with itsjunior partner, trn European nations, is almost st programs: among them, Com- the U.S.S.R. But the Cold War nvariably to raise the spectre of nunism, , , and split the superpowers apart, and anti-Semitism,” to wield against Social Democracy. The Nazis and as a consequence the U.N. was iationalists or isolationists. ’ascists are long dead and buried; - 4 January 1991 Communism is not quitefully bur- the overwhelming support of the overpraised autobiography, Out ied but is still dead as a doornail. mass of Americans, and thus to of Step, Hook reveals himself as Only the most insidious remains: undercut, or short-circuit, their a petty, self-absorbed prig. The social democracy. Amidst a lib- domination by a small number of book is filled with brusque and eral culture captured by crazed opinion-moulding leaders. remarkably unperceptive dis- leftist social programs, with a missals of his old friends and ac- conservative movement lying su- The Litmus Test: quaintances, none of whom pine before the social democrat Sidney Hook seemed to be worthy of Hooks neocons, only the paleo New alleged wisdom and advice. Take, If my characterization of Fusionists are rising up to thwart for example, Hook’s portrayal of neocons and neo-liberals as es- social democrat plans for total his long-time colleagues at Par- sentially social power, domestic tisan Review, once the quasi- democrats seems and foreign. Trotskyite, modernist center of exaggerated, let us But why are American literary and intellectual ponder the status the regnant social life. That chapter is typical of this of undoubtedly the democrats worried dull, flat, and monotonic book. most beloved fig- and trembling at Every one of his old colleagues is ureamongall these the upsurge of depicted as an unintelligent, groups, as well as the New Fusion- quasi-ignorant dolt, all of whom in the modern con- ism?-and believe stubbornly failed to follow Hook’s servative move- me they are. It is invariably wise counsel. Hook ment: the late obviously not be- comes across as petty, peevish, Sidney Hook. Long cause of our for- narrow, and self-important, lack- mal numbers or afixture at the con- ing either wit or insight, either into our limited access servative Hoover his friends or into the world at Institution, Hook to funding. The large. waseverywhere,at reason is that the Neither can Sidney’s popu- every conservative social democrats larity be explained by the great- intellectual gath- and their ilk know ness or profundity of his intellec- ering or organiza- full well that we ex- tual contributions. In political phi- tion, hisevery word press the deepest losophy, he was asimple-minded and pronouncement hailed albeit unarticulated beliefs of the pragmatist and social democrat, adoringly by all respectable folk mass of the American people. solving all social problems with from the AFL-CIO to the New Clever and cynical control of the the fetish of “majority rule” and Republic through National Re- opinion-moulding media and “democracy.” Knowingthe cliches view and points right. (Indeed, of once-conservative money of pragmatism and social democ- has recently sources are what enable a re- racy he mastered little else, canonized Sidney in a worshipful markably small group of ener- whether of economics, esthetics, elegy.) Sometimes it seemed that getic social democrats to domi- history, or any other discipline. only Communists or thereabouts nate the conservative movement What distinguished Sidney could possibly have a sour word and to battle, often successfully, Hook was, first, that he was an to say for Hook. for the levers of power in Wash- ex-Communist, not since the What made Sidney Hook ington. But they are vastly out- 1930s like hiscolleagues, but way so universally beloved, so seem- numbered if only the American back, from the 1920s. In short, ingly above the merest hint of people were clued in to what is the older and precocious Hook criticism? Surely it was not his going on, and that is why the was a Communist from his ado- personality, which was neither social democrats fear our seem- lescence. Despite the story in his particularly lovable nor charis- ingly small movement. What we self-serving memoir, he remained matic. Indeed, in his enormously need to learn is how to mobilize close to the CPfor a long time, on January 1991 5 ~~ into the late 1930s. Contrary to his Fusionists are anti-Hook to the neocon assault on free speech and grotesque title, Sidney all of his life core. free press “absolutism,” and their was In Step, always being among It is important to consider a insistence instead on the impor- the first to adopt the newest intel- final point on Hook and modern tance of “democratic values,” con- lectual fashion. In that way, he conservatism. In his odious book stitutes an agenda for eventually showed himself to be agood “intel- of the early Cold War, Heresy Yes, using the power of the State to lectual entrepre- Conspiracy No, restrict or prohibit speech or ex- neur.” Communist, Hook set forth a pression that neocons hold to be