Paleoconservitism

[ChrisK]

This theory is not about paleoconservative politians (though I will use their beliefs as evidence), but rather about the people that support them. Here is what I propose, the people who support paleoconservative candidates, are actually only about a step away from revolutionary leftists. I'm sorry if this has been posted before, but I did a search and didn't find one. To support this theory, I'm going to demonstrate the values of paleoconservative americans is close to our own, while also admiting the differences.

The values of paleoconservatives are often closely linked to those of revolutionary leftists. First off, we have anti-imperialism. Neither paleocons or revleftists approve of the exploitation of other countries material resources by either economic or militaristic means. A good example is the invasion of Iraq, in which both groups attack the invasion as being a war for oil. Additionally both groups attack globalization on the grounds of being immoral and for the benefit of profit.

Secondly, both groups are critical of current economics. I won't pretend that paleocons are anti-capitalists, but I will claim they are anti-corportists. Paleocons have attacked corporations as being powerholders over the people, that need to be curtailed. This comes from their belief that America should be an agrarian republic.

Thirdly, both groups believe in decentralized authority. Paleocons absolutely hate powerful government viewing it as being against ordinary people. They support a more localized form of power in the hands of the citizenry.

Fourthly, both groups like civil liberites. Paleocons have consistantly attacked the patirot act and strongly oppose the oppression of all peoples.

Fifthly, both groups support environmental protection. For paleocons this, once again, comes from desiring an agrarian republic. They believe that people must be at balance with nature.

Clearly, from these things, we can see much common ground with them. I will admit, they're often backwards on things such as gay marriage, but in terms of people who are most like us (and therefore easier to turn to our side) they could become great allies, with only a short step to being us.

I'd like to know what everyone thinks about this idea.

[Lolshevik]

Some of that sounds all right in theory. But I've never really known a paleo-con who was strong on civil liberties.

Paleo-conservatism is, at best, reactionary and petit-bourgeois. They harken back to the days of "mom and pop" capitalism, days that are never to return no matter how hard they try. Days that never really existed to begin with. If we are to win them over to revolutionary politics, we should approach them from their class standpoint, not from their ideology... though that isn't to say it's wrong to employ the argument you made. If you think it can work, go for it.

[ChrisK]

Some of that sounds all right in theory. But I've never really known a paleo-con who was strong on civil liberties.

Paleo-conservatism is, at best, reactionary and petit-bourgeois. They harken back to the days of "mom and pop" capitalism, days that are never to return no matter how hard they try. Days that never really existed to begin with. If we are to win them over to revolutionary politics, we should approach them from their class standpoint, not from their ideology... though that isn't to say it's wrong to employ the argument you made. If you think it can work, go for it.

Really? Everyone of them that I've met has been a working class, strong on civil liberties, angery about corporate power and ready to fight any government offical who tried to take their rights. Could it have to do with regional differences? I really wrote this because I do have a lot of paleo-con friends.

You are spot on about the "mom and pop" imaginary era of capitalism. I personally don't think that telling them "we're alike" would win them over. I do think that if we could show them that from the standpoint of fighting authority revolutionary leftism is the best option, they would join up.

[Lolshevik]

When you say civil liberties, do you mean things like gay marriage, a womans' right to choose, legalization of undocumented workers et cetera? Because these are the issues I was thinking of when I said that paleocons are not strong on civil liberty.

By the way, it's refreshing to see someone on this forum strategizing about how to radicalize workers and promote revolution, instead of just sitting around lamenting about how un-conscious the U.S. (and world) working class currently is. : P

[ChrisK]

Oh no. I consider those to be in the realm of human rights (i know its a very fuzzy distiction). By civil liberties i mean the bill of rights and such.

Thank you, I like to try to be productive. Any input on your part (such as you've already given me) is thanked.

[Die Neue Zeit]

One can be surprised to find greater potential in paleo-conservatives as front allies than in modern-day "social-democrats" (social-corporatists or mislabelled "social-fascists").

I don't know if "Red Tories" count as paleo-conservatives, though.


When you say civil liberties, do you mean things like gay marriage, a womans' right to choose, legalization of undocumented workers et cetera? Because these are the issues I was thinking of when I said that paleocons are not strong on civil liberty.

