Posted on 03/11/2006 7:15:56 AM PST by billorites
PATRICK BUCHANAN, COMMENTATOR AND former presidential candidate, looked over the issues on the political agenda in 2006 and liked what he saw. It was a paleoconservative's delight. There was the Dubai ports deal, rejected by a congressional uprising part nationalistic, part isolationist. There's immigration, soon to be debated on the Senate floor and always high on the paleocon list of concerns. Excessive government spending, a worry of all conservatives but especially paleocons, is a major topic this year. And the intervention in Iraq and President Bush's crusade for democracy face sharp criticism, with paleocons in the lead among the critics.
It's a paleo moment in America. "It's a little bit late," Buchanan says. He'd rather it had occurred in 1992 or 1996, when he ran for the Republican presidential nomination, or in 2000, when he ran as the Reform party candidate. Chances are, the moment won't last. But it's a moment that could be politically painful for the president and harmful to Republicans in the midterm election in November. The paleocon message is not an electoral winner--unless you believe voters are eager to hear ideas that are gloomy, negative, defeatist, isolationist, nativist, and protectionist.
Buchanan is the big dog among paleocons. His message, were he to run again for president, he told me, would be: "Secure the borders, stop exporting jobs, and bring the troops home" from Iraq. I'm afraid many would interpret that message: Keep Mexicans out, forget free markets and free trade, and shrink America's role in the world. That's not an optimistic message.
It's not that these views are illegitimate. They're part--a small part--of the broad conservative coalition in America. And paleocons themselves are easily gathered under the big tent of the Republican party. The problem comes when they influence the party in ways that threaten the narrow Republican majority.
And they do this in several ways. One is to attack Bush on issue after issue. This weakens the Republican base and, potentially at least, reduces voter turnout. Republican voters dismiss criticism by Democrats or the media, but they pay attention when other Republicans zing Bush, or when they attack congressional Republicans, for that matter.
A larger threat is the paleocon influence on one of the touchiest issues, immigration. Here, their thinking is reflected in the anti-immigrant rhetoric of some congressional Republicans. And it is such thinking that imperils the gains made by Republicans among Hispanic voters.
In the immigration bill passed by the House last December, there was a distinct nativist streak. It calls for the raising of a 700-mile fence along America's southwest border with Mexico and for stepped-up border security in general. It was Buchanan who popularized the fence idea, and now a Republican senator intends to propose a fence along the entire border, from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico.
How would such a fence play politically? Well, it's a horrible symbol, one that clashes with the welcome mat laid out by the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor. More important, it says to Mexican-Americans: We don't want any more people like you coming into our country.
The political problem is the effect all of this, including the congressional debate itself, is likely to have on Hispanic voters. They are a critical part of the Republican majority. In fact, without them, there would be no Republican majority. Bush lifted the percentage of Hispanics who voted Republican from 35 percent in 2000 to 44 percent in 2004.
Grover Norquist, the conservative activist and head of Americans for Tax Reform, says holding Hispanic voters is crucial. "I think the Republican party wins and runs the country for the next 25 years if we are perceived as pro-immigrant and respectful of immigrants," he says. "The only way we lose majority status is to treat Hispanics the way we treated Catholics in the 1880s."
So, if all goes well, the Republican party is on the way to claiming a majority of Hispanics, the fastest growing voting bloc in the country. A paleocon-inspired immigration bill would jeopardize this. Democrats recognize this. Senator Hillary Clinton of New York and other Democrats are already attacking the House bill, saying it would create a police state focused on Hispanics.
On the Dubai ports deal, paleocons were leading voices of opposition. On Iraq and the campaign for democracy, they reject Bush's optimism about rolling back the dictatorships of the Middle East. Instead, they take the pessimistic view that the Middle East is unchangeable, Arab culture being what it is.
Jump to the November election. What Republicans need more than anything else is unity. They have it when Bush's poll numbers are up.
They don't when his approval rating tumbles--and it drops all the more when Republicans are criticizing him. With their issues unusually prominent this year, paleocons are likely to be critical. And the mainstream media likes nothing more than to play up conservatives who attack other conservatives.
As for Buchanan, he says he's "thought about" running for president again in 2008. But he's overcome the "temptation" and "probably" won't run. He's not impressed with the current field of Republican presidential candidates. "The field is vanilla," he says. Which means there's no paleocon in the hunt.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
What's wrong with all the above?
I guess I would have to say I lean more toward Paleo but I also do believe in war when necessary such as Iraq....hmmm what a dilemma ;)
Barnes is right paleocons don't breed as fast as Mexicans, If the GOP want to maintain and increase its power it will have to cater to Mexican immigrants.
While I don't agree with Buchanan on most things, and Barnes makes a lot of valid points in this article, he's wrong and Buchanan's right on immigration. We simply cannot sustain this level of illegal immigration for much longer before the strain on the government handout system outweighs the "good" of the cheap labor that the immigrants bring.
