When Bush-Worlds Collide

Human Events ^ | February.28, 2006 | Pat Buchanan

[Reagan Man]

While the father remained ever skeptical of "the vision thing," the son has several visions to guide his presidency.

The first might be called Davos World.

It is a globalist and utopian vision. In it, mankind, following the Bush principles and policies of free trade and open borders, advances inexorably to the new world of interconnectedness and interdependence. It is a world where the old concerns about rust belts and trade deficits do not matter. For it makes no difference where goods are produced, as we are all integrating into a Global Economy.

The second vision is grimmer. It might be called Neocon World.

This is the world we entered on Sept. 11, a world of good versus evil, where "Islamofascism" threatens us all and "Axis of Evil" nations endlessly pursue weapons of mass destruction to give al-Qaida to attack us. It is a world where a "mushroom cloud" hangs over our cities and a "war president" needs the Patriot Act and the right to eavesdrop on overseas phone calls and e-mails to protect us from shoe bombers, subway bombers, mall bombers. It is a world of color-coded terror alerts and eternal vigilance, for we are in the "long war" that may last 70 years, the end of which must be "to end tyranny on the earth." For only then can America be secure.

What is wrong with these visions is that neither is rooted wholly in reality. Both are based in part on a preconceived ideology. Both are intellectual constructs. Moreover, they collide. And there is no place where they collide more directly than at America's borders.

In Davos World, it makes no difference if Dubai sheiks buy the British business that runs U.S. ports. But to Middle Americans, who believe all those warnings about mushroom clouds, the idea that U.S. ports would be run by Arabs seems to border on insanity.

"Let none but Americans stand guard tonight," said Washington at Valley Forge. Americans understand that. And when Bush implies it is sheer bigotry to prefer Brits to Arabs running U.S. ports, Americans marinated in Neocon World wonder if the man they entrusted with the nation's security has not lost his marbles.

The worlds collided when Bush stood beside Vicente Fox and denounced the Minutemen, folks who had gone to Arizona to help spot illegal aliens for the Border Patrol, as "vigilantes." They thought they were patriots helping Bush defend the nation.

Indeed, if we are in a "long war" against Islamofascism and homeland security is our highest priority, why are U.S. troops not defending a 2,000-mile border where a million aliens are caught every year and the number of those from nations other than Mexico has tripled to 150,000 in two years?

Because Bush shuttles back and forth between these two visions in conflict, his foreign policy takes on an aspect of incoherence.

Ideology is the antithesis of conservatism, Russell Kirk wrote. The tragedy of George W. Bush may be that he was converted by courtiers to the ideologies that are failing as visibly now as the discredited ideologies of yesterday: Wilsonianism and Marxism.

Bush's belief in free trade is not wholly misplaced. After all, the United States is the greatest free-trade zone in history. But world trade has always been an arena of power politics, with winners and losers, rising and receding powers. And it is painfully evident China is eating our lunch.

But to Bush, it does not matter. That one in six manufacturing jobs has vanished during his tenure, that real wages of working Americans are falling, that trade deficits are reaching $800 billion, that dependency on foreigners for vital necessities of our national life is growing -- none of this matters, as he mutters on his prayer rug the mantra he was taught: "Free trade good, protectionism bad."

Immigration has surely benefited America. But today's is of a different character and magnitude than the old immigration, and the Melting Pot is broken. Tens of millions of Hispanics are not assimilating. They are congregating, as Washington warned us they must not. But Bush will not call a time out, for ideology teaches that only racists, xenophobes and nativists oppose open borders.

Ideology rules out second thoughts and course corrections.

Invading Iraq, Bush was assured that peoples of a far different culture and creed with a brutal history of subjugation and submission would quickly adapt to democracy. Yet, it took the European Christians centuries.

History, that great antidote to ideology, could have taught Bush otherwise. But the neocons told him we have reached "The End of History," that free-market democracy is the future everywhere.

Now, as we see elections advance Islamists to power in the Middle East, Latin Americans revert to populism and socialism, Russia returning to autocracy, China behaving even as the Kaiser's Germany did, a century ago, we realize there is really nothing new under the sun.

