Is Pat Buchanan right?

[KaiserSooner]

He says conservatism is dead...

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050517-122418-5719r.htm

The very end of the article is peppered with some serious xenophobic paranoia (Pat, seriously, get some help), but I do think he's right to say that genuine conservatism really is no longer a viable or realistic force in US politics.

And he slams the neo-cons, as pro-big government and "imperialist"; that they aren't conservatives. And he's right. He says they're Wilsonian too, but I don't think that's entirely accurate.

[Beano's Fourth Chin]

well, he's certainly not left.

ba dum bum!

Thanks... try the veal.

[King Crimson]

he ran fairly successfully in 92 on an "the world's problems are not our problems" isolationist platform.

the documentary "Feed" is worth seeing in this regard--though it's mostly about the democratic primary. it's mostly off-camera live feed footage that is incredibly mundane and boring--which is exaclty the point in an age of high-gloss, framed for effect political shmooze.

[Penguin]

Um, when he said that attacking Nazi Germany wasn't worth it, his career ended.

[Beano's Fourth Chin]

Hey man, I missed you.

[picasso]

hey man, I've been watching Friedman's documantary on the satellite lately, pretty good and interesting stuff. those poor arab's, talk about propaganda.

[SoonerProphet]

Traditionalist Burkean conservatism is on life support, dead, I would think that is a bit of a stretch. Many "conservatives" of today hold Reagan as the gold standard and have abandonded the traditional deep suspicion of the power of the state, have placed equality and security above liberty, and a belief in established institutions and hierarchies is under considerable threat with neither Party fighting to preserve them.

[jk the sooner fan]

if pat buchanan defines what is a true conservative, then count me out....

[Mjcpr]

Hey man, I missed you.
Room

[Veritas]

Um, when he said that attacking Nazi Germany wasn't worth it, his career ended.
I said this in the thread that was specifically about that article, but he was using hyperbole to make a point. If you've read Buchanan or are familiar with his perspective that is very clear; if not, then I can see why that article has caused such a furor.

I don't disagree with much in that article (the one Kaiser posted); I've been harshly critical of the GOP for many of the reasons he mentions. Regarding the issue of immigration, Buchanan is anything but xenophobic. I mentioned this in another thread, but as a student of history it's important to observe that one of the key factors in the dissolution of the Roman Empire was a cultural breakdown caused by the Roman's attempt to accomodate the cultures of their immigrants and the countries they'd annexed.

I'm working through Buchanans latest book, Where the Right Went Wrong. I think it would be worth the read, regardless of your political bent. And before you go thinking I'm one who only reads books from right-wing authors, I'm also working through James Carville's Had Enough? A Handbook for Fighting Back. Don't have an opinion on that yet since I'm only in a chapter or so.

[OklahomaTuba]

I think it justs reflects the current situation of war and a rebuilding economy.

[KaiserSooner]

Regarding the issue of immigration, Buchanan is anything but xenophobic.Not xenophobic? With quotes like these, from the above article, I'd have to go with the contrary...

Although he supported Mr. Bush's re-election, he says the president "has abdicated his responsibility to defend America from a foreign invasion.

I dislike Bush, but that's ridiculous. I know what you'll say V, it's hyperbole.

And how about a gem like this one...

"Look, you're going to have 100 million people of Hispanic, primarily Mexican, descent in the American Southwest by the middle of this century, and I think you are in danger of losing the American Southwest, de facto."

Lose it? Did "we" lose Boston and the northeastern US to the Irish and Italians? New York to Jews? Minnesota to Germans and Norwegians? Chicago to Poles, Lithuanians, and Ukrainians?

He's being paranoid.

Besides, the American Southwest was a region of Hispanic culture centuries before it ever became the American Southwest, so I don't know wtf he's talking about there.


I think this country is risking coming apart, like other countries in the world, over issues of language, culture and ethnicity."

Veritas, this line goes with your mention of the Roman Empire. While I see the parallels you're drawing, I have to say that there are distinct differences between Rome and the US in this regard.

First among them is that the US, as a nation, is a microcosm of the world's cultures, thanks to being a nation of immigrants, which quite frankly, is a unique trait among the nation-states of the world today.

