The U.S. Right would appear to have three central influences today: neoconservatism, paleoconservatism, and libertarianism (inc. paleolibertarianism). One might also mention the more minor influence of the "bioconservatives," by which I mean those who of a "conservative" bent who analyze matters primarily in terms of the competition of the "selfish gene" and who show signs of a neo-Social-Darwinian bent.

All four influences are important and have something to add to the Center-Right of the 21st Century. From the neoconservatives, we may receive a commitment to the defense of the West from Islamic, Marxist communist, and Russian extremism; a valuing of Western universalist protection of individual rights and the basic political equality of all humans; and a pragmatic mode of thinking aimed at winning elections and transforming institutions. From the paleoconservatives, we may inherit an emphasis on securing the fundamentals of civilizational reproduction, particularly in the form of strong national/supra-national borders, and a willingness to reject the idols of Leftist and neo-Leftist identity politics. From the libertarians, we may receive an emphasis on the power of free markets to lift the common man and woman from poverty and from boredom; a strong emphasis on preserving civil liberties in our age of terrorism and Muslim extremism; and a principled defense of an ultimate philosophical goal for humanity and even post-humanity, as found in the ideal of property-rights anarchy. And from the bioconservatives, we may inherit a life-affirming mode of thought that focuses on some neglected, driving forces of human conduct.

Of course, all four influences are also problematic. I have so far shied away from discussing the many problems of neoconservatism, accept insofar as I have criticized John McCain, who is aptly termed a neocon, albeit that his ideology is not pure neoconservative. The paleos and libertarians have already provided ample documentation of the Zionist and Big Business roots of neoconservatism. For my part, all I can say is that there is little point in focusing overly on the issue of the U.S.-Israel relationship, as it is not going to change and the best we can hope for is that eventually a Palestinian state will emerge that that the Israeli's can be brought to accept. And concerning Big Business and immigration, I have already said a few words in some earlier posts. I suppose one might add at this point that was is true of Protestants vis-a-vis Catholics is also true of Jews vis-a-vis Catholics--both conservative Protestants and conservative Jews in America are more prepared for mass immigration from the developing world than are conservative Catholics. The main thing, I have been suggesting, is to try and find some reasonable arguments about immigration that might appeal to Protestants, to try to open up possibilities for discussion, and to think about how one can make one's case for immigration reform outside of institutions dominated by the interests of corporate wealth. If one does this, I am sure one will also be appealing to many strong supporters of the U.S.-Israel relationship, whether Jew or Gentile (most are evangelical Christians).

The "bioconservatives" also have their problems, most of which have to do with the fact that we lack the science to verify all of their claims or to implements new post-Social-Darwinist social engineering. There is also the fact that, alongside Spencerian dreams of human evolution, there is also a need for the Right to offer broadly Christian defenses of the preservation of the ancient human cultures that have sustained the West.

Concerning the paleos and the libertarians, I have already offered enough in the way of criticism. [ See http://emergingright.blogspot.com/ . ]

What of deeper roots for an emerging Center-Right?  One ought to point first of all to Hegel, that great, philosemitic philosopher of human progress and cultural evolution. Perhaps, through Marx, the Left aims to claim his legacy, but for most commentators, he seems to remain a figure of the Right. There is also the Austrian Jew, Ludwig von Mises, who provides a fascinating historical alternative for the German and Austrian people: the fully free market and thus defense of the property right of Jews in place of fascism. Moreover, Mises offers his account as based in respect for the elan vitale, the life impulse. (His thinking is prone to many of the ills of libertarianism, but it is certainly an important resource for us.) Between Mises and Hegel--a thinker who did not and perhaps could not recognize the problems attaching to all the government intervention his thinking seems to suggest to many--a powerful Right-wing thinking might emerge.

