I think OneSTDV’s latest post Ron Paul perfectly highlights a larger divide.
Here’s are some snippets of One’s argument:
I criticize Paul for not celebrating white Christian America . . .
I don’t celebrate white Christian America either. If you’d like the long explanation of why I don’t, read this post and this post. In short, the parts of American society that I don’t like (see e.g. multiculturalism) are the inventions of . . . white Christian Americans. Indeed, one could make the case that nothing may be a better representation of "white Christian America" than progressivism. (There may have been a separate Southern tradition of white Christian America with which many alt-righters (myself included) sympathize, but I’m pretty sure this dispute was settled rather definitively a while back).
More highlights of One’s argument:
The alt-right Paul-bots ignore the fact that Paul has said essentially nothing positive about white America, thinks vague liberty is more important than traditionalist culture, opposes federal efforts for finding illegals, opposes a border fence, and has a pretty bad record on immigration, including an F from NumbersUSA.
This argument, of course, disqualifies all politicians (as holding these beliefs would put a politician out of work). Anyway, what truly separates the reactionary from the conservative is that the reactionary has an understanding of America (including white America) that is not based on propaganda. One lists the following things as being potentially American:
"Economic and personal freedom" and "states rights" – that’s America, huh? No "apple pie, baseball, and Chevrolet"? No southern hospitality and northern Yankees? No pre-colonial Ivy League colleges? No Bible belt football? No Paul Revere’s midnight ride, Pilgrims landing at Plymouth rock, Washington’s cherry tree or crossing the Delaware, or Franklin’s kite? No Boston Tea Party, California Gold Rush, or Pony Express? No Whitman, Twain, Hemingway, or Fitzgerald? No Leave it to Beaver, the quiet suburbs, the close small towns of the Midwest?
These things are part of the conservative idea of America, but puritanism, incredible violence toward non-Progressive causes, communism, progressivism, radical leftism in general, the bureaucratic state, and wildly interventionist foreign policy also have deep roots in American history.
Indeed, virtually all the ideas that alt-rightists oppose are ideas that are well-founded in the beginning of American history. All these ideas can also be traced back to white Christian Americans.
The immigration policy issues are a side-show. In order to fundamentally change US immigration policy, you’d have to fundamentally change the way the American government works. There is no chance that any candidate for President will do this. Therefore, regardless of who is elected in this or any subsequent election, there will be no wall built along the border with Mexico, the government will continue to actively subsidize illegal immigration and NumbersUSA will continue to publish meaningless grades. If you want to change the immigration policy of USG, you’ve got to essentially destroy the modern incarnation of USG.
Paul at least wants to destroy the modern incarnation of USG. Unfortunately, it won’t happen.
One sort of seems to recognize some of the points I’ve made when he says:
I agree with Sailer here that whites will not just stand up and shake off 50 years of cultural programming from media, academia, and the elites.
But I don’t think he sees of the full extent of what he’s up against here. It’s not 50 years of programming that must be undone. One wants a puritanical country to become anti-puritanical. He wants a progressive country to become anti-progressive. And, perhaps most weirdly, he wants all this to happen while simultaneously celebrating puritanism and progressivism.