I was one of the first on board when he ran again in 1995. I read every one of Bay Buchanan's daily updates and volunteered ahead of time for when the campaign was to hit my state. Sadly, I never got the chance. After finding that he didn't have a plurality of the conservative vote, he chose to work against those who most closely represented his views and ultimately hurt the ideals he had once defended. Just like when Senator Bob Smith declared himself a renegade in 2000, the effort ended up leaving him politically marginalized and was an overall embarrassment to conservatism. Pat did less damage when he ran again as an independent in 2000, but only because he had already lost almost all of his credibility.
Mr. Buchanan's behavior is even more reckless now that he is repeating the same mistake with his religion. He is a truly inspiring speaker, and his ability to foment decent among conservatives is almost without equal. The problem is that Catholics don't get to vote for their religious leaders like we American's do our political leaders. He is amplifying frustration that, for Catholics, has no viable non-schismatic outlet. Catholics are not permitted to demand their religious leader's ouster. Doing so undermines the apostolic authority and only backs the Pope into a corner. I too would like an end to these liturgical abuses but public protest is not part of the answer. Whether he admits it or not, Pat knows this.
When it became clear that Pat Buchanan had no chance of winning his party's nomination, he decided to leave the party and take his followers with him. He is now committing himself to the same course in this confrontation with the leaders of his religion, a contest he is even less likely to win. I believe that he will again choose himself over his cause, and his followers.
(P.S. I don't want to reignite the debate about whether Buchanan's runs as an independent were heroic or stupid, I am merely relaying why I am not giving him the benefit of the doubt in his attack on my Church.)
Thank you for your well presented thoughts. You may be putting party above principle. Pat had issues on which he opposed the GOP party on immigration, foreign interventions and unbalanced trade. He wanted these issues discussed and he felt the only avenue was as a member of another party in the 2000 debates. As you know by excluding Buchanan, the public was denied a debate on these issues. Subsequent events indicated the country would have benefited.
Also, as one who went along the same tracks as you, I concluded that Pat's views were in reality kicked out of the GOP and he was blamed for the 1992 defeat.
I think Pat wants what is best for the Catholic Church, as you do. He thinks that being in denial is not the way to help the Church recover the trust it deserves. I don't think you do either. There are many people who believe that Vatican II did not achieve what it aimed for and needs to be revisted to find out where it left the tracks. Sort of an examination of conscience. Regards,