It's evening in America, Buchanan says, and immigrants are to blame (Buchanan interview)

Pat Buchanan is aware that potential readers of his new book already either adore him or disdain everything he writes "because I am the one writing it."

So in The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization (Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martin's Press, $25.95), the ex-presidential candidate and conservative pundit is trying to back up his apocalyptic projections with facts and figures provided by such disparate sources as "Russian leader Mr. Putin, a British archbishop and the United Nations. By drawing on what anyone would have to consider neutral sources, this makes my message far more powerful."

Low birthrates are decimating the population of almost every European country - by 2050, only one-tenth of the world's population (America included) will be of European descent.

The unchecked influx of immigrants into America, legal and otherwise, is gradually handing the nation over to insurgents who come to force their foreign values on us rather than accepting ours.

Political correctness on the part of unwitting Americans plays into the hands of those who intend to obliterate our culture.

The events of Sept. 11 may provide enough of a wake-up call, Buchanan says, to make "the death of the West" only a threat rather than a certainty.

"The book is about a point I've been making for a long time, that the West is dying," Buchanan says during a lengthy phone conversation. "If we don't change how we do things, we'll be gone by the middle of this century, if not before. The horror of Sept. 11, I think, awoke a lot of Americans to new realities. It's a healthy thing to remember there are people out there who want to destroy us."

In Buchanan's opinion, it took terrorist attacks on New York City and the Washington, D.C., area to drive that message home to an American public more intent on hedonism than heroism.

"The '90s were a time of prosperity I've likened to the 1920s," Buchanan says. "The '20s were about money, drinking, jazz. The '90s were money, drugs, rock. The '20s ended with the stock market crash, the Depression, then on to Hitler, Tojo, Stalin. The 1990s ended on Sept. 11. We're at the kind of place Walter Lippmann called 'a plastic moment,' a time when people can change their destiny. I hope this book helps that. I'm not so much predicting these awful things will happen as saying, 'This is what the end is if the numbers remain the same.' "

Not that he holds much hope: "To many American young people, people like me belong to a bad old era. They've been taught that in school, indoctrinated in it. They want to say goodbye to the way our generation did things. This is why I don't think much will be done about the problems we face."

Buchanan acknowledges he's saying things that most Americans would prefer not to hear and that many condemn as racist and inflammatory.

"My response is that it's too late in the day for political correctness," he says. "After Sept. 11, with those acts perpetrated by people we literally welcomed into this country, Americans ought to be aware there is such a thing as too much diversity, too much welcoming. Look: I've said that if you bring 100 Zulu tribesmen into Virginia and 1 million British, the British would be assimilated more comfortably. I base that on those British coming into an American culture based on English law and tradition. And when I said that, something that seems like a simple statement, I've been accused of racism."

Now, Buchanan says, "I could substitute Iranians or Saudis for the Zulu, and people might understand." And, he adds, originally citing the Zulus was in no way racist "because I'm friends with the Zulu ruler. It's just a matter of acknowledging the differences in culture."

Potential immigrants should be judged by one measure, Buchanan adds: "Are they likely to carry on our culture, which makes America a unique country and civilization? Or are they not?"

Population explosions in Islamic, African and Latin American nations are coinciding with a decline in the U.S. birthrate, Buchanan notes, citing U.N. studies. To bolster "American cultural" numbers, Buchanan concludes in The Death of the West, American women should be encouraged via tax breaks to increase the country's population: "A free society cannot force women to have children, but a healthy society can reward those who preserve it by doing so."

Though he doesn't broach the subject in The Death of the West, in conversation Buchanan is willing to also discuss his own future.

"Politically speaking, I ran two times for the Republican nomination," he says. "We came close in '96, and we'd have gotten it instead of [Bob] Dole with one more primary win. In 2000, we tried to create a new party. It didn't work. So my political career is probably over."

"I've done my best to say the things I thought necessary, and I intend to keep writing books and to keep speaking out," he says. "I love doing it. I hope the Lord gives me 25 more years. If people don't like me or my message, well, that's not my concern. Political correctness is almost an impenetrable shield of basic realities."

Yes, if Clinton argued in favor of chastity, those attacking chastity, if they were intellectually honest, would present arguments against chastity, not arguments against Clinton.

People who say they are arguing against Buchanan's position, but really only argue against Buchanan, thereby confess that they are unable to argue against Buchanan's position. Which is why the argumentum ad hominem is generally frowned upon, at least by those seeking truth.

No, today's immigrants vote for the Democrat Party for much the same reason immigrants always have gravitated toward the Democrats: they are generally poorer than native-born Americans, and regard the programs the Democrats offer them as being in their economic self-interest. Very few come from countries with a high regard for economic liberty, and the party that advocates economic liberty says little that appeals to them.

Republicans can only compete for immigrant votes by pandering to them. This is a losing strategy, both because it violates the Republicans' professed principles and because the Democrats will always beat them in a pandering contest. Pre-September 11, when Bush was in full pander mode with all the talk of an amnesty for illegal Mexican immigrants, the Democrats out-pandered Bush by talking about an amnesty for all illegal immigrants (including, presumably, the Sept. 11 terrorists).

The historic preference of immigrants for Democrats is only exacerbated by the cultural changes I've already mentioned. After all, Gore beat Bush two to one among Hispanic voters, even though Bush spent so much time warbling in Spanish than one could legitimately wonder whether he was running to be President of America, or Mexico.

