My recent encounter with some “heritage conservatives” led to an encounter with a term I had not heard before, which is “proposition nation.” To be honest, when it was first introduced into the message thread (here) I actually thought it was a typo, as it didn’t seem to grammatically or syntactically track (”propositional nation” might be better, but that’s as nevermind).
The term “creedal nation” (which makes more sense than “proposition nation”) apparently can also be used and it would mean a nation founded on a creed rather than on the connection of a specific ethnic group to the land in question.
I surmised from the discussion that the term means a state founded on ideas (or “propositions”) rather than being founded on kinship and tribe. This notion of ideas being foundational and definitional is one that the “heritage conservatives” reject as they believe that people groups form nations and that membership in the nation is ultimately about ethnic and racial connection.
In doing some digging I have found the following (consider it fulfilling my curiosity and a public service to anyone else who might encounter the term):
As I suspected, the term is rather limited in the circles in which is it used. In searching the JSTOR database, which includes a rather large number (hundreds) of academic journals in such disciplines as history, philosophy, political science, sociology and various area studies (Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, etc.) and that in some cases has archives that reach back to the early Twentieth Century, the search string “proposition nation” returned zero results. I had the same result with ProQuest–which includes not only academic journals but also news sources such as magazines and newspapers.
A Lexis/Nexis search in the full text of major newspapers for all available dates returns 45 incidences of the words “proposition” and “nation” in sequence, but none referred to anything relevant to the discussion at hand.
Indeed, when one does a Google Search of “proposition nation” it becomes quite clear that the phrase is one used by hardcore nativists and White Supremacists. The first three entries (VDARE and a blog called “View from the Right”) make clear that what is meant by the term is the notion that America is based on certain propositions (or creeds) such as the horrible notion (from the point of view of those who use the term) that “all men are created equal” and that America can therefore be understood apart from racial and ethnic ties.
Robert Locke writing at FrontPageMag.com attempts to spell out his anti-”propositionist” position. While he skates around actually saying it, the bottom line is that he is arguing that the American nation was founded by Whites with judeo-Christian values and therefore “America” is forevermore defined by White judeo-Christians.
Of course, in the context of the immigration debate, the great monster is the Latin American Judeo-Christian (Latins are overwhelmingly Catholic, with Evangelical protestantism being the second most prominent confessional perspective). Now, if brown judeo-Christians can’t really be Americans, then using some rudimentary math here, it would seem that to those who subscribe to this point of view are allowing the judeo-Christian part to fall by the wayside and the only real objection, then, is that the brownness of the Latin American immigrant that gives the anti-propositionist hives.
And Locke’s arguments, should you care to read them, are weak. He rejects, for example, the Declaration of Independence as having any significance in defining America because it was never the law of the land. Yet, somehow, being white and judeo-Christian is supposed to be foundational in defining the nation, although last I checked we never had a national religion (indeed, the Constitution forbids it) and while we certainly had slavery, there was never an “official race” of the USA. As such, his arguments are built on fantasy. To pretend like American identity is to be understood solely in terms of the codified law is problematic.
Of course, part of the overall problem with the whole discourse is that insistence that the main unit of political analysis should be the nation as defined as a people group. Indeed, the main unit of analysis is the state, which may, or may not, have its origins in a specific ethnic group. Many modern states, in fact, are multiethnic–few are true “nation-states” and the USA never has been..
Indeed, to assume that tribe or ethnicity is the primary unit of analysis requires going back in time quite a ways–in some cases centuries. As such, these so-called “heritage conservatives” are really (among other things) reactionaries of a substantial magnitude.
Sphere: Related Content
A great race war does approaches. Each race will fight brave. Each race will fight for own survival. But in the end only one race will survive.
The white man had day in sun. Its now Age of the Brown Man.
By 2110 either from war or intermarriage not a single baby will be born with blond hair and blue eyes.
