Neocons, Buchanan and Louis XVI

RichardPoe.com ^ | April 25, 2003 | Richard Poe

[Richard Poe]

Remember the days when the paleo-Right -- as embodied by Pat Buchanan -- painted the United Nations, the European Union and the globalist visionaries of the "New World Order" as the greatest threats to American liberty?

According to an April 24, 2003 article in The Economist, neocons have now joined the movement against the UN and the EU. "The neo-cons' main ire is reserved for the United Nations and, sometimes, the European Union (see article)," writes The Economist.

If neocons wield anything close to the power the Economist article attributes to them, their defiance of the UN and the EU ought to cheer beleaguered defenders of liberty and national sovereignty. As with French intervention in the American Revolution, neocon support would have the potential to turn the tide in what had previously seemed a hopeless struggle against globalist tyranny.

As for the neocons' motives, what difference would they make? Louis XVI's motives for opposing George III had little in common with those of Washington and the Continental Congress. Yet French intervention still carried the day at Yorktown, and won America her freedom.

Pragmatists have long recognized that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Will Buchananites sieze this opportunity to gain allies and win victory in what used to be their stated cause? Somehow I doubt it.

[dirtboy]

Great point. However, I think the Buchananites wanted to break ties with the United Nations so we could hide behind our moat, whereas the neocons wish to break our connections to the United Nations so those institutions can't interfere with an activist foreign policy. Since the reasons for acting are entirely different, the conflict remains even though the intial goal seems the same.

[Alberta's Child]

. . . so those institutions can't interfere with an activist foreign policy.

In other words, Buchanan (much as I hate to say this) has been right all along. Americans are no better off ceding our sovereignty to a bunch of globalists in the U.S. government than ceding our sovereignty to the U.N.

[JohnGalt]

The UN is a favorite to the Wilsonian liberals who the neocons have made common cause with; they have no intention of seeing it go. Like the income tax, without it, what could the GOP favor cutting to 'grow the economy'?

[dirtboy]

Well, that's really what the current paleo/neo argument is about, isn't it? Is it better to withdraw from the world or go out and kick some asses and take names? It's an interesting debate, but, in the end, with the significant changes in the world over the last fifty years, IMO the Buchananite approach just simply isn't viable - we have interests around the world, there are folks who don't like that fact and wish to harm us, and modern travel and technology gives them the means to strike at us that they didn't have in the 1930s. Will the neo approach work? Hard to say. I think it's worth trying, given that WWII turned two militaristic states, Japan and Germany, into pacifist democracies. Already, Syria is facing pressure from opposition groups to reform as a direct result of the Iraq campaign, and the Iraq action has shown the lie of totalitarian Islamic propaganda that has helped to stultify that region of the world for so long.

[Digger]

No one person or group has all of the answers but Pat Buchanan has more of the correct ones than any I have seen. Now if we had a few viable parties rather than this "Two-Party Cartel" both the Bush & Buchanan ideas could be incorporated. We still would have been in Iraq but we sure would have had these borders secured & just possibly the Klintoons would have gotten their just dues.

[ex-snook]

"In other words, Buchanan (much as I hate to say this) has been right all along."

Hey, appreciate your honesty. People who are not bigoted against Buchanan will find that Pat has been right in just about everything. Right about illegal immigration, foreign entantlements bringing war to our shores, exporting jobs and factories will cause economic problems, gay and abortion practices are bad - well you get the idea.

Prophets like Buchanan tell us what we don't want to hear (or what others don't want us to hear).

[Uncle Miltie]

"Neocons, Buchanan and Louis XVI"

I call you and raise you:

Paleocons, Nader, and Richard III.

I'm holding a full house of Idi Amin and Mother Teresa....

[ninenot]

I disagree with your analysis of PJB&Co.

You are partially right--PJB would have us be much less involved in other parts of the globe, as George Washington counseled us.

But in addition, PJB was concerned that UN proposals, which eventually become signed by American Presidents, will affect American jurists and will erode our current justice system, expose American citizens to 'World Court' renegade prosecutors, and ultimately deprive the US of its sovereignity.

Certainly not in our lifetimes (one hopes)--but why allow the nose of the camel into the tent?

[ninenot]

We have interests all over the world

Only if you define the interests of GE as US interests, using GE as a pseudonym for all American corporations.

Do we have interests otherwise? Few and far between. Outside of direct territorials (Guam, e.g.) and perhaps strategic natural resources, name some...

[okie01]

The UN:

It's useless. But is it worthless?

[tpaine]

Will the neo approach work? Hard to say. I think it's worth trying, given that WWII turned two militaristic states, Japan and Germany, into pacifist democracies.
-DB-


Total war, total ruin and unconditional surrender 'turned them'.
We shall see if the Iraqi venture will turn muslim hearts & minds.

I'd bet a lot that it will not.

[rmlew]

If they oppose one world government, they are not globalists.

[Alberta's Child]

They don't oppose one world government -- they just want US to be the one world government.

[Alberta's Child]

My problem with Buchanan is that he doesn't seem to have a thorough understanding of many of the issues he speaks about. He has yet to demonstrate an understanding that the "good 'ol days" of the 1950s were nothing more than an economic anomaly in our nation's history. The problem is that he acts as if that was the norm, not the exception.

[Richard Poe]

...they just want US to be the one world government.

Is that bad?

Given China's aggressive moves in the Western Hemisphere (they now physically control the Panama Canal, through the "crony capitalist" Chinese firm Hutchison Whampoa and are working closely with Cuba and Venezuela to build an aggressive anti-American movement in Latin America), it would appear that any attempt to retreat into Fortress America would soon find us under siege, surrounded on every side by a coalition of hostile powers, wielding highly-accurate missiles, equipped with U.S. guidance technology purchased during the Clinton administration.

It may well be that we are left with only two choices. We must fight for U.S. global hegemony or submit to someone else's hegemony.

Contrary to paleocon and paleolib dogma, countries such as China do not obligingly disarm and mind their business when left alone. On the contrary, when they sense a power vacuum, they move quickly and decisively to fill it.

I wish it were not so, but the world is not governed by my wishes. It is governed by reality.

[Alberta's Child]

It may well be that we are left with only two choices. We must fight for U.S. global hegemony or submit to someone else's hegemony.

That's the problem with the globalist position that is taken by these neoconservatives -- it is based entirely on the assumption that there are only two possible outcomes.

Watch how quickly Iraq descends into mass chaos and confusion. The U.S. went in there with the best intentions, but it was only 48 hours before these Shi'ites were demanding that the U.S. leave Iraq immediately.

I've come up with a perfect definition of an American neoconservative -- someone who is naive enough to think that a culture of people who are still peeing in their drinking water on Monday can become a modern democratic society by Thursday.

[rmlew]

They don't oppose one world government -- they just want US to be the one world government.

Neocons have called for the export of American style democracy around the world, not US annexation of new lands.

[billbears]

Hard to say?!? It's only been in place since 1917. Don't you think by now it would have been a glowing success? And I see you only went to the 1930s. Why not head back to 1916 when it was first instituted. You remember, that little 'War to end all wars' that created most of the issues in the 1930s. It's more than evident Hitler would have been laughed off the stage in Germany if Germany had would have either won WWI or eventually sued for peace with Britain.

[Billy_bob_bob]

I'll see you a Tojo and raise you a Stalin!

BTW, what was the bet?