Losing 55% of the Asian vote is not good news for Republicans, and will become worse as Asians occupy a larger percentage of the election. The only reason Bush won is because he won a majority of the white vote and 60% of white males. As those groups begin comprising a smaller and smaller percentage of the election, Republicans will win fewer and fewer elections.

Just look at California. It's gone from being a bastion of the GOP under Reagan to being a lock for Democrats in 20 years, all because of mass immigration.

The GOP sank under the waves in California for two reasons. One is the increasing Hispanic vote, which was alienated because of Gov Wilson and the anti immigrant initiative, that pushed the GOP share down from about 40% to 25%, on top of their increasing vote totals. The other reason is that the GOP has acquired a more culturally conservative rather than economic cast, and that is absolute poison in LA county and the Bay area, where the GOP has disappeared just about everywhere, including high income Anglo areas. Of course, the GOP has picked up votes in the central valley and foothills in California (not enough to matter though), as well as in some other states, where it does matter.

Things won't change in California unless and until cultural liberals perceive that their pocket books are threatened by the Dems.

Unfortunately, you have to convince yourself that despite it all immigrants are "stabbing us in the back" otherwise it becomes difficult to hate them. If the GOP becomes the "white man's party" then it will end up on the ash heap of history. It will have to reach out to minorities otherwise it has no future. But I can't convince you not to be hostile. So be it.

I think where we disagree on this - and it's a fundamental disagreement I've mentioned before is whether or not the whole concept of the nation-state as we know it is a viable model for the future.

The concept of the nation-state and nationalism are only a few centuries old. Before that we had feudalism, based in a set of intertwining personal loyalties rather loyalty to the state or nation as an abstract concept. In other words, the nation-state is not an organic part of human society but rather a construct created to meet certain needs - mainly economic ones and control of resources. However with the rise of capitalism, there really is less of a need to a state control resources. For example, France doesn't need to invade Germany to get German lumber - it can buy German lumber on the open market and Germans can buy French coal on the open market as well.

The side effect is that you don't have the nationalist wars you had in Europe during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries which killed millions of people. So is the tradeoff of nationalism for peace and prosperity a good one?

You tell me.

While we disarm and dilude ourselves as to the future prospects of war, China sets up alliances for the future and arms at an interesting rate. The middle east sizzles as India and Pakistan contemplate nuclear exchanges even as we converse. Peace? Sorry, that's a fantasy as far as I am concerned. The disolution of borders is the United Nation's number one goal. No, it's not a good thing.

China and most of the places you mention are still behind us in terms of economic and political development. The foreign policy question is how do we promote the development of stable democratic states in Asia?

China is actually a good example of what I discussed in the last post. Ask yourself, why invade Taiwan? Or the Spratleys - this makes sense only for nationalist goals - which is the same thing happening with India and Pakistan.

Note that France and Germany haven't gone to war to again while prior to 1945 they fought almost continously over central and western Europe.

If you feel that the United Nations one world policy is the road to peace, I feel for you. The United Nations leadership is not elected by it's subjects. It does not answer to anyone. It's decisions are made in secret. They are made in "IT'S" best interest, not yours.

There is no constituion to protect you. There is no government body you and your fellow citizens can appeal to. It is totally non-representative government dished out like dark ages nations leaders did.

You and I couldn't be more diametricly opposed, when it comes to our world view.

Ideals don't create a civilization; people do.

I disagree.

I see. So ideals, not people, pick up a hammer and nails and build cities. Ideals, not people, write great books of philosophy. Ideals, not people, create high art.

Our whiteness did not give us the Constitution. It was not the color of our skin that made America the first nation to have free elections. It was not our race that enabled America to survive, and prosper, with minimal interference from a central government.

Boy do you love strawman arguments. When did either Pat or I mention race?

It was the ideals, and the principles, EMBODIED IN THE PEOPLE who founded America which made this nation great.

One question for you: where did the ideals come from? Did they just float around in space until one day, low and behold, some lucky people decided to embody them?

If you think that our success was based on our race or the color of our skin, why are other caucasian countries [like in eastern Europe] so poor?

Why are you so obcessed with skin color?

If you are not "saying anything about racial superiority" then why do you find the idea that it is western ideals, and not western people, who hold together western civilization so funny?

Because I've never seen an ideal pick up a hammer and nails and start building a city. I've never seen an ideal write a book of philosphy or create a masterpiece of art.

The West is the dominant civilization in the world. There are ONLY two possible explanations:

1) We have adopted better ideas than everyone else. 2) We are born better than everyone else.

I know which one you believe.

What makes you so sure these are the only two possibilities, my presumptious friend? It seems as if you need to give this topic a wee bit more thought.

Just out of curiousity, why did we adopt better ideas than everyone else? Where exactly did these "better ideas" come from?

Your abiding pessimism about the rate of cultural assimilation in the US is misplaced. That rate is as robust as ever actually, and in some ways, moves at a pace that is more rapid than previously.

Here is a beyond the melting pot story for you. I was speaking to the Korean lady who runs the dry cleaning shop I patronize. She moved to the US when her daughter was 6. The daughter is now a lawyer working in the attorney general's office in downtown LA. She does not speak Korean. She does not eat Korean food. An Anglo who is about 50 and loves Korean food finally persuaded the daughter to go to lunch at a Korean restaurant last month.

If you used hard data, instead of anecdotes, to form your opinions, you would have a different one.

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.