Comment by Rajnath Singh — Sunday, June 10, 2024 @ 10:14 pm
[…] Are Hispanics “Catholic”? […]
Pingback by Conservative Heritage Times » Latin Mass & Hispanics — Sunday, June 10, 2024 @ 10:16 pm
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=541
Are Hispanics “Catholic�?
Here’s an article that mentions the incorporation of “Afro-Brazilian rites� into the Roman Catholic liturgy in Brazil. In fact, this is a widespread phenomenon across all of Central and South America. Given that the vast majority of inhabitants in these places are Amerindian, mestizo, or African, they identify neither with Europe nor with European traditions. Parishioners, priests and bishops recently have demanded the expunging of “European elements� from their liturgy (which is occurring in the U.S. too), and want to replace them with various Amerindian elements (e.g. Aztlan) or African elements (as in Brazil) depending upon the backgrounds of the people.
For the record, I don’t have a problem with the incorporation of indigenous elements. This, for example, is part of the beauty of Orthodox Christianity. It emphases the homogenous ethnicity of its various congregations while simultaneously worshiping universal elements of Christianity. This is much closer to the original Christian churches than those today plagued by liberal notions of multiculturalism, universal entitlement and globalist humanitarianism. But we should label this Hispanic trend for what it is, and it is not Western. It is part of their own unique history, and not a part of our, Western, tradition.
And not only have many of these people been converting to Pentecostalism, which is more than happy to eradicate any European liturgical practices in favor of indigenous ones, but many of them have been converting to Islam. I don’t know the numbers for Central and South America, but for the past few years in the U.S. over 200,000 Hispanics have converted to Islam, and this phenomenon will continue.
Regarding immigration, this should raise doubts about the prospects of “assimilation� of these people. I suspect that they will assimilate many Americans, but doubt the opposite will occur.
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=541
Comment by ping — Sunday, June 10, 2024 @ 10:19 pm
Are Hispanics “Catholic�?
Here’s an article that mentions the incorporation of “Afro-Brazilian rites� into the Roman Catholic liturgy in Brazil. In fact, this is a widespread phenomenon across all of Central and South America. Given that the vast majority of inhabitants in these places are Amerindian, mestizo, or African, they identify neither with Europe nor with European traditions. Parishioners, priests and bishops recently have demanded the expunging of “European elements� from their liturgy (which is occurring in the U.S. too), and want to replace them with various Amerindian elements (e.g. Aztlan) or African elements (as in Brazil) depending upon the backgrounds of the people.
For the record, I don’t have a problem with the incorporation of indigenous elements. This, for example, is part of the beauty of Orthodox Christianity. It emphases the homogenous ethnicity of its various congregations while simultaneously worshiping universal elements of Christianity. This is much closer to the original Christian churches than those today plagued by liberal notions of multiculturalism, universal entitlement and globalist humanitarianism. But we should label this Hispanic trend for what it is, and it is not Western. It is part of their own unique history, and not a part of our, Western, tradition.
And not only have many of these people been converting to Pentecostalism, which is more than happy to eradicate any European liturgical practices in favor of indigenous ones, but many of them have been converting to Islam. I don’t know the numbers for Central and South America, but for the past few years in the U.S. over 200,000 Hispanics have converted to Islam, and this phenomenon will continue.
Regarding immigration, this should raise doubts about the prospects of “assimilation� of these people. I suspect that they will assimilate many Americans, but doubt the opposite will occur.
Comment by ping — Sunday, June 10, 2024 @ 10:19 pm
Real conservatives believe in a classical concept of a nation: one based in kith and kin, blood and soil, and genophilia (instinctive attachment to family and tribe).
Both Greek democracy and Roman republicanism were predicated upon the tribal systems, as were Medieval and Modern governments.
The proposition nation / creedal nation is a creation of the left-wing Enlightenment. It failed in the USSR, and it will fail in the U.S. too. Only left-wing fools or utopianosts would subscribe to it.