I just don't get this virulent fear of immigrants in this country. Yes, immigration is fraught with problems. Always has been, always will be. But immigration is at the very heart of America's unique character. As our own history has shown ( ie, immigrant groups such as the Irish, Italians and the multitude of eastern European nationalities), 1.)immigrants come in droves, 2.)there are serious growing pains (ie, our ability to absorb them and their ability to adapt) and 3.) after much time, perhaps generations, they are largely absorbed, both economically and socially.

[GDC]

So whatever happened to KaiserSooner? Seems he would enjoy today's SO.

[TopDawg]

caused such a furor.


heh

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Pat is an isolationist, and was instrumental in giving us der Schlickmeister in '92. Way to go, Pat!

[SicEmBaylor]

He says conservatism is dead...

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050517-122418-5719r.htm

The very end of the article is peppered with some serious xenophobic paranoia (Pat, seriously, get some help), but I do think he's right to say that genuine conservatism really is no longer a viable or realistic force in US politics.

And he slams the neo-cons, as pro-big government and "imperialist"; that they aren't conservatives. And he's right. He says they're Wilsonian too, but I don't think that's entirely accurate.

Yes, he is right on all counts. Yes, Bush is the epitome of a Wilsonian he just uses a different means to achieve Wilsonian ends. Wilson used words; Bush uses a sledgehammer.

I very often think that I, along with 2-3 close friends, are the last "new" members of the "old-right." We're just trying to fight a spirited rear-guard action.

[Octavian]

All "old Right" movements always die a pathetic death...


cheers ;)

[SicEmBaylor]

All "old Right" movements always die a pathetic death...


cheers ;)
I'm a sucker for hopeless causes. This is why I'm a Baylor fan...

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Being isolationist with respect to global conflicts is one thing, but Pat is also isolationist economically. He wants high tariffs.

U.S. consumers and businesses don't need taxes increases on the world's resources/products/services.

Over the last 25 years we have worked to lower/eliminate tariffs and our economy cranks out $14 trillion/year. Don't eff it up with Pat's style of economic isolationism.

[Sooner_Bob]

This thread is so 2005.

[Curly Bill]

I mentioned this in another thread, but as a student of history it's important to observe that one of the key factors in the dissolution of the Roman Empire was a cultural breakdown caused by the Roman's attempt to accomodate the cultures of their immigrants and the countries they'd annexed.


SPEK...

...this is a regular theme of mine as well.

[Widescreen]

I recall a lot of people saying liberalism was dead after the 1994 elections. To get elected, people have to change what they really believe to appeal to the broadest segment of the populace. I do get tired of people like McCain trying to claim he's some kind of conservative given his track record of aligning himself with Democrats.

If McCain gets the R nomination, I may abstain from voting in the presidential race for the first time ever. I haven't figured out how to choose between 2 people who I believe are going to be harmful for our country.

[SoonerBorn68]

If McCain gets the R nomination, I may abstain from voting in the presidential race for the first time ever. I haven't figured out how to choose between 2 people who I believe are going to be harmful for our country.

I was listening to the radio last night & the guy made a good point. He said not voting for McCain (if he becomes the nominee) was like voting against the troops. I know, I know. I'd rather just get drunk & wake up from this hellish nightmare, but it looks like that one issue might make me vote for him. I looked at his website last night & it was almost like he used a eraser on his issues page. Either that or he's just a liar.

I'm undecided. I just find the man slimy. Clintonesque if you will. Maybe that's why all the Dems like him.

[Scott D]

please Widescreen, it didn't stop you in 2004, or in 2000, or in 1996

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I recall a lot of people saying liberalism was dead after the 1994 elections. To get elected, people have to change what they really believe to appeal to the broadest segment of the populace. I do get tired of people like McCain trying to claim he's some kind of conservative given his track record of aligning himself with Democrats.

If McCain gets the R nomination, I may abstain from voting in the presidential race for the first time ever. I haven't figured out how to choose between 2 people who I believe are going to be harmful for our country.I will have a very hard time actually voting for Hellery, but equally hard time voting for McCain.

[Widescreen]

please Widescreen, it didn't stop you in 2004, or in 2000, or in 1996
That was predictable.

[Scott D]

That was predictable.

Well I would have included 92, except I think there was a viable candidate, but America chose the wrong one because he was flashy.