"And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more."

[Reagan Man]

>>>> ... if we are in a "long war" against Islamofascism and homeland security is our highest priority, why are U.S. troops not defending a 2,000-mile border where a million aliens are caught every year and the number of those from nations other than Mexico has tripled to 150,000 in two years?

Simple Pat. Bush&Company support open borders. Period. Let the foreigners in illegally.

[MNJohnnie]

Simple Pat. Bush&Company support open borders. Period. Let the foreigners in illegally.

Of course the fact that the Border Patrol has gotten the most funding and the greatest amount of technological upgraded in its history from President Bush's Admin just doesn't matter because the Whine All The Time Choir is NOT intrested in reality merely finding the NEXT thing to have their daily hissy fit about. Funny how a "Reagan Man" willingly lies about Bush and then makes excuses for the 1986 Illegal Alien Amnesty HIS supposed "hero" Reagan signed.

[woofie]

I see this is by Pat Buchanan ..no need to read it

[Capt. Tom]

The worlds collided when Bush stood beside Vicente Fox and denounced the Minutemen, folks who had gone to Arizona to help spot illegal aliens for the Border Patrol, as "vigilantes." They thought they were patriots helping Bush defend the nation.

As a two time Bush voter I wouldn't want to defend that position on our open borders, or his Islam is a religion of peace opinion, or we all worship the same God opinion.

Otherwise."Your doing a great job Bushie." - tom

[ex-snook]

A major battle is underway for the heart and mind of Bush and America's future and the GOP is in the middle.

The backers of free trade and the backers of war on Islam are pitted against each other. Both operate with religious fervor that their cause is right and want to move America is that direction.

Deprived of air are those that echo the contents of Washington's Farewell Address as reported:

Two-thirds of the Address is devoted to domestic matters and the rise of political parties, and Washington set out his vision of what would make the United States a truly great nation. He called for men to put aside party and unite for the common good, an "American character" wholly free of foreign attachments. The United States must concentrate only on American interests, and while the country ought to be friendly and open its commerce to all nations, it should avoid becoming involved in foreign wars. Contrary to some opinion, Washington did not call for isolation, only the avoidance of entangling alliances. While he called for maintenance of the treaty with France signed during the American Revolution, the problems created by that treaty ought to be clear. The United States must "act for ourselves and not for others."

GOP Quo Vadis?

[Reagan Man]

MNJohnnie = king whiner and chief Bush sycophant on FR.

I haven't lied about Bush and his non-existent immigration policy. Since taking office in January 2001, funding for the Border Patrol has gone up. There are now 9900 BP agents, instead of 9400. Wow. Thera re well over one million illegals still crossing into America over wide open borders every year. Less then 50% are caught, while the rest remain in the US illegally. Reagan did sign the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. It did give amnesty to 2-3 milion illegal aliens. It was meant to be a one time deal. Period.

The IRCA of 1986 had strong enforcement aspects that said, employers who hire illegals are violating the law and will be prosecuted and fined/punished. The IRCA of 1986 has never been enforced. From Bush41, to Clinton, to Bush43, US immigration policy has been further liberalized. Now there are between 10-15 million illegals in the US today. PresBush wants to allow these illegals to apply for guest workers status. Another term for backdoor amnesty. 80% of Americans say NO to any form of amnesty.

[Richard Axtell]

In the "Buchanan World" it would not be necessary to invade Iraq, or even fight the WOT, all we need do is lock the doors, pull in the welcome mat, and prepare to conduct a new "cold war" with Saddam, Iran, Al Qaeda, etc. We would be just as secure as we were before all these terrible Neocons took over. Like... when Clinton was "focusing like a laser beam" on terrorism, and he and Richard Clarke effectively seized Ozama Bin Laden, and prevented the 9/11 attack on the WTC. Funny how different the "Buchanan World" is from the real one.

[Mulch]

Bush's thinking is definitely convoluted when it comes to America's security. His constant pushing for amnesty for illegals reminds me of a spoiled brat that keeps asking for a cookie even though he's been told "NO" again and again.

