Paleoconservatism

Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleo or paleocon when the context is clear) refers to an anti-authoritarian right wing movement that stresses tradition, civil society and classical federalism, along with familial, religious, regional, national and Western identity. Paleoconservatives in the 21st century often focus on their points of disagreement with neoconservatives, especially on issues like immigration, affirmative action, foreign wars, and the welfare state. Its concerns overlap those of the American Old Right that opposed the New Deal in the 1930s and 1940s.

The term was coined in the late 20th century and derives from the Greek root palaeo- meaning "ancient" or "old." Paul Gottfried says the word originally referred to various Americans, such as traditionalist Catholics and agrarian Southerners, who turned to anticommunism during the Cold War. It then began referring to the conservative opposition to neoconservatism. Some paleos, such as Samuel Francis, de-emphasized the "conservative" part of the "paleoconservative" label, saying that they do not want the status quo preserved.

Paleoconservatism incubated in the pages of Chronicles magazine.. Patrick J. Buchanan was heavily influenced by its articles and helped create another paleocon organ, The American Conservative.

Core beliefs

Many paleoconservatives identify themselves as "classical conservatives" and trace their philosophy to the Old Right Republicans of the interwar period which kept the U.S. out of the League of Nations, reduced immigration with the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, and opposed Franklin Roosevelt. They often look back even further, to Edmund Burke, as well as the American anti-federalist movement that stretched from the days of Thomas Jefferson to John C. Calhoun.

Paleoconservatives question the supposition that European culture and mores can ever be transplanted or even forced upon non-white cultures, due to seperate cultural heritages. As a result, paleos are most distinctive in their emphatic opposition to open immigration by non-Europeans, and their general disapproval of U.S. intervention overseas for the purposes of spreading European ideals. They are also strongly critical of American neoconservatives and their sympathizers in print media, talk radio and cable TV news.

Paleos say they are not conservatives in the sense that that they wish to preserve the status quo or seek merely to slow the growth of liberalism. Nor do they wish to be closely identified with the U.S. Republican Party. Rather, they seek the renewal of "small-r" republican society in the context of the Western heritage, customs and civilization. Joseph Scotchie wrote.

“Republics mind their own business. Their governments have very limited powers, and their people are too busy practicing self-government to worry about problems in other countries. Empires not only bully smaller, defenseless nations, they also can’t leave their own, hapless subjects alone. . . Empires and small government aren’t compatible, either.

By contrast, paleos see neoconservatism as a movement of empire-builders and themselves as defenders of the republic, pointing to Rome (and sometimes Star Wars) as an example of how an ongoing campaign of military expansionism can destroy a republic.

Paleos believe that since human nature is limited and finite, so any attempt to create a man-made utopia is headed for disaster and potential carnage. They also see social democracy, ideology, and managerial society as malevolent attempts to remake humanity. Instead, they lean toward tradition, family, customs, religious institutions and classical learning to provide wisdom and guidance.

Most paleos are concerned about the culture-eroding effects of popular culture. Thus they also support the traditional family as a bulwarks against modernity. They also feel that Westerners have lost touch with their classical and European heritage to the point that they are in danger of losing their civilization.

Economic issues are not a basis for paleo unity. Many reject the ideology of free trade and laissez-faire economics, arguing that it leads to the deterioration of the country's industrial base. Others, however, support laissez-faire economic policies articulated by classical liberals such as Frédéric Bastiat in the nineteenth century. Paleos who support Austrian economics, free trade and laissez-faire often call themselves paleolibertarians.

On some issues, many paleos are hard to distinguish from others on the conservative spectrum. For example, they tend to oppose abortion on demand and gay marriage while supporting capital punishment, handgun ownership, and an original intent reading of the U.S. Constitution. They typically sympathize with the Christian Right's attacks on moral relativism, big government and secular humanism, even as they complain that the movement is obsessed with the Middle East and the Republican Party's agenda. On the other hand, paleos are often more sympathetic to environmental protection and anti-consumerism than others on the American right.

