Posted on 05/17/2005 6:15:46 AM PDT by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
I love the way you people insinuate anybody who doesn't agree with you doesn't have any principles.
We have principles; what we don't have is tunnel vision.
That's garbage! There are more CFR indoctrinated Marxist type socialist adminitrator wannabees in the the present GOP administration than Buchannan will ever meet in his lifetime.
I doubt it very much, we have 10% of FReepers who intended to vote against President Bush, as our pre election polls had shown. That is you guys, 10% of the freepers, 1% of the total population.
The convention reflected at least two things; (1) The desire of the GOP to compete with the Dems for celebrity/star power, and (2) The desperate desire of the GOP to have the mainstream media say nice things about them.
On the one hand I understand it, as the mainstream media probably still has pull with a lot of those puzzling 'undecided moderates' we hear so much about every election. But on the other, its is regrettable because by shying away from showcasing more genuine conservatives it lends credence to the Left/Dem/media campaign to paint them as nuts, when in fact they hold views shared by most Americans on most social and cultural issues.
My only point about Buchanan was what seemed to be a contradiction on his part, where he spoke of the overwhelming manifestations of public opinion with regards to the 11 (13 total last year) successful popular rejections of gay marriage (and in most cases civil unions as well) last year, and then he turned around and spoke of how the showcasing of Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, and Pataki shows that we no longer have majority public opinion no our side on social and cultural issue. It was probably just a case of how the piece was edited for print, but it just struck me as a bit odd.
I guess what I'm saying is that even if you expect defeat at the hands of the judiciary and a spineless GOP on marriage, as I do, that doesn't mean we've lost the people. Of course if you can't use the popular will, its useless, but there is a tiny bit of hope w/in me that thinks all is not lost on this issue.
Liberal Republicans don't much bother me. As our Lord said of the poor. "you will always have them amongst you".
It's the emergence of the neo-conservatives (more aptly called the neo-liberals) that scare the hell out of me.
They set at that point on the circle of political biases where leftist liberalism meets rightist fascism.
Thank God and FDR, for term limits.
With the climax of the "Alfred E. Newman" Administration of George Jr., God willing we may see the end of this frightening spectre.
You show your ignorance by calling him George Jr.
True enough. There are so many who care more for satiating their irrational desire for some political fantasy when they should be confronting reality in order to preserve our republic.
His views on culture are mainstream conservative.
He believes in small and limited government, but not in the libertarian sense.
He supports tariffs and opposes free trade.
However, he also supports lower taxes and less government regulation internally in the United States while supporting it to protect industries in the US.
He opposes illegal immigration, which is mainstream but diverges with some of the libertarians wing groups (key word, some, not all) and would support a larger government there in that area.
He also supports a mostly isolationist view of foreign policy, i.e. a switzerland type of policy with involvment based on his view of threats to American interests.
His views regarding Israel are not a part of conservatism, but a personal view which he has meshed with conservatism.
The key problem with Pat, is that, his own opinions, mixed with conservatism, are, in his eyes, the only true conservatism there is.
He was a strong supporter of and an aid to President Reagan, but also had disagreements with him. In his eyes, while he admires President Reagan, deeply, he would probably place himself as the more conservative one.
His confusion between personal viewpoints (which can be right or wrong, its irrelevant) and ideology hurts his credibility with many others.
Its akin to being a conservative, and blue is your favorite color and him saying, no, it must be black, because only real conservatives like black.
Thanks for making my point.
"You have my vote for the stupidest thing said on this forum since I've been here."
Huh? Why is it stupid? I think from the beginning Pat always assumed that conservatism was fundamentally a fascist-leaning movement. He never understood the fundamental differences between Conservatism and Fascism and still doesn't.
You do not have a point. You never had a point. Pretending you do have a point is not going to change the reality you refuse to recognize.
I think, in your posts, you object to Buchanan the politician, who risked a GOP victory in 2000 and aligned with Fulani. I don't have a big argument with you there.
But his commentary, in particular that conservatism is desperately confused and barely alive at this point as a political movement, is on target.
Did you read Buchanan's recent pro-Hitler anti-Churchill diatribe? Buchanan is no conservative!
Are you aware of some system where those votes count?
Do I have to say it? Are you assuming that the ONLY people who didn't vote were Buchanan supporters?
In reality, non-voters are probably more anti-buchanan than those who do vote. Non-voters tend to be more libertarian in mindset, Buchanan is the exact opposite of that.
I guess I believe your thinking is as flawed as that of the pseudo-conservative opportunists that now infest the GOP.
Why is that? Do you not recognize the fundamental differences between Conservatism and Fascism?
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.