If you can read Greek or Latin, look at many of the 19th century commentaries on Aristotle. You will find many discussions there on the left-wing notion of a proposition nation.
Comment by Authentic Conservative — Sunday, June 10, 2024 @ 10:24 pm
You should read Dr. Thomas Fleming’s The Morality of Everyday Life: An Ancient Alternative to the Liberal Tradition.
Comment by Authentic Conservative — Sunday, June 10, 2024 @ 10:27 pm
I think you folks have cut-n-pasted that “kith and kin” line at least half a dozen times since yesterday. Are you all incapable of an original thought?
And, really, you all also need to understand that an argument is won by expounding on the quality of ideas, not making assertions about their origins. As if “ooh, left-wing!” (by your rather specific definition) invalids something.
And who really cares if you consider yourself “real” conservatives. Trust me, if I have to live with your definition, you can keep the title.
You people also excel as the logical fallacy known as “appeal to authority”–which, I guess given your political ideology isn’t too surprising.
Just saying that some past civilization did X or that some author said Y is not an argument–it is the recitation of talking points.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, June 10, 2024 @ 10:40 pm
FYI, with the exception of a very small upper class of pure European blood
(1) 30% of Mexicans are Amerindian
and
(2) 60% of Mexicans are Mestizo (mostly Amerindian with a few drops of Amerindian or African blood).
According to the Christian Science Monitor, in the past few years in the U.S. over 200,000 Hispanics have converted to Islam, and this number will increase exponentially.
For those that are “Christian,” it has become extremely commonplace to demand the removal of all “European” elements from their liturgy.
Some of these people may be Christian, but they are not Westerners. Their ancestral traditions are not the same as mine, and as Burke said: ancestral traditions rule the day.
Comment by Dave — Sunday, June 10, 2024 @ 10:40 pm
Yes, you should read Thomas Fleming’s The Morality of Everyday Life: An Ancient Alternative to the Liberal Tradition. This work is pure genius. FYI: Fleming writes like an aristocrat. He is classically trained.
Comment by Dave — Sunday, June 10, 2024 @ 10:44 pm
I love it: you people have to define away Latin American Catholicism because if they really are Catholics it screws up your theories.
And again, every post is an appeal to authority.
Burke isn’t here, mi amigo, you are.
Your typical Southern Baptist Church doesn’t utilize the European liturgy either–shall you kick them out of America as well?
And these kinds of assertions are pure nonsense: According to the Christian Science Monitor, in the past few years in the U.S. over 200,000 Hispanics have converted to Islam, and this number will increase exponentially.
On what logical premise do you base such an assertion?
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, June 10, 2024 @ 10:44 pm
Yes, you should read Thomas Fleming’s The Morality of Everyday Life: An Ancient Alternative to the Liberal Tradition. This work is pure genius. FYI: Fleming writes like an aristocrat. He is classically trained.
That made me laugh out loud.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, June 10, 2024 @ 10:49 pm
FROM OTHER THREAD:
It has been asserted that America was founded on ideas (propositions), and not by and for a particular group of people. The paleo position is that America is not a proposition nation but that we are a particular nation like all others. The proposition position would have been news to the Founders, and it is counter-intuitive even. The only reason people spout that kind of nonsense is because it has been brow-beaten into them. Here goes.
“With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.” - emphasis mine
John Jay from Federalist Paper #2. Pretty authoritative source don’t you think? Jay was a strong Federalist. I actually think he overstates the case for homogeneity. New England and the South were not all that similar “in their manners and customs” and that is why we later had problems. But this still makes my point even stronger than I might make it.
Comment by Dave — Sunday, June 10, 2024 @ 10:50 pm
“Smitten by a mythical organic past, these paleoconservatives were trying to separate American conservatism from its New World and modernist foundations. The neoconservatives, who were standing up for postmedieval political institutions, were fighting these rabid reactionaries in a war that had not yet been decided.
