Posted on 08/28/2002 9:16:46 AM PDT by sixmil
Patrick J. Buchanan isn't giving up. He's left the Republican Party for good. And he isn't planning a fourth run for the White House.
But he is finally trying something fans have been telling him to do for years. He's founding a magazine.
The new, bi-weekly magazine will debut next month and be called "The American Conservative." Scott McConnell, former editorial-page editor of the New York Post, will edit it. Society gadfly Taki Theodoracopulos will help with cash.
Buchanan is upbeat, about the magazine at least.
"We hope to have a conservative magazine which is genuinely and authentically conservative," he said. "We hope it will be sort of a rallying point for the conservatism that is really utterly unrepresented by either the K Street conservatives or the Weekly Standard, National Review, Commentary, New Republic neocons."
IBD talked with Buchanan at his home in Virginia to get a flavor for the new journal.
IBD: How are we doing in the war on terror?
Buchanan: I think the president did a bully job of diplomacy and moral leadership from September to January. The way they fought that war and won it was outstanding. It was a moral and just war, fought in a moral and just way.
But when he got into identifying an "axis of evil" and then threatening pre-emptive strikes against all nations that might develop the kinds of weapons we've had for the past century, he lost his focus. He has disrupted alliances. He has threatened actions that we don't have the troops in place to take.
He's asserting a right to wage pre-emptive war without the approval of Congress on any nation that aspires to build the kinds of weapons we've had since World Wars I and II. I don't think he's got the right to do that, and I think a policy of warning about pre-emptive strikes is the kind of policy that could invite pre-emptive strikes against us.
IBD: What about a war with Iraq?
Buchanan: Anybody who has a state, including Saddam Hussein, is going to be reluctant to go to war against the United States or to commit any atrocity which would put them in a war with the U.S. Containment and deterrence will work with almost any state.
Saddam is terrified of the United States. He wants to hand over his power to one of these sons of his. He's got all these palaces out there.
Why in heaven's name would he want to trigger a war with the United States of America and have all that blown to kingdom come along with him, his sons, his family, his dynasty, his army, everything?
I don't think we should give up on the policy of deterrence. It frightened Joe Stalin. It frightened Mao Tse-tung. These guys are not in that league.
IBD: What should we be doing here at home?
Buchanan: The first thing we should do is get serious about border security. Since 9-11, we've only had 411,000 illegal aliens come into the United States.
If there is a weapon of mass destruction smuggled into this country, the whole idea of global interdependence and 10,000 Mexican trucks coming into the U.S. every day, almost all of them not inspected, and over a million containers - that's going to come to an end.
It will be a very powerful argument for retiring to economic independence and economic nationalism, where you do not have thousands of people crossing your border every day. One or two more of these attacks and globalization itself is in trouble.
IBD: What will that mean for an open society?
Buchanan: I'm a believer in an open society, I'm a believer in a free society, and this is why I'm opposed to the idea of an empire. They say we need a Department of Homeland Security. I thought the Defense Department was in charge of homeland security. Apparently it's in charge of empire security.
Of what advantage is all this American empire, interfering in all these quarrels around the world, if as a consequence we lose freedom at home and live in constant danger of some kind of small atomic weapon detonated on American soil?
I think the American empire is going to go, and I think that's a good thing. The reason they were over here on 9-11 is that we are over there.
IBD: Where do you see things 10 years from now?
Buchanan: I regret that for the rest of Mr. Bush's first term, we're going to be at war. The president has subcontracted out our Middle East policy to Ariel Sharon, and I think that's a dreadful mistake.
Palestinian terrorists ought to be condemned and Israel has a right to peace, but you have to give the Palestinian people some hope. And I think Bush's (June 24) speech gives them very, very little hope. I think his speech could have been written in Tel Aviv.
IBD: Will there ever be a Palestinian state?
Buchanan: I think the question is not whether there'll be a Palestinian state. There may be two. The ultimate question is whether there's going to be a Jewish state in the Mideast. I think Ariel Sharon is leading them into a cul-de-sac from which there is no way out but back through Oslo and Tabaah and the Saudi plan.
I met him in 1980, at his campaign appearance in San Diego the night before the election. Shook hands, he asked me my name, and asked if I was going to vote for him in 1984 (I was only 15).
Remember when he told the heckler, "Aw, SHUT UP!"?
I knew the heckler, he was two years ahead of me at Patrick Henry High School. OK computer dweeb, but otherwise a bit of a jerk.
If Pat were King, I'm sure this would be so. He would abandon our long time ally like Clinton dumped Lewinsky, in a heart beat.
Pat is so clueless on foreign affairs he still thinks WW2 was a mistake on Roosevelts part. Even with the benefit of hindsight his brand of isolationism pulls the wool right over his eyes.
I agree with Pat on securing the borders from illegals and on protecting the life of the unborn.
I disagree with Pat that pulling the covers over you head and hoping the Husseins of the world go away before you wake up is a substitute for foreign policy. That difference is so profound I put Pat only a few notches ahead of Harry the Hat as far as getting my vote goes.
I'm no one's leader.
He was a damn good President, and definitely the greatest of the post-WW2 bunch. (I think Teddy Roosevelt edges Reagan out as the best of the century, though.)
I do fault him for not getting rid of the ABM Treaty and not going into a practical strategic defense program instead of a series of studies and technology demonstrations--in that, I think that he and his advisers were "captured by the system."
But I do credit him with throwing the gauntlet down in front of Gorby--I still get shivers when I hear the speech, "Mr. Gorbachev, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!"
Never used it. I am not part of the thought censor hit squad. Besides I'd rather people see your approach to rational discussion. You censor ideas you can't refute by changing the topic.
Those men understood that which is why they made the Constitution amendable. You're right, they should not be deified but respected for what they did correctly.
They also knew that men were endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights and the three they spoke of were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That they didn't all practice it makes those words no less important. That one they got right.
But their deification grates me.
Is this your piece de resistance? Wow.
I'm just blown away.
Sadly, there are those among us who bill themselve as "conservative" who will believe anything...as long as it reflects badly on Bush. 'Course, most of them are sitting in a haze of smoke from a substance they'd like to have legalized, too.
OK tough guy. You go for it. But you might want to research the intellectual origins of a movement you claim to be a part of. I certainly would.
Yeah, I get sick of the old guy quotefests myself.
Yeah, I'm the forum censor, except it hasn't
done much to close you down, has it?
Yeah...just a bunch of dead white guys. Feels like I am on DU website or somesuch liberal crap site. You guys are bizarre. Certainly not conservative -- ever looked up the meaning of the word "conserve"? Didn't think so.
One very curious thing, despite their antipathy for the man and their opinion that he is of no consequence they feel it is worth their time to repeat their attacks upon him ad nauseum.
I have read their comments about his "anti-semitism". I have read their references. I might have a tendency to believe them if their comments weren't so blatantly taken out of context or slanted.
I plan to look into subscribing to the magazine. It should be worth a look. With enemies like these, he couldn't be all wrong.
Regards.
To me, your posts are worthless. By chance most people are correct more times than you when you're trying to be. You are a statistical anomaly.
The rest is right on target? Buchanan is a psychopath!! Good Lord, to think ANYONE supports his mindset, is frightening to say the least.
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.