Buchanan's surefire flop. Home Bound

The New Republic ^ | July 11, 2002 | Franklin Foer

[Torie]

Neocons 1, Buchanan/Raimondo 0.

[Torie]

FYI

[Torie]

FYI

[Miss Marple]

Interesting article. Although I am dubious about anything from The National Review, this seems to be a fairly logical analysis.

[Deb]

I wonder if Pat still has Lenora Fulani on his speed dial.

[Torie]

I think you are mixing up your mags. Be that as it may, The New Republic has more interesting stuff than any other publication on the net bar none, at least for those looking for some analytical depth. This piece is more polemical, but well written and oh, so juicy. It just keeps punching away.

[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!

[denydenydeny]

Thanks for the great post.

The paleo right is less distinguishable from the America-hating left every day. I'm bookmarking this one.

[Torie]

The mag is neo liberal mostly, but it has writers from liberal to Neocon. Andrew Sullivan was the editor not too long ago. The thing that makes it so good however is that the points of view are well documented, and have depth, at least about half of the time. Greg Easterbrook is my favorite writer when it comes to substance on issues involving science, or sometimes social science, bar none. When it you get tired of reading Kristol and Goldberg and Derbyshire, check it out. My time spend with it tends to make me a more effective advocate for whatever I advocate.

[denydenydeny]

But you called it National Review instead of The New Republic.

[Torie]

Actually this self same issue has some standard liberal fare, including an outrageous hit piece on Bush on corporate corruption, which throughly distorts the record on Harken. (Thanks to Deport and others I actually have a good handle on Harken now as to the actual facts, none of which were fairly presented in the hit piece.)

The mag has also hit Bush hard on the budget, and the games he has played to buttress his tax cut, which in fact are factual in my opinion. I am just enough of right winger however to give Bush a pass on that one, because short term dishonesty equals longer term good. Call me a relativist.

[Dales]

Yes, it is. But if you look at your original comment on this thread, you said "The National Review".

[Dales]

He'd be better off trying something different: closer to, say, "Workers of the world, unite!"

I wonder which it was, that Pat swung to the left and attracted these advisors, or if these advisors wooed Pat to the left. I tend to think it was the former. I knew it was coming when he wrote that Reaganomics and Thatcherism were part of the problem, not the solution.

[Ohioan]

I am not sure why you have posted this. It does not advocate a clear perspective, it simply makes carping sorts of arguments against other conservatives.

There are several major issues, on which I strongly disagree with Pat Buchanan. But he is a legitimate Conservative, and one can argue with him on those issues, and still respect him and--more than just respect him--still welcome working with him on other issues. This need to demand perfect agreement among your allies is one of the reasons, we on the right are always trying to recapture something lost, rather than to continue to defend a proud heritage won for all of us long ago.

What seems to be the main point is that some on the Right are willing to make common cause with some on the Left to fight threats to American Sovereignty. The writer acts as though that is something new. That is hardly the case. The coalition that rallied America against the League of Nations in 1919 was just such a coalition. The bottom line is this: In the effort to preserve the untrammeled sovereignty of the United States, the important thing is winning the battle, not the ideological purity of our allies. Indeed, there was no ideological purity at the beginning in 1776--anything but!!

America is more important than our differences on other issues. And there is nothing in a common cause to preserve America, which in anyway limits our abilities to vociferously debate every other issue under the sun, both with our common enemy as well as with the dissenters in our own ranks.

For a better understanding of the Washington/Jefferson foreign policy, to which Pat Buchanan is basically committed--albeit with some positions that I cannot agree with--see An American Foreign Policy. The beauty of the Washington/Jefferson understanding was that it was based upon a study of thousands of years of human interaction. It worked well from 1793 until 1918, because it was designed for the ages. It would work just as well from 2002 to 2127, if we would simply apply it.

It is neither an isolationist nor a pacifist policy--quite the contrary! It is based upon mutual respect, so long as it is mutual, but a determination as Jefferson put it to "punish the first insult," for all of the reasons that almost all Conservatives today support the War On Terror. I commend it to the thoughtful among us.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[Torie]

I am sorry, but like most neocons I don't agree with Buchanan on anything. I consider him an invariable political opponent, to be resisted at every turn. As the article says, the neocon point of view is currently dominant in the Republican party, at least at the level of those that wield real power. Thus Pat was right to exit from the party, and should remain exited. To consider paleos and neos are folks that can possibly be in the same party, and break bread together, is ludicrous.

[rightofrush]

The paleo right is less distinguishable from the America-hating left every day.

What are you smoking or injecting? Is patriotism and love of the Constitution alien concepts?

We have missles, an airforce, and a navy the preclude the necessity of ever sending our troops abroad. Punishment, not conquest, should be the reponse to any threat abroad.

When Baghdad, Riyahd, and Damacus are memories, their examples will insure our security.

Any other internationalist involvement insures the loss of our troops and the financial gain of the Internationalists.
Our troops should be put on our borders, whose defence is their Constitutional perogative.

[bok]

Buchanan is right on this immigration issue, see South Africa as an example. Politicians are removing the national identity of this nation by pandering and encouraging immigrants to keep their native tongue and ways. When you have nothing to be united for or against this country will become like waring tribal factions.

I thought Neocon was meant as negative term?

[rightofrush]

I am sorry, but like most neocons I don't agree with Buchanan on anything. I consider him an invariable political opponent, to be resisted at every turn.

Your honesty is appreciated, and reinforces this paleo-con's view that neo-cons and the international globalists (redundancy?) are our enemies within.