This line of argument, or something closely resembling it, has come up each time the “respectable” conservatives look rightward, toward those they hope to remove from the political discussion. In March at a CPAC conference and in his online commentary National Review- editor Jonah Goldberg, who is too young and obviously too ignorant to know the origin of this dispute, pointed to the French counterrevolutionary Joseph de Maistre (1754-1821) as the theorist whom American conservatives should want to fight the hardest.
In his polished, aphoristic dialogues, Evening Conversations in St. Petersburg, Maistre had noticed that it might be more useful to try to understand people as Englishmen, Frenchmen, Germans, or members of other national or ethnic groups than simply as human beings. Such a conceptual perspective, according to Goldberg, goes against conservatism, which is about the spread of “human rights.” Since Maistre did not believe in such rights, or in the universalist assumptions that they presuppose, he therefore made war against something Goldberg calls “conservatism.”
What Goldberg is really pushing is a form of leftist imperialism reaching back to Robespierre and Jacobin France. Goldberg has dusted off the platform of the French revolutionary Left and misnamed it conservatism, while taking a once renowned conservative, Maistre, and assigning him to a neocon version of eternal perdition. It might be properly asked why anyone would mistake the bearers of this view for certified conservatives.”
Paul Gottfried, Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College
In all these the emphasis are mine, btw.
Comment by Dave — Sunday, June 10, 2024 @ 10:51 pm
Irving Kristol, the Godfather of neoconservatism wrote:
“large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns.”
Did you catch that? Irving Kristol thinks America is an ideological nation just like the Soviet Union.
Here is the late paleo Sam Francis dismantling this nonsense.
“But most of all, they believe “national interest” is more than geography. It’s also ideology, because “large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns.”
It’s fascinating Mr. Kristol thinks the USSR and the United States are the same kinds of nations—”proposition countries” or “credal nations.” They aren’t, because that’s not what the United States is, as every real conservative knows. The Soviet Union was, which is why it was a tyranny.“
Comment by Dave — Sunday, June 10, 2024 @ 10:51 pm
VERY IMPORTANT PIECE FROM PREVIOUS THREAD
This is the last post for now. Please read these two essays, especially the first one, it brutally dismantles “propositionism.”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Article…ble.asp?ID=1232
The first one is from a very interesting source, FrontPageMag which is David Horowitz’ website. The reason this is interesting and a bit surprising is because FPM has been one of the leading voices on the “right” demonizing paleos as “racists.” But FPM wants to restrict Muslim immigration, and I think they find that the PN idea stands in the way of that. So that may be why this passed their usual PC screening muster.
The article is brilliant, although there are parts I disagree with. I disagree with the assertion that the Constitution is more “conservative” than the Articles, but that is for another day.
http://www.vdare.com/francis/lipsky.htm
The second is from a usual paleo suspect, the late Sam Francis.
Since I know most will not read the article I will excerpt small parts.
“Furthermore, if one appeals to American history, and in particular to the founding, as a source of information concerning what propositions are essentially American, one will dredge up things not to one’s liking that no one wants to even talk about. Crucial facts about what America was founded on are deliberately hushed up by both liberals and conservatives and admitted only by the non-respectable Left and the non-respectable Right (that would be folks like yours truly). Namely, that this country was founded upon conquest, slavery, sexism, and class rule. The Constitution, as originally written, holds that our ownership of this land by conquest is just, that Indians are savages, that blacks may be enslaved, that women have no fit role in government, and that the (little-remembered) restriction of suffrage to men of property by state governments is valid. (I have defended right of conquest in another article) . Liberals fear that admitting that these things are the basis of our great nation will legitimate these things; conservatives that their perceived illegitimacy will undermine respect for our great nation. This fact is in itself quintessentially Straussian: society represses certain truths, either by never mentioning them or by ingeniously explaining them away, as insalubrious for public consumption. The idea that America was founded foursquare on liberty and inalienable rights is the Platonic noble lie of our republic, and as such is entirely appropriate for schoolchildren and most of the rest of us. It is not, however, the truth. I challenge anyone to deny these bald historical facts with a straight face.” italics obviously added by me
“Of course, one can quite easily dismiss these moral monstrosities by appeal to our modern, more advanced, understanding of right and wrong, but this abandons the idea that the propositions on which America is based are wholly good, and therefore one cannot argue in favor of things on the grounds that they represent American propositions. American propositionism is just a way of dressing up contemporary liberal or neoconservative preferences in the respectable garb of national antiquity in order to claim that these preferences are conservative of something. Propositionists can reply that they believe in what America is based on now, but this just makes their position a matter of contemporary political preferences, which are objects of dispute, not historical grounds upon which disputes can be settled.”