By the way, it's refreshing to see someone on this forum strategizing about how to radicalize workers and promote revolution, instead of just sitting around lamenting about how un-conscious the U.S. (and world) working class currently is.

You should look up the German workers' movement and the key role that Ferdinand Lassalle played. Democratists like him worked with reactionaries like Bismarck in an informal coalition against the bourgeoisie, resulting in the first welfare state. Identity politics was a no-no to movement builders like him, and it is a no-no to paleo-con workers like ChristoferKoch's friends.

[Philosophical Materialist]

The values of paleoconservatives are often closely linked to those of revolutionary leftists. First off, we have anti-imperialism. Neither paleocons or revleftists approve of the exploitation of other countries material resources by either economic or militaristic means. A good example is the invasion of Iraq, in which both groups attack the invasion as being a war for oil. Additionally both groups attack globalization on the grounds of being immoral and for the benefit of profit.

Not true. Palaeocons like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan attacked the invasion of Iraq as unprofitable for the market as a whole, pointing to the unstable trading environment that the War caused (fluctuations in Oil prices etc.)

Palaeocons attack globalisation from a different perspective. The USA being subject to any higher authority be it the WTO, or the UN is an anathema to to the idea of American sovereignty as well as the ability for American capitalism to be truly competitive.


Secondly, both groups are critical of current economics. I won't pretend that paleocons are anti-capitalists, but I will claim they are anti-corportists. Paleocons have attacked corporations as being powerholders over the people, that need to be curtailed. This comes from their belief that America should be an agrarian republic

They tend to be very anti-regulation in the economic sphere.


Thirdly, both groups believe in decentralized authority. Paleocons absolutely hate powerful government viewing it as being against ordinary people. They support a more localized form of power in the hands of the citizenry.

Not so. When palaeocons talk "big government" their meaning is that "government taxes us and regulates us" as well as "spending hard-earned taxes on inner-city (read black) welfare." Notice how the palaeocons talk on social issues such as: authoritarian measures to get women back into the kitchen barefoot and pregnant, removing the unions, criminalise homosexuality etc. Such measures need a repressive state but palaecons don't consider this to be "big government." Palaeocon Ron Paul wants the US to return to the original US constitution, property qualification for voting et al. Palaecon Pat Buchanan defended Richard Nixon's presidency regarding Watergate arguing that he (Nixon) could have done what he wanted because being the President means you have the right to do anything.


Fourthly, both groups like civil liberites. Paleocons have consistantly attacked the patirot act and strongly oppose the oppression of all peoples.

They opposed the PATRIOT Act because of the financial burden it placed on the US economy and that they interpreted the Bush presidency as a liberal one ('liberal' meaning left-liberal). Palaeocons don't oppose the oppression of all peoples, just look the frequently racist, sexist and homophobic remarks of the palaecons.


They believe that people must be at balance with nature.

Nature meaning "one man, one woman", "interracial is bad" etc


Clearly, from these things, we can see much common ground with them. I will admit, they're often backwards on things such as gay marriage, but in terms of people who are most like us (and therefore easier to turn to our side) they could become great allies, with only a short step to being us.

They're also wrong on history. Palaecons argued that it was better to let Nazi Germany destroy the Soviet Union as the "lesser of two evils", the Nazis "respected property rights" afterall. Pat Buchanan still argues this to this day. I won't go into what Palaecon Alex Jones believes because that's too much crazy to delve into.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Secondly, both groups are critical of current economics. I won't pretend that paleocons are anti-capitalists, but I will claim they are anti-corportists. Paleocons have attacked corporations as being powerholders over the people, that need to be curtailed. This comes from their belief that America should be an agrarian republic.

And that's the problem, there view of an agrarian society is far too rosy. The realities are far from anything they would want, and the desire is opposed to everything we stand for.

Can we show them that without alienating them?



I'd like to know what everyone thinks about this idea.

I think my bias clouds my judgment.

[Revy]

Absolutely not. Paleo-cons are the far right.

They may be appear to be anti-war but so are Nazis and other fascist groups. They do not oppose the war because of moral grounds, but because of taxes.

Also, they are mostly xenophobic racist Christian fundamentalists.

Their economic positions are mostly motivated by nationalism or the idea that America is being exploited by the world.

