Your warning against premodern romanticism is well-taken.  I fear, however, that paleos will continue to embody an attitude that Willmoore Kendall once accused Russell Kirk of prescribing:  “It is a lost cause but oh what a noble cause it is!” As Kendall understood, this attitude has defeatism written all over it.  Pining for lost golden ages is a waste of time.  As questionable as the neoconservatives are, they’ve been successful in part because they look forward, not backward.  They promise a future (of democracy-building) not a lost past of castles and chivalric traditions. Nostalgia can be very seductive, but quixotic at the end of the day.

As questionable as the neoconservatives are, they’ve been successful in part because they look forward, not backward.

And how is it possible, as a conservative, to look forward without looking backward?

To Mr Richert:
To be more specific, “looking backward” tends to show up at the level of rhetoric, whereas “looking forward” tends to appear at the level of policy.  The Reagan era had this paradox down to a science.  Reagan could praise the economics of the Coolidge era and the military supremacy of the Eisenhower era while pursuing policies which acknowledged that these two eras were bygone ones.  I am not necessarily defending the tension between nostalgia and policy, but some of the most successful rightist movements have embodied the tension.  The reality is that most voting blocs who are supposedly “conservative” have little idea of how much counter-revolutionary action it would require to restore a lost age dating back even 30-50 years, much less centuries.

Dr. Havers:

Your second comment seems rather different from your first, which dismissed the value of historical thinking, labeling it “pining for lost golden ages.”

Of course, restoration is very hard work; of course, most conservatives have no idea how hard it is; but for that matter, most conservatives don’t really desire restoration, even of 30-50 years back.

The Christian, however, realizes that we are called to restore the world in Christ, and we have the hope of doing so precisely because Christ conquered death and restored life to mankind. 

Such restoration will not happen, however, if we spend our days in envious emulation of the “success” of neoconservatives, a “success” which has been gained by foregoing restoration and instead engaging, like all leftists, in ongoing revolution.

True restoration will never be imposed, Jacobin-style, from above; it will arise from families and parishes and neighborhoods and regions that make the effort to return to the good life that men have lived throughout the ages.

As long as we try to capture the future, we never will.  The true hope for the future lies in the past, and that’s not mere quixotic nostalgia.

These are big issues, of course, which inevitably raise complex questions.  For example: Is a restoration of Christianity the same as a restoration of conservative values through political means? I personally believe that western Christianity contains both conservative and radical elements (but that’s another discussion). 
I agree with you that we should avoid at all costs a Jacobin-style restoration (which is unlikely anyway on the Right), but I am inclined to believe that the restoration of which you write can mean different things to different rightists.  Some bloggers want a restoration of the Confederacy, others want a return to the Middle Ages, and others want the 1950s back.  (Some want all of the above too!) I too love historical thinking, but this lack of consensus over what restoration entails prevents the making of sound policies which can compete with the neocons.

True restoration will never be imposed, Jacobin-style, from above; it will arise from families and parishes and neighborhoods and regions...

That’s not obvious to me.  What all this localist rhetoric often overlooks is that most of the culture consumed in a given locality has been produced on a nationwide, if not global, scale.  How will local communities return to the “good life” when their vision of the good life is created in Manhattan and Hollywood?

My impression is that paleo-conservative thought used to owe quite a bit to Gramsci.  Look at some of Sam Francis’s old columns in _Chronicles_.  I think the only hope for a “restoration” is through culture, not government.  That means creating and nurturing what Gramsci called “organic intellectuals”.  You might even agree with me up to here.  But the important thing is that these organic intellectuals are not necessarily local, and given the nature of today’s national media--syndicated talk radio, for instance--they probably won’t be.

A postscript to my comment above.  I’m saying that a decentralized, local arrangement can probably only be achieved by non-local, nationwide efforts.  This is an unpleasant fact of life.  It’s one more facet of Allen Tate’s answer to the question, “How may the Southerner take hold of his Tradition?  The answer is, by violence.”

this lack of consensus over what restoration entails prevents the making of sound policies which can compete with the neocons.

Indeed.  Some of us, for instance, believe that there are no political solutions to cultural problems (the unofficial motto of Chronicles throughout its entire existence), so we regard the very focus on “the making of sound policies which can compete with the neocons” as part of the problem, not the solution.

How will local communities return to the “good life” when their vision of the good life is created in Manhattan and Hollywood?