Hegelian, Deweyite, theoretical justifi- “undemocratic.” This categorl Trotskyite, defender cation for an as- could and would be indefinitely ex, of World War II,anti- sault upon civil lib- panded to include: real or allegec Communist after erties and aca- Communists, leftists, fascists, neo. the war, Partisan demic freedom. Nazis, secessionists, “hate thought’ Reviewnik, and fi- Heresy is OK and criminals, and eventually.. nally extreme right- deserves the right paleoconservatives and paleo anc wing social demo- to dissent, main- left-libertarians. God knows whict crat, Hook veered tained Hook, but and groups might even- and tacked with the “conspiracy” is tually come under the “undemo- intellectualfashions subversiveand evil cratic” rubric, arid therefore become and on into the “left” and has no rights, subject to neocon/social democral fringes of neocon- and therefore it is crackdown. To paraphrase an old servatism and the legitimateand nec- leftist-interventionist slogan of the conservative move- essary for govern- 1930s and 1940s: ask not forwhom ment. More honest ment tocrackdown the neocon bell tolls; it tollsfor thee. than his colleagues, upon them. Note he referred to him- that this is a crack- T’he New Fusionism: self candidly untilthe down upon speech, end as a Marxist and as a socialist. press, and teaching, and not upon rhe John Randolph It is a measure of the intellectual actions such as concrete plots to Club and political degeneration of the overthrow the State. The overt use Which brings us to the unveil- modern conservative movement of this doctrine by Hook and the ng of the New Fusionism at the first that Sidney put no one off by his social democrats was to enable )pen meeting Iof the John Randolph ifelong avowal of . purges of Communists. But what Iub. The meeting was held at the Thus, Sidney Hook, the was overlooked at the time was ;crumptious Marriott Mandalay Vestor of social democracy, was Hook‘s general theory of “con- iotel at Dallas on the weekend of n his own unimpressive person spiracy” which included, not sim- Jovember 30-December 1. The :he living embodiment of what the ply Communists, but anyone heme of the meeting was “Con- :onservative movement has be- whose mind, according to Hook, rontation and Convergence,” with :ome: Le., the disastrous subordi- was enthralled to some sort of I leading paleolibertarian and a iation of every cherished principle external cadre, some organization eading paleoconservative debat- o the slogan of “anti-Communism,” external to the person or to the ng each other on a hot political and hence the permanentembrace universitywhere he teaches. Such opic at which they would likely be if war and statism. One’s attitude a theory could just as readily be it odds. Each debater presented a oward Sidney Hook, only recently used, e.g., to bar Jesuits from 0-15 minute talk, followed by re- jeceased, therefore provides a teaching as it would Communists. dies and then questions from the :onvenient litmus test on whether All this fits with an important loor. After a rousing keynote talk iomeone is a genuine conserva- insight of paleocon political theo- In Friday night by M.E. Bradford, ive, a paleo, or some form of neo. rist and historian Professor Paul dl day Saturday was devoted to the Jeedless to say, all the New Gottfried: that the social-democrat/ lebates: on foreign policy, civil

6 January 1991 rights, , and the Ne\n tional law. The ideawas to laud the rights of neutrals. The exact oppo- -Puritanism, an hour-and-a-half be. policy of “neutrality,” and to grani site of this “isolationist” foreign ing devoted to each topic. Bott neutral countries definite rights as policy is, of course, the Wilsonian members and non-members were against belligerents: specifically, U.S. policy, pursued ever since included in the 90-odd attendees. that neutral shipping must be free World War I, of intervening every- Virtually everyone had a fine of any interdict except for “contra where and attempting to establish time, debaters and attendees alike band” goods: strictly defined as a New World Order based on “col- The point of the panels was not tc only arms and ammunition. This lective security” to participate in score debating points but to try tc means, of course, that such a mon- all minor wars everywhere. This find common ground, anc strosity as the interventionistfor- “convergence” was achieved witt Bush4.N. em- eign policy was remarkable ease on almost ever) bargo against Iraq, rightly termed by point. The only protesters were which even in- the great Charles those few libertarians anc cludesfood,isafla- A. Beard a policy traditionalists in the audience whc grant violation not of “perpetual war suffered from culture shock, facinc only of the rights of for perpetual this ongoing paleo-dialoguefor the person and prop- peace.” first time. By the end of the day, erty, but also of old- Sam Francis’ however, even some of then- fashioned interna- policy of “conser- showed signs of adjusting to the tional law. The sec- vative national- new dispensation. ond