Paleoconservative Intellectuals

Paleoconservatives come from all walks of life, including Evangelical Christians, Calvinists, traditionalist Catholics, libertarian individualists, Midwestern agrarians, Reagan Democrats, and southern conservatives. Other contemporary luminaries include Donald Livingston, a Professor of Philosophy at Emory and corresponding editor for Chronicles; Paul Craig Roberts, an attorney and former Reagan administration Treasury official; commentator Joseph Sobran, a columnist and contributing editor for Chronicles; novelist and essayist Chilton Williamson, senior editor for books at Chronicles; classicist Thomas Fleming, editor of Chronicles; and historian Clyde N. Wilson, long-time contributing editor for Chronicles. Another prominent paleoconservative, Theodore Pappas, is the current executive editor of Encyclopædia Britannica.

Followers of the late Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell who embrace paleolibertarianism, and who, being culturally conservative, espouse many of the same themes of paleoconservatives, are also wholly committed to laissez-faire economics. While Rep. Ron Paul (R -TX) and Rep. Tom Tancredo (R -CO) are not avowed paleoconservatives, they often take political positions consistent with a great number of paleos. Many of these views are also championed by the John Birch Society, which supports paleo ideas in addition to its distinctive conspiracy theories.

Paleoconservatism is unusual among intellectual movements in that it seeks to be both aristocratic and populist at the same time. The movement combines disperate people and ideas that might seem incompatible in another context . Such diversity of thought echoes the paleo opposition to ideology and political rationalism, reflecting the influence of thinkers like Russell Kirk and Michael Oakeshott.

Precursors of Paleo

Paleos widely embrace the Irish-born Edmund Burke as a hallowed ancestor. For them, he represents a vital link between the American right and the greater tradition of British customs and common law. As such, his ideas are a touchstone for a conservatism that respects tradition, while rejecting authoritarianism.

In the United States, the Southern Agrarians, John T. Flynn,, Albert Jay Nock, Garet Garrett, Robert R. McCormick, Felix Morley , and Robert Nisbet, among others, articulated positions that have proved influential among contemporary paleoconservatives. Some paleos enthusiastically embrace the decentralizing tenets of the Anti-Federalists, such as John Dickinson and George Mason.

The southern conservative thread of paleoconservatism embodies the statesmanship of nineteenth-century figures such as John Randolph of Roanoke (a fact reflected in the paleoconservative Rockford Institute's sponsorship of the John Randolph Club), John Taylor of Caroline and John C. Calhoun; it found a modern expositor in the late Mel Bradford. The German-born Johannes Althusius and his tract Politica with its core emphasis on the principle of subsidiarity has proven influential, as well.

Historians such as Paul V. Murphy and Isaiah Berlin have traced the paleoconservatives' intellectual ancestry to anti-modern writers who defended the hierarchy, localism, ultramontanism, monarchy and aristocracy. European precursors to paleoconservatives include Joseph de Maistre, Donoso Cortes, Klemens Wenzel von Metternich, and Pope Pius IX, though they tend to carry influence limited to the Roman Catholic traditionalist subsect of paleoconservatism. G.K. Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc are also popular Catholic forebears of paleo thought.

Some modern European continental conservatives, such as Frenchmen Jacques Barzun, Alain de Benoist, and René Girard, have a mode of thought and cultural criticism esteemed by many paleoconservatives. While Nouvelle Droite and radical Traditionalist ideas may have influenced some paleos, most are unlikely to express hostility toward Christianity.

The Failure of Fusionism

William F. Buckley, Jr. is an unwitting influence on paleoconservatism. During the Cold War, his National Review magazine promoted both Burke and Frank Meyer's theory of fusionism; it suggested that conservatives and libertarians moderate their arguments with one another and present a united front against Communism. Many first-generation paleos were National Review supporters, but slowly grew weary as the journal reflected more and more neoconservative influence, starting in the 1970s.. Open hostility broke out in the mid-1980s and was never resolved. Some paleos argued that fusionism failed and suggested a new alliance on the right to stand outside the neoconservative consensus. Pat Buchanan's statement that "we are old right and old church" reflects this new coalition

One notable group, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), still follows the old fusionism. It showcases both neoconservative and Old Right ideas, such as anti-interventionism, limited government and cultural regionalism, in its publications and conferences. While they favor free-market solutions they tend to recognize the limitations of the market, or as economist Wilhelm Roepke says, "the market is not everything." ISI promotes various agrarian and distributist works, and the idea of a humane economy.

