November 4, 2008
PJB: But Where Did Bush Go Wrong?
By Patrick J. Buchanan
After losing control of the Senate and 30 House seats in 2006, the GOP is bracing for losses of six to nine in the Senate, and two dozen to three dozen additional seats in the House.
If the party “were a dog food,” says Rep. Tom Davis, “they would take us off the shelf.”
Bush’s approval is 25 percent. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton left office with ratings more than twice as high.
But while John McCain and others have deplored the Bush failures, what, exactly, did he do wrong?
What were the policy blunders to which Republicans vehemently objected at the time?
That Bush is a Big Government Republican is undeniable. His two great social spending initiatives, prescription drug benefits for seniors under Medicare and No Child Left Behind, so testify. But how many Republicans opposed Bush on these initiatives? How many have called for the abolition of either program, or for raising payroll taxes to pay for prescription drugs?
McCain now supports the Bush judges and justices and the Bush tax cuts, as do almost all Republicans.
True, Bush sought amnesty for illegal aliens and backs the free-trade globalism that exported our manufacturing base and 3 million to 4 million jobs. But McCain is even more enthusiastic about both.
Does the party dissent on free trade and mass immigration?
Two-thirds of Americans now believe the Iraq war a mistake. Yet, all but a few Republicans backed the war. At the time of “Mission Accomplished!” in May 2003, the nation gave Bush a 90 percent approval rating, as his father had after Desert Storm.
What turned America against the war was not the decision to invade, oust Saddam, destroy the weapons of mass destruction and depart, but the long, bloody slog, the five-year war, with nearly 5,000 dead, that Iraq became. It was not the lightning war of Tommy Franks, with journalists riding tanks into Baghdad, that soured America, but the unanticipated duration and cost of the war.
Yet, Republicans still believe that the war was not a mistake, only mishandled. And now that Gen. Petraeus got it right in Iraq, they say, we should pursue the Petraeus policy in Afghanistan.
How many Republicans have repudiated the Bush Doctrine that got us into Iraq — the belief that only by making the world democratic can we keep America secure and free?
Americans no longer believe that, if ever they did. And history proves them right. For Iraq has never been democratic, and America has always been free. Yet, the Republican Party has never renounced the Bush Doctrine
Indeed, it is being applied today in Afghanistan.
That war, too, after we failed at Tora Bora to capture or kill bin Laden, has become a long slog to create a democratic Afghanistan, which, like a democratic Iraq, has never before existed.
In Afghanistan, we are entering the eighth year of war with victory further away than ever. The Taliban grows stronger. U.S. casualties are surging. Opium exports are breaking records. Our NATO allies grow weary. Even the Brits are talking of reconciliation with the Taliban, perhaps accepting a dictator.
These two wars helped to cripple the Bush presidency and end the GOP ascendancy. Yet, at the highest levels of the party, one hears no serious questioning of the ideology that produced these wars. McCain has pledged to stay in Iraq until “victory” and send 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan.
Nor have Republicans objected to the U.S. air strikes that have killed hundreds of Afghans, or the Predator strikes that have inflamed Pakistan or the helicopter raid into Syria that humiliated Damascus and enraged the population. If Republicans disagree with these policies and actions, their voices are muted.
Bush is for facing down Russia and bringing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. Does any Republican disagree? For McCain is more hawkish than Bush when it come to Moscow.
The party says it is losing because the economy went south. But who caused that? Was it not because Republicans colluded with Democrats in pushing “affordable housing,” subprime mortgages, for folks who could not afford houses?
Is the GOP prepared to demand tough terms for home loans?
Was it not GOP presidents who appointed the Fed chairmen who pumped up the money supply and created the bubble? How many Republicans objected to the easy money when the going was good?
The country wishes to be rid of the Bush policies and the Bush presidency. But where does the Republican Party think Bush went wrong, other than to be asleep at the wheel during Katrina?
The GOP needs to confront the truth: The failure of the Bush presidency lies not in a failed execution of policy but in the policies themselves and the neoconservative ideology that informed them.
Yet, still, the party remains in denial, refusing to come to terms with the causes of its misfortune. One expects they will be given the time and opportunity for reflection soon.
“The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in ourselves.”
Tags: George Bush, John McCain, Neocon
Email Post
Print Post
Vote Average: 4.67 Stars!
Loading ...![Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War](http://patbuchananbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/bk-pjb-chuw165.jpg "Churchill_Hitler_the_Unnecessary_War\")
As an American veteran I can honestly say that I hate George W. Bush. He destroyed my job and life with his illegal Mexicans. Yes he changed America but not for the better but for the far worse. He is the anti-American and a globalist filthy schmuck whose heart is filled with treason.
