Replies

I am not sure why you have posted this. It does not advocate a clear perspective, it simply makes carping sorts of arguments against other conservatives.

There are several major issues, on which I strongly disagree with Pat Buchanan. But he is a legitimate Conservative, and one can argue with him on those issues, and still respect him and--more than just respect him--still welcome working with him on other issues. This need to demand perfect agreement among your allies is one of the reasons, we on the right are always trying to recapture something lost, rather than to continue to defend a proud heritage won for all of us long ago.

What seems to be the main point is that some on the Right are willing to make common cause with some on the Left to fight threats to American Sovereignty. The writer acts as though that is something new. That is hardly the case. The coalition that rallied America against the League of Nations in 1919 was just such a coalition. The bottom line is this: In the effort to preserve the untrammeled sovereignty of the United States, the important thing is winning the battle, not the ideological purity of our allies. Indeed, there was no ideological purity at the beginning in 1776--anything but!!

America is more important than our differences on other issues. And there is nothing in a common cause to preserve America, which in anyway limits our abilities to vociferously debate every other issue under the sun, both with our common enemy as well as with the dissenters in our own ranks.

For a better understanding of the Washington/Jefferson foreign policy, to which Pat Buchanan is basically committed--albeit with some positions that I cannot agree with--see An American Foreign Policy. The beauty of the Washington/Jefferson understanding was that it was based upon a study of thousands of years of human interaction. It worked well from 1793 until 1918, because it was designed for the ages. It would work just as well from 2002 to 2127, if we would simply apply it.

It is neither an isolationist nor a pacifist policy--quite the contrary! It is based upon mutual respect, so long as it is mutual, but a determination as Jefferson put it to "punish the first insult," for all of the reasons that almost all Conservatives today support the War On Terror. I commend it to the thoughtful among us.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

I am sorry, but like most neocons I don't agree with Buchanan on anything. I consider him an invariable political opponent, to be resisted at every turn. As the article says, the neocon point of view is currently dominant in the Republican party, at least at the level of those that wield real power. Thus Pat was right to exit from the party, and should remain exited. To consider paleos and neos are folks that can possibly be in the same party, and break bread together, is ludicrous.

Agreed. Actually, it seems to be a post-9/11 identity trip for a lefty, trying to find the correct pose to maintain a plausible pose of "dissent" in a post-9/11 world where the citizens are looking for facts, not merely ignoring these people.

The article is full of false premises, assumptions, and dichotomies. Strawman after strawman is posed and torn down. For example, immigration. The criticism of mass immigration is about culture, wages, taxes, and the welfare of the American people versus short term business interests and its ally liberal guilt. He frames the issue as if it has to do about complaints about fake visas.

And, of course, mentioning antiwar.com just shows how far this guy will reach out to pseudo-intellectual discourses and ramblings to support his thesis.

I have noticed on the lefty sites a total dearth of understanding, or attempting to understand, world forces unless they support an anti-American agenda or identity-left self-maintenance. Dissent, which for them is disagreement invoking a common identity, seems to be the de rigeur cry to battle. It seeks conformity of views and selected facts to be recited, not analysis of them. I gues "Buchanan" is an uncomfortable person for them, so they whip up a pose against him, rather than analysis of which views of his they agree with, and which not.

What seems to be the main point is that some on the Right are willing to make common cause with some on the Left to fight threats to American Sovereignty.

What concerned me about the article was learning that Buchanan had marched with the anti WTO group. Most of those groups pretend that they are against globalization, but in reality they have some really hard-core communist organizers who want to bring down all trade and all society so that they can once again create the Utopian Paradise here on earth.