It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is the New Right actually the Old Right? Interesting read

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 11:48 AM
The New Right is now represented by the ideals of the Tea Party, and just like the Old Right they span the spectrum. Many Tea Partiers are Independent and Democrat, while still mostly Republican. Their beliefs range and there is no single box to put this group in. But if you were to hit some key points of their beliefs I think it would be.

*Limited government
*Moral order
*Religious importance
*Anti-big business
*Very Patriotic

And when reading that if you are an older American who spent many years of their life before 1964 then that might sound familiar, because it is. What we have been through in the past 40 years by Republicans is known as the New Right, Reagan was able to balance the New and Old Right under his administration. The New Right is mostly Neoconservatives and the Christian Right.

There is only one man that has well known and is still a follower of the Old Right traditions and beliefs, and that man is Pat Buchanan. He is known as a Paleoconservative, which is the continuation of the Old Right which was replaced by the Neoconservatives.

They are grouped into two distinct groups now, the Paleoconservatives and the Paleolibertarians.

As of today the Paleoconservatives, which are the more Social and Traditionalist conservatives are led by Pat Buchanan. And the Paleolibertarians, which are the more indivualist and cultural conservatives are led by Ron Paul. When you hear of the resurgence of Ron Paul you are hearing of the resurgence of the Old Right.

Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleo or paleocon when the context is clear) is a term for an anti-communist and anti-imperialist right-wing political philosophy in the United States stressing tradition, civil society and along with religious, regional, national and Western identity. Chilton Williamson, Jr. describes paleoconservatism as "the expression of rootedness: a sense of place and of history, a sense of self derived from forebears, kin, and culture—an identity that is both collective and personal." Paleoconservatism is not expressed as an ideology and its adherents do not necessarily subscribe to any one party line.

Paleoconservatives in the 21st century often highlight their points of disagreement with neoconservatives, especially on issues like immigration, affirmative action, U.S. funding of its allies abroad, foreign wars, and social welfare. They also criticize social democracy, which some refer to as the "therapeutic managerial state," the "welfare-warfare state" or "polite totalitarianism." They see themselves as the legitimate heirs to the American conservative tradition.

That is Paleoconservatism and Pat Buchanan speaking for their movement.

Paleolibertarianism is a school of thought within American libertarianism formerly associated with Lew Rockwell, the late economist Murray Rothbard, and the Ludwig von Mises Institute. It is based on a combination of radical libertarianism in politics and cultural conservatism in social thought.

Austrian economics, anti-federalism, opposition to war, Misesian libertarianism, and anarcho-capitalism heavily influenced the movement's attitudes toward ideas on trade, commerce and statecraft.

In a 2007 interview Rockwell revealed he no longer considered himself a “paleolibertarian” and was “happy with the term libertarian.” Regarding “paleolibertarian” he asserted:

This term was designed to address a very serious problem that libertarians in Washington had come to see themselves as a pleading pressure group hoping to find "market-based" solutions to public policy problems but within public policy, and thus do they support school vouchers, limited wars, managed trade, forced savings as an alternative to social security, and the like. Unfortunately, the term paleolibertarian became confused because of its association with paleoconservative, so it came to mean some sort of socially conservative libertarian, which wasn't the point at all – though the attempted definition of libertarian as necessarily socially leftist is a problem too.

That is Paleolibertarianism and Ron Paul speaking for the movement.

That is the Old Right, is it just me or does the New Right actually sound like the Old Right?

posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 11:58 AM
reply to post by Misoir

They are the same.

Neo-conservatives took over the party and moved it towards totalitarianism/socialism.

The libertarians are making a comeback because the party of neo-cons has deserted their ideals in favor of statism.

Neo-conservatives are mostly funded by banking and corporate interests, which is how they managed to overthrow the fundamental tenets of the party and rise to power.

Wall Street and corporate interests have funneled vast sums of money into the democratic and republican establishments in order to push for favorable regulation, government contracts, expanded wars, and subsidies.

The libertarians have now come to recognize this and are starting to react by throwing out the neo-cons.

posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:04 PM
reply to post by mnemeth1

The current 'Right' is definitely not what the old Republican Party use to stand for. And the Democrats have turned bad too. They left their roots too, but I don't think the Progressive movement is aiming for the politics of JFK like the Tea Partiers are aiming for the politics of Coolidge and Eisenhower.

I really think the Tea Party is just saying they want the old Republicans back, not these militarily corporate sell out Neocons, they are CINO(Conservative In Name Only).

I am a Traditional Democrat like JFK, FDR and LBJ. We need to return to the politics of the old days, where both parties looked out for the people and weren't so obsessed with corporations.

posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by mnemeth1

I am a Traditional Democrat like JFK, FDR and LBJ. We need to return to the politics of the old days, where both parties looked out for the people and weren't so obsessed with corporations.

weren't so obsessed with corporations



I must be in the twilight zone.

posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:31 PM
I think the "traditional" doesn't really exist, unless we are talking about traditional methods of deceit.
The two parties facilitate and make the candidacy possible for the "opponents" to get air time. Only some of the voters have ideology, if it comes to play at all. The candidates, other than Ron Paul and a few others, have no ideology.
They are driven to perform for their enablers. That is the only truth that can be proven.
The expansion of the federal government has continued, almost unchecked, since FDR. That is the constant, as is the gradual inflation that has rendered the dollar down to a few pennies in value.
The rest of this is flag waving vs. flag burning.

posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:46 PM
The new right is not the old Republican party. The new right is the old southern Democrats. A group led by fear of change and desperately clinging to a past which will never be again. In some instance a past that never really existed.

[edit on 17-6-2010 by Kaploink]

top topics

log in