The problem is that the NeoCons are ideological and subscribe to a worldview that is fixed and unpragmatic. Their free-trade, globalist dogma is just as entrenched as anything the Socialists could come up with. This type of ideological government is alien to America and has taken the United States down into dark and dangerous alleyways, ideological dead-ends in which dogma is the norm and debate is not welcome. That is not the American way.
Absolutely not! I cannot take credit for Bush because I never voted for him and his outlandish agendas. Maybe some day a person will come along who represents true conservative ideals, but until then, I vote in the middle (which Obama nor Bush are a part of). Go McCain.
For everyone that was against the Iraq war I say this. There was three options when it came to Iraq after 9/11:
1- Invade and remove Sadaam Hussein.
2- Not invade and leave the sanctions in place.
3- Take the sanctions off and leave Sadaam to do whatever he wanted.
I distinctly remember people, particularly people on the left, screaming during the Clinton years that the sanctions on Iraq were killing thousands of children every month. Would that have been a better option for Bush to continue? Instead of invade, continue the sanctions that would have killed thousands more people by now?
Or would you have preferred Bush to take option three and take off the sanctions? Go back to the time when Sadaam Hussein had a free reign to gas his own people to secure his power? The left would have complained about human rights, and that we must “do something.”
I agree that going into Iraq was mishandled. But for those who say it was clearly the wrong thing to do, I think that you would be complaining in the same condescending manner if Bush had picked option 2 or option 3.
NEOCONs Playing Rope-a-Dope
NEOCON social agenda has always been Democratic-Left, just as their Marxist fathers. The agenda of “Open Borders, Affirmative Action and Abortion-on-Demand” sends a chill up the NEOCON leg faster than the chill that Obama sends up the leg of Chris Matthews. They will get their social agenda over the next two years, and by 2010 be back at the pig-trough for more war.
Over the next two years the Rope-a-Doping NEOCON strategists will let the Democratic Left pound America’s mid-section. That will turn “Obama 2008″ into “Carter 1976.”
By 2012, a revamped “Reagan-1980-Gambit” will be rolled out that will tout ‘Terminator-Arnold’ with ‘Honey-Trapped Palin’ spouting Bush Doctrine II.
The few rational figures like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul on the margins will not be able to pry the well-funded and obsessed NEOCONs from the helm of the sinking Republican Titanic.
REF: “The GOP needs to confront the truth: The failure of the Bush presidency lies not in a failed execution of policy but in the policies themselves and the neoconservative ideology that informed them.”
Other than oil, Iraq is non of our business. You removed Saddam and installed a puppet government which is nothiong more than the mayor of the green zone. The various afctions are in charge some of whom are worse than Saddam.
We have nothing to offer the world other than drugs, gangs, abortion teen sex, and other godless acts so please stop talking about what good we are doing by invading other antions and forcing them to exchange their Qurans for our condoms.
The sad truth is that a true conservtive leader cannot make the cuts in social spending which need to me made without inciting a national rebellion. Furthermore, not only was invading Iraq wrong but then there is no plan to pay for it. Once again, what do you think would be happening if the tax cuts were posponed to fund the war or some other tax of fee was imposed to cover it’s cost? The only reason we don’t have a 1960’s type of rebellion is that the public has been insulated from the cost. During Viet Nam, every community had bodies comming back from the war. Today, only the military towns see the true cost. Every war we fought before had some plan to pay for it. Today, we simply charge to the national debt. Add the economic treason of NAFTA, Illeagal immigration, the loose policies which brought about our current crisis and you have everything Pat describes in “Where the right went wrong”
Back in 1994, Pat Roberson wrote a book titled “The New World Order”. In it, de accuses the Democrats and the GOP of only pretending to hate each other. He asserts that they are actually working closlely together to sucker us into directing our bllod and treasure to achieve this new order leaving us bankrupt and subject to it. If you believe the book, everything that is happening makes sense.
I agree with Pat 100%^. The neo-cons are Home Invaders in the Republican Party. If someone comes to your house in the middle of the night and sneaks in and does a Home Invasion and takes over do you then just hand them the keys and say - Well I Guess I Have To Move Out And Find A New House! Eff NO! You kick them the Eff out! I’m not leaving the Republcian Party because a bunch of scum bags from the Pat Moynihan wing of the Democratic Party decided to commit a Home Invasion on my turf. H E Double Hockey Sticks NO!
I’m staying in the Republican Party and demand that the neo-con Citizen of the World Types who have no allegiance to the United States of America are kicked out of it. These people play both sides of the fence - Some are in the Democratic Party and some are in the Republican Party - but none of them have the best interests of the USA at heart.
This is what i would like to see in the 2012 Republican National Platform:
- A return to National Origins quotas for the U.S. based on how our population was in 1965. Thus, obviously repealing the 1965 Hart-Celler Immigration Act.
