The vituperation on the Pat Buchanan threads interferes with real, good, conservative analysis of his ideas. And that is a very great shame-even if the ideas are lousy.
Posted on 12/02/2007 7:46:40 AM PST by 3AngelaD
We obviously aren’t communicating.
We clearly do not agree, anyway. :)
The vituperation on the Pat Buchanan threads interferes with real, good, conservative analysis of his ideas. And that is a very great shame-even if the ideas are lousy.
See if this link helps. It maps the GDP of foreign countries versus US states. You have a problem of scale and need to step back and look at the big picture IMHO. For example, the economy of France (with 60M people, is about equal to that of California, with 38M people, etc.).
They way I read Buchanan is that we should never have removed Saddam, and that is the liberals calling as well. If we were to have never removed Saddam then on what grounds should we ever stand up to Chavez? Saddam was on the move for global gravitas, (nuclear weapons) and liberals quite willingly gave to N.Korea under some dumb agreement they could never verify. Saddam signed an agreement at the end of the Gulf War and the UN kept passing resolution after resolution publicly, and yet on the back side of their words they were the orchestrator of that scam upon the people of Iraq called "Oil for (rotten) Food".
Pat ignores that we were attacked and will not even acknowledge how far and wide the attempt to destroy US went.
Thank you for your reasoned response.
I respect your opinions, and appreciate your tone.
However I think you (and most “free trade” conservatives today), are deliberately ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room.
He’s really talking about a bigger issue than just Saddam.
From Pat’s words:
“President Bush had been warned. He was to exploit the attack of 9/11 to launch a series of wars on Arab regimes, none of which had attacked us. All, however, were enemies of Israel. “Bibi” Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister of Israel, like some latter-day Citizen Genet, was ubiquitous on American television, calling for us to crush the “Empire of Terror.” The “Empire,” it turns out, consisted of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, and “the Palestinian enclave.”
Nasty as some of these regimes and groups might be, what had they done to the United States?”
In large measure, he is calling for no more than that the government take care of business, in areas long neglected.
The border is an excellent example, a travesty that should have been attended to years ago.
Troop levels in Europe and Korea are pointless anachronisms, which to be fair have been reduced lately, but could be reduced much more. While maintaining forward facilities like airbases and intel sites is prudent, it also is prudent to adapt to a changed reality on the gound, which he describes accurately.
The trade argument is vexing but it is clear that the status quo is heading us in the wrong direction. There is no virtue in denying this, and nothing wrong with his pointing it out. I don't have the solution for trade but it's worth a serious re-appraisal given the shifts in the world economy over the last twenty or thirty years. Clearly, the current administration does not have the competence or vision to do this, else they already would have.
So, let people call Buchanan names if they want to, cavil about whether he's a conservative or not, but let some due diligence at the higher levels begin.
If we want to stay far ahead of China and Russia, and I agree with you that we do, then I can suggest a couple of strategies which should help, and not cut off our noses to spite our faces (which is what I think increased tariffs will do).
First, recognize that our current regulatory environment penalizes manufacturing and roll back/repeal many poorly considered regulations.
Second, at the state level, pass loser pays tort reform - trial lawyers will make this hard to do, but its the right thing and the right level to do it at (not federal).
Third, (and this is radical) defund public education and return it to the private sector. We create too few engineers, and too many women’s studies majors. None of those are a home run.
Collectively they will improve our already considerable productivity advantage over the Ruskies and the Chicoms. And one more thing, build nuclear power plants. That may need some government help.
I think those alternatives help more than high tariffs.
YMMV
We’re obviously on the same side, so let’s fight out the policy details and figure how best to proceed. ;>)
Well, if you know what famous economic example I am referring to, then you will have read the book which describes the basic economic ideas around which the US was built. Hint - it was first published in 1776. If you don’t know the example of the pin factory, then you are pretty much economically illiterate as far as modern economics goes and it will be very hard to have an informed and reasonable discussion of the issues.
“Buchanan does not receive a fair hearing of his ideas when thread after thread contorts itself with allegations of racism, anti-Semitism, self-promotion, knownothingism”
Buchanan relies on polemics and belligerence to get his point across. I don’t believe he is an anti-Semite. But when he uses phrases like “Israeli amen chorus” on camera while sitting two feet from Eleanor Clift, he knows he is opening the floor for debate. There are a thousand ways to frame an argument but you can’t honestly engage in polemics and then complain about polarization.
“...and Koreans worry about and pay for their own defense. “
Little known fact. One reason our forces are there is to prevent a war.
And?
Not prejudicial.
You nailed it!. Our foes are elites on both sides of the aisle and in corporations.
Oh, dear. Nothing like being condescended to on a Sunday afternoon by a genius. Am I supposed to believe that the South Koreans do not have the means to defend their own country? Have so many of them left Korea and moved here that there are none left to defend the home country? And if that is the case, why should the American people continue to pay to maintain a huge army there? Did you know that South Korea is increasingly developing its own defense industry base so as to not have to buy American products, and to compete with us in the world market? Why should the American taxpayers be subsidizing THAT? They could AT LEAST pay our expenses themselves. But no. It is no longer 1955, or 1965, or even 2005. South Korea is no longer a struggling economy. And if, God forbid, the mighty, prosperous, North Koreans should decide to invade the South, we could still go back and help them. You really need to look into this closer and perhaps revise your dusty old 20th century assumptions.
“He’s right about this, too. Children in California no longer have mothers and fathers.”
It’s not just in California that kids don’t have mothers and father - it’s part of our nationwide cultural breakdwon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.