Posted on 07/13/2002 1:32:00 PM PDT by Torie
It is, sorta like damnyankee.
Patriotism? I'm sorry but it's pretty evident that some folks on the right have given up on America. They, like the left-wing America-haters, aren't interested in conventional political change. All they are interested in is undermining our institutions, our president and "understanding" our enemies.
An admission in the open by a Bush Defender At Any Cost that they don't know these things will thwart your upward mobility in the organization. In the meantime, try clicking the links I've marked plainly, review the sites, and TRY to form your OWN opinion.
Buchanan's surefire flop. Home Bound
The New Republic | July 11, 2002 | Franklin Foer
^click here^
"Interesting article. Although I am dubious about anything from The National Review, this seems to be a fairly logical analysis.
4 posted on 7/13/02 3:40 PM Central by Miss Marple
Isn't The New Republic a liberal essay magazine? That was the reason I made that comment. If I am wrong, please explain their general stand on things. Thanks!
7 posted on 7/13/02 3:50 PM Central by Miss Marple
National Review Online --- Try clicking this one for a Different site
Torie: Pat excretable? - only to those who use the Constitution to remove the real thing.
It seems to me that you have then merely claimed "Conservatism" as a key to respectability, with no real commitment to the preservation of traditional America. If I do you an injustice, perhaps you will point out where. I believe that Conservatism is a rather "broad tent," and do not want to exclude anybody who is basically on our side, so if you have Conservative principles, I will be happy to work with you to effectuate those principles, even as I will disdain your non-Conservative stands on other issues. I am not trying to expel you from anything.
Your comments on the Republican Party also make me wonder, however, at your Conservatism. The Republican Party since its Conservative rally in 1994 has tended to drift back to the pre-Goldwater "Modern Republicanism," which basically went along with the New Deal concepts, with a "me-to" but a little slower approach. That was not really conservatism, and to the extent that it was more Conservative than Roosevelt or Kennedy and Johnson, it is certainly not "neo" or new in any sense.
Republican Conservatism was represented in the 1940s and early 1950s by Senators Taft and Bricker of Ohio; in the late 1950s and early 1960s by Senator Goldwater; in the 1970s and 1980s by Ronald Reagan. That was not "neo-Conservatism," either, but a revival of traditional American values--the real thing.
Pat Buchanan was part of that Conservative revival. If he has strayed a bit on some issues, he has still served those genuine Conservative values more consistently than have the heirs to those "Modern Republicans," who were really much closer to New Deal "liberals," than the Conservative wings of either party.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
I suspect you couldn't be trouble to give us about 4-5 examples of good, conservative change in the last 1 1/2 yrs., could you?
Ooops, I forgot, We're at War!
Rank #1 Neoconservative Click for more information #2 Centrist Click for more information #3 Conservative Click for more information #4 Third Way Click for more information #5 Liberal Click for more information #6 Libertarian Click for more information #7 Radical Click for more information #8 Left-libertarian Click for more information #9 Paleoconservative Click for more information #10 Paleo-libertarian Click for more information
Can't we all just get along?
Okay, hold on. While he is the heir to a shipping fortune, (Bill Buckley is also the heir to an oil fortune - what was the point the author was trying to make?) Taki is not an "aristocrat" by any means.
He is essentially (as I understand it) a free market libertarian that has written columns for most of the libertarian rags around. I dont agree with his politics for the same reason I dont agree with alot of the politics of other libertarians - which often come off as ethically bankrupt when dealing with complex issues relating to the larger society in general.
But a Statist or Monarchist he is not. That in itself in the first paragraph is a little misleading. Bankrupt libertine I could understand. But "aristocrat"? I went into this article for an appraisel - good or bad of Buchannons faults or strengths, but that comment made me a little suspicious about this authors motivations right off the bat.
Then, he argued the United States had no right to interfere in Balkan tribal feuds.
Uh huh. Along with half the Republicans in congress...
Buchannon is a controversial character to say the least. And he has ruffled more than his share of feathers and taken some pretty - how should I put it, badly advised stands. I dont have to agree with Buchannon, but by the same token this authors analysis, while lengthy, more or less starts out with the preconceived supposition of "I disagree with Buchannon, well...just because" and then proceeds to work backwords to find a case to build around.
No offense Torie, but this article, while lengthy, comes off as thinly veiled hit piece and not much more.
A neo-con, in a neo-con magazine takes an amazing leap of faith, and predicts that Pat Buchanan's magazine, which will compete with aforementioned neo-con magazine in the marketplace, is going to flop. Yep! There's a point.
Here's my view: The Weekly Standard is a joke.
By your theory of point-tabulation, Phillip Augustus 1, Weekly Standard 0.
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.