[ChrisK]

Not true. Palaeocons like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan attacked the invasion of Iraq as unprofitable for the market as a whole, pointing to the unstable trading environment that the War caused (fluctuations in Oil prices etc.)

I'm going to direct you to the note at the beginning that this is not about the politians, but the ordinary people who vote for them.


Palaeocons attack globalisation from a different perspective. The USA being subject to any higher authority be it the WTO, or the UN is an anathema to to the idea of American sovereignty as well as the ability for American capitalism to be truly competitive.

Yeah, I can grant you this to being true, but I can also vie for many of the paleo-cons I know (Spokane is loaded with them) that exploitation of other nations is immoral as it interferes with their right to self-determination.


They tend to be very anti-regulation in the economic sphere.

And very anti-corporatist. Basically they don't think that corporations should be allowed to be considered people as they are today, and therefore shouldn't be able to take away free speech etc.


Not so. When palaeocons talk "big government" their meaning is that "government taxes us and regulates us" as well as "spending hard-earned taxes on inner-city (read black) welfare." Notice how the palaeocons talk on social issues such as: authoritarian measures to get women back into the kitchen barefoot and pregnant, removing the unions, criminalise homosexuality etc. Such measures need a repressive state but palaecons don't consider this to be "big government." Palaeocon Ron Paul wants the US to return to the original US constitution, property qualification for voting et al. Palaecon Pat Buchanan defended Richard Nixon's presidency regarding Watergate arguing that he (Nixon) could have done what he wanted because being the President means you have the right to do anything.

Yes so. Notice how none of them (non-politicians) actually want policies that do this. They all argue for local communities rights to choose, not the federal government.


They opposed the PATRIOT Act because of the financial burden it placed on the US economy and that they interpreted the Bush presidency as a liberal one ('liberal' meaning left-liberal). Palaeocons don't oppose the oppression of all peoples, just look the frequently racist, sexist and homophobic remarks of the palaecons.

1. I have never met a sexist, racist or homophobic paleocon. I have met a paleocon who opposes marriage for gays as he ignorantly thinks it a religious thing, but he has never done or said anything anti-gay.

2. Alex Jones (yes nutty conspiricist, but hang with me) has three documentaries purely about the attack on American civil liberties.


Nature meaning "one man, one woman", "interracial is bad" etc

No. Nature means environment. That one really is self explanitory.


They're also wrong on history. Palaecons argued that it was better to let Nazi Germany destroy the Soviet Union as the "lesser of two evils", the Nazis "respected property rights" afterall. Pat Buchanan still argues this to this day. I won't go into what Palaecon Alex Jones believes because that's too much crazy to delve into.

How many paleocons do you actually know? I've never met one who agrees with this.

I know everything Mr. Jones has to say. If you listen to his radio show he has good stuff. Just learn to stop listening when he says, "This is proof of the NEW WORLD ORDER!!!!"

[ChrisK]

And that's the problem, there view of an agrarian society is far too rosy. The realities are far from anything they would want, and the desire is opposed to everything we stand for.

Can we show them that without alienating them?

I think we can. Mostly because agriculture will have a place in communist society and they seem to like local control of things


I think my bias clouds my judgment.

Thank you for your honesty.

[ChrisK]

Absolutely not. Paleo-cons are the far right.

They may be appear to be anti-war but so are Nazis and other fascist groups. They do not oppose the war because of moral grounds, but because of taxes.

Also, they are mostly xenophobic racist Christian fundamentalists.

Their economic positions are mostly motivated by nationalism or the idea that America is being exploited by the world.

Who is this they? Ron Paul? Or is it the actual normal people who happen to be paleocons?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Ron Paul is a "libertarian," not a paleocon.

[jake williams]

I really support the OP. I think this exactly the direction we need to be going if we're genuinely concerned about the American working class - which, unfortunately, I think a significant portion of the Left is not. The OP is right to emphasize that they are talking about the people who support those kinds of beliefs and not the leaders who exploit them - to not understand how important the distinction is is to really not understand how right wing politics works.

What the OP is suggesting is basically the pretty old and pretty sensible idea of "false consciousness" that while capitalism has some tendencies to organize the working class against capitalism, it is also good at finding ways to distract the working class by making it believe its situation, and capitalism, are something other than what they are. This isn't a new idea, but it's been largely ignored.