“The most offensive thing about propositionism is that it attempts to subvert conservatism by passing off liberal ideas as conservative, rotting out the conservative mind from within. Propositionists argue in favor of their preferences by invoking our duty to our history and national character, but are blazingly uninterested in these things when they don’t agree with them, or in any concrete form. They are utterly cavalier about tradition and nationhood when asked to cherish these values in non-ideological form. They would reduce this rich, complex, historical, actual nation to an ideological skeleton.”
This paragraph is especially important regarding immigration.
“There is one final question: if America is fundamentally an idea, why bother having a country at all? There is no fundamental reason to cherish America, only its historically contingent role at this point in time as a promoter of certain ideas. It is a disposable instrument of an ideological agenda, and it is thus no secret that some people seem to be keen to dispose of it. Since propositions are not limited by geography, propositions imply the desirability of a world state to realize them. Propositionism is thus inherently globalist and nation-liquidating, no matter how much its exponents may deny it.”
“Note: Just to show how deep the rot has gone, here is a partial list of nominally conservative writers who appear to subscribe to propositionism: Dinesh D’Souza, Charles Krauthammer, Charles Murray, Ben Wattenberg, William Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, John Podhoretz, Fareed Zakaria, Newt Gingrich, George Will, Lowell Ponte, Jamie Glazov, David Brooks, Paul Johnson, Jonah Goldberg, Bob Bartley, John Fund, Rush Limbaugh, Linda Chavez. Here is a partial list of those who have spoken out against this notion: Pat Buchanan, William F. Buckley, Jr, Phyllis Schlafly, John O’Sullivan, Ann Coulter, Peter Brimelow, Joe Sobran, Paul Craig Roberts, Scott McConnell, Lawrence Auster, Chilton Williamson, Donald Livingston, Clyde Wilson, Stephen Presser, Howard Sutherland, J.P.Zmirak, Paul Gottfried, Don Feder, Bill Murchison, Michelle Malkin, Debra Saunders, Ilana Mercer. My apologies in advance to anyone whose position I have misunderstood or over-simplified.” emphasis mine
I highly suspect that Locke, the author of the first piece, is not a paleo. I suspect he is a certain type of somewhat authoritarian nationalist, but that is political science typology that many here probably don’t care about, although I suspect Dr. Taylor knows what I mean.
Comment by Filmer — Saturday, June 9, 2024 @ 11:27 pm
Well, in that case, I would like to go back to the garden of eden where we all walk around naked and have direct communion with God. Is that retro-conservative enough for you?
Maybe our common ancestor means our true common ancestors, Adam and Eve. If you want to look backward, honey, let’s look backward. Why stop at the Greeks and the Romans?
Comment by Dave — Sunday, June 10, 2024 @ 10:52 pm
The fact that over 200,000 Hispanics in the U.S. have recently converted to Islam has been documented independently by a few sources. Here is one:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0928/p03s02-ussc.html
Comment by Dave — Sunday, June 10, 2024 @ 10:59 pm
Steve,
You should also read Jean Raspail’s Camp of the Saints. Chilton Williamson in his book Conservative Bookshelf, who was the Book Editor at National Review for 25 years, argues that Camp of the Saints is one of the best conservative pieces of fiction ever written.
