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 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 don't know about that. I think you can make a good argument that we made Europe safe for Communists, who murdered even more people than the Nazis did. Couldn't we have just let them wipe each other out?
I hope you are not forgetting that we have no-fly zones over more than half of Iraq. What if we just made it over the entire country and stopped waiting to be fired on before returning fire? Sorry to take the wind out of your sails, but until they can arcurately count down to one vote, your vote doesn't mean much.
Giggle. You've gotta love his dry wit.
His magazine will probably fail financially; reflecting the narrow appeal of his presidential run(s).
You may be right, but Crossfire was fairly successful, as were his books. Maybe that is his proper domain.
Then why bother spending a trillion dollars trying?
Including his campaign manager?
What you mean is that the Kurds are expected to become out allies once the war is over. Before we can form any alliance with the Kurds to get at any al-Qaeda in northern Iraq, we have to take the territory from Saddam.
Is Steve Forbes a failure too in your book? Do you see the entire world in black and white, or just presidential candidates?
A good offense? You mean like the air base we have in Saudi Arabia? Didn't seem to keep 15 Saudis from killing 3000 of us in one shot on our own turf with our own airplanes and pilot training. You missed the most important part of the article:
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.
I can only go by what the terrorists themselves say, which is that they do not want US forces on their so-called holy land. Do you have any reason to believe that they are lying about this?
No, and attacking Iraq it won't keep the next attack from happening either! We must destroy Mecca to do that. Destroy Mecca and radical islam dies. That simple. Buchanan hasn't a clue about islam.
If Pat wants to put forth potential solutions and forward thinking ideas to better our country I might listen, but it seems that his greatest commodity is the ability to find fault in everyone else but himself. As for me - I'm not buying.
That's not far from the argument the dems put forward supporting Gore over Bush.
I'm glad someone is out there finding fault in this world of unaccountable collective guilt and innanimate objects that are always to blame.
Considering the number of people slaughtered internationally since 1920, it doesn't seem like such a bad place to be. Certainly Americans were more independent and free back then.
Including his campaign manager?
I don't care if he was married to a Jew.
His published remarks show antipathy
towards Jews.
Possibly, but you would still be labeled an isolationist unlike most of the founding fathers, even though they were. Do they not make kids read Monroe Doctrine anymore?
Gosh, Noam Chomsky is a conservative! Who would have thunkit?!
I have to admit I agree completely.
Well congratulations, your opinion puts you in a group larger than the group that pulled the level for Buchanan, including accidental votes.
And you see that I turn this fastball right around and go on offense.
Piece of cake.
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.