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.