[Truthsearcher]

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.

[NewRomeTacitus]

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?

[Joe Hadenuf]

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.

As our borders now resemble a Boston Marathon of millions, entering illegally, from God knows where.

Thanks for the belly laugh.

[Dumb_Ox]

Both are wrong, the Left is wrong because American involvment has always been to the world's benefit, not harm.

*Always* to the world's benefit? I highly doubt that. Why should the US Government be any more competent in foreign affairs than it is in domestic affairs? If you're up for it, you might want to read a critical view of Wilson's foreign policy like von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's _Leftism Revisited_.