(There is also a need for Protestant theology that explains the relationship between "national" preservation and growth, through peaceful means, and the Christian calling. [Here I use nation in its broad sense, to mean a people, recognizing that any given person might belong to many nations and that one nation might be part of a larger one.] But perhaps this will simply be too boring for our age of techno-obsession and "postmodern" Christianity.)

Other resources might include Hayek, a wonderfully pragmatic figure who sits mid-way between libertarianism proper and the more interventionist orientation of neo- and paleoconservatism.

Concerning guidance for these interventionist demands: one may look to the liberalism of Mill and Moore, but then employ a hardnosed estimation of the cost of government taxation and regulation. Certainly, there is room for utilitarian calculation on the side of the Right. Empowering individuals through government, through the providence of a minimum social safety net (such as we already have in the U.S.) and the funding of cultural and educational opportunities, along with funding of the inspiring, unifying, and socially-uplighting effects of powerful space-programs, must be part of any pragmatic Rightest program for the 21st century. Many of these features of the Center-Right agenda may be grounded via Utilitarian philosophy that includes suitable territorial limitations of scope, understandings of the hierarchy of values/pleasures, and pragmatic mixing with the side-constraints of libertarianism. Politics is the art of deciding endless conflicts of value. But Utilitarianism and libertarianism, along with a different historical-orientation toward hierarchies of pleasure than is found in either Left-Marxist or TV-driven consumerist culture, can at least set up the conflicts in ways that will lead us to some right outcomes.

from themergingright's main blog at http://emergingright.blogspot.com/ .

The Emerging Right, having weighed the various actual and potential options for the 2008 Presidential Election, must endorse John McCain.

The Emerging Right didn't want to have to take this step, preferring Huckabee or even entertaining hopes of an interesting Constitution Party candidate, but since Huckabee has been thoroughly routed, and the CP appears to have too many problem, the matter was forced. The Emerging Right considered simply not endorsing anyone, for the sole reason of the character of McCain's rhetoric concerning immigration reform activists to his Right--not, mind you, because of McCain's own position on immigration itself, which is little different from Huckabee's.

There are also McCain's other deficits. For example, there is his actual position on immigration. This seems a little too risky to me when it comes to the long-term future of the county, and there are also the effects on prized urban and rural areas to think about, but the Emerging Right has no particular loyalty to any given part of the U.S., and also supposes that a little risk might be ok so long as the ER doesn't have to support it directly. The world will not end if we have a Black-Latino majority in 2100. By then technology will likely have radically transformed the situation anyway.

There is also McCain's mention of the military option vis-a-vis Iran and the rest of his militarism. The fact is, the Democratic Party of Woodrow Wilson, Kennedy, LBJ, and (looking to his African & Balkan adventurism) isn't likely to offer much more in the way of dove policies. The other option, the Constitution Party, is pledged to reneging (at least indirectly) on our NATO commitments, our commitments to Japan, and other treaty commitments. That's a little too dove for the Emerging Right. I am sure many of ER's paleo friends will disagree, but ER suspects they have gotten a little too caught up in anti-neocon, anti-American arguments. Moderation is the key for U.S. foreign policy. I think McCain will provide a sensible, moderate voice in most military and foreign policy matters. There is also the issue of ideas for Iraq, which seem like very correct ideas, well-designed to preserve U.S. military credibility, so as to allow for maximal protection of civilization from Russian, Chinese, and radical Islamic threats. In short, while McCain might be wrong on Iran, some of his other points make up for this fault, and the other actual or likely candidates are not better than McCain.

McCain's limited support for Affirmative Action, while annoying, is something of a minor issue. Most anti-AA programs originate at the State level, not the Federal, and limited Federal AA won't do much wrong.

The main thing is that McCain has, in general, the right ideas on economics. Economics is his strong suit, not his weak suit. He is the candidate of economic growth. That's what we need, not new Democrat-supported entitlement programs that will put the county in the poor house.

from themergingright's main blog at http://emergingright.blogspot.com/ .