Foreign Echoes

As paleoconservatism germinated as a reaction to neoconservatism, most of its development has been in the United States, although it has echoes in other Western nations. British conservatives such as Peter Hitchens, Anthony Flew (who has written for Chronicles and was awarded the Ingersoll Prize by the Rockford Institute), and Roger Scruton, as well as Scruton's Salisbury Review and Derek Turner's Right Now! magazines, may be considered broadly sympathetic to paleo ideas. For example, Hitchens wrote, in opposition to the Iraq War,

There is nothing conservative about war. For at least the last century war has been the herald and handmaid of socialism and state control. It is the excuse for censorship, organised lying, regulation and taxation. It is paradise for the busybody and the nark. It damages family life and wounds the Church. It is, in short, the ally of everything summed up by the ugly word ‘progress.’

The One Nation movement in 1990s Australia,, Germany's Junge Freiheit, and Italy's Lega Nord reflect many paleo concerns. So may former Russian dissidents Andrei Navrozov and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. German ordoliberalism, represented by Wilhelm Ropke, influenced on some paleocon thinkers (see below).

The Conservative Crackup: Paleocons vs. Neocons

The phrase paleoconservative ("old conservative") was originally a tongue-in-cheek rejoinder used in the 1980s to differentiate traditional conservatives from neoconservatives and Straussians. Pat Buchanan calls neoconservatism "a globalist, interventionist, open borders ideology.” The paleoconservatives argue that the "neocons" are illegitimate interlopers in the conservative movement.

The origins of the schism stretch to the 1960s. The new neoconservative movement articulated a vision much different from the Old Right. While neoconservatives were not opposed to the New Deal, they thought LBJ's Great Society and the New Left went too far. Neoconservatives embraced an interventionist foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East. They espoused especially strong support for Israel and still believe the United States should help ensure the security of the Jewish state. What made this movement so potent was the number of influential neoconservative intellectuals who attained positions of power in the government and media, in sharp contrast to the marginal status of the paleos. (see the neoconservatism article for fuller discussion).

Samuel Francis wrote,

Contemporary paleoconservatism developed as a reaction against three trends in the American Right during the Reagan administration. First, it reacted against the bid for dominance by the neoconservatives, former liberals who insisted not only that their version of conservative ideology and rhetoric prevail over those of older conservatives, but also that their team should get the rewards of office and patronage and that the other team of the older Right receive virtually nothing.

The open rift is often traced back to a dispute over the directorship of the National Endowment for the Humanities by the incoming Republican administration in 1981. Ronald Reagan nominated Southern scholar Mel Bradford.  Bradford withdrew himself from consideration after neocons argued that his record of academic articles criticizing the actions and thought of Abraham Lincoln ill-suited a Republican nominee.

Some paleos say they are honest conserveratives who were bullied and smeared by a corrupt ideology tied to social democracy and globalism. Some critics claim that such criticism is actually antagonism toward Jews in general-- even though neoconservatism is neither an all-Jewish movement nor claims to represent all Jews. They also say that by stridently condemming the neocons, they are falling into the hands of the West's enemies, especially millitant Islam.

Paleo historian Thomas Woods elaborates on the divergence in the conservative movement, and the ascent of the neoconservatives, and their distinguishing features from more traditional conservatives:

The conservative’s traditional sympathy for the American South and its people and heritage, evident in the works of such great American conservatives as Richard M. Weaver and Russell Kirk, began to disappear... [T]he neocons are heavily influenced by Woodrow Wilson, with perhaps a hint of Theodore Roosevelt...They believe in an aggressive U.S. presence practically everywhere, and in the spread of democracy around the world, by force if necessary....Neoconservatives tend to want more efficient government agencies; paleoconservatives want fewer government agencies. [Neoconservatives] generally admire President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his heavily interventionist New Deal policies. Neoconservatives have not exactly been known for their budget consciousness, and you won’t hear them talking about making any serious inroads into the federal apparatus.

