Why Want A Paleocon Dem?

A regular reader emails across the Atlantic to ask why I would want even one Congressional Democrat who could broadly be described as a paleocon. We have to draw the line somewhere, after all. Well, indeed we do. But it should be drawn so as to ensure that the economically neoliberal (or, far less commonly, quasi-Marxist), socially liberal-fundamentalist, and foreign policy hawkish (or, far less commonly, actively anti-defensive) views of a number of existing Dems on the Hill do not feature in or as the finally agreed position of the party as such.

On the protection of American jobs, there would be a natural alliance between such a Democrat and the unions. On halting and reversing the national emergency of unrestricted and illegal immigration, and on making English the only official language of the United States, there would be a natural alliance between such a Democrat and the Black Caucus, or anyone with a black base. On fair trade agreements, repealing much or all of the USA Patriot Act, ending completely the neoconservative war agenda, strict campaign finance reform, a crackdown against corporate influence generally and corporate welfare in particular, and tax cuts for the poor and the middle class, there would be a natural alliance between such a Democrat and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. On decency in the media, there would be a natural alliance between such a Democrat and those in the tradition of the late C Dolores Tucker and of Father Michael Pfleger. And there would be a natural alliance around the fact that the black male is the victim of a triple genocide in the womb, on the streets, and on the battlefield. Those constituencies have, to put it at its mildest, no such actual or potential alliance with many an existing Congressional Democrat. Nor have the Republicans exactly distinguished themselves in any of these causes.

Such a Democrat would most likely be ineligible for membership of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, making him (it probably would be him) an important voice among those so ineligible. There is common cause to be made with Asians and Pacific Islanders against the unfair consequences, and therefore the unfair principle, of the "affirmative action" that Colorado voted to end on the same day as it voted for Obama, and only someone with a Buchananite background is going to wage the necessary campaign against the Ivy League's and other top universities' systematic exclusion of whites from poor and middle-income backgrounds, and from small towns and rural areas.

But in addition to the common ground already set out, black and Hispanic votes reaffirmed traditional marriage in California and Florida on the same days that those states gave their Electoral College votes to Obama, with the black churches playing a pivotal role. Anyone who can get himself nominated in a statewide Democratic primary in South Carolina obviously knows how to appeal to black voters. As a regular reader of Philip Giraldi's contributions to The American Conservative, his vigorous patriotic hostility to Israeli espionage against America would ally him naturally to the victims of the Israel Lobby's sustained campaign against black Democrats as such, a campaign on course to keep Florida from electing the only black Senator this year. Let that not be forgotten when Chicago's registered Democrats are deciding whether or not to nominate Rahm Emanuel as their candidate for Mayor.

Such a Democrat would certainly believe in fiscal responsibility, but he would already see that neoliberal economics and the neoconservative war agenda were anything but fiscally responsible. On healthcare, confronted with a straight choice between the passed Senate Bill and what is for now the lost House Bills, he and the Blue Dogs would both have to be asked which was the more responsible fiscally; unlike them, he might give the right answer. He would be pro-business, but he would rightly give priority to small and family-run business and to manufacturing industry, along with agriculture.

He would not be an environmentalist, but he would be a conservationist, and he would have plenty of practical proposals for energy independence, proposals that would or should appeal to unions and others whose fight is primarily for jobs. Within the body of Democrats, his experience as as an object no less than an agent of change would largely be his being brought to recognise the importance of government action in bringing about and then conserving pro-life, pro-family and patriotic measures against poverty, in defence of traditional marriage, and in support of agriculture, manufacturing, coal, oil, and nuclear energy. As a strong supporter of trade protection and of immigration control, he would already be halfway there, and two thirds of the way there if he were already influenced by Catholic Social Teaching.

All in all, he would be a very leading figure among those who did not belong to any of the four political caucuses, as surely as among those who could not belong to any of the three ethnic ones.

Bring him on.