PERSPECTIVErnRediscovering Firernby Thomas FlemingrnWhat is paleoconservatism? The term seems to connectrnthe American hard right with paleoHthic anthropoidsrnwho wooed their women with ckibs and ate raw meat becausernthey were too stupid to discover fire. Even though Paul Gottfriedrnand I are probably responsible for popularizing the term, Irnnever adopted it, if only because it implies that we consider ourselvesrnto be the true heirs of some earlier American right: eitherrnthe largely imaginary’ Old Right of the 1930’s and 40’s or the anticommunistrnmovement of the 1950’s and 60’s.rnWe have no quarrel with the conservatives who definedrnthemselves by their opposition to communism, but whateverrntheir virtues might have been, those defenders of the New Dealrnstatus quo have little to say to people of the year 2000. histeadrnof aiming at the cultural and political transformation of thernUnited States, postwar conservatives and libertarians were contentrnwith forming a movement (or movements).rnMovements are characteristically American and symptomaticrnof a people who take their beliefs from Reader’s Digest articlesrnand executive summaries. As a Hollywood scriptwriter mightrnput it, we are a “high concept” nation that will not feed its mindrnon anything that has not been already chewed and twice digestedrnin our bovine stomachs and finall)’ turned into the cud ofrnsound bites and slogans. Left or right. Republican or Democrat,rnwe are babies that must be spoon-fed our political pabulum.rnIf leftist Democrats can only talk of “compassion” andrn”caring” and the “richest one percent of the population,” mainstreamrnRepublican conservatives display a talent for reducingrnevery issue to sentences like “I thought America was all aboutrnopportunity,” or “We’re a nation of immigrants,” or (and yournwill hear this from hard-eyed tycoons and tiiink-tank executivesrnwho believe in nothing) “Say, this is still about the greatestrncountry that has ever existed in the history of the world.”rnI am far from criticizing plutocratic conservatives who havernturned their base-metal credo into the gold of wealth and power.rnIt is the members of the more sophisticated “traditionalist”rnright who have made nothing with their affected drawls, Victorianrnmannerisms, and obsession with imperial Vienna andrnFranco’s Spain. Compared with their rivals, traditionalists andrnreactionaries are mere children. Content to spend their timernwriting unscholarly articles in unrefereed journals, posing forrnpichires with their Carlist berets. Confederate flags, and “I LikernIke” buttons, lovingly poring over their complete sets of Triumphrnand National Review, they will pose little threat to thernregime they think they are opposing. If there is any Riture forrnthe American right (and I say this with equal parts amusementrnand incredulity), it lies in the hands of the odd birds who callrnthemselves (or are called by others) “paleoconservatives.”rnAs the word implies, paleoconservatism is rooted in ancientrnand permanent principles of human nature. No one inventedrnmarriage, the family, or the maternal love upon which the survivalrnof our species depends. To be human is to live in familiesrnwhere senior men make the crucial decisions and where thernhousehold is autonomous and self-governing in all its own affairs;rnthe rearing and education of children, the provision of assistancernfor elderly and infirm members, disciplinary measuresrnfor those who violate the family’s laws. After hundreds of thousandsrnof years of social and political evolution, the ancientrn(Greek, Roman, Jewish) and medieval family retained most ofrnits primitive authority and responsibility, and the first step of anyrnconservative movement should be the liberation of families andrnhouseholds from the power of the total state.rnSocial conseratives and some members of the Christian rightrnhave made similar pronouncements, but always with an obeisancernto the left. “The state has harmed the family,” they say, “sornlO/CHRONICLESrnrnrn