They won’t.  We agree completely on that point.  Where we apparently disagree is in the solution.  Your suggestion works only if the right people can somehow capture the institutions in Manhattan and Hollywood that currently hold cultural hegemony; mine works if people simply shut off FOX TV and quit listening to talk radio.

I know quite well what Sam Francis wrote; I also know that, by the late 90’s, he had begun to have his doubts that the right elements would ever be able to capture those central institutions of culture.  You don’t have to rely on my testimony about our conversations, however--simply compare his columns in Chronicles from 2000 on with those that he wrote before.  The declining emphasis on a Gramscian solution will be obvious.

It’s one more facet of Allen Tate’s answer to the question, “How may the Southerner take hold of his Tradition?  The answer is, by violence.”

That’s odd--I always thought that Tate, a Catholic convert, was making an explicit reference to Matthew 11:12 (and to the traditional interpretation of it: i.e., violence means self-discipline and the uprooting of vice).

Have there been any examples in history of true restoration of a traditional social order that had lapsed or disappeared? More importantly, has such an event occurred in the Christian West?

Recently, I have been having grave doubts about the possibility of this undertaking, which is why I have been drifting more libertarian and don’t feel comfortable with the label “conservative” anymore. Dr. Gottfried’s definition of the post-paleo right as being more libertarian than anything else describes me well.

I think the Ron Paul movement has provided a lot of folks like me with a forward looking project with practical goals to put our energies behind.

Cultural wars always end in violence, and once a congress becomes the doormat of the dictater, change comes through the military. And he that controls the military controls the culture. Seccesion is much easier.

Mr. Richert, I’m aware that paleo thought has drifted away from Gramsci; note I said that it “used to” be influenced by him.  I think this was a mistake though.  To clarify, I’m not suggesting that paleos have to take over Fox News or CNN or all of talk radio.  I also doubt that the “right elements” can capture the central institutions of culture, which is why I doubt that paleoconservatism can succeed.  I’m suggesting that they try to create an alternative using the existing media, in the way that Rush Limbaugh did two decades ago.  Once that’s accomplished, they can work on nurturing and strengthening what they’ve built so far.

I don’t see how you plan to get people to turn off Fox News and talk radio--which wouldn’t be sufficient anyway, because the hegemonic ideology is promulgated even more in sitcoms, movies, etc.  How are you going to persuade people to do this, even assuming you can somehow get your message to them? 

In that same book, Andrew Lytle called on people to “Turn off your radio and take your fiddle down from the mantle.” Didn’t happen then.  Why would it happen now?

Re Allen Tate’s “by violence”, Mr. Richert’s interpretation probably has some truth to it, but I don’t think it can explain the context of the quote.  Look at the following paragraphs, especially this: “The Southerner is faced with a paradox: He must use an instrument, which is political, and so unrealistic and pretentious that he cannot believe in it, to re-establish a private, self-contained, and essentially spiritual life.” He seems to be talking about the opposite of your interpretation.  In any case, the above sentence represents the paradox that I was talking about.

By the way, was Tate already a Catholic when he wrote those words?

Correction: Oops, that should have been, “throw out the radio and take down the fiddle from the wall”.  Anyway, I’d like to see how, specifically, you’re going to convince people to do that.

By the way, was Tate already a Catholic when he wrote those words?

That’s an interesting debate.  There are some who do not like Allen Tate who claim that he was (or at least, that he had made the decision to convert), but that he hadn’t acknowledged it.  (Interestingly, I don’t know of anyone who likes Tate who makes that claim.)

I probably should have written “an eventual Catholic convert” in my original comment, to avoid confusion.  The date of Tate’s conversion, however, does not affect the argument.  Tate’s essay is, after all, “Remarks on the Southern Religion,” and it’s no surprise, then, that he would make such an allusion.  It is, I think, more a mark of how much farther we have fallen that the allusion is not obvious to readers today.

Taking over FOX News or going the Rush Limbaugh route amount to the same thing.  Trust me; such paleos as Paul Gottfried have wished to do so all along.  It’s not going to happen.

More importantly, the focus is itself in error.  Organic culture, like organic community, is heavily shaped and guided by elites, but we make a mistake in assuming that the best way to create a sympathetic elite is to focus on the elite that now exists or on the institutions that that elite controls.  This is, in fact, something that Sam Francis wrestled with, and I’m not sure that he would say that he ever came up with a satisfactory answer.

