Posted on 07/09/2014 12:24:43 PM PDT by Kaslin
Shortly before Richard Nixon was going to formally announce that he would be running again for president in 1968, Pat Buchanan and Rose Mary Woods, two of his closest aides, presented him with an idea.
"Given the multiple crises confronting the nation -- race conflict, soaring crime, inflation, the war in Vietnam, the mounting Soviet missile threat -- and the difficulty of dealing with them all at once," Buchanan writes in his new book "The Greatest Comeback," "we suggested that Nixon in a single declaration destroy the image of him as a consummate politician and tell the nation 'that the next president should be a one-term president.'"
Nixon dismissed the idea of term-limiting himself. He did not want, as Buchanan relates it, to be "a lame duck from his inaugural."
"In retrospect, Nixon was right," says Buchanan. "Yet when one looks at what he accomplished in his first term and what became of his second, he would today be listed, like Polk, who sought and served but a single term, among the near-great presidents."
Wherever Nixon's merits and demerits place him among American presidents, Buchanan's first-person chronicle of how Nixon climbed back from a humiliating defeat in the 1962 California gubernatorial election to win the presidency in 1968 is not just a unique and enduring look at one of this nation's most interesting political campaigns but at a decade that changed America forever.
Buchanan left his job on the editorial page of the St. Louis Globe-Democrat at the end of 1965 to become an assistant to Nixon, who was then planning to spend 1966 campaigning for Republicans running in that year's midterm elections.
The GOP was then still reeling from Barry Goldwater's 1964 defeat, and the question was whether the party, in 1968, would fall back into the hands of a liberal establishment headed by New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller -- or turn to Gov. George Romney of Michigan.
The GOP did neither, of course. In "The Greatest Comeback" -- which is a page-turning narrative, not an analysis -- Buchanan tells the story of Nixon's 1968 victory from the perspective of a man who travelled with, advised, and was loyal to Nixon, but is nonetheless candid about both Nixon's faults and his virtues.
"When Nixon trusted you he would let down his guard, and I got to know him better than any other boss I ever knew," Buchanan writes.
Buchanan anchored the right flank of Nixon's immediate staff, and part of his job was to help keep the conservative movement -- which had backed Goldwater in 1964 -- in Nixon's camp for 1968.
Beyond that was a longer-term political vision. "The crucial elements of the new majority I had in mind," writes Buchanan, "were the solid centrist GOP base that had stood by Nixon in 1960, the rising conservative movement, to which I belonged, the 'northern Catholic ethnics' of German, Irish, Italian, Polish and other East European descent, and the Southern Protestants, who saw themselves as abandoned by a Democratic Party moving leftward."
In this vein, Buchanan, who would later become President Ronald Reagan's communications director, sent Nixon a memo before the 1968 Republican convention urging that he pick the first-term California governor as his running mate.
"We are going to have to be bold to win this one," Buchanan wrote his boss. "I can currently think of nothing bolder than to put the hero of 'Bedtime for Bonzo' on the ticket."
Spiro Agnew got the nod instead.
Buchanan's book is a great story told by a great storyteller. Along the way are first-person anecdotes that not only reveal how Buchanan's boss plotted and executed what may indeed have been the greatest comeback in American political history, but also how he prepared himself to use the presidency he won to deal with great international problems, including the Vietnam War and U.S. relations with the Soviet Union and China.
Then it could hardly have been imagined that two decades later, under the leadership of Ronald Reagan, America would win the Cold War. Or that two decades after that, we would still be fighting a domestic cultural war that first began overtly manifesting itself in our towns and cities as Nixon inched his way toward victory in 1968.
Even though this book ends with Nixon's election, Buchanan makes clear he has only arrived at the middle of the story. Volume two will be set at the White House.
Both Nixon and Buchanan are interesting people. Although I admire Buchanan I find myself disagreeing with him in international issues as well as domestically in the sense that his brand of "conservatism" doesn't seem to understand freedom and free market enterprise at the expense of and along with cutting big sociologist government.
How can you disagree with this:
FREE TRADE IS NOT FREE
Patrick J. Buchanan
Address to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations
November 18, 1998
. . . I am called by many names. “Protectionist” is one of the nicer ones; but it is inexact. I am an economic nationalist. To me, the country comes before the economy; and the economy exists for the people. I believe in free markets, but I do not worship them. In the proper hierarchy of things, it is the market that must be harnessed to work for man - and not the other way around.