Since the end of the Cold War, the rift within the conservative movement has deepened with the neoconservatives' ascent and the paleos' marginalization. For example, there are no prominent paleos in the Bush administration. Harsh words have been exchanged between David Frum of National Review and Patrick Buchanan of The American Conservative. Buchanan wrote that neocons influence the U.S. government toward the pursuit of global empire and the benefit of Israel and multi-national corporations, with whom they have close ties.. Frum charged that paleocons, in their sometimes harsh criticism of President George W. Bush and the war on terror, have become unpatriotic and, at times, anti-Semitic.

Civil Society: The Promise of American Life

Paleoconservatives esteem the principles of subsidiarity and localism in recognizing that one may be an Ohioan, Texan or Virginian as surely they are an American. They usually embrace federalism within a broader framework of nationalism and are typically staunch supporters of states' rights. They tend to be critical of overreaching federal power usurping state and local authority. For example, they did not support the Religious Right's efforts to federalize the Terri Schiavo case in 2005. On the other hand, they joined with other conservatives in denouncing Kelo v. City of New London, even though the Supreme Court came down on the side of local decision-making.

Many paleoconservatives are sympathetic to the critiques of economist Wilhelm Roepke and sociologist Robert Nisbet. Roepke was critical of political and economic centralisation, and "the cult of the colossal." Roepke recognized the interplay between the political and economic order, and held that a decentralized political federal polity was conducive to the ideal economic order most compatible with the human condition. Nisbet posited that the preoccupation with community was a result of the displacement of the intermediary institutions between the individual and the state whether the family, neighborhood, guild, church, or voluntary and civic associations. The corps intermédiaries—that is the intermediary institutions between the individual and the state—served as the only effective restraint against the centripetal forces of centralized political and economic power. The displacement of these institutions so vital to civil society and the accompanying obsession with community was precipitated by the activities and structure of the modern state.

Nisbet held that the centralised state has dissolved the natural bonds and allegiances of civil society. In totalitarian movements in Europe, there was actually a conscious effort by the state to dissolve those allegiances. Much of the later twentieth century social pathologies, dependency, poverty, and rampant crime perhaps owe to authentic community being ground in the millstone of central state authority. As a result, paleoconservatives hope to restore authentic community by devolving power and authority back to the corp intermediaries while curtailing state power.

Political Correctness and the Politics of Guilt

The ideas of culture war, political correctness and cultural marxism have played a large role in paleoconservatism. For example, Patrick Buchanan delivered a controversial keynote address at the 1992 Republican National Convention, which has since been dubbed the culture war speech, largely due to one sentence. He said,

There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself.

Paleoconservatives see “political correctness”, or PC as a form of censorship and social control, used to shield certain left-wing ideas, especially feminism and multiculturalism, from public criticism. In this way, they believe that many mass media and academia elites enforce these dogmas as representatives of a New Class, which is isolated from (and fearful of) Middle America. Further, they say left-wing policies are a "politics of guilt" that gives such people legitimacy, prestige and a sense of moral superiority. Paleos also argue that neoconservatives also benefit from PC, which they claim to oppose, because they share most of the Left's core values.

Paleocon William S. Lind calls PC a form of cultural Marxism, descended from the Frankfurt School’s Critical Theory:

If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.

In response, Paleoconservatives often urge people to push against "the limits of permissible dissent," on such topics as immigration and race relations. In some cases, this has led to accusations of racism and strife among the paleoconservatives themselves. For example some paleoconservatives have attacked the Civil Rights Movement and called for the repeal of all anti-discrimination laws.

Pat Buchanan has also expressed concern at the declining numbers of whites in America, arguing that few nations have ever held together without an ethnic majority. The regimes which did succeed were widely despised authoritarian states, such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Thus, there is no reason to believe the United States will be any exception. Buchanan covered this topic in detail is his book The Death of the West.

The Charles Martel Society goes further, calling for a "third school" to emerge from paleoconservatism in the form of an ideology of European identity politics. Some paleoconservatives, such as Samuel Francis and Virginia Abernethy and groups such as the Council of Conservative Citizens, American Renaissance and the journal The Occidental Quarterly, embrace this idea. The Southern Poverty Law Center and similar critics accuse them of racism. . Other paleos, however, such as Thomas Fleming, rejects racial politics.