- No Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants to the U.S. unless they are from Western Europe, Eastern Euroope, or Russia.
- End the L1 and H-1B Visa Programs which destroy American jobs
- No Free Trade Deals that pit American workers versus Third-World Slaves.
- No early voting except for invalids and military.
Letting Dick Cheney appoint himself bringing the manifesto of the Project for A New American Century. This lead to war on Saddam instead of bin Laden, occupation and a nation building quagmire. Thow in permanent favorable job exporting trade with China and you have the recipe of a failed presidency. McCain is part of the problem not the solution.
Where did he go wrong? Let me “re-count” the ways. At his swearing in, and the refusal to honor his oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Proof? Sneak and peek provisions of the USAPATRIOT Act are a clear violation of the 4th Ammendment.
Where else? By ignoring precendent of 1946 Nuremburg Tribunals and waging war of aggression. Proof? Sadaam was selling his oil in Euros threatening Dollar hegemony; WMD and spreading democracy at gunpoint are lies, which are now self-evident. Torture and extraordinary renditions…Gitmo….warrantless wiretapping
Incompetence as CIC for allowing OBL to escape. Incompetence as CEO president for waging war on the cheap and borrowing from rivals to pay for it. Incompetence in stewardship of the dollar. Cronyism in policy via BigPharma and Medicare and No Child Left a Dime. He did not look out for the common weal of The People, rather he only protected his people. Proof? The still secret Cheney energy policy, politicization of the Justice Dept, US Army Brigades patrolling US cities, and the advent of mercenary armies to protect property.
I tire of this, and ask rather where did he go correctly? Not one single instance. Where did the GOP err? Every step of the GWB way it cheered the naked Enfant Terrible and enabling the authoritarian rule rather than honoring the consent of the governed.
Abject failure. The GOP brand is in the fetid sewer of broken ideologies. And hence The Landslide speakeths…
For over 200 years America has grown on our own terms. We have always bristled at any ideal or philosophy that sounded too European or foreign in general.
Our independence and originality have been not only a source of national pride, but a modus operandi that has served us well. We have been engaged with the World, but kept a safe distance from the World’s collective values.
While we enjoyed an open society and a relatively peaceful coexistence between the many differing socio-political points, the rest of the World engaged in tribal feuds and wrestled with the ill effects of their colonialism.
Our biggest challenge has been civil rights and even the thorny issue of racism has mostly been fought in courts and on the Congressional floor. That’s not how much of the World settles it’s differences.
The Republicans are the victims of their own naivete. They believed, as many Americans, left and right, that what works well for us is desired elsewhere. We are shocked and confused when people do not celebrate liberation or crave individual freedom – it has been a hard and expensive lesson for us.
This same naivete fueled our free-for-all economic policies – it is all a result of straying from the independent nature and self-reliant indomitable spirit of the American soul.
Without autonomy and independence from the rest of the World we are fish out of water – we lose our reason for being Americans.
I think we finally get it – the neocons haven’t caught on yet.
The left’s opposition to the Iraq war is immaterial because it was not based on logical ideas or backed up with counter intelligent. They opposed the war because they are predisposed to oppose Bush – no matter what his policy.
But, the real reason to avoid nation rescuing and building had to be learned the hard way.
5000 soldiers dead and many thousands more wounded and disable is a very hard lesson indeed.
We need to dismiss shout-outs of “protectionism” and “isolationism” and pull back a bit and take care of our own. We can still be engaged in the global economy, but on our terms, not China’s and Wall Street’s.
Great column today and I agree you 100%!! Please also consider the fact that many Americans are tired of politicians using abortion and gay rights as issues. These should be private matters between a person and his/her preacher or family. The Republican Party needs to send the “Religious Right” back to the pulpit and out of politics.
Where did Bush go wrong? To begin with, he is not a conservative or even a moderate Republican. He is an evangelical neo-con.
The decision to invade Iraq was, as well discussed here, a mistake. Misjudging the length and difficulty of the mission was incompetent. Lying to the American people about WMD and hinting at a Saddam 9/11 connection to get them behind the war was unforgivable.
Cutting taxes, even for the wealthiest among us, was good. Failing to reduce spending to offset the tax cuts, and thereby contributing to massive deficits, was idiocy. Trying to keep us out of a recession with unreasonably low interest rates was a disaster. What was wrong with simply letting the economy go through its regular ups and downs? Every time government intervenes, it makes a bad situation worse.
Keeping us forever on edge with red, orange and yellow levels of terrorist threats was highly, and obviously, manipulative. With this threat, they justified domestic spying, secret courts, Guantanamo Bay, a host of restrictions on our personal freedoms and the invasion of Iraq.
Giving tax dollars to faith-based initiatives, while it hasn’t garnered much attention, was the government pushing a religious agenda. I don’t doubt Jefferson was turning in his grave.
