乔治·霍利博士， [给他发电子邮件] 阿拉巴马大学的助理教授，通过生产提供了急需的公共服务 美国保守主义右翼批评家. 霍利的 工作, 由杰出的媒体出版 在堪萨斯大学进行美国研究，应该给他带来当之无愧的重视。 当然，美国不得不等待这么长时间才能获得专门致力于什么的学术著作，这当然是荒谬的 VDARE.com 的读者会考虑真正的权利。 但事实是，就主流媒体而言， 建立共和党 以及 保守主义公司的走狗 是“极右翼”——直到他们相遇 唐纳德·特朗普。
But the only example of this tendency that Hawley cites is the passage of Proposition 187 in California in 1994, under (let’s stress) the generally liberal Republican governor 皮特·威尔逊. Omitted from consideration are Republican support for the Immigration Reform Act of 1965, the Amnesty legislation supported by 里根 and congressional Republicans in 1986， and finally the repeated strenuous efforts of George W. Bush, Marco Rubio, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and other leading Republicans to Amnesty at least 11 million more illegals residing in the country.
Besides, as Hawley himself admits, these illegal residents wouldn’t vote Republican anyway, for economic reasons if nothing else.
More convincing than the ritualistic clichés in Hawley’s work are his assessments of the stale thinking and simplistic GOP talking points that haven’t changed since the 1980s. In contrast to the tiresome PR agents associated with the “movement,” (including the 品种 of real and bleached blondes on FoxNews), the paleoconservatives and paleolibertarians Hawley profiles ooze with original insight and vast learning. But even though many of the scholars and writers on the Dissident Right are far more well-read and erudite than the 小图标 of the official “movement,” Conservatism Inc. simply falls back on calling them stupid.
Hawley in contrast devotes respectful attention to his subjects’ scholarship, which leaves the impression that he is truly struck by the force of their ideas. He even explores my sometimes (alas) abstruse tracts on German political thought and devotes considerable space to Carl Schmitt, Martin Heidegger and other mentors of the European New Right and its American disciples. In short, he suggests the hatred directed towards the Dissident Right is motivated by fear of the intellectual threat we represent.
Hawley investigates in depth an in-house discussion about the paleoconservatism that had emerged in the 1980s and 1990s held between long-time 编年史 Editor Tom Fleming and myself. Fleming “argued that paleoconservatism is a continuation of the interwar old right, whereas Paul Gottfried viewed paleoconservatism as the true heir of the 1950s conservative movement 在此之前 hijacked by neoconservatism.”
My views have changed since then. I now think the paleos were largely a new movement of the Right born of a lost cause, trying to counter the rise of neoconservatives to a position of control over the Conservative Movement. But though the paleos gave it their best shot, they went nowhere as a counterforce after the defeat of Pat Buchanan’s briefly successful presidential runs in 1992, 1996, and 2000.
Hawley ascribes the view that “paleoconservatism is no longer a meaningful force in the United States’’ to me, and I won’t deny it. He says there are two reasons for paleoconservatism’s eclipse: first, the passing of the generation that identified with it and its defeat in trying to take back the movement; and second, the changing social and cultural face of America, which would be even less receptive to paleoconservatives than were the 1980s.
But that doesn’t mean the fight against Conservatism Inc. (and its neoconservative masters) is over. Both Hawley and I have discerned a new populist Right emerging, which focuses on the high costs of mass immigration and capitalizes on growing popular resentment against Leftist elites.
VDARE.com is obviously a part of this emerging political force. 彼得Brimelow and VDARE.com are cited and Peter is singled out (not unfavorably) for his “scathing attacks on American immigration policy.” As a result, we are told, Peter “is no longer published in mainstream venues.”
Three other contributors to VDARE.com who have at least four pages lavished on them in Hawley’s study are: 史蒂夫·塞勒（Steve Sailer）， 他的 daring commentaries on 社会生物学; John Derbyshire f or his examinations of IQ differences and their effect on human behavior and professional achievements; and, well, me, for my studies on E uropean political thought and for being a long-lived nuisance to the neocons. To his credit, Hawley reviews the purge of John Derbyshire by the shameful 国家评论 with sympathy.
Donald Trump in the United States and the National Front in France are two examples of the emerging populist political force—sometimes called “国家保守主义.” In the present historical circumstances, a coalition of the dispossessed, built on the white working class is probably the best the Right can hope for. Hawley is already at work on a sequel dealing with this alternative, populist Right. From having seen his prospectus, I expect it to be entirely on target.
Needless to say, I don’t expect the particular paleoconservatism with which Buchanan and I were associated to make a comeback even if the political climate changes. As one of my favorite thinkers (yes, 卡尔·施密特) famously observed: “an historical truth is true only once.” And this aphorism is particularly relevant for the history of failed political movements. After all, the overthrow of Soviet Communism eventually brought to power in Russia the conservative nationalist government of Vladimir Putin. But it hasn’t resulted in restoring the Romanoff dynasty in Russia.