As for the Global Economy, like the unicorn, it is a mythical beast that exists only in the imagination. In the real world, there are only national economies — Japan’s that has lost its animal spirits, South Korea’s that is deep in recession, China’s which is headed for trouble, Brazil’s which is falling, Indonesia and Russia’s which are in collapse.
In these unique national economies, critical decisions are based on what is best for the nation. Only in America do leaders sacrifice the interests of their own country on the altar of that golden calf, the Global Economy.
Those words could be lifted right out of a socialist manual. By "country" what does he mean? Well, the federal government, of course. Who decides what's good for "the people"? Why the federal government, of course. Who's going to do the "harnessing" to "work for man"? Why the federal government, of course.
Why did the Founders in the Constitution exclude the federal government from meddling with our economic affairs except when it came to intrastate or foreign issues? Because they knew something that Pat and many "conservatives" seem to have forgotten: that the government is a necessary evil and exists only to protect, not manage, our freedom and economic affairs.
History teaches us that the greatest accumulation of wealth and prosperity BY THE AVERAGE PERSON in the United States was during the 1800's when the size of the federal government was about 4%-8% of of GDP and had very little to do with our everyday lives or the economy.
Pat and many "conservatives" don't seem to understand the basic tenants of freedom and the corollary free market economy. Society does best when the individuals in it, not some distant bureaucrat in Washington, decide for themselves what is in their best interests. The free market economy is exactly that: FREE and VOLUNTARY. Nobody forces anyone to do anything. Individuals voluntarily cooperate with each other for their own benefit. The byproduct of that is wealth creation. This is the story of America in the 1800's.
Freedom is the absence of government. The more government, the less freedom. In the free market, individuals accomplish their goals voluntarily. The government accomplishes its goals through coercive force. The free market creates wealth. Government creates poverty. These are truths as well as historical facts.
Americans need to fall in love with freedom once again and see that government, outside its limited, Constitutional cage, is not our friend but a greater enemy than any foreign invader.
“Those words could be lifted right out of a socialist manual. “
Nonsense. What Buchanan wrote reflects Wilhelm Roepke, the economist who was a great favorite at National Review back when it was run by adults and worth reading.
How’s that NAFTA working out for the “country”?
There is no such thing as free trade. Read what Pat said one more time.
Interesting I guess but if you're intending to refute what I've said, this is certainly is not an argument. Put together a rationale yourself and don't simply refer to something or someone else as though that is any kind of an argument.
Ask yourself if you are or aren't for freedom. If not, why not. Why have so many American's and "conservatives" lost their love and understanding of liberty and freedom from government coercion? It's what this country was built on and what thousands and millions have yearned for and died for.
Well, I re-posted several statements Buchanan made and argued against those assertions and didn't specifically include "free trade" with other countries in my arguments. We can talk about free trade, but can't we stick to the points and subjects at hand and see where you disagree or not with the specific arguments I made against Buchanan's assertions? That's what you asked for.
Certainly I’m for freedom and liberty, something peculiar to the political entity that is the United States. And while a free market is the most efficient tool for pricing and allocating resources a free market hasn’t got some mystical interest in preserving freedom or liberty or the United States. It can’t, of course, because a market has no mind and it is simply a pricing mechanism without any teleological goal.
For many years the Pentagon had an office whose sole job was to assure that strategic industries survived and were not purchased by potential enemies. In the purely free market world envisioned by some libertarians anyone could buy any assets that they wished; anything else would “socialism”- but in the world as it really exists limits on the sale of some assets are the rationale behavior of a people that intends to survive.
Well said. Is that you, Pat?
lol!
Sorry, we have no point of contact. You believe the country is the federal government instead of we the people.
Pres Reagan was wrong on NAFTA but right about this:
“We the people” tell the government what to do, it doesn’t tell us. “We the people” are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world’s constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which “We the people” tell the government what it is allowed to do. “We the people” are free. (snip)
There's no "market", only people in the market excising their freedom to buy and sell as they please. And it is the people who comprise the free market who have a great interest in preserving freedom and liberty in the United States. But of course the free market is not a political entity, it is an economic entity and, therefore, needs political protection in order to operate, the very thing our Constitution has uniquely provided.