The Paleo Economic Debate

Paleos often disagree with each another about economic subjects. Supporters typically oppose multinational free-trade treaties -- and attack what Murray Rothbard called the welfare-warfare state, or the use of state taxation power to fund global military intervention and bureaucratic social assistance programs. Yet some argue that government should intervene to protect domestic industry, while others call this harmful state intrusion.

Anti-Globalization

Many paleoconservatives hold conceptions of trade policy that many call protectionist--in particular, applying revenue tariffs to foreign-made products. In addition, paleocon Samuel Francis argued that big business should serve the interests of middle America.

Pat Buchanan and William R. Hawkins are expositors of economic nationalism They say America's industrial base is eroding and warn of peril posed by uncontrolled free trade and globalization. They also lament large trade deficits between the United States and its trading partners, notably China. Hawkins wrote:

The invasion of foreign products has taken a larger toll on the U.S. economy and society than the invasion of illegal immigrants. Last year [2005], the U.S. imported over $1.6 trillion worth of goods produced overseas. Foreign firms are responsible for much of this assault on American industry. But it is the political influence of nominally American firms that keeps Congress from taking action to secure the U.S. border against foreign economic rivals.

Philosophically, they believe domestic products deserve tax breaks over imported goods. They also encourage a return to the days when tariffs served most of America's revenue needs. Outsourcing and the underground economy of undocumented labor are also special concerns.

Laissez-Faire

Conversely, many paleos, especially paleolibertarians, favor laissez-faire and free trade. While they say America has economic ills, they do not attack foreign competition. Instead, they point to the benefits of free trade, economies of scale, comparative advantage, and specialization of labor.

Many blame America's economic problems on over-regulation, especially bad fiscal, tax and monetary policy, and accept the Austrian theory of trade cycle.. Nonetheless, they concurrently reject the edifices of globalization such as the WTO, GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA, and FTAA. Lew Rockwell summarizes this position:

NAFTA is imperialist. It preaches to other countries about what kinds of laws and regulations they should have-the social democratic mixed economy that is impoverishing us. NAFTA is, of course, not the free trade of Jefferson, Randolph, Taylor and Calhoun. It is trade for the few and not the many, for the particular interests and not the general interests.

Thus, both groups of paleos complain that globalism, globalization and international finance erode national sovereignty and generally oppose so-called free trade treaties.

Paleoconservatism and Foreign Wars

In relations with other nations, paleoconservatives are more willing to question the logic of globalization, they are more critical of immigration policy and the lack of enforcement against undocumented immigrants and they characteristically embrace an isolationist foreign policy.

A central pillar of paleoconservatism is a foreign policy based upon non-interventionism or isolationism. American isolationists have opposed political and military commitments, or alliances with, foreign powers (or for that matter international bodies,) particularly those in Europe. They find support in the wisdom of the founding fathers and a subsequent generation of antebellum statesmen. George Washington had declared, "It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world." John Quincy Adams avowed, "America does not go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

In the 1930s, paleo predecessors joined with the isolationist left, including Charles Beard, to oppose U.S. entry into any European war. Similarly, they saw no interest worth protecting in Asia. In the eyes of isolationists of the 1930s, for the United States to commit itself to the Dutch East Indies and Singapore, it served as a back door to war, and it antagonized the Japanese. Paleoconservatives often esteem the America First principles of 1940 as being commensurate with those of the founding fathers as embodied in the Neutrality Act of 1794.

During the Cold War a few paleoconservatives supported overseas commitments as necessary to the defense of the United States against communist aggression. Though Senator Taft and most paleos opposed NATO almost from the impetus, and this was a central issue in the contest between Robert Taft and Dwight Eisenhower for the 1952 Republican nomination. But Taft lost; his death early in 1953 deprived the Old Right of its most articulate leader.

The deaths in 1951 of publisher William Randolph Hearst -- and in 1955 of Chicago Tribune publisher Robert R. McCormick -- cost the movement its most critical media outlets. The new conservatism of National Review treated isolationism as an foolish anachronism. The anti-interventionist position was not widely heard outside of libertarian circles (and the writings of leftist Gore Vidal) until the 1990s.