important in- ism” did not differ I was particularly surprisec ternational law re- very much in prac- and gratified to find that what I striction on warring tice from my own: thought would be the most contro. states is that they the main differ- versial topic-foreign policy- must never target civilians of the ence being that I would confine sailed through with virtual unanim- other warring country. In short, if the US. government to its own ity, from the audience as well as on there must be a war, it must be borders, whereas Sam would re- the panel. Not only was everyone limited to the respective State serve the right to intervene in at opposed to the , but there apparati and armies; civilians, be- least the northern parts of Latin was even enormous theoretical ing deemed innocent, are off limits America. (Interestingly enough, overlap between my own “isola to either warring government. A this variance replicated one of the tionism”andthe paleocon panelist, final important foreign policy prin- few differences among the Old Dr. Samuel Francis’s “conserva- ciple for a world of nation-states is Right advocates of isolationism, tive .” In my own talk, I that no state should go to war ex- from the 1930s through the mid- setforththebasictwoforeignaffairs cept for defense of its own borders, 1950s: To what extent should the paradigms: world government, a since it is only within those borders US. intervene in our “back yard’’ despotic horror which must be op- that its own monopoly of force can of Latin America?) posed with all barrels, and inde- extend. In short, States with a On “Civil Rights” there was pendent national states (pending, monopoly of force over their own very little difference between of course, the arrival of my own territory should not try to extend paleolibertarianJoseph Sobran of ideal of world-wide anarcho-capi- their jurisdiction; any violation of NationalReview, and paleocon Dr. talism). I then outlined old-fash- that principle can only be a recipe Thomas Fleming, editor of ioned libertarian “international law” for maximizing conflict. Chronicles. As indeedthere should (pre-World War I) for the way na- In short, libertarian foreign not be, since both groups are tion-states should behave toward policy for a world of nation-states solidly committed to the view that one another, an ideal that began is: (a) no State should try to expand the civil wrong mislabeled “civil with the Catholic Scholastics and beyond its own borders; but (b) if it rights” has created a malignant continued through Hugo Grotius does, other states should stay out system trampling upon the rights and 18th and 19th century interna- of the squabble, retaining the vital of . There was

January 1991 7 some nuanced difference, with ine rights. This problem needs deeper point: That in the ideal -Joe Sobran speculating that the further discussion, but it certainly libertarian society, where there is civil rights movement was looks as if we need a return to the no public property, e.g. no public originally well-intentioned, but grand old Jeffersonian principle streets or lancls, there is no place getting corrupted later, whereas of eradicating federal tyranny, of for anyone to immigrate to, un- Tom Fleming took a much harder ,the judiciary as well as of other less that person is invited onto line. (As one wag observed: “This Iorgans of central government. that property (or sold the prop- is one of the very few gatherings Perhaps the entire erty) by existing in the United States where Joe Leviathanlegacy of private property- Sobran looks like a left-liberal!”) the lame duck High holders. Private It was on Civil Rights in- John property owners deed that a few of the libertarians Marshall and his who refusetosell, in the audience loudly protested. wccessors needs rent, or invite for- In the course of blasting the civil a caustic reap- eigners onto their rights movement for wrecking praisal. There is a land will, in this American and culture, real “strict con- ideal society, not especially in the South, Tom structionism”! haveto put up with Fleming made what should have Immigration their unwanted been an unexceptionable point: had proved a presence on that that while he is opposed to all thorny problem land. Lew also oppression, it is better for 90 within the Old called for making percent of the people to oppress Right; libertarians legal the old 19th 10 percent than for 10 percent to are committed to century practice oppress the other 90. One would freedom of mobil- (outlawed in the think that any libertarian who un- ity, and hence to late 19th century derstood simple arithmetic would open migration, at the behest of agree; and yet so infected have whereas paleo- the A.F. of L.) of many libertarians become by our cons tend to favor immigration “contract labor,” i.e. of American leftist egalitarian culture that they restrictions. Lew Rockwell, employers traveling abroad and could only see red (or black, to be paleolibertarian speaker on this hiring immigranlts for jobs before more