From my standpoint, the answer is clear: We’re at a point in history where a new elite must be built from the ground up.  Only people who grow up valuing the decentralized, the local, the particular will be able to defend it down the line.  Co-opting those whose lives have been built on centralization, or taking over institutions that are are built on centralization, would, if successful, simply give us people and institutions that assume that centralization is the right route.

How are you going to persuade people to do this, even assuming you can somehow get your message to them?

As a mass movement?  Not going to happen.  Yet I see it happening every day among my friends and family and fellow parishioners and readers of Chronicles.

And that’s the point: If we consider renewal and restoration a success only if it happens right now, then we have to focus on centralized institutions and elites--and, ironically, in our haste to change things, we never will.

If we focus on the long term, however--by which I don’t mean two election cycles instead of one, but a few lifetimes instead of one--we have a chance.  But that requires faith (that the work that we’re doing now is worth doing, even if we never directly see its effect), and hope (that, in the long term, the work will have effects), and love (for those for whom we’re attempting to prepare a better world by passing on a heritage that is under attack).

Regarding your critique of Paul Gottfried’s alleged desire to take over FOX News and set up a rival elite to combat the neocons:
We are so fortunate to have someone as pure and virtuous as Mr Richert at takimag, who cares only for the common people at the local level of politics, untainted by desire for power or influence.  Irony aside, where were these mythical “organic communities” during Ron Paul’s campaign?  Since he didn’t win a single primary, I assume that they don’t exist.

But is restorationism even possible? This is a little like Marxists arguing with Anarchists about whether the urban proletariat or the rural peasants will revolt and destroy the private property system, without stopping to ask if there has ever been a society without private property.

Conservatives are supposed to orient their political goals in concrete historical experience. I’m still curious if there has ever been a successful traditionalist restoration in the Christian West?

The only way I see this kind of restoration taking place is through a massive catastrophe, such as a world wide financial collapse, nuclear war, massive plague, etc. that destroys the major political and cultural institutions. Even in such a scenario, there is no guarantee that we’ll have medieval Catholic villages rising from the rubble.

We are so fortunate to have someone as pure and virtuous as Mr Richert at takimag, who cares only for the common people at the local level of politics, untainted by desire for power or influence.

Obviously, Dr. Havers doesn’t participate in local politics, else he would know that the desire for power and influence is just as strong as at the federal level.

Irony aside, where were these mythical “organic communities” during Ron Paul’s campaign?  Since he didn’t win a single primary, I assume that they don’t exist.

So the failure of Ron Paul’s campaign to become the leader of the central government in Washington, D.C., proves that communities that are resisting centralization don’t exist?  I’m not quite sure I follow your logic, Dr. Havers.

On the other hand, the failure Ron Paul’s campaign, like the failure of Pat Buchanan’s campaigns, seems to be more evidence of the point that I made: “If we consider renewal and restoration a success only if it happens right now, then we have to focus on centralized institutions and elites--and, ironically, in our haste to change things, we never will.”

But is restorationism even possible? This is a little like Marxists arguing with Anarchists about whether the urban proletariat or the rural peasants will revolt and destroy the private property system, without stopping to ask if there has ever been a society without private property.

No, in fact, it’s not like that at all, since the Marxists and Anarchists are describing a utopian system, not a restoration.

Even in such a scenario, there is no guarantee that we’ll have medieval Catholic villages rising from the rubble.

Of course not, but who has suggested such a thing?  The restoration I’ve discussed, here and elsewhere, is not some carbon copy of something that once existed but now no longer does, but a new historical incarnation of life the way it was meant to be lived.

Man was not meant to live by abstract principles in centralized societies, as the very moral, aesthetic, social, and (soon) political and economic collapse of such societies indicates.  Does that necessarily tell us what a new, decentralized, rooted order will look like in the particulars?  Of course not.

@ Greg Chudy,

Your last paragraph says it all.

Yes, it would be necessary for the evil structures to be destroyed before a restoration could take place.  Observe the economic situation, the war, foreign policy with Russia and Iran.  A collapse is certain, within a decade.  The guarantee of a happy resolution can be had if men of goodwill make it.  God grants opportunities; great men accomplish great deeds.

Charles,

I agree with you that some kind of major collapse is imminent and that all the factors you site will contribute to this. I also agree with you that this would be a great opportunity, and, probably, a hidden blessing.

At the same time, apocalypticism is not the healthiest foundation for any kind of social or political movement.