In his 1995 book Isolationism Reconfigured, Eric Nordlinger, a Brown University scholar, observed, "[t]here is virtually no disagreement about isolationism having served the country exceptionally well throughout the nineteenth century" and he further surmises "the strategic vision of historical and contemporary isolationism is one of quiet strength and national autonomy." In the eyes of paleos, foreign interventionism is demonstrably counter-productive, and "[t]he United States is strategically immune in being insulated, invulnerable, impermeable, and impervious and thus has few security reasons to become engaged politically and militarily."

Thus, while many paleos may echo old republican concerns about large standing armies, most conceptualize a foreign policy based on strategic independence, armed neutrality, and non-interventionism. Paleos are not dogmatic with one another about the practical points of foreign policy, however.

Paleoconservatism and Immigration Reform

Where immigration allows foreigners into a nation, it then becomes a domestic policy concern. Cultural cohesiveness and some degree of cultural homogeneity are important factors for paleoconservatives. Though some celebrate differences and vibrant regional cultures in the United States, most are opposed to multiculturalism and runaway Third World immigration. They see non-European immigration as being averse to their interests because it threatens to displace the historic European cultural homogenity of the United States. Thus, many then tend to reject the aphorism E Pluribus Unum since it has been co-opted into a mantra for diversity and multiculturalism. These paleoconservatives look back to a different tradition, such as the one suggested by John Jay in Federalist #2, that emphasizes cultural homogeneity:

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... This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.

Likewise, in modern times, the prophetic 1949 warning of British observer T.S. Eliot has elicited the attention of paleoconservatives:

The real revolution in that country was not what is called the Revolution, but is a consequence of the Civil War; after which arose a plutocratic elite; after which the expansion and material development of the country was accelerated; after which was swollen that stream of mixed immigration, bringing (or rather multiplying) the danger of development into a caste system which has not yet been quite dispelled. For the sociologist, the evidence from America is not yet ripe.

In 1965 Ernest van den Haag wrote in the National Review:

The wish to preserve one's identity and the identity of one's nation requires no justification—and no belief in superiority—any more than the wish to have one's own children, and to continue one's family through them need be justified or rationalized by a belief that they are superior to the children of others, or more fit, or better in business. One identifies with one's family, because it is one's family—not because they are better people than others. For no other reason one identifies with one's national group more than with others. Else there would be no nations.

Conservative commentator Pat Buchanan's recent book The Death of the West, the Samuel Francis' anthology Revolution from the Middle and Chilton Williamson's The Immigration Mystique are contemporary paleoconservative expressions on immigration and culture. Paleoconservatives perceive Balkanization, social and ethnic strife will be the end result of runaway immigration. They complain the attendant failure to cope with illegal immigrants, and the myth of America being the universal nation.

Some are less apt to emphasize cultural homogeneity, and place weight on the value of diversity and regional subcultures with a nation. They might acquiesce with this sentiment by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, a monarchist and reactionary traditionalist, who declares:

Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right.[19]

Still, other American paleos emphasize appreciation for vibrant regional subcultures, while admitting a need for some degree of European-American cultural homogenity.