precise). issue, stressedcorrectlythat open they come to American shores, But these are passing con- inimigration implies, for libertar- thus insuring they will neither be cerns for the New Fusionism. A ians, neither any sort of right or unwanted nor become public more important and intriguing access to government welfare, charges. question, still to be resolved by nor does it imply any “right to The paleocon speaker on the group, is the proper role of the vote.” For libertarians, voting, im m ig rat ion, Chronicles ’ book federal judiciary in insuring even unlike the right to private prop- review editor Chilton Williamson, legitimate rights. Many libertarians erty, is in no sense a natural right. did not take the typical paleocon have an understandable tendency Indeed,voting makes sense most view on this issue. As an to ignore the Tenth Amendment as the voting of parcels of owner- environmentalist, Chilton did not and to seek salvation of liberties ship over resources, e.g. the worry about unassimilablecultural by the federal judiciary. It seems owner of five percent stock in a groups, as do many paleocons. to me that the evidence of con- properly has the right Instead, he wanted to bar all future stitutional history is opposed; that to five percent of voting power immigrationwhalsoever, in order once you entrust the centralized wer its assets. If an immigrant to preserve the pristine natural judicial oligarchy with the protec- has no right to welfare nor neces- environment of the West. Lew tion of individual rights it will soon sarily the right to vote, this would Rockwell, ow Mr. Anti- become a monstrous engine for 30 a long way to allay paleocon Environment, rose to the tyranny and deprivation of genu- :onceins. But Lew also made a challenge, and affirmed that, as

8 January 1991 far as he was concerned, the tary community with local govern- one of the real stars of the confer- Grand Canyon should be used ment (making that mistake much ence. Howie stressed the idea of for landfill. Chilton was obviously less for state, or a fortiorifor the “community” as a voluntary con- horrified, but even this federal government). tractual or covenantal community disagreement was pursued in of neighborhood property own- good humor and without rancor. The Higher ers. Suddenly I realized that the More importantly, when Synthesis Phillips concept provided a Chilton was asked by the libertar- way to a higher synthesis of ians what gave government the At these sort of confer- paleolibertarian and paleocon- right to ban immigration into the ences, what goes on in private servative: and all in a manner U.S., a ban going far beyond the discussions and bull sessions is perfectly consistentwith anarcho- will of private landowners, he an- often more important than thefor- ! In short, in a country, swered: “sovereignty.” A fasci- mal proceedings. Late Saturday or a world, of totally private prop- nating reply: since he thereby im- night, after proceedings were erty, including streets, and of pri- plied that the US. government is over, I sat down with one of the vate contractual neighborhoods really the owner of the entire top paleocons to discuss what consisting of property-owners, United States land mass, overrid- appeared to be the two principal these owners can make any sort ing the rights of private property. differences of opinion during the of neighborhood-contracts they Problemsof jurisdiction and day between the two paleo- wish. In practice, groups. territory alsocame up prominently then, the country in the final session, on “the New One was would be a truly “sovereignty,” and Puritanism.” Libertarian Profes- “gorgeous mosaic” sor gave a talk, does the State have (in the famous marked by his characteristic wit, the right to exercise words of New York dominion over the denouncing theoutlawry of drugs. Mayor Dinkins), entire territorial Interestingly, paleocon debater ranging from rowdy area? The other Professor E. Christian Kopff of Greenwich Village- was the question of the University of Colorado, did type contractual community: How far not call for a war against drugs; neighborhoods, to does it extend be- instead, he stood for local com- socially conserva- yond private prop- munity control and decision-mak- tive homogeneous erty owners? My ing on all such social questions. WASP neighbor- paleoconfriend said Knowing that paleocons tend to hoods. Remember he had always been be Christians, Hamowy chal- that all deeds and opposed to the English concept lenged Kopff: Would you advo- :ovenants would once again be of sovereignty, which still rules in cate the right of a Hasidic Jewish :otally legal and enforceable, with the U.S., where government is neighborhood in Brooklyn to out- meddling government restric- coextensive with its territorial area. IO law Christian churches in that :ions upon them. So that consid- He said he preferred the conti- neighborhood? Without hesita- ?ring the drug question, if a pro- nental concept of sovereignty as tion, Chris Kopff said, “Yes, of irietary neighborhoodcontracted course.” Discussion