Pentagon had an office whose sole job was to assure that strategic industries survived
The only legitimate federal government entry into commercial enterprise is to research and build what's needed facilitate the greatest and strongest defense in the world, the main reason for the existence of the federal government to begin with. I'm all for that.
But economic "protectionism" is another thing and is a form of shooting yourself in the foot. Tariffs don't hurt the other guy, it hurts American consumers by raising the prices of goods and lessens the supply because suppliers will go elsewhere if necessary. It doesn't matter that the other guy puts up tariffs - he's just raising his costs of doing business - he's shooting himself in the foot. As long as we don't raise tariffs, American consumers will have the benefit of competitive forces that allow for maximum choices and quality at the lowest prices.
The free market is the natural result of an economy free of government interference. The voluntary free market is freedom at work. As Adam Smith said, it is invisible, just like freedom itself, which is a big reason why so many have a hard time understanding the free market is a free society's alternative to government coercion which is easy to see. Only the wealth-producing results for the free market and free trade are visible, with post-1800's America as a prime example.
How can you disagree with this:
FREE TRADE IS NOT FREE
Patrick J. Buchanan
Address to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations
November 18, 1998
the country comes before the economy; and the economy exists for the people; and the market must be harnessed to work for man.
My Answer:
Those words could be lifted right out of a socialist manual. By “country” what does he mean? Well, the federal government, of course. Who decides what’s good for “the people”? Why the federal government, of course. Who’s going to do the “harnessing” to “work for man”? Why the federal government, of course.
What and why do you disagree with my answer.
I honestly don’t know what to say to you. Our country is not the federal government; although, that is the socialist goal. That goal is in sight thanks in large part to “free trade” which is code for open borders.
Buchanan says "the country comes before the economy."
You say by "country" he means the American People. So he's saying the American People come before the economy? What does that mean exactly? How does a free market economy come before the American People when the American People are the ones running the show in a free market economy? Somewhere in there it is saying the federal government will ensure that "the country comes before the economy." If not, what does that statement mean?
Buchanan says "the economy exists for the people."
What in the world does that mean? He talks about "the economy" like it's a living being. There is no "free market economy", only people in the market who voluntarily cooperate in the supply and demand with one another that makes up the "market" and the "economy." Individuals making free choices every day is what makes up the market and the free economy. The individual consumer is the decision maker in a free economy. To say "the economy exists for the people" is like saying "the people exist for the people."
That's when things start to sound socialist because this implies something other than you and I knows what's best for you and I, and that, of course is the federal government. Otherwise, what does that statement mean?
Buchanan says "the market that must be harnessed to work for man."
Pray tell, who’s going to do the “harnessing” to “work for man” if not the federal government?
I understand that you think the federal government is the boss of you. You don’t need to repeat it again.
Strange. That's not what I said. I was talking about the inferences of Buchanan's statements which I assert demand interference in the economy by the federal government.
For some reason, you don't seem to want to respond to the issues I raise about Buchanan's position. Maybe it's becasue you haven't thought through the inferences of what he and others like him are saying, I don't know.
We haven't even got to the "free trade" issue because I was attacking his flawed premise and you haven't engaged in a rationale that either agrees nor disagrees with my attacks.
Anyway, I'll throw this out about free trade.
The only legitimate federal government entry into commercial enterprise is to research and build what's needed facilitate the greatest and strongest defense in the world, the main reason for the existence of the federal government to begin with.
But economic "protectionism" is another thing and is a form of shooting yourself in the foot. U.S. tariffs don't hurt the other guy, it hurts American consumers by raising the prices of goods and lessens the supply because suppliers will go elsewhere if necessary. It doesn't matter that the other guy puts up tariffs - he's just raising his costs of doing business - he's shooting himself in the foot. As long as we don't raise tariffs, American consumers will have the benefit of competitive forces that allow for maximum choices and quality at the lowest prices.
Here is the information you need to know:
The disemboweling of America - ‘Nations rise on economic nationalism, they descend on free trade’
Pat Buchanan:
03/11/2010
http://www.wnd.com/2010/03/127748/
Free trade: Far from ‘free’ - How Free Trade Is Killing Middle America
Patrick J. Buchanan
01/23/2014
http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/free-trade-far-from-free/
To Die for NAFTA - fanatic faith in “free trade”
Patrick J. Buchanan
Mar 11, 2008
http://www.creators.com/opinion/pat-buchanan/to-die-for-nafta.html
Too many Americans on the Right doing that these days.
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.