I think people who are the intellectual victims of poor explanations for the fucked up societies they see deserve our sympathy, support, and better explanations - not our rejection of them because they're ignorant about this or that, because they're "reactionaries" or "fundamentalists" or "fascists". That's the way to convince them that the Left doesn't care about them. It also means you're writing off some of the most oppressed segments, and some of the largest segments, of the American working class.

[ZeroNowhere]

I don't see how having common positions makes paleoconservatism 'one step away' from socialism. Humans and mice both have legs and brains, but a human is not 'one step away' from being a mouse.

[ChrisK]

I don't see how having common positions makes paleoconservatism 'one step away' from socialism. Humans and mice both have legs and brains, but a human is not 'one step away' from being a mouse.

Thats a bad analogy. I could say, Chimps and humans have 99.9% common dna, which makes chimps one step away from being human.

The point is, is that these people see many of the same problems we do, but they are also being sucked in buy political distractor issues (ie borders). They see the problems and they have a poor analysis. Our job is to work with them to see the truth.

[Axle]

While there are certainly some similarities between the radical left and paleoconservatives, it makes little difference. Even some fascist groups are anti-capitalist, but it doesn't mean with a little clever persuading they'll hop off their boat and onto ours.

[ChrisK]

While there are certainly some similarities between the radical left and paleoconservatives, it makes little difference. Even some fascist groups are anti-capitalist, but it doesn't mean with a little clever persuading they'll hop off their boat and onto ours.

So do you disagree with trying to raise the class consciouness of the working class?

[Axle]

So do you disagree with trying to raise the class consciouness of the working class?

Absolutely not, but trying to sway people on the American right to the radical left is putting the cart before the horse when the vast majority of the American left are liberal at best.

America needs a solid far-left base and first recruit from the moderate and center-left. Without doing that first we will NEVER get as far as persuading paloconservatives.

Besides, what kind of Marxist would I be if I DIDN'T want to raise class conciousness in the working class?

[ChrisK]

Absolutely not, but trying to sway people on the American right to the radical left is putting the cart before the horse when the vast majority of the American left are liberal at best.

America needs a solid far-left base and first recruit from the moderate and center-left. Without doing that first we will NEVER get as far as persuading paloconservatives.

Besides, what kind of Marxist would I be if I DIDN'T want to raise class conciousness in the working class?

Sorry, I just realized how rude my question was.

I think our difference here, is a view on how the political spectrum is formed. You seem to view it as a single left-right line.

I view it as a compass, where I see paleocons as being much closer to where we are than conservative democrats or, possibly, center democrats.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Absolutely not, but trying to sway people on the American right to the radical left is putting the cart before the horse when the vast majority of the American left are liberal at best.

America needs a solid far-left base and first recruit from the moderate and center-left. Without doing that first we will NEVER get as far as persuading paloconservatives.

Besides, what kind of Marxist would I be if I DIDN'T want to raise class conciousness in the working class?

I agree that building the left should be the first thing. One of the reasons that paleoconservatism or Ron Paul or libertarianism appeal to some workers is because it offers an alternative to the mainstream politics in the US. A dynamic and strong left would help swing people becomeing dissilusioned in mainstream politics over to our side instead of over to conspiracy theories or wacky Libertarian schemes for fixing US society.

Most workers in the US are (at least) discontent with the status quo, but there's not much of an alternative on offer in mass consciousness right now. So people know the mainstream is offering them a glass of shit and calling it an espresso, so they turn to whatever alternatives there are even if it is simply a Libertarian offering them shit in a glass with some cream and sugar. We need to provide an alternative (real coffee) and build our case that coffee made from shit is always going to taste bad no matter how you brew it and we need a totally different material to make coffee from.

It will always be possible to win individual conservatives or libertarians or whatnot, but generally I think it is a more uphill battle for a smaller prize than going after workers who might identify themselves as liberal but also have questions about the Democrats and want the war to end and so on.


p.s. - I don't know what was up with the coffee metaphore - I think i'm getting tired.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

Does paleoconservatism refer to Ron Paul and his supporters? If so, I think they should change their ideology's name from "Paleoconservatism" to "misguided sexual frustration".

[ChrisK]

Does paleoconservatism refer to Ron Paul and his supporters? If so, I think they should change their ideology's name from "Paleoconservatism" to "misguided sexual frustration".