Greg,

I agree with you in regard to apocalypticism.  However, if one has a positive—apophatic, as it were—traditionalist philosophy, I do not see the sober recognition of what must happen for a restoration as necessarily apocalypticism.  Apocalypticism, to me, is deserving of the name only if it could reasonably be considered an ideological point.  At that point it becomes unhealthy, as all ideologies do, for it obscures reality through exaggeration to fit the precedent analytical precept.

Correction to prior post:  “Apophatic” was a minor typo; should read “Cataphatic.”

Some replies to Mr. Richert.

There’s nothing contradictory about using centralized media to preach decentralization, any more than it’s contradictory for libertarian professors to preach privatization in state universities.

Again, I’m not suggesting that anyone try to take over Fox News or Harvard University, any more than Gramsci wanted the Communists to try to take over the Catholic Church.

On Tate’s “by violence”, I don’t doubt that it echoes the verse from Matthew.  But the subsequent paragraphs make it clear that he’s talking about the necessity of “violent” (he re-uses the word) means--means which are antithetical to the desired end.  That’s what I’m talking about too.

On your long-term project of building a new elite “from the ground up”, well, call it lack of faith, but I’m skeptical of any project whose success depends on your grandchildren teaching your great-grandchildren not to shop at Wal-Mart.  By all means, build and care for your family and community because it’s the right thing to do, but don’t expect to grow a new elite a few generations down the line.

There’s nothing contradictory about using centralized media to preach decentralization, any more than it’s contradictory for libertarian professors to preach privatization in state universities.

I’m afraid we’ll have to disagree on that one.  I’ve long been a critic of libertarians who make their living off the state.  The Rockford Institute has never accepted one penny of public funding, and it’s more than hypocritical for libertarian professors to do so.

By all means, build and care for your family and community because it’s the right thing to do . . .

Which is, in fact, the reason to do it.

. . . but don’t expect to grow a new elite a few generations down the line.

I don’t mean to suggest that that’s why anyone would build up family and community.  What I do mean to suggest is that those who understand the need for a new elite need to consider that it’s more likely to arise from the activity I’m discussing than from a top-down approach.

‘I don’t mean to suggest that that’s why anyone would build up family and community.  What I do mean to suggest is that those who understand the need for a new elite need to consider that it’s more likely to arise from the activity I’m discussing than from a top-down approach.’

From a purely strategic standpoint, the sentiment of incompatibility seems unjustified.  The best way, it seems, would be to attempt to build a sizable enough movement from the ground, locally and amongst families, until it becomes large and serious enough to attract the attention of those higher-ups who would lend friendly support.

Mr Richert:
Actually I was being ironic about local politicians being untained by the desire for power.  In any case, my main point was that Ron Paul’s failure to win even one primary suggests that most Americans have little interest in decentralized authority.  True, Paul wanted to encourage decentralization from DC, but it seems that a federal politician would have to be the catalyst to motivate these so-called organic communities (who must have stayed home while Paul was campaigning).

it seems that a federal politician would have to be the catalyst to motivate these so-called organic communities

Or there could be any number of catalysts, such as their Christian faith.  I don’t understand why “a federal politician would have to be the catalyst.”

Yes, a catalyzing Christian faith would be nice indeed...so where were all those millions of evangelicals on primary day when Paul’s campaign went down the tubes?

Yes, a catalyzing Christian faith would be nice indeed...so where were all those millions of evangelicals on primary day when Paul’s campaign went down the tubes?

You’re arguing in circles now--you’re back to saying that (in my words earlier) “the failure of Ron Paul’s campaign to become the leader of the central government in Washington, D.C., proves that communities that are resisting centralization don’t exist” (or, in this case, that their Christian faith can’t be real, because they didn’t vote for Ron Paul).

Have you ever considered that some people who don’t believe in the virtues of centralization simply don’t spend their time participating in centralized politics?

Circles??  Nope, I am simply questioning your apparent view that millions of Americans desire a return to decentralization, whether it reflects top-down or bottom-up politics.

Go back up and read what I wrote.  Nowhere did I mention “millions of Americans,” so that can hardly be my “apparent view.” In fact, I explicitly stated that such changes are not going to come about as a mass movement, nor that they are going to come about in a presidential election cycle or two.

Yet you insist on speaking as if the only length of time that matters is four years (or perhaps just one primary season).  And to that, I’ll simply reply as I did before: “If we consider renewal and restoration a success only if it happens right now, then we have to focus on centralized institutions and elites--and, ironically, in our haste to change things, we never will.”