First Quote from Liberty and Tyranny

There is simply no scientific or mathematical formula that defines conservatism. Moreover, there are competing voices today claiming the mantle of "true conservatism"--including neo-conservatism (emphasis on a robust national security), paleoconservatism (emphasis on preserving the culture), social conservatism (emphasis on faith and values), and libertarianism (emphasis on individualism), among others. Scores of scholars have written at length about what can be imperfectly characterized as conservative thought.

[snip]

To put it succinctly: Conservatism is a way of understanding life, society, and governance. The Founders were heavily influenced by certain philosophers, among them Adam Smith (spontaneous order), Charles
Montesquieu (separation of powers), and especially John Locke (natural rights); they were also influenced by their faiths, personal experiences, and knowledge of history (including the rise and fall of the Roman Empire). Edmund Burke, who was both a British statesman and thinker, is often said to be the father of modern conservatism. He was an early defender of the American Revolution and advocate of representative government. He wrote of the interconnection of liberty, free markets, religion, tradition, and authority. The Conservative, like the Founders, is informed by all these great thinkers--and more.

It can be difficult to define conservatism. Mr. Levin has done about as good a job in a short space as can be done, I suppose, though his brevity almost necessarily leaves what he has to say about the various factions within conservatism something of an oversimplification. Quite a lot of conservatives will scarcely admit that a Neocon is a conservative at all (I have to grit my teeth when contemplating the idea), for example, and personally, while I think that libertarians have many ideas that overlap with conservatism, libertarianism is not really a division of conservatism. Also, I think a good case could be made for an "emphasis on faith and values" being the means of "preserving the culture," which would mean that "social conservatism" and Paleoconservatism would not necessarily be as easy to distinguish from one another as Mr. Levin might make them out to be.

I do think that Mr. Levin is right in his basic idea, though, that "There is simply no scientific or mathematical formula that defines conservatism." Conservatism, in my opinion, is more a method, more an approach to the maintenance of a society than it is a laundry-list of popular positions. It proceeds largely from certain bedrock ideas and presuppositions, but it is far more flexible in application than many of its detractors think.

Paleocons, Paleoconservatism

Paleocon--and I do recommend you read the Wikipedia article--is a relatively modern term for what once might have been called "the Old Right." These are the people who, unlike the Neocons, react very negatively not only to Lyndon Johnson's Great Society and the modern welfare state, but even to FDR's "New Deal." Their conservatism is, for the most part, pretty much what I describe as conservatism, period, and for the most part, I identify with the Paleocons.

Points where I may have some quibbles with Paleocons:

1) While I would not (as some do) describe them as hostile to Israel, it nevertheless seems to me that some of them are less willing to support Israel than may be wise. I do not think that the Biblical admonition that those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel, cursed, necessarily means that we, as a nation, are obligated to support Israel militarily or economically under all circumstances, but I also think, based on that Biblical instruction, that it is a capital mistake not to support Israel insofar as it is compatible with our Constitution.

2) Paleocons in general place much stock in the cultural homogeneity of a society--that is, they understand that if a society doesn't share certain core values, it is more likely to experience balkanization rather than unity. However, it sometimes seems to me that Paleocons carry this a little too far and some of them wind up confusing some of their personal values with the core values upon which this country was originally built. It is just something to watch out for.

3) Some Paleocons--and I am thinking particularly of Pat Buchanan here--seem to me to greatly misjudge Islam, and as a result, I'm not at all sure that their views on how to deal with rampant Islamism are completely realistic. Too often, they seem to think that if only America will mind its own business, rampant Islam will leave America alone. I don't think that is true; Islam is hegemonistic by nature. Whether we mind our own business or not (and it can be very hard for the world's pre-eminent military, economic, and cultural power to be perceived as "minding its own business," no matter how hard it tries), Islam's agenda demands that it will, sooner or later, come into conflict with us. If prudence is the hallmark of the conservative, then conservatism must take this reality into account.

Neocons, Neoconservatism

Truthfully, it is hard to get much better than this Wikipedia article on Neocons, and I recommend you read it. But in short, when I say "Neocon," I mean a person who is, or was, basically a cold-war, anti-communist, FDR liberal, and who, with the close of the original Cold War, found himself and his hawkish attitudes more at home in the Republican Party than in the Democratic Party. Some have become more genuinely conservative over the years, some have not. They are all along the spectrum.

A frequent flaw with Neocons is that they are often ideologues indissolubly wedded to an idea or ideas that have little or no track record of actually working all that well. For instance, they have commonly (and accurately, I think) been blamed for the Bush administration's apparent assumption that all people everywhere will embrace Western-style representative government, if only they have the chance--a notion that no sober student of Scripture and history could seriously entertain, at least in my opinion. Likewise, they are often ardent free-traders, despite free trade not actually having all that hot a record in the real world.

Neocons are valuable allies with more traditional conservatives on some subjects and not so much on others. Because they vary in opinion from person to person, it is probably better not to generalize more than I already have.