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."

[rob777]

I have had recent exchanges with people who support the death tax, support smoking prohibitions on private property, maintain that groups have rights, support the use of US military to police the world, favor isolationism in trade, support the "patriot" act, think that Bill Gates and other rich liberals should have their money confiscated, and advocate the suspension of individual rights if the majority agrees.

All represented themselves as conservatives and their positions as conservative. All right here on FR.





Pretty sad!

[Aetius]

Yes it is, but I'm a bit puzzled by his comment about social and cultural issues when he says "They are indifferent to those moral issues because they see them — and correctly — as no longer popular, no longer the majority positions that they used to be," he says. "They say, 'Let's put those off the table and focus on the issues where we still have a majority — strong national defense and cutting taxes.'"

He says this right after discussing the popular revolt against gay marriage/civil unions last year.

I think it is true that the Left's domination and conrol of opinion-forming outlets like the mainstream media, Hollywood, and education at all levels has had an effect of pushing the country leftwards on some cultural and social issues, and the advance of the homosexual agenda is one of those areas. But, most polls still show overwhelming opposition to gay marriage, and gay marriage bans are undefeated in statewide ballot initiatives, even when they include bans on the allegedly more centrist civil unions.

There is variance in the polls of course. A recent Boston Globe poll put opposition at only 50%, but I don't believe that one for a minute as most others put it much higher, and it goes against other recent polling that has shown support for the Federal Marriage Amendment to be at all-time highs. And of course much depends on the area, or state in question. Just looks at the percentages these gay marriage bans have passed by. It hasn't even been close yet.

So I completely understand pessimism on the gay marriage/civil unions front if one believes, as I do, that the Sup Court will eventually impose them and the GOP/Congress/President will do nothing about it; but I don't understand implying, as Buchanan seems to do here, that the pro-traditional marriage side has lost majority support of the people, because that clearly is not the case as of now.

[MsJefferson]

I think our beliefs are very similar -- and I think that this is part of the divide -- the divide between the libertarian and authoritarian side, which could also partially be summed up as Modernity vs. Fundamentalism.

People forget that if you're not working toward personal responsibility, liberty and freedom -- than you're no better than the people who you think are oppressing you. That's why I cringe when anyone talks about "moral clarity." I don't give a crap about people's morality -- as long as we're free, and their morality isn't interfering with my person or property.

What can you say, though -- some people like to rule and be ruled. Democrats are the worst -- but the social engineering from this side isn't too much better.

[Balding_Eagle]

expansion of the military

The defense if our country and the Constitution is a Constitutional mandate. I have no problem with military expansion. The rest of your extensive list is right on target.

[antisocial]

"Schwarznegger and Giulani aren't RINO's, they are the left wing of the Republicans, but there is a BIG BIG difference between RINO's and conservative left."

Conservative left is an oxymoron. You cannot possibly be conservative and "left" at the same time.
Giuliani is for gun control and abortion- those are certainly not conservative values.
Schwarznegger is also pro abort, and liberal on many social issues.

[iconoclast]

I'll take Buchanan and American sovereignty any day, over the NWO crowd...

He expresses resentment over the "imperialist" prescriptions of neoconservatives. "I don't think neoconservatives are conservative at all," he says. "I'm often asked what exactly is it that they want to conserve. They are Wilsonian interventionists abroad; they are big government at home."

This is close to the essence of our contention that the Republican Party lays fraudulent claim to being a Conservative party.

The fact that many here don't even bother to deny Pat's contention is very revealing.

[Edit35]

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.

Maybe Pat should grab his pitchfork and rifle and storm the White House.

[Edit35]

To dismiss him completely would be to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'.

Yeah, and Pat once again is showing his "baby" side by proclaiming himself to be the only true conservative.

[DoctorMichael]

.....showing his "baby" side......

No doubt!

[rdb3]

I hate to say but the more I read Buchanan the more I think he is a tad wacked in his world view. I also think he is a bit racist as well.

I think that it can be debated about his racism. He is an authoritarian, and he is without a doubt a Jew-hater.

I'll sum it up like this concerning Abu-Buchanazawri. He is a has-been. What Pat buch Laden had to sell, no one is buying. He is supposedly a cultural conservative, but had no qualms about having a flaming fag (Jusin Raimondo) introduce him at his nomination speech in 2000. He publishes a severe Arab/Muslim sympathizer and vehemently anti-American pundit (Eric Margolis) in his unreadable monthly rag. He was fairly cozy with a big time racist (Sam Francis).

In the end, Pat is simply a radioactive hypocrite.

[rob777]

I don't give a crap about people's morality -- as long as we're free, and their morality isn't interfering with my person or property.





In the long run, freedom is impossible apart from morality.
Respecting the rights and freedom of others is a moral stance. In the absence of morality, the only rational conclusion is that justice consists of the "Advantage of the Stronger". Moral relativism ultimately leads to "Might Makes Right". This is an old argument from the Sophists at the time of Socrates, to Machiavelli to Friedrich Nietzsche.

On the other hand, the western view of liberty rests on a moral view of human dignity. Of course, the notion of morality presupposes the idea of free will, so it is not compatible with coercion.

[Realism]

Conservative left is an oxymoron. You cannot possibly be conservative and "left" at the same time.

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.

[Iscool]

The fact that many here don't even bother to deny Pat's contention is very revealing.

Yes it is...And if you're a liberal Republican, you can call yourself a 'moderate' conservative...And anything to the right of middle is a far-right whacko...

[rdb3]

That's why I cringe when anyone talks about "moral clarity." I don't give a crap about people's morality -- as long as we're free, and their morality isn't interfering with my person or property.

You don't give a crap about people's morality, eh? Guess that means you throw out what President John Adams had to say about that. The second president said in 1798:

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Did you catch that? Again, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

[Deo et Patria]

Is this loser still attracting attention? In terms of credibility right now, he is just a little bit ahead of Lyndon LaRouche.

[MsJefferson]

I think that's why we have the Constitution, which is a moral document -- which combines both Christian morals with Enlightenment philosophy -- you're right -- it is a moral stance -- but the only moral stance I care about is already layed out in the Constitution. It is, of course, lucky that we have a morality spelled out for us.

[pawdoggie]

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

Only about liberal Democrats. Pat had "moved on" from conservatism. With his neo-Isolationist and "nativist" approach to foreign policy and military affairs, he is very much a Nationalist. With his populist "guaranteed annual income" program, and his desire to regulate evil corporate bigwigs, he takes on some of the characteristics of a Socialist. Ergo: he's a Nationalist Socialist.

[MsJefferson]

Sorry -- I don't play the "pull quote" game. Liberals take the same things out of context to prove that this was a goddless nation.

I will say that I care about morals associated with keeping people free, and not harming anyone's life, liberty or property. That would about do it.

[rdb3]

Liberals take the same things out of context to prove that this was a goddless nation.

And you can take that on the sly insult and slap yourself with it.

[iconoclast]

STFU Pat and go out and get a real job.

Typical pathetic, no content Buchanan bashing.

Being an author of six serious, best sellers, a syndicated columnist, a television commentator, speech writer and adviser to several Presidents equates to a ne'r-do-well in your lexicon?

If you can't come up with a cogent argument, would saying STFU back at you be inappropriate?