Since Paleoconservatism looks like the most promising candidate to take over the GOP in the wake of Neo-Conservatism's collapse, it is worth learning a bit about it. Paleoconservatism was the GOP's ruling ideology in the 1920s, characterized by limited government intervention in the economy, restrictive immigration policies, social conservatism, and an isolationist foreign policy. Triumphant in the 20s, Paleoconservatism but has been marked by defeat ever since: in 1932, by Hoover's landslide defeat by FDR, and in 1964, by Barry Goldwater's landslide defeat by LBJ. In 1992, Pat Buchanan's presidential bid symbolized divisions in the Republican party and together with Ross Perot (another Paleo-Conserative candidate, in many ways) caused Bush I to lose the election. While Reagan ran in 1980 on a Populist/Paleo-Conservative platform, his policies were mainly Libertarian, Moderate and Neo-Conservative (Congress axed most of his Paleo proposals). While Paleoconservatism might have remained a marginal ideology, the Bush administration has revived it by encouraging illegal immigration, engaging in crony capitalism on a massive scale, bloating the budget, and pursuing insane foreign policies that are destroying the military and turning the entire world against us. It would be advisable for politicians to pay more attention to Paleo-Conservative concerns, especially those above. However: while most Paleo-Conservatives are intelligent, reasonable people, and have genuine concerns about the direction of the country that should be addressed, the Paleo-Con movement is infested with cranks at the bottom (racists, conspiracy-theorists, birchers) and opportunistic demagogues at the top (Pat Buchanan, Perot, Lou Dobbs). These do not seem like people that can be trusted with power, even less than the Bush clan, and it would be preferable to see Libertarians or Moderate Republicans take over the GOP in 2008. Unfortunately, this does not seem likely to happen.

Federalism - Excellent! Why doesn't our nation uphold this important aspect of the government's structure any more? Hell - why doesn't the GOP? It used to... where'd the federalists go when you need them? Gun rights - Excellent! Its just as much a right as free speech. Tarrifs - dudes... time to get an econ textbook and do some reading. If you're more of a history person - Haley-Smoot Tarrif (spelling is probably wrong... but the pronunciation is right). Immigration opposition - dudes... we're all immigrants or progeny of immigrants. The pilgrims were immigrants. Jamestown = immigrants. The only non-immigrants are Native Americans, unless thier clans migrated over the Bearing Straight which again = immigrants. America = land of immigrants and some native americans that might have immigrated a long time ago (subject of much debate among anthropologists). Get used to it. If your beef is with illegal immigration - thats fine by me. Its the whole - lets slow the melting pot altogether by pushing out legal immigrants that doesn't sit well with me. Social issues - wait... isn't this group for federalism? So that would mean that it should be okay if Texas passes a state constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage and Massachusetts passes one legalizing it so long as a Texans aren't forced to honor a Massachusetts marriage that is unconstitutional in thier own state. Why is it than that so many reform party members (Buchanan supporters) would take issue with Massachusetts passing such an ammendment with DOMA in place... This faction really needs to think about which of the two takes precedent - federalism or socially conservative values - for issues like gay marriage that will continue to be a topic in the political arena. Two excellent traits, but much else that needs revision and review in light of the economic and political environment the nation is currently operating in.

Paleocons as have come to be defined are strong defenders of republican constitutionalism as are all conservatives. Yet they take a very limited view of what can be accomplished by government and will consistently argue with isolationist priciples, protectionist trade, and much smaller government. The are strong defenders of tradition and indigenous culture believing like say Samuel Huntington probably the most notable Paleoconservative scholar, that it is culture that has the most effective influence on individuals. Upon that assumption Huntington and others like Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak believe expansive efforts to export democracy are pure folly and doomed to terrific failure. I personally don't buy into the limited view of changing the world. I personally don't buy into the anti-immigration positions paleocon's take in defense of our indigenous American culture. I personally don't buy into their assiduous defense of peculiar traditions- particularly the deification of southern antebellum leaders. I believe underlying most of this is a veiled racism not explicit to skin color but certain regional orientation and religious manifestations- a neoculturalism that assumes only certain individuals are capable of embracing liberty.

The classical conservatism that never fails to provide an antidote to the dismay often brought on by the many false characterizations of the right. Paleoconservatism has always been the bastion that resisted and thwarted attempts by those who disdained any type of conservatism to outscream it. You could call them a nazi, capitalist pig, imperialist, Puritan or whatever you wished but they always held their ground and they wouldn't be called a redneck twice, that's for damn sure.