Further reading

Books

• Bradford, M.E., Remembering Who We Are: Observations of a Southern Conservative, 1985. ISBN 0-8203-0766-1
• Buchanan, Patrick J., The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization, 2001. ISBN 0-312-28548-5
• Buchanan, Patrick J., A Republic, Not an Empire: Reclaiming America's Destiny, 1999. ISBN 0-89526-272-X
• Buchanan, Patrick J., State of Emergency: How Illegal Immigration Is Destroying America, 2006. ISBN 0-312-36003-7
• Buchanan, Patrick J. Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency, 2004. ISBN 0-312-34115-6
• Crunden, Robert, ed., The Superfluous Men: Critics of American Culture, 1900-1945, 1999. ISBN 1-882926-30-7.
• Fleming, Thomas., The Politics of Human Nature, 1988. ISBN 1-56000-693-5
• Francis, Samuel T., Beautiful Losers: Essays on the Failure of American Conservatism, 1993. ISBN 0-8262-0976-9
• Gottfried, Paul, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Toward a Secular Theocracy, 2003. ISBN 0-8262-1520-3
• Gottfried, Paul, The Conservative Movement, 1993. ISBN 0-8057-9749-1
• Kirk, Russell, America's British Culture, 1993. ISBN 1-56000-066-X
• Kirk, Russell, The Conservative Mind, 7th Ed., 2001. ISBN 0-89526-171-5
• Kirk, Russell. The Politics of Prudence, 1993. ISBN 1-882926-01-3
• Kopff, E. Christian, The Devil Knows Latin: Why America Needs the Classical Tradition, 2000. ISBN 1-882926-57-9
• Raimondo, Justin. Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement, 1993. ISBN 1-883959-00-4.
• Ryn, Claes, America the Virtuous: The Crisis of Democracy and the Quest for Empire, 2003. ISBN 0-7658-0219-8
• Scotchie, Joseph, ed., The Paleoconservatives: New Voices of the Old Right, 1999. ISBN 1-56000-427-4.
• Williamson, Chilton, The Immigration Mystique: America's False Conscience, 1996. ISBN 0-465-03286-9
• Woods, Thomas E. Jr., The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History , 2004. ISBN 0-89526-047-6

Articles

• "What Is Paleoconservatism?", a roundtable by Chronicles editors.
• "Whose War?", by Patrick J. Buchanan, American Conservative, March 24 2003.
• "The Paleo Persuasion", by Samuel Francis, American Conservative, December 12 2002.
• "Unpatriotic Conservatives", by David Frum, National Review, April 7 2003.
• "The Tyranny of Liberalism", by James Kalb. (Originally published as “Liberalism, the Transcendent, and Restoration,” in the Summer, 2000 issue of Modern Age.)
• "The End of Paleoconservatism" by James Lubinskas, FrontPageMagazine, November 30, 2000
• "Pensees: Notes for the Reactionary of Tomorrow" by Joseph Sobran, National Review, December 31 1985.
• “What I Learned from Paleoism" by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. LewRockwell.com, May 2, 2002.
• “What Is Paleoconservatism?" by Chris Woltermann. Telos issue 97, 1993.

Prominent paleoconservatives

• Virginia Abernethy
• Mel Bradford
• Peter Brimelow
• Bay Buchanan
• Pat Buchanan
• James Burnham
• Tucker Carlson
• T. Kenneth Cribb Jr.
• Lou Dobbs
• Rowland Evans
• Thomas Fleming (author)
• John T. Flynn
• Samuel Francis
• Paul Gottfried
• Kevin Michael Grace
• Michael Hill
• James Kalb
• Russell Kirk
• William S. Lind
• Donald Livingston
• John Lukacs
• Scott McConnell
• Thomas Molnar
• Robert Novak
• Jerry Pournelle
• Charley Reese
• William Regnery II
• Scott P. Richert
• Paul Craig Roberts
• Claes Ryn
• Steve Sailer
• Joe Sobran
• Srdja Trifkovic
• Chilton Williamson
• Clyde Wilson
• Aaron D. Wolf
• John Zmirak

Paleoconservative organizations

• League of the South
• Abbeville Institute
• Breaking All the Rules (BATR) News
• Charles Martel Society
• Council of Conservative Citizens
• Free Congress Foundation
• John Randolph Club
• Rockford Institute
• Intercollegiate Studies Institute
• National Policy Institute
• New Century Foundation
• VDARE
• John Birch Society
• The St. Thomas More Society
• Mark Dankof's America
• The Bob Taft Club

External links

• American Renaissance
• The American Cause
• The American Conservative
• Breaking All the Rules (BATR)
• Chronicles Magazine
• James Kalb's Conservatism FAQ
• Council of Conservative Citizens
• Intercollegiate Studies Institute
• Mark Dankof's America
• Old Right Topic News
• The University Bookman
• Paleoconservative Youth Movement, a weblog.
• The Occidental Quarterly
• Original Dissent
• Right Now!
• Salisbury Review
• Virtue Magazine
• VDARE