Buchanan sees 'war' within conservatism

The Washington Times ^ | May 17, 2005 | Ralph Z. Hallow

[sawdust]

Pat Buchanan speaks of American conservatism in the past tense. "The conservative movement has passed into history," says the one-time White House aide, three-time presidential candidate, commentator and magazine publisher. "It doesn't exist anymore as a unifying force," he says in an interview with The Washington Times. "There are still a lot of people who are conservative, but the movement is now broken up, crumbled, dismantled." Mr. Buchanan, a former adviser to Presidents Nixon, Ford and Reagan, says conservatism "is at war with itself over foreign policy, over deficit hawks versus supply-siders." Unnamed phonies, he suggests, have infiltrated the movement. There are "a lot of people who call themselves conservative but who, on many issues, I just don't consider as conservative. They are big-government people."

[iconoclast]

rebuttal

???????

[iconoclast]

rebuttal

???????

[AnOldCowhand]

The same with 'Ah-nold'. His only conservative stance is on fiscal matters.

Does anyone really think that we could have elected a more conservative Republican in California? We haven't had a true conservative governor since Reagan. And, given the people here, we're not going to any time soon. Personally, I'll take Ah-nold, for what he is worth, over Grey-out Davis, Cruz Bustamante or any of the others. He's got the California Teacher's Association whining and that alone is good enough for me for a start.

If we are going to pick up our toys and go home every time we can't have it all and have it now, then the Republican party will become as irrelevant as Pat already is.

[iconoclast]

while i don't agree true conservativism is dead within the Republican party

Hell no!

We're not dead ... we're just up in the attic with the crazy aunt! ;o)

[x]

How would he explain FR? Fox News? Talk radio? The movement is mainstream.

It looks as though the idea of cutting budgets and rolling back the power of the federal government has been lost, at least for now. I don't know how practical or achievable that idea was, but its loss makes American conservatism different from what it was in the Reagan years.

Much of the older clarity and unity of purpose are gone. It's not always easy to make out how much of current policy is based on philosophy, on politics, or on lobbying and campaign contributions.

There is more unity than Buchanan claims, but it's unified support for a war-time President, and not so much for an ideology -- or at least for the old Goldwater ideology. Pat exaggerates a lot, but it does look a little like things have come around full circle to the Nixon days, when support for the administration's foreign policy trumped other considerations.

The "culture war" has come to be more of a regional conflict than it once did, and politics more a matter of Red vs. Blue than of philosophies or ideologies. That leaves conservatives living in liberal territory isolated or alienated, and that may be part of Pat's problem.

[antisocial]

"Thats like saying you can't be Catholic and use birth control. Lets face it, all of us have our gray areas. It's not a bad thing necessarily. It reinforces our individuality and shows that we are not just a bunch of sheep following the herd."
If you accept the catholic belief you shouldn't use birth control. If you want to call yourself a catholic, but use birth control, you're only fooling yourself. Choose another religion that comports with your beliefs don't expect your religion to change it's doctrines to suit your needs.
The same goes for conservatives, if you don't agree with the things conservatives stand for, find yourself another party more to your liking. Don't try to change the way conservatives believe.

[eskimo]

Pat, shut up! Don't you ever have anything positive to say?

Perhaps only in the land of the "happy conservative" is all historical fact "positive".

[jveritas]

Doom and gloom because the bitter losers can never and will never have any power, they are nobody.

[sauropod]

He's right. Why should he shut up?

[jmc813]

And since when are Libertarians "conservative?" Libertarianism is libertarianism. Saying that conservatism is in those two mutually exclusive parties stretches the definition of conservatism so far that it snaps.

Large-L Libertarians (members of the LP) do NOT represent mainstream libertarian thought. However, folks who consider themselves small-l libertarians or, more recently, South Park conservatives are, in my opinion, far more conservative than your typical mainstream Republican.

[sdpatriot]

maybe we who still hold out hope to a return of a Constitutional Republic aren't bitter... just waiting for the rest of you to wake up.. or read some real American history for a change.... amazing what that will do to for a mind. no one in modern politcs (in a high office) has come even close to getting it right like the founders did... no guts no glory.

real men and patriots are passe in Politics. but they are unaware that they are creating a new breed of true Patriots, and when they all get back from Iraq and Aghanistan.... and start getting involved in politics, things will swing right again, and back towards or foundation - the Constitution.

[eskimo]

That's the part that people like Pat and Alan Keyes just don't seem to like or understand; it's not what they SAY, it's THEM.

That sounds just like what I heard from some anti-conservative GOP party shill the other day.