I’d write more, but an Obama presidency, which is the direct result of Bush’s failed presidency, is killing my enthusiasm.
The republicans have turned their backs on the hard working little guys who hate the entitlement driven great society LBJ types that the democrat party drool over. John McBush thinks that true conservatives are buying his bluff that he is the only one that will stand up for true conservative values when his past voting record shows the complete opposite. If I wanted aTeddy Kennedy type I would vote for Obama!!! If I wanted a Bush disciple then McCain would be my man. After the dust settles and the RNC examines why they lost by a landside will they come up with the correct conclusion??? Will they blame their past globalist agenda, such as pushing for unfettered free trade, mass immigration,the bungling of our two wars and the doubling of our national dept? I think they will blame the loss on not pandering enough to minorities and to get their vote in the future they will need to go further to the left. I see more stupid is stupid does thinking instead of fighting for the best interests of the citizens they represent.
Let’s not generalize too much about neocons. Though some neocons are too liberal for comfort, many neocons are genuinely conservative on social and cultural issues. Not all neocons jumped on the Reagan Revolution for Cold War reasons but because they’d grown disillusioned with the socio-cultural changes of the 60s–loose sex, drugs, mindless youth culture, anti-Americanism, welfare, race riots.
Still, on the issue of free trade and open borders, necons have been either dogmatic or blindly ideological. Their foreign policy has been more pro-Israel than pro-American. US and Israel are close allies but don’t always share the same interests. Neocons have a bad habit of seeing US and Israel as one entity–Usreal. But, it must be said that when it comes to Germany, Buchanan too has blinders on. His book, Unnecessary War is unnecessarily Germano-centric. Buchanan blames Churchill for declaring war on Germany, but the real blame must be placed on Hitler for waging war on Russia, a fellow European nation. Had Hitler kept his peace with Stalin, Soviet Union would have gravitated more rightward and the West today would be in a much stronger position.
Anyway, it’s not enough to trash neocons. If anything, other conservatives should learn from neocons. Neocons may be wrongheaded on many issues, but they are passionate, well-organized, disciplined, intellectual, and energized. They are feisty and ready-to-fight at all times. Too many traditional conservatives are laid back and unengaged–and fatalistic or self-exiled.
Conservatives must find new and fresh ways to express their ‘old’ ideas and values for a new generation. Traditional conservatives have failed at this. Few go into journalism, few go into history departments, few go into art and culture. Pen is louder than the gun, but traditional conservatives generally disregard the pen and paintbrush. So, the left has been winning the culture wars. Neocons have become the new face of conservatism because they’re willing to fight, to engage, to organize, to publish, and meet the enemy head on. Their Trotskyite origins served them well. Conservatives need to hold onto their old values but they must also employ the ‘radical style’. We don’t have to accept neoconservatism to learn from their masterful and brilliant style. Consider that most Jews are liberal. Consider that most neocons are Jews. So, neocons make up only a small percentage of conservatism numerically. But, when it comes to the conservative elite, neocons must own like 80% of the conservative agenda. Neocons know how to fight, how to gain power, how to use their influence. We must be inspired by their zeal and commitment if by nothing else.
Let’s not forget the liberal media and academia.
Look, 90% of the media is owned and controlled by the liberal cabal. The media covered up for Obama. Academia, which controls and shapes our young, has come under the control of liberals and leftists. Hollywood and entertainment industry, which affect how Americans emote, are also owned and run by liberals and leftists.
Just look how the media have treated Sarah Palin. They trashed her while covering up the dirty details about Ayers and Wright. The media also barely looked into Acorn fraud and the sleazy way Obama has raised record cash.
We can trash Bush and GOP all we want. The fact is we are all at the mercy of the media for what we know and think. Most Americans still rely on the mainstream media, and guess who owns and controls most of it?
If 90% of the media were in the hands of conservative Mormons, trust me when I say Obama would not be leading in the polls.
The two main political parties in the U.S. have become a monopoly. Americans have been taken in by these two parties which mask themselves in the guise of democratic republic. The citizens mistakenly think that these two parties were made for them, when in fact they were made to exploit them.
Notice how the political parties are very careful not to denounce the money monopoly, while they often attack other issues. The big economic monopoly and the big political monopoly seem to have passed a kind of gentleman’s agreement between themselves to protect each other at the people’s expense.
It would be very Constitutional, and very helpful for the government to have a program of interest free lending, apart from the banks, to make an effort to restore the nation’s manufacturing base, along with well paying jobs. A citizen’s dividend could work wonders in rebuilding the economy from the bottom up. These dividends could be issued in the form of vouchers so they are spent for necessities, from a government recovery account not dependent on taxation or borrowing. Backing for these vouchers would be the productive potential of the economy.