[pissant]

Oh crap. Not that globalist Bush again. The guy who unilaterally ditched the ABM treaty with Russia, the guy who won't sign onto the chemical weapons prohibition, the guy who appointed John Negroponte and John Bolton to the UN, the guy who refuses to cater to the caterwauling about global warming, the guy who will not allow us to be part of the International Criminal Court, the guy who against world opinion and the UN, conquered Iraq, the guy who still refuses to do business with Castro despite western Europe's abhorence, the guy who has been bitch slapping Canada on trade issues, the guy who is chipping away at the nazi like EPA, the guy who is going to restart nuclear power in this country, and the guy who knows its better to be feared than to be loved. That guy?

[Reagan Man]

On the issue of fighting the WOT, Buchanan is deadwrong.

On the illegal immigration issue, Pat is right on the money.

Just like Dubya Bush, Pat Buchanan has been wrong on some issues and right on others.

Dubya Bush is deadwrong on domestic spending, expansion of the federal bureaucracy and immigration. On those three issue, Buchanan has been right. Conservative right. Both Buchanan and Dubya are pro-life and Pat has prasied PresBush for his conservative appointments to the federal courts.

On the big issue, the WOT, Pat opposes Bush. Pat's isolationist and protectionist mentality hurts him with many conservatives. Including this conservative. Not to mention, Pat doesn't like Dubya Bush. He didn't care for Bush41 either.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>That guy?

The same guy who allows over one million illegals to invade the US every year. The same guy who wants backdoor amnesty under the guise of a guest worker program. The same guy who advances a continued bureaucrats gone wild policy which allows foreign governments and other foreign entities to manage the commercial operations of US ports of entry. Yep, that same guy.

We all know Pat's no globalist and I agree with every move you mention that Bush has taken. But on the huge problem of wide open borders and illegal immigration, Dubya is deadwrong and Pat's right.

[Candor7]

I think that the author is wrong about President Bush's INternational policy. It is coherent:

In Dubyah's Right Hand: A BIG STICK

In Dubyah's Left Hand: A BIG CARROT

The author is myopic and can only look at one of our President's hands at a time. His conclusions are false and not in keeping with US History and the supply of post WW II Europe,Japan, S. Korea, China and Vietnam with massive , sea shipped, produce and food. Thats what the P&O/Dubai deal is about.

We have given Islam the gun, and now we bring them into the 21st Century with butter and consumerism. Peace will be the result, just like in all the other historical cases.

Our economy and wealth will increase substantially. The Dims know this and this explains how the DIMS have suddenly gotten religion on National Security, whereas a month ago Murthra was screaming that we must pull out our troops.

The President is right on this policy amd Rush Limbaugh knows it too. Time to support our Pres and what he said in his State of the Union Address: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060131-10.html] Quote: "...........In this decisive year, you and I will make choices that determine both the future and the character of our country. We will choose to act confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom -- or retreat from our duties in the hope of an easier life. We will choose to build our prosperity by leading the world economy -- or shut ourselves off from trade and opportunity. In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting -- yet it ends in danger and decline. The only way to protect our people, the only way to secure the peace, the only way to control our destiny is by our leadership -- so the United States of America will continue to lead. (Applause.)......." UNQUOTE. Perhaps some might say that Dubyah's timing for this is premature, but I do not think so. He has two years to make it begin to work. I think it is a good call and in keeping with our history as a benefactor to much of the free world. Besides, many Americans will become quite wealthy in the process. We might consider thanking our President for his vision, IF this is indeed the direction we are proceeding in.He is a "World Playah". If this is what he is up to, I support him 100% as long as our Coast Guard and Customs officials are given the resources to handle the job. Thank you Mr. President!

[stop_fascism]

The backers of free trade and the backers of war on Islam are pitted against each other. Both operate with religious fervor that their cause is right and want to move America is that direction.

What evidence do you have of this? WOT is necessary for free trade. Neocons support both, while Buchanon and the islanofascists are against both.

[pissant]

I was commenting on Pat's take that Bush is a "Davos World" type of guy. He is so damn far from that it makes everything else Buchanan says supsect.