[reelfoot]

"The Republican Party is in power because they were able to get ride of someone like Buchanan who only appeals to less than 1% of the voters."

I don't think the Republican Party is in power because it got rid of Buchanan. He left of his own accord on a quixotic quest for the presidency. No doubt, most in the Republican Party are free traders. They certainly would have a problem with Buchanan on that issue. But on issues such as enforcing immigration laws, keeping down out-of-control federal spending, affirmative action, etc., I think there are a whole lot of conservatives closer to Buchanan's postions (if not Buchanan himself) than to Bush.

[Zathras]

I stopped listening to Pat when it became clear he was anti-Israel.
He isn't anti-semitic but just needs to go there for a few months to be educated about the Israelis.

[eskimo]

Without even reading what Buchanan says in this article, I can safely predict he is an arrogant, pompous who thinks HE is the true face of conservatism and that everyone else is a boob.

I know a lot of mindless GOP party groupies who just hate traditional conservative ideals and cover their ears when they hear such. Perhaps they are "boobs".

[Realism]

Don't try to change the way Conservatives believe.

I wouldn't think of it. But I'm not going to create another splinter group just because I may not completely agree with a particular opinion over certain policy.

[Ohioan]

Pat, shut up! Don't you ever have anything positive to say?

I haven't read the whole article. But the part quoted at the head of this thread, is a simple statement of reality. What is more positive than reality?

Pretending that all people who consider themselves Conservative, today, can even agree on what issues are important, much less what tack to take on them, is pure fantasy. What purpose is served by pretending otherwise? Certainly not that of regaining the strength and initiative we had in 1980. The fact that we have lost all cohesion and momentum, does not mean that we may not someday regain it. But it is going to take a lot of hard work, by dedicated people.

From 1964 until 1980, it took a lot of hard work, by dedicated people, to turn our defeat by Lyndon Johnson into the victory under Reagan. It was not accomplished by pretending that all was well during the interval.

[Wuli]

Pat is wrong, because he seems to expect "Republican" and "Conservative" to be synonymous, which they are not, and his complaints are really about "Republican" actions which many conservative Republicans agree are not very "conservative". This is evident with his claim that "conservatism is at war with itself over foreign policy, over deficit hawks versus supply-siders."

While some minor, not oft-respected conservatives, like Buchanan, have had differences with the Bush administration over foreign policy, the vast majority of mainstream intra-party differences, on the right, have been between the minority of liberal and moderate Republicans versus conservative Republicans; both of whom usually ignore Pat.

Pat ignores some of the historical "conservative" experience he was part of - the Reagan era; where there was no inner conservative conflict between deficit hawks and supply-siders. The deficits were then, as now, seen as temporary and will be offset by continually growing revenue from lower taxes.

His confusion between 'conservative' and Republican is also brought out by his acceptance of the writers view that 'conservative ascendancy in the Republican party' assumes a "conservative" holds every important office that Republicans hold, such as the presidency, when in fact Nixon was not always so "conservative" and neither was G.H.W. Bush. The differences were not within "conservatives" but within the Republican party.

And on and on, Pat's lament is not really about any war within "conservatism". He seems to think that "conservatism" as a movement, should no longer have to vie for a voice with the Republican party; that if conservatives were really winning there would be no moderate or liberal Republicans.

I for one am glad that conservatives and Republicans are not synonymous; that conservatives are not so self-satisfied with the Republican party that it does not matter if one is a Tom Delay and one is a Voinovich. When that happens, then one could say the energy, the uniqueness, the life has gone out of the conservative movement. That has not happened. The conservative movement is not the Republican Party and conservatives continue to fight for conservative positions within that party - they just don't always win every vote.

[rdb3]

However, folks who consider themselves small-l libertarians or, more recently, South Park conservatives are, in my opinion, far more conservative than your typical mainstream Republican.

I can be described with the South Park image, since I believe in liberty and eschew conformity. Conformity is what I find on the hard-right, which makes it terribly unappealing to me. In keeping with one of the creators of the South Park cartoon, I agree (though I won't use that language) that "I hate conservatives, but I really f------ hate liberals."

I didn't escape one form of mental bondage only to reshackle myself to another. Therefore, the arguments about who is more conservative than who bore me. Just one big yawn.

[k2blader]

However, folks who consider themselves small-l libertarians or, more recently, South Park conservatives are, in my opinion, far more conservative than your typical mainstream Republican.

Fiscally, perhaps, but not socially. I think when it comes down to it, the social issues are what best define conservatism at the foundational level.