Although fiction, it pulls apart all the left-wing contradictions of a proposition nation. If you are truly interested in knowledge about the left-wing concept of a proposition nation, you will read it. If you do not want knowledge but cliches, you won’t read it and will dismiss it with words like “racist.”
Good night. I’m going to bed now.
Comment by Dave — Sunday, June 10, 2024 @ 11:03 pm
Thanks for the quote dump–very impressive.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, June 10, 2024 @ 11:07 pm
[…] Liberals and Leftists again can sleep at night knowing that that have neocon Stevie Taylor as their new PC Enforcer, ready to slander and castigate anyone who strays from the strictures of political correctness. […]
Pingback by Conservative Heritage Times » Steven Taylor: Left-Wing PC Enforcer — Monday, June 11, 2024 @ 6:05 am
*Looks at trackback and sighs*
So, Dr. Taylor, you are apparantly now the new PC enforcer for Leftists and Liberals. I didn’t bother to click the link to get the details . . . at least they got the ‘v’ correct.
About the point of the Catholic church service becoming less Western: so what? Wouldn’t one EXPCECT the church, which is growing by leaps and bounds in the Global South, to adopt the customs of those cultures? To me, as long as they don’t cave in and do things that aren’t Christian, I’m perfectly fine with them being not Western.
Comment by B. Minich — Monday, June 11, 2024 @ 7:03 am
Yep, that’s me, the PC Enforcer. Notice that their mode of “argumentation” is to taunt, dump quotes and recommend reading.
ugh.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, June 11, 2024 @ 7:52 am
Why is everything getting centered?
Dr. Taylor,
Does it surprise you that the academic literature doesn’t address the proposition nation (PN) debate? But the lay literature is full of this discussion. Personally I’m not sure I would have admitted I was unfamiliar with the concept. Surely you are familiar with the neo vs. paleo debate. (Jaffa and Bradford were having this argument well before the “official” neo/paleo split.) What do you think is one of the main things the neos and paleos are arguing about? Since politics is a subject, unlike astrophysics, where everyone thinks they are an expert, it pays to be familiar with the lay debate. Notice at the end of the Locke article he has a long list of both pro and anti. You need to get out more.
At first I figured you as just a liberal, but then as I looked over your site and based on what you have said, I figured you for a West Coast Straussian based on the California connection. Perhaps I am wrong about that also. I think any Straussian would know about the PN debate. I think it is probably taught in Maintaining the Noble Lie 101.
But as for the “quote dump,” which I thank Dave for reposting, you stated that America is a nation founded on ideas. You didn’t argue that that is a noble and beautiful idea. You said that is what America is. So why does it then shock you when we post quotes and articles to the contrary. That is how people usually support their arguments isn’t it? I suspect if there were a lot of quotes floating around out there that demonstrate the Founders were a bunch of egalitarian multicults then we would be continuously subjected to them.
Also, I have no problem with the designation reactionary. In fact, I have told people in the past that that is probably an accurate description of me. I want to restore the Old Republic that has been abandoned by our constant drift left.
Re left and right: if the English language means anything, then left and right can not be infinitely fluid and totally relative. It is certainly true that much of what is called right-wing today is only right relative to the modern left. That is the problem. The political spectrum has moved leagues to the left. But if the PN conceit is an idea that can be directly traced to the left side of the French Revolution then it can NEVER be anything but a left-wing idea no matter how far the political spectrum moves left.
BTW, snide comments about needing a shower do not constitute a logical debate. More later.
Comment by Filmer — Monday, June 11, 2024 @ 7:59 am
No, the shower comment isn’t much of a debate, but it is a legitimate reaction.
I understand what you are arguing, I simply had never heard it called what you call it. Given that you were the one who accused me of “playing dumb”. I simply was curious as to where the term was or wasn’t used.