Not really Ron Paul in my context. Just his followers.

[Axle]

Sorry, I just realized how rude my question was.

I think our difference here, is a view on how the political spectrum is formed. You seem to view it as a single left-right line.

I view it as a compass, where I see paleocons as being much closer to where we are than conservative democrats or, possibly, center democrats.

I've always placed Paleocons near the Dems in social issues, but they tend to be very anti-communist.

[Axle]

I agree that building the left should be the first thing. One of the reasons that paleoconservatism or Ron Paul or libertarianism appeal to some workers is because it offers an alternative to the mainstream politics in the US. A dynamic and strong left would help swing people becomeing dissilusioned in mainstream politics over to our side instead of over to conspiracy theories or wacky Libertarian schemes for fixing US society.

Most workers in the US are (at least) discontent with the status quo, but there's not much of an alternative on offer in mass consciousness right now. So people know the mainstream is offering them a glass of shit and calling it an espresso, so they turn to whatever alternatives there are even if it is simply a Libertarian offering them shit in a glass with some cream and sugar. We need to provide an alternative (real coffee) and build our case that coffee made from shit is always going to taste bad no matter how you brew it and we need a totally different material to make coffee from.

It will always be possible to win individual conservatives or libertarians or whatnot, but generally I think it is a more uphill battle for a smaller prize than going after workers who might identify themselves as liberal but also have questions about the Democrats and want the war to end and so on.


p.s. - I don't know what was up with the coffee metaphore - I think i'm getting tired.

Agreed, but in order to offer real coffee, we need to convince people to drink it. Our biggest obstacle is changing the image of the radical left from "freedom-less totalitarian dictatorship" to something more representative of our views.

[ChrisK]

I've always placed Paleocons near the Dems in social issues, but they tend to be very anti-communist.

Because they view it as a totalitarian oppressive regime. If we come to them as believers in decentralized, local power through workers councils, they'll be more willing to listen.

[Axle]

Because they view it as a totalitarian oppressive regime. If we come to them as believers in decentralized, local power through workers councils, they'll be more willing to listen.

True...but it'll take some warming up to get paleocons to abandon their Laissez-faire tendencies, though.

[ChrisK]

True...but it'll take some warming up to get paleocons to abandon their Laissez-faire tendencies, though.

Of course, this would be a proccess that would take some time.

[jake williams]

Of course, this would be a proccess that would take some time.
More than that - it'll take an entire rethinking for the majority of the American Left (and possibly Western - I'm hesitant to comment on Europe, where a lot of the extreme right really are fascists, but at any rate I don't know a lot about it). If we want to be useful, at all, we need to recognize why (at least segments of) the working class has the right wing tendencies it does. And we need to deal with them in a serious, but sympathetic and non-patronizing way. Bullshit they won't listen. They won't listen because we don't talk to them, and when we do, we don't talk to them like serious people honestly trying to understand the world, we talk to them like looneys, or worse, enemies.

I think we need a tougher skin about it. I've had a few related conversations with friends lately [ed:ie. activist friends] - it's not just about paleocons, who in the most absolute sense are sort of a narrow tendency, but the broad spectrum of the right wing working class and the more left wing conspiracy types. Leftists for the most part don't like being around people with racist or homophobic views. In fact a lot of them don't like being around people without a university education. I think we need to suck it up. I'm well aware that's easier for me to say as a straight white male, ok, that may mean it's more our job, and I don't like it either. I have a lot of pretty reactionary family I don't like talking to. But when any member of the working class thinks Sarah Palin is a better representative of, or has more respect for them, than do people purporting to be for working class control of society - you're doing it wrong, and we're doing it wrong.

[ChrisK]

More than that - it'll take an entire rethinking for the majority of the American Left (and possibly Western - I'm hesitant to comment on Europe, where a lot of the extreme right really are fascists, but at any rate I don't know a lot about it). If we want to be useful, at all, we need to recognize why (at least segments of) the working class has the right wing tendencies it does. And we need to deal with them in a serious, but sympathetic and non-patronizing way. Bullshit they won't listen. They won't listen because we don't talk to them, and when we do, we don't talk to them like serious people honestly trying to understand the world, we talk to them like looneys, or worse, enemies.

