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.
Those are the tricks of the Left employed by the Neo-Cons.
That type of attitude speaks volumes about the difference between fantasy and reality. It also defines "rabid xenophobia".
I'm only "tough" because of the streets of East Cleveland made me that way, or else I would have never made it this far. That, and the 82d Airborne Division.
You go for it.
Sure will. I'll always be up in your types' grills and there isn't a damned thing you could do about it.
But you might want to research the intellectual origins of a movement you claim to be a part of. I certainly would.
I'm well aware of the origins of the so-called "neo-con." So, it's not necessary. I'm seriously well-versed, thank you very much.
That was really funny ("you can't put lipstick on pigs and expect them to not still get muddy"), but also well stated!! We agree!!
Your name just got added to the "family ass-whipping" list.
They are men, and their opinions on 18th-century geopolitics cannot be considered divine commandments for all time, because the specific situations and crises their comments addressed no longer obtain.
Feels like I am on DU website or somesuch liberal crap site.
Your feelings and reality are not necessarily one and the same.
You guys are bizarre.
"KETTLE, THIS IS POT. YOU ARE BLACK--REPEAT, YOU ARE BRAVO LIMA ALFA CHARLIE KILO. OVER."
Amen.
I will subscribe too.
As I said earlier, for all those who want Buchanan, they can have him.
AH. Thank you. I guess I am a "Neo-Con" after all, then.
Care to point to our "great success" there, pal? Did we get the guys who attacked us? No. Well...I thought that was our purpose.
Are we now forcing our great fighting men to play bodyguard to their unelected and ridiculous "president"? Yep. And it's degrading and disgraceful to the United States Military.
Have we stopped opium production? No...this year's crop is the biggest yet.
Are we seeing increasing factional fighting that threatens American soldiers and "our" government of corrupt Tajiks and Uzbeks? Absolutely.
Are we now going to give BILLIONS of our dollars to socially engineer Afghan women out of their burkhas and other PC nonsense? Yup. (Do you like giving billions of American dollars to nation-build -- something our president said he would never do?)
So I was wrong in my skepticism over our Afghan operation exactly how?
Seriously, if you would like to point to what you consider our great success there I would be interested in seeing it.
So...you don't mind that your movement was founded by followers of Leon Trotsky. Interesting. I think Trotsky was a creep. All commies and lefties are. Apparently you think differently. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
You know, when I read about how we are supposed to return back to such times, I immediately find my .44. I ain't going back to the 18th century, period.
The Constitution they gave us works and works wonderfully. But your statement on 18th century geopolitics and how they are now in the 21st bears repeating.
What are you talking about? Are you comparing Stalin to bin laden? apples and oranges. Can you remember when stalin had his men drive 747's into our skyscrapers? These are islamic radicals who think they are getting 72 virgins in paradise. If you don't understand the difference, nothing I say can change your mind. I won't confuse you with any more facts.
I don't know where I said that, but I did say that the intellectual founders of the neo-conservative movement were -- every one of them -- leftists and followers of Leon Trotsky. That may be an appealing political movement for you, but I find it distasteful. I find all communist and pseudo-communist organizations distasteful.
Furthermore, the fact remains that Reagan and Bush Jr.'s brand of conservatism...
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
You were making a joke right? Comparing a conservative icon lion and a true leader to a timid lightwieght moderate who is spending OUR money like a spoiled mall twit who just won the damn lottery.
Reagan made it clear to everyone listening that "government is the problem". GWB thinks big government just hasn't been done right yet. He never had a rooted conservative philosophy and couldn't buy one if he tried.
51 posted on 8/28/02 10:52 AM Pacific by AAABEST
To: AAABEST
I thought same thing myself, but elected to remain silent. I'm glad I did. Couldn't have said it so well as you did.
57 posted on 8/28/02 11:05 AM Pacific by gcruse
"To: gcruse
I thought same thing myself, but elected to remain silent.
Well, for a brief (sadly, all too brief) moment, you were following the wisdom of "It is better to keep one's mouth shut, and merely be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
59 posted on 8/28/02 11:09 AM Pacific by Poohbah
WELL SAID Poohbah!!!! Between AAABest and gcruse, there is NO doubting who the fools on this thread are and they are more than able and willing to expose themselves. If you look closely, you will see they are usually in threads together,.. exposing the same views. Either they are one and the same, or buddies. I fully expect some nasty little rant about me from AAABest, it is so easy (almost too easy) to get him all riled up! But in reality, I think he has a secret crush on me. ;o)
.. watch the fireworks to come.
Just the other way around?!?
You accuse any conservative who does not agree with your wingnut views of being a Neo-Con....which sounds too much like the Nazis who killed a lot of my relatives in Europe...then tell me that YOU believe we should now engage in a COMPROMISE?
Over WHAT? You have no point, and your tactic of divide them, wear them down, conquer them then offer "compromise"...as long as "compromise means agreeing with whatever YOU believe?
Come back when you grow up. There is no need to compromise with the loser in battle and you are losing this one. Not just with me, but with all of us whome you have deliberately insulted with your transparent ploy. You're ittitating, the way a biting fly is irritating....and I don't "compromise" with biting flies.
Remember our debates back then Zviadist? Now who was full of crap?
Answer that honestly and we'll move on to post war Afghanistan.
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.