The two party system has buried the good ideas of a Pat Buchanan and others, and has failed. The financiers and their enablers in the White House and Congress have driven a once great nation off a cliff.
The GOP treated Ron Paul like a pariah. I wonder if any of tonight’s losers will even be able to connect the dots and realize that they should have heeded Ron Paul. Probably not.
Like John the Baptist and the Old Testament prophets before him, Ron Paul was a lone voice calling out in the wilderness.
The great strength of the Republican party is that it has a libertarian wing along with the evangelican/neocon/social conservative wing. In contrast, Democrats are united in a single philosophy, differing only slightly in hair color, rhetorical skills and the extent of brain damage from drug use.
It’s just a simple as this:
Reagan made us proud to be Republicans
Bush made us embarrassed to be Republicans
And now Ronnie is surely rolling in his grave
As always, Pat hits the relevant nails on the head. It was Bush’s inept handling of the war in Iraq that led to the intolerable, ongoing situation there. Our mission should have been the ousting of Saddam, not democratic nation building. We should have been out of Iraq/Afgnaistan by summer or fall of 2003, with missions accomplished: Bin laden and Hussein dead or captured.
Republicans will need a conservative shot in the arm (or ass) if they ever expect to be viable party again. Pat has the formula but country has shifted so far to the left by now we’ll have to start from scratch with a grass-roots movement. Neo-conservatism is (junk) history.
David Sullivan said:
The great strength of the Republican party is that it has a libertarian wing along with the evangelican/neocon/social conservative wing. In contrast, Democrats are united in a single philosophy, differing only slightly in hair color, rhetorical skills and the extent of brain damage from drug use.
Posted on November 5th, 2008 at 5:26 am
The only bad thing about what you said is that neo-cons are anti-American Wall Street types who are Home Invaders from the Pat Moynihan Wing of the Democratic Party. Neo-cons don’t care about America and if it implodes would be just as happy to live in Hong Kong, China, Canada, etc. They have no allegiance to America - we are just a tool to carry out their goals. Otherwise you were spot on.
I have to agree with Sky Tyler. The Republicans were fools to think they could flood the country with 41 million legal latinos and up to 20 million illegal latinos since 1930 with almost zero enculturation. Most of these dual citizens are Americans-in-name-only (AINO) who consider themselves Mexican nationals first and foremost.
The Republicans and the Democrats effectively devalued American citizenship into a social security # that allows one to plop on a piece of land and work. Most of these AINOs have no idea what it really means to be an American and will never fully assimilate into our culture choosing to reject our heritage and language for another.
It was the Republicans who pushed through the Bracero Act in 1942 and all sorts of following legislation so as to exploit near slave labor displacing tens of millions of American citizen workers in the process. They then joined with the Democratic amnesty drives to ensure their cheap supply of labor was made permanent.
Adding insult to injury, they then ignored the American citizen workers they displaced in favor of attempting to convert the slave laborers. How could they think those voters would NOT turn on them is a mystery to us? They certainly did in more than a 2 to 1 ratio this election.
The conservative blacks turned on them enmasse as well. Thomas Sowell aside, states posted amazing Democrat turnouts of blacks with some states posting 100% of all black voters casting their vote for Obama. 100%!!!
Good job Republicans. You flooded the country with Democrats who threw you out of power. All of your rationals and bridge building amounted to nothing. And they never will.
In the process of mismanaging the GOP, you managed to alienate millions of life long Republicans like myself who abandoned your party turning independent because Republican leadership from the GOP chairman on down chose to live in a dream world instead of the real world ignoring the wishes of a faithful base for so many years that we finally left. They never even noticed our departure.
But we aren’t the traitors: you are. You turned on us: the people (your base). And so we turned on you.
Now is the time for upheaval in the Republican party. Now is the time to replace its leadership with authentic conservatives that will act in the national interest and the interest of the American conservatives.
We’ll come back, but you have to transform yourself fully for that to happen. And therein lies the problem. Will the Republican leadership simply bide their time unrepentant waiting for their chance to pick up where they left off or will upheaval occur in their ranks making them a party worth voting for again? Only time will tell.
Neoconism is an intellectual current and has to be exposed as such. It is ideology and seeks to impose a worldview rather than reflecting consensus. Traditional Conservatives now must use the defeat to reclaim the GOP and drive these internationalists off the political arena. Something should also be done to debunk the many media economists who claim to be objective yet are just pushing free-trade dogma. The people who call an economic crash a correction and believe the free-market is some ontological entity that presides over us benevolently and is always right.