Mexico will not help us on this--hell, they encourage it. This fence may not look pretty, but it's necessary. To be followed by mass deportations of illegal aliens, regardless of their nationality. We can and should, at the same time, make it easier for unskilled/semi-skilled labor to come here and work temporarily and legally--I see the good that (some of) the illegals do bring. But first we've got to get the current situation under control before even thinking about amnesty or guest worker programs. Stop the bleeding first.
}:-)4
Nope. Nope, and Nope.
The welcome mat was for legal immigrants. As far as I know, we still allow legal immigrants.
The fence is to stop the flood of illegal immigrants. The message is to come legally, or not at all, Not that we do not want Mexicans to come here, but that we want them to abide by our laws when they do. Coming here in violation of our laws shows contempt for our legal system and our country from the git-go.
This kind of protectionism is death to America. Literally. Jim Rogers and another Wall Street analyst were on Cavuto's show yesterday. They related this time in our history to the 30's and said if we continued on this path it would lead to depression and war.
Other countries would follow our example of protectionism and that has always led to war.
No Fred, it was an awakening by the American people of where we really are on national security in this country. As usual, our leaders are not protecting us, and it has come down to us raising enough Hell, much as we did with the Meir's debacle, [Side not: Does anyone remember when The WH used the lame excuse that no one else wanted the job?], so that these stupid deals are reviewed in the light of day from now on. My question to you Fred is, "would you want our defense industry controlled by foreign governments?" If your answer is no, I rest my case.
Actually it was whipped up hysteria so that some DNC contributing companies could get terminal leases at fire sale prices.
DP looks at asset transfer to end row over ownership of US ports(a political Kelo)
...but make mine heavy on the paleo when it comes to illegals.
"Grover Norquist, the conservative activist and head of Americans for Tax Reform, says holding Hispanic voters is crucial. "I think the Republican party wins and runs the country for the next 25 years if we are perceived as pro-immigrant and respectful of immigrants," he says. "The only way we lose majority status is to treat Hispanics the way we treated Catholics in the 1880s.""
Grover Norquist is a CAIR ISLAMIST and should not have ANY say in Republican policies.
Sorry Geezer, I wont live in Grover Norquists happy Islamic United States. Nor will I speak spanish or allow the prevalent corruption that comes with the people of the Royal Quinta.
If these folks can't see immigration as a security issue, the Republicans can stand losing grassroots support and there will be a Rat house in '07. So be it.
Buchanan follows in the footsteps of the first paleo - George Washington - America first and 'no entangling alliances'. I don't know which President Barnes thinks was better for America but probably it would be a lover of the New World Order, featuring America as the world's policeman.
And if absenteeism at the ballot box results in a Democrat Congress with a liberal majority that enfeebles national security policy even more than xenophobic Republicans and Democrats have now, will you have made your point?<>
Tell me how enforcing existing law is enfeebling national security?
Worried your gravy train is coming to an end?
I presumed that you will stay home (not vote) and allow a liberal Dem victory in November to make a self-defeating and futile point. I was commenting upon that. Sorry it wasn't clearer.
You see, if those opposed to strong national defense are returned to power, it will make things worse for you, not better. If Dems return to power because some single-issue concerns motivate staying home in droves, the courts go back toward the left; national health care will descend as a pall upon the economy, immigration will become even more of a problem, and so forth.
Besides, immigration laws have been enforced. There have been many convictions and prison terms meted out in the last couple of years. Read polipundit.com regularly to catch some of that news. It is not as if all enforcement has been suspended!
Worried your gravy train is coming to an end?
What on earth is this ad hominem attack supposed to mean?
I'll listen to Buchanan over Fred Barnes anyday.
Apparently you are not aware that the US Navy has been using a UAE company for ship husbanding services for some time. This UAE based company is responsible for supplying all logistical support to restock the stores, refuel, and re-water each American warship at certain port facillties.
They even get a schedule of the ships itenerary, which the Navy usually protects at all costs,in advance
You can "rest your case" all you want but you are still mistaken to single-out the UAE out of all foreign-based companies that are entwined in our transportation industries. The security threat posed by the transaction was tiny at best and the loss of UAE's aid in the middle east would be very harmful.
PresidentFelon
If you cannot see the security issue in lack of immigration enforcement by the Bush administration you have not been awake.
Pandering to the hispanics and islamists does not make good local or foreign policy. Why should US soldiers die defending the borders of Iraq from Iran and Syria when there is no enforcment of US borders, there are estimates of between 13 and 35 million illegal immigrants living in the USA. Good security begins at home.
If you are not one of the fortunate son globalists you belong neither to the Democrats or the Republicans. Big tent reduces the Republicans to Dhimmitude of the islamists, hispanderers and globalists to the detriment of taxpayers and US Citizens.
Bush may have a great Department of Defense staff, they are non partisan by nature and by law, excluding the political appointees. Having a democrat administration will change the top military appointees, but will not force mass retirements of those whose allegiances are to the service and professionalism vice political cronyism. You dont get to be a 3 or 4 star general soley by political affiliation.
US Citizens should be heard above the globalist hispandering dhimmis.
Grover Norquist may have great wednesday meetings, he certainly does not represent conservatives. He represents his own self interests as a paid globalist Saudi wahabbist agent. Party affiliation is meaningless if the results of their agendas are the same.
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.