Nonsense, perhaps—but nonsense that taps into a deep seam of nativism and negativism. If the 2002 mid-term elections were the “neoconservative moment” in American politics, the 2006 mid-terms are in danger of becoming the “paleoconservative moment”.

This is bad news for the Republican Party. If a wall is erected against newcomers from south of the border, this will not only reverse the party’s gains among Hispanics—Mr Bush increased his Hispanic vote to around 40% in 2004—but will also drive a wedge between business Republicans, who support immigration, and social conservatives, who tend to oppose it. The danger of a Buchanan-style pitchfork rebellion from the party’s nativist wing in 2008 grows by the day. ~The Economist

Of course The Economist‘s editorial writer on American politics, the pseudonymous Lexington, will find fault with most of what Mr. Buchanan has to say, but more interesting is this recurring refrain of the “paleo moment.”  Somehow I always expected the “paleo moment” to involve quite a few more, well, paleoconservatives.  As I scan the political horizon, there is no one who is preparing to run for the GOP nomination in 2008, except probably Tom Tancredo, who even remotely begins to qualify as one, and the so-called “nativist wing” of the GOP also seems to be in most cases the strongest supporter of the administration on a lot of its other very non-paleocon policies.  It is almost comic to refer to the House members who have pushed for an enforcement bill against the Senate’s “comprehensive reform” surrender to amnesty as the “Buchananite wing of the Republican Party.”  If only the GOP caucus in the House were the “Buchananite wing”!  Wouldn’t that be something?  It is also about as likely as my election to the Throne of St. Peter.  This is not to disparage the House bill, which I think was generally a good bill and obviously much, much better than its Senate counterpart, but simply to say that securing the borders first has a much broader constituency than dedicated Buchananites and paleos (which is actually good news for paleos who are concerned about the parlous state of border security) and that it is a stunning exaggeration of paleo influence to claim that paleos somehow really dominate the House of Representatives on any issue.  I regard it as a real shame that they do not, but it is the unmistakable reality.  It is not surprising that foreign correspondents will make mistakes diagnosing some of the subtle differences in our politics, but this is not a small mistake–it is the equivalent of calling John Murtha a Kossack because he happens to also oppose the Iraq war.

It is true that immigration has become a dominant issue among conservatives and Republicans, and it should be the case that paleoconservative recommendations on immigration policy should be prevailing in these circles, but it seems to be the case that for all the predictions of “paleo moments” in American politics there seem to be very few paleos out there to make the moment happen.  However, it is worth bearing in mind what Mr. Buchanan said in response to the earlier claim about “the paleo moment” by Fred Barnes:

What Barnes calls paleo-conservatism is the conservatism of the common man, rooted in tradition and wisdom born of experience. It is not the Big Government, open-borders, free-trade, interventionist, globaloney of the neo-cons and their Rebel in Chief.  

So at the very least when observers begin worrying about “paleo moments,” we can take some consolation that what they are seeing is the expression of the common sense and patriotism of ordinary Americans.  It is perhaps another consolation that the only label they can think to attach to common sense and patriotism is paleoconservative.