The GOP worked very hard to earn the right to LOSE. They embraced every liberal concept that was presented to them with the exception of “Amnesty”, yet some even embraced amnesty and won the nomination over cross-dressers and pro-abortionist. McCain not only skipped out on the conservative caucuses, but dragged Juan Fernandez and Joe Lieberman around on the campaign trail in defiance! He then told voters that “These jobs ain’t comming back and get used to it!” Declares war for a hundred years, and supports the bailout of Wallstreet predators that the GOP and DEMS intimidated into becoming predators. (That compassionate marxist thing they adopted.)………..The Primary was a bad joke as they treated the real conservatives like they had leprocy, and even laughed openly at their positions on constitutionality!……..Wait and see if the dummys actually move to the right, or move farther to the left again?….And, yes I agree that “Dubya” played into the hands of the Israel-Firsters like a drunken frat boy with a title!
They can either purge the NEOCONS or go the way of the whigs.
What will shock more then anything is to watch the Bush/neo-con war mongering foreign policy doctrine all of a sudden be accepted because it is a black face promoting it!
A “War on War” – more war to end the war.
What has Obama said on foreign policy that differs from Bush? He wants more troops in Afghanistan! He even said he wants troops in Africa! He said he would nuke Pakistan, and he has officially promoted to his chief of staff one of the creepiest, darkest, war mongering characters whose own father was a Zionist terrorist! Rahm Emanuel wrote a book and his theory is more war will solve the war, and with Obama supporting his war agenda I guess that makes more war good. When Madonna and Oprah come out in full support of Obamas global “surge” And the Hollywood crowd starts calling it the “good war” and Russia an evil Aggressor, (however they come to that conclusion) the true neurotic nature of the American electorate will be clear, to a few it is clear enough.
Obama is the best thing that happened to Neo-cons and their agenda!
What was decent and honest from the Democrat Party, Dennis Kucinich, got left at the starting gate. Ron Paul held the only truth in the Republican ranks, and even though he came out of the gate, he was buried. Not surprising, because truth is the one thing neither party, nor the media wanted promoted. Which is unfortunate because the truth is creeping out anyway, and when more people learn how badly their government has been ripping them off, they are going to get real mad. The robber barons won’t be able to get blood out of turnips, and the fascists will have their hands full as they face 80 million gun owners.
Bring on the American Monetary Act and send the banksters off on a whirlwind world tour to rob each other. There are still many Americans that know how to work.
The religious right has shown themselves to be nothing more than opportunists. They quickly shifted their support from Pat Buchanan when it appeared that Dole had the upper hand. By all rights they should have attached themselves to the Constitution Party because of the religious idealology therein. But of course they saw no chance of winning there. Their whining about abortion sure falls short when they have no problem with pre emptive killing in the Mid East.
I figure there are about 100 million “Christians” in America. They could really make a difference in America’s well being if they could just open themselves up to know the truth, instead of flaunting their self righteous, arrogant patriotism.
Pat you wrote: “…True, Bush sought amnesty for illegal aliens and backs the free-trade globalism that exported our manufacturing base and 3
million to 4 million jobs. But McCain is even more enthusiastic about both.”
I did not vote of McCain for these reasons. This is not to say that I cast a vote for Obama either. I did not. I sat out. I refused to support Hilliary as I believe the Clintons (and the Bushes) have helped to ruin our country.
I have voted Independent in my the last three elections (Perot, Perot, Buchanan) and voted for you the last time out.
I agree we (the US) should isolate ourselves. This worked before - why not now? We should NOT meddle in affairs not in our hemisphere. Our army is NOT the police fo the world - just the safety for American citizens. I believe there should be a FENCE around our country. I might be against free trade but I admit not knowing enough about it to be sure.
We should tariff import goods - particularly automobiles - to help GM, Ford and Chrysler. Those companies once dominated the auto business. Our government of the past twenty years (and the Amercian comsumer) have let it slip away. I refuse to buy Chinese products to save money. In some instances, I am forced to as my local auto parts retailer sold only parts “made in China”.
I feel John McCain would have won the election (and definitely with Pennsylvania and possibly Ohio) if he had done three things:
1) Picked pro choice Tom Ridge
2) Repudiated the buy out plan or be openly opposed to it.
3) Attacked Obama’s friends - particularly Wright and Ayers - more effectively. An obvious appeal to the shrinking White majority might have helped. (Davis and McKinnon lost the election.)
The Republican party will have to compromise its stance somewhat on the abortion issue if it expects to win the White House again. Of course, this will have to done without a “Bush”. I feel that that our country has gotten progressively weaker in the past twenty years (Bush, Clinton, Bush). In due time, history will not be kind to any of them.
I am a novice at political speculation and always watch for Pat Buchanan (and his views) on political talk shows. I look forward to seeing Mitt Romney campaign in four years.
Finally, my ancestors were in Italy when slavery existed in this country and I do not feel obliged to apologize for it. I treat all races and nationalities as my equals (and expect the same) as I NEVER felt nor experienced any privledge due to my skin color. In fact, I believe this and my male gender works against me when looking for a full time job as a teacher/instructor/professor.