then ended being attached to acommunity of ,hat no one would use drugs, and on a vital and fascinating note: Dersons, rather than to the land. Jones violated the contract and From there we proceeded to dis- What exactly is a “community”? ised them, his fellow community- :uss thecommunityquestion, and Paleolibertarians, unlike nihilos, :ontractors could simply enforce iere our discussion was inspired are not opposed to the concept of he contract and kick him out. Or; 3y some of the contributions from community; we simply insist on jince no advance contract can :he floor during the day of Howard narrowing it to the voluntary ac- illow for all conceivable circum- ’hillips, head of the Conservative tions of property-holders;whereas ;tances, suppose that Smith be- Zaucus, and who proved to be paleocons tend to conflate volun- :ame so personally obnoxious

January 1991 9 -that his fellow neighborhood- separated us from the paleo- be positive about the good and owners wanted him ejected. conservatives, that we grasp the very negative about the evil and They would then have to buy vital common ground beneath the meretricious. Take your pick: him out-probably on terms set them. And above all, that we enter there is no middle ground. contractually in advance in ac- into this dialogue and fusion in a Second, we believe in being cordance with some “obnoxious” :spirit of good will and a willingness negative about the bad precisely clause. Libertarians have al- to learn from each other, rather because we are devoted to the ways believed that, given full than reach quickly for the axe at good, the honest, and the true. If, scope, the free market could theslightest differenceof opinion. on the other hand, you choose to handle all problems, and sure And we can do all this without the be positive about everything, you enough here is another area slightest surrender of libertarian devalue the applause due only to that can be satisfactorily tack- principle. But such an advance is the good and the heroic, reducing led by full freedom-which possibleonly for those libertarians them to the level of the rotten. means full scope for the rights riot hopelessly poisoned by our The good can only be truly of private property. egalitarian culture, or trapped by honored by apportioning praise The exhilarating saga of rnoral . and blame as they are due. And the Dallas meeting demon- bytheway, noticehowthepresent strates that the alliance of On Being culture denounces anyone who paleolibertarians and paleocons is j u d g m e n t a I, ” ass u m in g is more than a flash in the pan, Negative apparently that value-judgments more even than a strategic alli- by M.N.R. are always negative. On the ance against the Welfare-War- contrary, human beings are We at RRRhave often been fare State that oppresses us. particularly distinguished by accused, mifabile dictu, by friend The alliance is not only here to making value-judgments, both and foe alike, of being “negative.” stay: it is converging into a New positive and negative; it is Being negative has a bad press in Fusionism shorn of the global impossible lo avoid being our contemporary culture, largely warmongering that damaged “judgmental” unless one is because there is so much to be and ultimately brought an end reducedto the status of a robot or regative about, and our ruling to the Old Fusionism of Frank machine. elite would much prefer if Meyer. It is a fusionism pas- And finally, being “negative” everyone were oh so positive sionatelydedicatedto liberty and is such fun! 0 about nearly everything they are to opposition to the Leviathan handing down to us. But several State; to devolving State power things need to be said, once and The Case for from large central agglomera- for all, about negative and positive. tions into smaller and smaller First, all those positive ”Hypocrisy” units, and eventually down to thinkers out there don’t seem to by M.N.R. proprietary neighborhoods; to realize that they are trapped in unyielding oppositionto all forms self-contradiction and self- Paleos and other moral tra- of social democracy; and it is a refutation. Because by attacking ditionalists have long been ef- fusionism dedicated to bour- us as being negative they fooare fectively skewered on the charge geois morality and individual being negative ...about us! It of “hypocrisy.” Viz., Mr. X, stump- achievements, and opposed to seems that it is impossible to ing the country denouncing the the nihilism and escape being negative in this perilsofdrunkenness, isexposed of contemporary culture. world. You have a choice of two by pro-drunk forces as a secret For libertarians, entering alternatives. Our critics have tippler. The Reverend Jimmy into the glorious era of the new chosen to be negative about us, Swaggart, denouncing the sins of fusionism requires only that we but positive about everyone else what is now euphemisticallycalled rise above the different rhetorics in the world. Or, you can, like us, “sexual diversity,” is brought low and languages that have

0 January 1991