Posted on 09/12/2004 11:45:19 PM PDT by quidnunc
-snip-
"Terrorism is the price of empire [I]t's something the British might say when they were driven out of Palestine, the French might say when they were driven out of Algeria. Quite simply, in this modern world, if you try to rule other peoples, even to alter them, make them democratic or force them to change their ways to conform to your own, you're going to have a serious problem with those people. They're going to fight, just like the American revolutionaries fought against the British Empire. We ought to know that. We were the first people to rise up against an empire." September 3, 2004.
If you guessed that Michael Moore uttered these words, you would be half-right. Moore's infamous equation of Iraqi terrorists-cum-insurgents to the American minutemen earned him as much praise from the left as scorn from the center and the right. But you might be surprised to discover that Patrick J. Buchanan gave voice to the second quote during an appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher, a political talk-show airing on HBO.
Buchanan, variously described as an arch-conservative, a paleoconservative, and a populist conservative, has throughout his career shirked the orthodoxies of the Republican party and the prevailing norms of conservatism. In his magazine, The American Conservative, and in his latest book, Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency (Thomas Dunne Books, 272 pp.) reviewed in these pages by Ramesh Ponnuru Buchanan presents his case for an "authentic" conservatism that has been infected by radical, Johnny-come-lately variants. Yet many of Buchanan's positions, most recently on the War on Terror, have placed him and his supporters in ideological company with the left.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at techcentralstation.com ...
bump!
F*ck Pat Buchanan. There, I said it.
Yes. Send a communique to the terrorists: "Stay on your side of the ocean and we'll stay here." Then the world will be just fine.
GO BUSH/CHENEY!!
I just wish Pat would be honest and stop beating around the bush....in his view, like many on the radical left, it's the existance of the Jewish state of Israel that is the source of the current problems.
I'd have more respect for him if he'd just come out and say it and offer a solution that is in line with his views.
Oh good, so this wasn't just my imagination!
Nope... t'wasn't.
The question "Why does Buchanan agree on some points with the Naderites?" can support a more robust answer than the simple "Because he's also a leftist." I'd rather see an analysis based on an explicit adherence to a political spectrum rather than on a petty attempt at establishing guilt by association. I could make an easy smear lumping Bush in with the Stalinists, because the current president of Poland(who supports Bush's efforts in Iraq) is an ex-communist. I could note that certain putative conservatives share with the Marxists the view that the market is a universal solvent that eats away at traditional cultures, leaving only self-interest behind. But if I did write only that, I'd have written an unhelpful essay just like this one. The question is, why do Buchanan's opinions exile him from the conservative movement, while the semi-marxist defenders of capitalism (for instance) are instead put forward as conservative leaders?
Scintillating points. Were it not for the material's combustible potential in the context of this forum, this would make for a deep and fascinating discussion.
The answer is simple.
The left believes when America involves itself too much with the rest of the world, it is to the detriment of the rest of the world.
Pat Buchanan and the paleo-conservatives believes that when America involves itself too much with the rest of the world, it is to America's detriment.
Both beliefs would resolve in the conclusion that America should not (or should at least reduce) its international role.
Both are wrong, the Left is wrong because American involvment has always been to the world's benefit, not harm. The Paleo-Cons are wrong because they naively underestimate the threat to America from abroad, anyone who thinks that isolamic terrorism is "not a serious problem" after 9/11 is in denial.
The man is quite an enigma to me. While his warnings about preserving our society are totally solid ("The Death of the West"), his bizarre support for the Palestinian state defies all logic. What's the deal, Pat? Did Kissinger pee on your shoes all those many years ago?
Patricia sad with a straight face when he was being interviewed during the RNC that he does not believe Iran to be a threat.
And yet some people on the right take this man seriously. I'm a conservative, and I don't get it.
Grrrrrrrrrrr red meat!
Any enemy of Israel is a friend of Buchanan's.
Huh?
I used to like Pat Buchanan - I have a dog-eared copy of "Right From the Beginning" in my collection, and no, it's not because I gave it to a dog to play with (not recently, anyway). He was bang on when Reagan was President. But as the Great Man slowly ascended into Heaven, Pat slipped into the deep recesses of opportunism and self-idolatory. His run for President on the Reform ticket was the worst example. He has recovered a bit by supporting President Bush in this cycle, but it is a long road back for him to being a true apostle of the Great Man.
Regards, Ivan
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.