Sincerely,
Michael D’Antonio - 40 something - white - Catholic - Conservative - apologetically a New Jersey resident - adjunct math professor
If John McCain had been elected, we would have been bogged down in yet another no-win war with Iran within six months of his inauguration.
Thank God he lost.
PS: And Sarah Palin, she of the empty head just ripe for neo-con manipulation, is something else that needs to get lost.
I sure hope Obama will be as far-left as you guys say he will be, because I’d love to see the trailer park trash element of my former party feel what it’s like to be considered unpatriotic and unwelcome and unsafe just because of your political creed.
While gun-and-Bible Republicans scratch their double digit IQ noggins trying to figure out how this could’ve happened, I’m laughing my ass off. I voted Libertarian, but I can still relish a socialist future if it means the neo-conned GOP is split apart, and the true capitalists are the only ones left. I look forward to the day when the uneducated white trash get out of my party and back to the Democratic swamp they crawled their sorry asses out of in 68.
Cheers President Obama, you’ll do more to purge the GOP of its weak members than anyone else. One day we’ll be a worthy adversary again, ready to debate and oppose bail outs and corporate welfare instead of stupidly wasting time talking about gay marriage and unborn babies. I’ll go head first and suck em out like snails myself if it’ll rid Rockefeller’s party of a future 700 clubber.
Yes, yes, you’re all right. But, let’s also blame ourselves. Why are there so few real conservatives in the media and academia, the real centers of power? In any coup, the first thing the new regime does is take over centers of information. Media are that important, but how many conservatives apply for journalism schools? Also, our sense of history is passed down by intellectuals and books. Yet, most intellectuals and authors are liberals and leftists. Though the hard left make up a much smaller proportion of US population than conservatives, there are far more hard leftist intellectuals, professors, and journalists than conservative ones.
Also, young folks mainly learn about the world, absorb values, what’s cool and uncool, etc through culture, mainly popular entertainment. Yet, conservatism has failed to inspire much in the way of artistic or cultural creativity. We may bitch and whine about the jerks in Hollywood, but at least the liberal jerks are creative and entertaining. All we have are the blowhards on talk radio and dimwit country singers. What often passes for conservative intellectualism is Ann Coulter’s screeds.
There is the obnoxious left–a lot of it–but also the cultural, intellectual, creative, and the artistic left. But, on the Right, we have the cocksure and lock-n-load crowd but a dearth of creative, intellectual people. Pen is mightier than the sword. Marx proved far more powerful than all the military commanders of the Old European order. Jesus proved more powerful than the Roman legions.
If conservatives are not good at New Creativity, they should at least uphold cultural and artistic tradition–as Paul Johnson has done. Conservatism is not only about preserving only the political order or economic principles but about preserving our civilizational treasures–the arts, the great books, the music, etc. Yet, how many conservatives give a damn about the great artistic and cultural achievements of the past? The humanities are dominated by the Left because the Right has no use for literature, classical music, arts, etc. The Left may not have proper appreciation of Western civilization, but at the very least, they engage with it, if only to tear it down. Conservatives just ignore the very stuff they are supposed to defend. What passes for conservatism is smug talk radio, hedonistic libertarianism, yuppie dweebinesse, etc.
It’s a great thing that Buchanan has brought our attention to the culture war and has written books, some of them very courageous even if misguided in some ways. But, his dogmatist style doesn’t foster creativity and originality. It’s ‘if we’re not with us, you’re against us’.
Also, when will the Right figure out that Christianity is the core of its problem? Jesus was no conservative. He was a radical subversive. He was an extreme pacifist, egalitarian, universalist, and demagogue. He was the precursor of Marx, Mao, and Che. Yes, Christianity has been central to Western civilization, but ONLY rhetorically, not substantively. The West didn’t grow strong by PRACTICING Christianity. America was not discovered, conquered, settled, and built by turn-the-other-cheek pacificism, give-away-my-wealth egalitarianism, open borders universalism. It was settled by businessmen-warriors.
Look what’s happening to the Catholic Church. It’s losing its Europeanness faster than the rest of Europe. Do we want US to go the way of the Catholic Church? If US and Europe were to adopt the ways of the Catholic Church, they will mostly be African and Chinese in 30 yrs.
If Jesus were alive with us today, he’d be for a 99.9% tax rate for the successful, total open borders, undermining of national borders, a total dismantling of our military.
Christianity is useful because it makes us reflect on meaning of life and the universe beyond this world. But, it’s an ideology that, if practiced, leads to racial, national, and cultural suicide.
For Western Man and Western Civilization to survive, it must restore healthy and virile warrior values of paganism; they must be wary–except in a purely spiritual sense–the sickly and pale guilt of Christianism.