And btw, the only “lay literature” that appears to use the term is your own little enclave of “heritage” types.
On balance all you people do is taunt, cut-and-paste quotes, and say “go read this.”
At this point I have better things to do than try and deal with you people.
You aren’t going to convince me of the rightness of your position, and I now understand it quite well.
I have little doubt that I could right a book on my position and all you all would tell me is that it is “left-wing posititionist nonsense.”
As such, there really is no point to this aside from the fact that I think that this interchange has revealed that there are, in fact, people like you and your “heritage conservatives” out there.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, June 11, 2024 @ 8:09 am
Hey, some Dave fella quoted my silly flip comment from the other thread and didn’t credit me. Filthy plagiarizers.
Comment by Jan — Monday, June 11, 2024 @ 11:03 am
Using Rome as an example here is ludicrous. The Roman Empire included so many different countries, with people of these countries often able to get citizenship. Going back to the earlier discussion, the apostle Paul, a Jew, was a Roman citizen. Besides this, both the Greek and Roman systems existed prior to the modern notion of a state and were built on the backs of slaves more than anything else. It sounds to me like this is the system that those in this thread are describing. Maybe you would be happy with a return to slavery?
In fact, how can you argue that there should be a “white” America, when the people you are quoting (ie. the founders) were the ones who brought Africans to this country. If anyone is to blame for the lack of homogeneity in America, it is the founders. Wake up guys. The Civil War was 150 years ago and your side lost. Get over it. The doctrine you are quoting sounds like no conservatism I have ever heard of. It sounds more like the Aryan supremacy articulated by the Nazis.
And btw, Dr. Taylor is definitely NOT a Marxist.
Comment by Brett — Monday, June 11, 2024 @ 11:58 am
Dr. Taylor,
I respect your patience and attempt to frame contested issues in a historical and logical context. However this thread comes to resemble the Monty Python clip below.
Frankly, aside from burning bandwidth and your time, those guys’long winded babbles accomplish little - who reads all the way through them?
I may have missed it if someone previously noted this (as I skipped most of the thread containing “Real Conservatives” dribble) but I think I may have found the original source for the phrase “proposition nation” :
“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the PROPOSITION that all men are created equal….”
Comment by RandyB — Monday, June 11, 2024 @ 12:38 pm
Dr. Taylor,
I respect that you want this debate to end, but I just want to clear up a few loose ends.
Re. superiority and inferiority. You and your cohorts raised that issue and were the first to use those words. Neither I nor my cohorts used those words at all except Frank Lee who used them in response to you.
Superiority is a loaded term and you know it. Invoking the “white supremacists” term is a PC tactic often employed by SPLC types. (Along with the word “hate.”) It is meant to invoke people in hoods or goose-stepping in jack-boots. That is not what paleos are about and you know it.
Nor is this really about who is or can be a “good American.” Sure people of any color can be good Americans. This is about what America is. And America is a particular nation like all others (a British colonial nation, generally Protestant, etc.) We are not a universal or proposition nation. What America is is intimately related to our history, heritage, demographics, culture, religion, etc. In short our particularity. Change one of those elements and you change the whole. The proposition nation conceit is actually ridiculously simple-minded and beneath a serious academic. And why is conserving American particularity anything other than conservative?
Also, a quick lesson in conservative typology. Paleos are not nationalists. We are decentralist, regionalist, and localist. We generally denounce the post French Revolution modern nation state as a large part of the problem. Perhaps that is why Michael Hill posts at CHT occasionally. Or is pro-secession Dr. Hill some sort of nationalist?
Nationalists, often called White Nationalist, (some embrace that term and some don’t) agree with paleos in rejecting the proposition nation conceit and in decrying political correctness. But they are often quite different from paleos. They often accuse paleos of not being focused enough on race. Also, because they are modern style nationalist, they often oppose secession. Paleos view them as too friendly to the modern nation state, and as embracing an ideological commitment to race. Both “racism” properly understood and the rigorous anti-racism that rules PC land these days are unnatural ideological thought systems.