I think we need a tougher skin about it. I've had a few related conversations with friends lately - it's not just about paleocons, who in the most absolute sense are sort of a narrow tendency, but the broad spectrum of the right wing working class and the more left wing conspiracy types. Leftists for the most part don't like being around people with racist or homophobic views. In fact a lot of them don't like being around people without a university education. I think we need to suck it up. I'm well aware that's easier for me to say as a straight white male, ok, that may mean it's more our job, and I don't like it either. I have a lot of pretty reactionary family I don't like talking to. But when any member of the working class thinks Sarah Palin is a better representative of, or has more respect for them, than do people purporting to be for working class control of society - you're doing it wrong, and we're doing it wrong.

I agree completely. I think a major problem has been an attitude of looking down on conservative workers, without ever questioning why they think the way they do. Instead we call them "rednecks" and "hillbillies". What we really need to be doing is talking with them and asking them why they think what they do.

Then, in a non-patronizing non-holier-than-thou manner, mentioning how we view the world. And saying that we believe that this will achieve complete freedom for individuals. No more insulting them or talking to them as if they're children. Just honest speaking to equals communication.

[The Douche]

I am of the opinion that many (most) paleo-conservatives and many US Libertarians are closer to the radical left than the liberals and many "progressives" in the US are.

I also think that many people on revleft have a horrible grasp of what is in the US constitution and what it would mean to have a return to constitutional principles in US government.

The left (and I mean the liberal left) in the US is plugging forward towards fascist/state controlled (supportted) capitalism, with a huge social program network. This is not what we (in the revolutionary left) need, the liberals seek to increase dependence by corporations and individuals on government. (bailouts to business and social programs to individuals) If we cannot break the masses from this dependence then there cannot be a revolutionary movement.

The libertarian right (paleocons included) support free association and many of them are quite fond of mutualism.

I would rather my taxes be lower, I would rather government be smaller, I would rather not give public money to failing corporations, I would like to see the size of the military reduced, I would like to see a return to state militias, I would like to see power spread more to the states/local governments where change can be far more easily had.

[Axle]

I am of the opinion that many (most) paleo-conservatives and many US Libertarians are closer to the radical left than the liberals and many "progressives" in the US are.

I also think that many people on revleft have a horrible grasp of what is in the US constitution and what it would mean to have a return to constitutional principles in US government.

The left (and I mean the liberal left) in the US is plugging forward towards fascist/state controlled (supportted) capitalism, with a huge social program network. This is not what we (in the revolutionary left) need, the liberals seek to increase dependence by corporations and individuals on government. (bailouts to business and social programs to individuals) If we cannot break the masses from this dependence then there cannot be a revolutionary movement.

The libertarian right (paleocons included) support free association and many of them are quite fond of mutualism.

I would rather my taxes be lower, I would rather government be smaller, I would rather not give public money to failing corporations, I would like to see the size of the military reduced, I would like to see a return to state militias, I would like to see power spread more to the states/local governments where change can be far more easily had.

America is stuck in between a rock and a hard place, and what you wrote is a great example of the failures of Capitalism to secure the lives of the working class.

Yes, the liberal idea to raise taxes and keep the population dependant on the government is ultimately a bad idea.

However, right Libertarian/paleocon politics, though some of them are the same as Socialist ones, are based in pure Capitalism and will do nothing but hurt the working class...just like they did in the late 1800s.

Socialism is the only real answer.



EDIT: It occurs to me that the pure Capitalism that Libertarians so desparately want was the catalyst in developing America's first radical labor unions and real class struggles. Maybe their ideas really aren't so bad...

[Die Rote Fahne]

Paleoconservative = a status quo constitutional conservative.

A douchebag with an odd prefix is still a douchebag.

[The Douche]

Paleoconservative = a status quo constitutional conservative.

A douchebag with an odd prefix is still a douchebag.

Actually the current "conservative" status quo would be the "neo-conservative". Who is finds himself oppose to the paleocons on almost all issues. And the neocons are far crom "constitutional".

In addition to which, there is nothing inherently wrong with the US constitution, and some of the things which people on this forum attribute to the constitution from US history are flat out wrong, but continue to be passed around. (like earlier in this thread, property ownership based voting, that is not in the constitution...)

[ChrisK]

Paleoconservative = a status quo constitutional conservative.

A douchebag with an odd prefix is still a douchebag.

How productive and informative of a comment.