Open Borders - it's a pathetic situation. Pat is right on that. Let's close them up tight. Guest workers, if and only if the borders are completely under our control. But this is NOT all Bush's fault. It has been here for years, and it will take years to fix. Bush's speech to the Arizona Border Patrol was one of the best on the subject. It is way past time for action. So giddyyup already.

But Buchanan has so marginalized himself on nearly every other issue, and ran such ineffectual campaigns for the presidency, why he thinks Bush would give a rats ass what he thinks is beyond me.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

As usual Pat goes over the top. He always makes some valid points, but goes too far. I agree, Bush could do more on immigration. He has not completely ignored illegal immigration, but his proposals are not effective. Pat's two conflicting worlds does amount to a contradiction. Immigration is more a threat to our culture than anything else. A committed terrorist is going to get in the country if we put the entire National Guard on our borders. Most of them flew in with visas.

I fail to see how Bush has brought back Wilsonianism and Marxism. Bush policies encouraging democracy are not naive idealism, they make sense. During the Cold War we chose to support some unpalatable dictators because of the Soviet Threat. Jimmy Carter's naive idealism of "human rights " at all costs resulted in our dropping the Shah and allowing Iran to be take over by Islamic extremists that have poisoned wells all over the Middle East. Bush has avoided such naive choices, encouraging democracy in place of brutal and genocidal dictators not only gives us the high ground, but it allows the people to choose their future. It has hit a huge setback with Hamas winning the PLA elections. However, in order to look into the long run, such temporary setbacks may be necessary. In some ways the setback in Iran (unnecessary) may still result in a pro-American country since most of the people there are now fed up with Islamic Revolutions. Hopefully, the people will eventually have the government that they want. Wilson's idealism had good elements. Self-determination makes sense unless you enforce it down to the province level like in Kosovo. If Marxism has taken over dubya's policies, I wish Pat had elaborated.

Further National security policy is not inconsistent with free trade. As usual Pat's isolationism had to throw in the ever decline of manufacturing jobs in the USA, which has no connection to our war with Islamic radicals.

Bush has not been my perfect President, I wish he would do much more stemming the tide of illegal immigration, but give him credit for what he has done.

[ex-snook]

The fight over port security vs trade is the start of a split between those who think our future depends on fighting Islam and those who think our future depends on free trade.

[hosepipe]

[ The worlds collided when Bush stood beside Vicente Fox and denounced the Minutemen, folks who had gone to Arizona to help spot illegal aliens for the Border Patrol, as "vigilantes." They thought they were patriots helping Bush defend the nation. ]

Hold it.. am adjusting yup the picture is coming in..
I can see it.. Dubya slapping Vince on the back.. and shaking his hand..
Wonder if Dubya knows Vince is point man for the Mexican Drug Cartels which is the Mexican Government.. Hmmm..

NAH!.. he must be clueless.. Bush that is..

[jpl]

As a two time Bush voter I wouldn't want to defend that position on our open borders, or his Islam is a religion of peace opinion, or we all worship the same God opinion.

I think I'm pretty much in the same camp that you are. The administration seems to want to have it both ways, that we're at war, but not really at war, and inceasing numbers of average Bush supporters are out there scratching their heads and wondering just what the heck is going on.

[stop_fascism]

The fight over port security vs trade

You've changed the subject. Instead of backers of free trade vs. backers of WOT, you're talking about backers of trade vs. backers of a War on Islam.

So, you're against all trade? I guess we could close our ports to all imports and use them to ship goods from one area of America to another, then we wouldn't have to worry about someone smuggling a nuke into the country. I doubt that would be popular. Most Americans like driving their foreign cars propelled by mideastern oil.

Do you really want a war on Islam? Should we start fighting Turks and Albanians? Instead of trying to foster democracy in Afganistan and Iraq, should we just try to destroy them?

Or, like Buchanon are you in favor of neo-isolationism. Personally, I don't see that as a WOI or a WOT, it's more of a surrender to both.

At any rate, my original question about how bakcers of free trade are at loggerheads with backers of WOT is unanswered.