Posted on 02/13/2005 2:58:54 PM PST by sharpink
It's too lengthy to post here but I refer you to this
month's issue of Commentary in which Norman Podhoretz
mentions,in the course of this lengthy article (The War
against World War IV),precisely how Buchanan's own
inconsistency reveals his anti-Semitism. It's been long
known that Buchanan's marginalized and very narrow brand
of "paleoconservatism" compliments his isolationalism.
It's very interesting how Podhoretz draws the link between Buchanan's position and that of the extreme Left.
Even *if* that's true, how does it explain his antisemitism which goes back at least a decade more than that? Do you remember his comments on the eve of the first Gulf War -- especially about Israel's "amen corner" in Congress, as well as some other equally offensive claptrap?
Frankly, I can't explain it, but I'm probably the least likely person on FR to defend or figure out Pat Buchanan. He probably is anti-semitic. The fact he sides with the butchers in the Middle East, and distains the only democracy there (as well as our efforts to plant democracy in Iraq) inclines me to give Buchanan little slack.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.
No
It's very interesting how Podhoretz draws the link between Buchanan's position and that of the extreme Left.
It's something I've noticed over the years.
Democracy works in Switzerland, for the same reason that it works in a small New Hampshire town. It does not work in many Third World countries, where the same combination of factors are not present. In fact, it can result in some incredibly cruel results. (See Democracy In The Third World.)
I agree that the road to democracy is not a straight line. Nevertheless, here is the fact that a hundred of years ago there was a handful of democracies, and now there are many many more.
There was a strong, reality based argument for accommodating communism, because its here to stay and the West must coexist with it and at best deter it from advancing, but very very carefully, so not to disturb the beast. I know you are not making this argument, its just the best example of a similar argument that history proved was wrong. I don't expect the third world to turn into a new New Hampshire, but Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, all Muslim countries, have some strong democratic strains in them, and while being far from perfect, are still much better for their citizens and the world than many other alternatives.
All "Democracy" really means is rule by numbers; and unless and until those who advocate it in any particular land--and it is perfectly outrageous for outsiders to advocate it for another land--analyze who will have the numbers, and their characteristics, and who all will be ruled by those numbers, it is an absolutely absurd notion that it is a good idea. People are not interchangeable, and Democracy can as easily lead--as in Ruanda--to a massacre--as to some other dispensation. There is no magic in changing the decision makers in a society.
Put another way. If you were running a business, you would be damn sure that you did not hire a group of managers, without determining their level of intelligence, basic values, and personal character. Only some one with their head in the sand, would turn over their government to someone without those same determinations.
We address some of this in the essay on Democracy In The Third World.
William Flax
What a load of B.S. Just because you don't salivate over Israel, it doesn't make you anti-Semitic. I simply don't think that we should waste our money. The equivalent on the pro-interventionist side would be to say that the interventionists hate American soldiers and want to see them die; it's simply bad logic.
And after the contempt heaped upon Mel Gibson for his supposedly "anti-Semitic" film, I take charges of anti-Semitism with a huge grain of salt.
Thank God there's one sane person on this forum who doesn't buy into the leftists' version of Pat Buchanan's beliefs. I can see the glorious future of conservatism now; in thirty years "conservatives" will praise Michael Moore's courageous assessment of the establishment republicans.
"But what struck me was how much more relevant this debate was than if a democrat was debating a republican."
I notice that too. Debates between different types of right wingers are great. With a debate between a leftie and a conservative the leftist basically gets annihlated on the first reply, then sinks to name calling and interrupting the other side... and of course trying to change the subject.
I agree with you btw the egalitarian utopia that democracy solves all problems is very questionable. I might say a democracy with a strong constitution and institutuions can do well, but that is more of a republic.
Want to know something scary.. since 1950 every nation that went from third world to first, was a right wing dictatorship.
As for Pat Buchanan, while he has some "Liberal" views; he continues to fight for traditional American values--as well as common sense. He remains a considerable asset to the cause of preserving the America we love.
Democracy equates with a free society, only where you have a dominant affluent class and a fair measure of homogeneity. Without those, it rapidly degenerates into victimization of selective minorities; a vehicle for the worst forms of demogoguery. (See Democracy In The Third World.)
William Flax
No kidding. I love it when they call him a leftist; if he's a leftist, then so were the founding fathers.
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.