The regionalism of paleos actually allows for a lot more nuance re. race than you imagine. Paleos tend to view race as an artificial supra-category that is only an issue here because of the artificial importation of black slaves and modern mass movement of people/immigration. Before most Europeans ever saw a black person they were slaughtering each other on the basis of ethnicity. Look at how the Irish were treated by other white people. Is that “racism?”
There is also opposition arising to the proposition nation from the more mainstream pro-war right. They see the PN concept as a problem because they want to restrict Muslim immigration. Many of these folks are also Jewish and view the PN idea as imperiling the existence of Israel as a particular Jewish religious and ethnic state. I am pretty sure this is the position Robert Locke is arguing from, although I have no idea if he is Jewish. That is why his stuff appeared at Front Page Mag. Paleos have many disagreements with these folks as paleos oppose the Iraq War and foreign intervention, and a lot of this group are uber-hawks.
Also, paleos are almost all orthodox (small o) Christians. If you were trying to insinuate that we are Christian Identity or something like that then you are way off. For the record, I am a conservative Protestant who is also a paleo.
Re. Filmer. I used my screen name Filmer because I obviously came over here from Conservative Times, and I wanted you to know which poster over there you were dealing with. I agree with Filmer about much, but not all. I do not believe in the Divine Right of Kings. In fact, I think Paine made a very good argument that monarchy is not the Biblical norm, although Paine was not a believer. Most traditional American conservatives accept some degree of liberalism. We are, as Mark C. Henrie calls us, liberal conservatives by historical standards. (By contrast, neocons are conservative liberals.) I have meet a few Jacobite paleos, but most paleos are clearly more Roundhead than Cavalier. But I agree with Filmer that the family, not the individual, is the primordial political unit, that all authority does not rest on consent, and that “social contract theory” is philosophical nonsense. The only societies that come close to social contracts are small scale communes and such. Never in the history of mankind have people come together and contracted blah, blah, blah… America is more prone to this idea because of our status as a break-away former colony, but we broke away on ground that was already firmly laid and anchored in a real past/heritage. (Also Locke’s tabula rasa is utter nonsense, and is a very unconservative and un-Christian understanding.)
People with a view similar to Filmer’s re. the family and the generally inherent nature of authority are Althusius, Dabney, and Calhoun.
Think on this for a while. Your notion that everyone who rejects the PN ideas is some frothing at the mouth “racist” is way off base.
BTW, I would be more than happy to debate you publicly on the idea. I don’t live too far from Troy.
Have a good day.
Comment by Filmer — Monday, June 11, 2024 @ 1:25 pm
Brett,
It is sloppy to impute modern notions to the ancients. credisne Ciceronem haec quae dixeris putavisse?
The Roman Empire had different levels of citizenship for different people. But as M. Cary and H.H. Scullard (two of the greatest Roman historians ever to have lived) point out, we can already see the Medieval map in the early empire. Regional loyalties were stronger than national. A citizen of Spain cared more about who his governor was than who was emperor.
Under the Republic, republicanism was predicated upon a tribal system, just as in democratic Athens one’s function in the democracy was predicated upon which tribe someone was a member of.
Comment by Paleo — Monday, June 11, 2024 @ 1:28 pm
Steve,
How exactly did you get a degree? What is a “Heritage Conservative”? Do you know basic terminology?
The conservatives over at Conservative Heritage Times are paleoconservatives, the authentic heirs of the conservative tradition.
Comment by Chuck — Monday, June 11, 2024 @ 1:53 pm
Chuck: ad hominem. Works every time (well, works at proving you have no better argument than to attack the person you disagree with).
Comment by B. Minich — Monday, June 11, 2024 @ 3:36 pm