Posted on 10/15/2002 5:29:32 AM PDT by Nix 2
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:08:26 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WHEN THE FIRST ISSUE of The American Conservative, the new weekly edited by Patrick J. Buchanan, recently hit the newsstand, readers might have been excused for wondering if they had accidentally picked up The Nation. Buchanan's magazine, which he co-edits with the journalist Taki Theodoracopulos, resembles its left-liberal counterpart in appearance and is printed on the same cheap newsprint. Even more remarkably, much of The American Conservative's contents could just as easily have appeared in the flagship publication of America's left.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Regards, Ivan
Well, only sort of. He is a collectivist and an authoritarian, but of the ultramontagne Roman Catholic sort rather than the utopian socialist (the St Simon tradition out of the French revoltuion) or Marxist sort. Both believe they have the truth (though the substance of the truth differs), both are eschatalogical (i.e. think the world has a final end, again, the substance differs), and both are deeply suspicious of capitalism and liberty as empowering individuals to dissent from their true needs (as recognized by the Church or Marx or dialectical historical materialism or whatever).
Skimming this article does make it seem that way. I've got to go back and read it in depth.
These guys are going to make me stop calling myself a libertarian.
Why? Buchanan is the opposite of a libertarian: he is a self-described reactionary collectivist and anti-capitalist. In fact, Buchanan represents a worldview that could be described as medieval, or to be more charitable, post-Tridentine mercantilist. This is a man who would have been more comfortable in the world of the Holy Roman Emporer Charles V or Pope Innocent III, than even the 18th century.
I, too, would prefer that world (with the happy additions of modern medicine, dentistry, hygeine, plumbing and air conditioning.)
Although I'm not a Buchanan supporter (my wife voted for him, not me) I am a monarchist and a Catholic. I do not agree with many of Mr. Buchanan's opinions, but I do I think it important to note that there is much to be said for basing one's worldview on a traditional Catholic and humanitarian foundation. If Marxism is "the god that failed", Free Trade is the god that succeeds -- but both are false gods, and to worship either is idolatry. In the case of socialism, the sin is rendering unto Caesar (the State) what is rightfully only God's; in the case of libertarian capitalism, the sin is worshipping at the altar of material gain -- Mammon. As a Christian, I believe in the words of Christ when He said that one cannot serve both God and Mammon; and a capitalism that reduces human beings to mere instruments of the Market Almighty is every bit as immoral as a communism that reduces human beings to mere instruments of the Almighty State.
There is a vast difference between being a communitarian and being a collectivist. Under pure collectivism, the State is regardred the supreme unit of value; the individual person and his or her rights and interests are seen as inferior to the rights and interests of the State -- an unnatural and un-Christian arrangement. In a purely libertarian society, the Market is regardred the supreme unit of value; the individual person and his or her rights and interests are seen as inferior to the overall economy -- likewise, an unnatural and un-Christian arrangement.
Contrariwise, a communitarian acknowledges the sanctity of the individual person as expressed his natural status as member of a human community ("Man is by nature a political animal" -- Aristotle). In a comunitarian society, the human community of interests is the guiding principle by which society is ordered: the basic unit of society is the natural family, followed by the clan, then the ethnic group, then one's trade or vocation, and ultimately one's loyalty to Castle, Crown, and Church.
Antlike socialism, which reduces human beings to mere servants of the State, and atomistic libertarianism, which regards human beings as mere actors in the Market, both insult the dignity and sanctity of the human person; communitarianism acknowledges both the rights and dignity of the human person and his natural social relations with others.
When that world collapsed, the Western world moved on to develop dentistry, anesthesia, hygiene, water treatment plants, etc. Pat Buchanan's fundamental philosophy seems incompatible with modern life.
The question is fast becoming: is modern life compatible with human existance? The court is still in session and no verdict has, as yet, been reached.
Tuor
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.