Taki’s Magazine editor Richard Spencer and The American Spectator’s Jim Antle join me in a discussion on Alternative Right or “paleoconservative” possibilities for the Republican Party

Length 21:22

Download Here

Taki’s Magazine editor Richard Spencer and Jack Hunter talk about last week’s Tax Day “tea party” protests, the media coverage, what they really were and what they were not.

Length 19:07

Download Here

In the meantime, here’s the new blog:

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/blogs/southernavenger/

Thanks

Jack

It is no coincidence that some of the most interesting and promising developments on the Right today are not only coming from the grassroots, but are far removed from the Republican Party establishment. Just a few short months ago, the mainstream conservative movement huddled around figures like Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and later John McCain, in the hopes that one of them might make it to the White House to enact policies similar to George W. Bush. But thankfully, now the Right is embracing and promoting ideas that are not only conservative – but noticeably radical – as they would have found no place in any conservative movement of Romney, Palin or McCain’s making.

Watch “The Radical Right” at Takimag.com

In a little noticed editorial yesterday, Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul fired a shot across the bow of every progressive activist in the U.S., a great many of whom are supporters of President Barack Obama:

‘Some may notice that the neo-conservatives who masterminded the policy of global interventions are not complaining about the level of military and foreign spending. This is because rather than drawing down our costly interventions, Obama is largely staying the course on these issues. In fact, this week a group of leading neoconservatives met to discuss how best to support the President on foreign policy! I am disappointed and concerned that, in spite of a change in leadership, we will remain the policeman of the world, placing ourselves at grave danger in many ways.’

Link

Of course, this was all fantasy. It was a conspiracy — not between Saddam and Osama — but amongst the Bush White House and their media allies to construct a “connection” between Hussein and Al-Qaeda that had never existed, an irrefutable fact reflected by every piece of U.S. intelligence before the invasion of Iraq — and proven again after it. Yet today, you will still find the random conspiracy kook who still believes that Saddam was behind 9/11.

Read the entire column

When Kim Jong-Il finally test launched a missile this week, I knew it was only a matter of time before some neocon would cry out for the resurrection of the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war. Sure enough, reported The Raw Story on Sunday: “Only hours after North Korea launched a rocket, Newt Gingrich was on television saying the United States should have preemptively attacked the nuclear-armed country – with an electromagnetic pulse. ‘We do not appreciate the scale of threat that is evolving on the planet,’ the former House Speaker said on Fox News Sunday. ‘And North Korea is a totally irresponsible dictatorship run by a person who is clearly out of touch with reality.” Reacting to President Obama’s refusal to take military action against nations like North Korea and Iran, Gingrich said “One morning, just like 9/11, there’s going to be a disaster… (and) I have yet to see the United Nations do anything effective with either Iran or North Korea.” As for Obama’s meeting with Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, Gingrich said Russia cannot be trusted and that “It’s very dangerous to have a fantasy foreign policy, and it can get you in enormous trouble.”

Gingrich is right. It is dangerous to have a fantasy foreign policy – which is exactly why Americans who value safety, security and peace should not be listening to the dangerous, foreign policy fantasies of Newt Gingrich.

Watch “Newt’s Foreign Policy Fantasies” at Takimag.com

In his article “Why Mark Sanford Matters” Reihan Salam writes for Forbes Magazine: “Unlike John McCain or Mitt Romney, Sanford goes far beyond criticizing earmarks. In the face of a severe recession, he has refused to accept hundreds of millions of dollars in federal aid. Recognizing that the military establishment represents an enormous slice of federal spending, Sanford has also declared that he opposes pre-emptive wars, like the invasion of Iraq. In short, Sanford is the real deal. He is the candidate Rush Limbaugh and countless others who embrace the cause of shrinking government have been waiting for.”

Watch “Steadfast Sanford” at Takimag.com

“When Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964, conservatism was a rigorous and demanding creed. Rather than promise tax cuts, Goldwater insisted on balanced budgets and sound money. After promising to get rid of any number of New Deal social programs, and after pledging to privatize the Tennessee Value Authority and other cherished infrastructure projects, Goldwater didn’t promise anything material in return. No manna would fall from the sky in Goldwater’s America. He simply argued that shrinking the federal government and reducing its power would encourage self-reliance, and that self-reliance would encourage the virtues of thrift and industry.

It is easy to see why the supply-siders later derided Goldwater’s old-fashioned worldview as “root-canal economics,” as it promised a lot more pain, at least in the short term. But Goldwaterism had the virtue of coherence and consistency.

In the decades that followed, conservatives moved away from Goldwater’s demanding creed, not least in order to win over voters who never fully embraced the politics of self reliance. Whereas in 1976 Ronald Reagan emphasized the central importance of balanced budgets and devolving power from the federal government to the states, in 1980 he veered sharply away from “root-canal economics,” promising instead to deliver pain-free prosperity through a sharp reduction in taxes.

At the same time, Reagan backed a massive increase in defense expenditures, a kind of military Keynesianism that helped fuel the Sunbelt boom. Many of Reagan’s small-government admirers were growing rich off big government defense contracts. 

During the presidency of George W. Bush, this contradiction grew sharper still. Convinced that tax cuts were the elixir the economy needed, the Bush White House never reversed course to raise taxes to reduce the yawning deficit, unlike Reagan and the first President Bush. The Iraq War was to be financed by debt rather than by taxes. It is hardly surprising that many libertarians turned against Bush, as they were convinced, rightly, that war inevitably expands the power of the state. What was surprising is that so few conservatives appreciated that President Bush’s tax cuts were in tension with his efforts to make the world safe for democracy.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, virtually all of the major Republican candidates embraced “Bushism”–pro-war, anti-tax, pro-spending. Only Ron Paul, the eccentric Texas congressman, was willing to make a comprehensive case against statism. And though he attracted considerable enthusiasm from a dedicated cadre of young activists, there was no way he could have captured the Republican nomination.

Now, however, Mark Sanford has taken on many of Paul’s themes. Unlike John McCain or Mitt Romney, Sanford goes far beyond criticizing earmarks. In the face of a severe recession, he has refused to accept hundreds of millions of dollars in federal aid. Recognizing that the military establishment represents an enormous slice of federal spending, Sanford has also declared that he opposes pre-emptive wars, like the invasion of Iraq. In short, Sanford is the real deal. He is the candidate Rush Limbaugh and countless others who embrace the cause of shrinking government have been waiting for.

But the real test is whether Sanford is willing to put shrinking government ahead of cutting taxes. The evidence suggests that the answer is yes.”

Read the entire column

So how do liberals square their fear of intrusive government with their enthusiasm for Obama? The opposite question could also be asked: how did so many conservatives square their fear of big government with their enthusiasm for President George W. Bush, whose unprecedented spending and increasing of the power of the state set the stage for Obama?

Read the entire column