Posted on 02/14/2006 3:05:20 PM PST by SJackson
Let me preface the main point of this column by saying I like Pat Buchanan.
I have always liked Pat Buchanan.
I have always considered him to be a thoughtful, moral man.
I voted for Pat Buchanan in his failed 1992 primary bid against President Bush.
I have defended Pat Buchanan against charges that he was an anti-Semite.
I have tried to reason with Pat Buchanan over the one critical area of disagreement between us – Israel and the Middle East.
I once had the notion of putting together a fact-finding trip to the Middle East for Pat Buchanan, certain that an intelligent and reasonable man like him would be able to clearly see the truth of the conflict if only it was presented to him as I know the facts.
I have resisted clarion calls from readers for years to dump Pat Buchanan's column from WND because of his strange and twisted views of the Middle East – views that seem incomprehensible to me based on what Buchanan says he believes about truth, right and wrong and his American first worldview.
But upon reading Pat Buchanan's column yesterday in WND, I am coming to the conclusion that there is more at work here than a simple disagreement – a moral blind spot in his view of the world.
In case you missed it, Buchanan actually turned his back on a lifetime of principled opposition to foreign aid to support it for the new Hamas government in the Palestinian Authority.
To say I was flabbergasted would be an understatement. Buchanan rails against so-called "neo-conservatives" for not being mature, for being arrogant and for not being faithful to his own paleo-conservative views. As someone who subscribes to neither the "neo-conservative" nor paleo-conservative view of the world, let me suggest that it is Pat Buchanan who is selling out on principle.
I believe foreign aid is immoral and unconstitutional. I believe it is wrong to redistribute money confiscated by force from U.S. taxpayers to any foreign government. As a freedom-loving constitutionalist who still believes in limited government as envisioned by our Founding Fathers, I believe it is wrong to confiscate money by force from U.S. citizens for the purpose of redistributing it – even inside the United States. I'm incredulous, frankly, when any so-called "conservative" – neo or paleo – attempts to justify such a thing. But for someone who calls himself a "conservative" to suggest that it is appropriate to give away U.S. taxpayer dollars to a terrorist quasi-government of a non-existent state that hates everything the United States stands for defies reason.
But that's just what Pat Buchanan did yesterday in suggesting Hamas should be placed on "probation" with U.S. aid continuing to flow to the barbarian thugs and murderers who now control the Palestinian Authority – an entity, by the way, that has always been controlled by barbarian thugs and murderers.
It is flip-flops like this on matters of absolute principle by conservatives that has forced me to distance myself from all conservatives.
Bush was wrong to aid lifelong, unrepentant terrorists Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas with U.S. dollars. And Buchanan is equally wrong to defend foreign aid to the lifelong terrorists of Hamas.
Foreign aid is wrong. By defending it in this instance, Buchanan is guilty of the worst kind of moral relativism. In fact, he's so wrong that I must coin a new term to describe it. It's not "moral relativism" Pat Buchanan is employing in his defense of the Hamas regime, it is "immoral relativism."
It would be the moral equivalent of trying to buy off al-Qaida.
Al-Qaida and Hamas are kissing cousins. They are strategic allies. They are our enemies – and the enemies of all freedom-loving people.
Yet, Pat Buchanan, who as recently as December 2004 wrote passionately against foreign aid in all its ugly forms, has changed his tune.
Now, I am known as a passionate supporter and defender of the state of Israel – the largest single recipient of U.S. foreign aid in the world. But I believe that all foreign aid should be ended because I, like most Americans, oppose it on principle. It is wrong. It is always wrong. And, as is the case with most things that are wrong, it is counterproductive even when justified with the very best of intentions and rationalizations.
Just as it is wrong and counterproductive to place an able-bodied American on welfare, it is madness to give welfare to nations – able-bodied or not. It is an injustice to the people who are forced to pay the bill and it is an injustice to the recipients. Wrong is wrong. And two wrongs do not make a right.
What would motivate a man to turn his back on lifelong, principled opposition to that kind of wrong by defending the indefensible idea of aiding our sworn enemies with money picked out of the pockets of hard-working Americans?
I guess we'll have to ask Pat Buchanan for the answer.
Hamas = Terrorists
hehe yep :)
A person can be a decent human being and have wicked, immoral, or wrong-headed ideas. I think that describes Pat Buchanan.
You are probably 100% correct. I think Pat is a closet Jew-hater who bears close watching. He certainly doesn't deserve to hold high office.
He's a pundit, not a political figure. For the good one, that's a performance art.
We know that. But does he?
Who is that with Pat?
What's Pat's DU screenname?
They'll be along to attack everyone who isn't bowing down and worshiping at the feet of their god.
there is generally some wholly unsupportable claim somewhere within it.
True, though sometimes it is entertaining.
His soul mate: David Duke.
Joe should've dumped the boyo-Nazi to avoid the association with his publication and religion a long time ago. Instead, by the last line in his piece, he wants to salvage the relationship with an incremental step back (and more forward goose steps later, of course).
LOL.
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.