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.
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
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.
The Buchananites may not want to admit it, but in the post-9/11 era, as during the cold war, the prominent critiques of American internationalism will come from the left.
Thanks for the big laugh for today. Putting aside the identity-driven argument that infers people can't have different views that don't fit this writer's mental pigeon-holing of "left" and "right", his agenda to appropriate "dissent" as for the "left" is hilarious. It is the "left" that is the co-conspirator of the pernicious effects of Globalism - or in other words, stripming the American middle and lower classes. Those so-called "anti-globalization" protestors aren't - they just want a globalization that gives them control over lives. Look at those "NGOs" protesting for "debt relief". Bank funded, set up through the NGO divisions of public relations firms, using guilt and lefty politics to forward a bank agenda - insuring repayment on suspect loans. Other solution, let them negoitate with tthe borrowers. Not as profitable.
The lefties are still in a twitter that UNOCAL hasn't colonized Afghanistan yet.
Raimondo and Buke are an item? Who does what? To whom?
Nothing insinuated. Just practicing my familiarity with English pronouns.
I suppose Foer does have a point about Taki. I agree with the poor little rich Greek about just about everything, but I'd do just about anything to avoid spending any time with him. That the British aristocracy doesn't simply confirms what people have always believed about them.
But I'd turn around Foer's argument. What ideology isn't exhausted now? What political magazine isn't boring and hackneyed? National Review and the Weekly Standard may be increasing circulation by stoking the war flames, but their philosophy and principles are getting ever more threadbare as they embrace empire. Dittos for the Weekly Standard. Of course antiwar.com and lewrockwell.com are jokes, but who really pays much attention to the political articles in the New Republic? The point seems to be more to generate a buzz and influence a small circle in Washington or New York than to cast any real light on what's going on in the country or the world. The Nation? The American Prospect? No signs of life there. So long as they go on about the "stolen election" their appeal is bound to be radically limited (assuming that is, that Bush copes well with the war and the economy).
So yes, Buchanan will have trouble with his new magazine, but that's not because of anything unique to his ideology. It reflects a more general ideological confusion or malaise in the country today. The New Republic has new Wall Street backers to cushion his berth against the bumps, but that's no reason to be smug about things.
Leni
They never had the image - face to be President , never had and never will have the looks and persona , and that they would do more good by humbling themselves by creating people's PAC's helping to raise money and do ads to get real Conservatives in who will do the right things for this country , preserving our quality of life , honor , and freedom from the commie Democrat party ? The creative , humorous, and patriotic ad ideas to be had for these kinds of ads are endless.
Did you know that a non-connected political action committee ( un-connected to the two parties ) through being registered wwith the FEC( for Federal PAC s - Feederal candidates supporting /oppossing )( through their state for State PAC - State candidates ssupporting /opposing ) can do it's own radio , mass mailer ,T.V. , billboard and cable and e-mail ads on behalf or against any candidate they wish ? Did you know they can say anything they want not being beholden to any party for saying the ' WRONG ' thing ?
Did you know they can do this when not in an election year ?
They can also raise $ and contribute $ to candidates . So why don't they do it ? 7/13/02
Sincerely , voa-davidk
*** Voice Of Americans *** Committees Of Correspondence , P.O. Box 5053 , Anaheim CA 92814
Whenever Pat pops up, you must be ready to shout him down.
He may affect the agenda of globalists, socialists, communists, and all fellow travelers.
Puh-leez.
This piece says more about Foer than Buchanan. He's the master (mistress?) of the bitchy attack piece. A neocon Kitty Kelley. Meantime, Pat Buchanan has an unbroken record of fighting ceaselessly for conservative causes since the 1960s. All this forgettable little spray does is remind us how easily American conservatives turn on each other- if we needed reminding.