The question we must ask is not so much what the neocons did wrong but why and how they gained so much power within the Conservative movement?
Why were Paleocons so helpless and ineffective against the rise of the neocons?
Possible answers.
1. Neocons were mostly Jewish, as such highly intelligent, ambitious, and combatative. They were brilliant at fighting the Left during the Cold War and came to be highly prized. It must be admitted that neocons are excellent writers and thinkers–even if their thinking is wrong.
Since they were intellectually persuasive, many cons bought into their ideas. Many cons came to feel that neocons are smarter, savvier, and had more right to lead the conservative movement toward the 21st century.
2. People like Buckley were eager to cleanse the Right of the stain of anti-semitism. Extreme anti-semitism of the Right was Nazism. Milder form was the John Bircher country club type. After WWII and with the rise of Jewish power in the US, Buckley felt he had to disinfect the Right of any whiff of anti-semitic tendencies.
So, Buckley and many other cons were more than grateful when formerly leftist Jews jumped on the conservative bandwagon. Rising presence of Jews in the conservative movement would demonstrate that American conservatism has reformed and redeemed itself. Also, since Jews were perceived as a ‘victim group’, it was useful to welcome them–especially since conservatism was perceived as the ideology of the powerful and privileged.
Today, though there are paleocons who reject and distance themselves from neoconservatism, many stick with the alliance with neocons because the Jewish/conservative alliance is greatly prized. Having some Jews on the conservative side is kinda like having Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas. Since blacks and Jews are perceived as the noblest victim groups in America–if not in the world–but tend to be mostly Democratic or liberal, conservatives feel besides themselves when these Noble People join the conservative side. Their participation lends moral credit to conservatism.
3. It’s possible that Jewish domination of the media led to neocon personalities being favored as the voices of conservatism in print and tv. Notice that the two in-house conservatives chosen by NY Times are both Jewish–Brooks and Kristol. Indeed, many newspapers and news programs present neocons as THE face of conservatism.
Since much of our media are owned by Jewish liberals, it’s possible that Liberal Jews preferred neo-conservative Jews with whom they shared certain interests–middle east policy, zionism, social issues,etc–than paleoconservative gentiles perceived as hostile to Jewish interests.
4. With the exception of Buchanan and few others, could it be that most Paleocons are not all that interesting or engaging in print or media? Or, perhaps Paleocon views have become politically incorrect in our age of ‘gay marriage’. Many conservatives prefer to have neocons do the heavylifting since the latter tend to be less ‘controversial’ in a liberal dominated media and academia.
5. Money factor. Since Jews are very wealthy, they’ve been able to fund many more neocons institutions and magazines than Paleocons have been able to fund theirs.
6. Neocons tend to be real men of ideas and intellect whereas most Paleocons tend to be men of opinions and sentiments. Neocons tend to be academic as well as journalistic whereas Paleocons tend to be only journalistic. So, neocons tend to carry greater gravitas and win greater respect. They’ve become the Brains of conservatism. Considering that men like Reagan, Bush, Quayle, Dole, Cheney, etc, etc have not been men of Ideas–as opposed to broad principles–, many conservatives came to value the ‘deep thinking’ on the part of Neocons.
7. Anyway, the neocon triumph over paleocons was not inevitable. But, alliance with Jewish conservatives became so valuable that when push came to shove, Buckley chose neocons over Paleocons. This real breaking point was when National Review purged Joseph Sobran and Pat Buchanan among its ranks in the early 90s. Buckley was still the Godfather of conservatism, and he came to realize that he couldn’t embrace both a Paleconism skeptical of our Israel policy and Neoconism that was 100% Zionist. When neocons first entered the conservative movement, they were second string players. But, as they were JEWISH conservatives, reformist Buckley couldn’t get enough of them. Here was the formidable Jewish intelligence and power at the service of conservatism further cleansed of any vestige of anti-semitism by embracing Jews. As neocons grew more powerful, they gave an ultimatum to Buckley. Choose neocons or Buchanan. Buckley chose the neocons. The rest is history. Around the same time, American Spectator trashed Buchanan in the harshest terms.
To be fair, Buchanan did say some wild things about Jews. Worst by far was his remark about Jews could not have been killed by diesel fumes. Rather thoughtless and outrageous. And, some of his views in this latest book are… No Comment.
Anyway, just as poor Jews who arrived in the US came to usurp the Wasps in the elite position, the neocon ‘boat people’ came to usurp the Paleocons in the conservative movement.
Instead of just bashing neoconservatism, we should learn from it. Politics, history, social issues, values, and etc are about ideas. A shark that doesn’t swim sinks to the bottom. A conservatism that isn’t engaging, lively, and fresh in its thinking grows stale and sinks. Necons, right or wrong, have been lively, culturally engaged–New Criterion/ Commentary–, feisty, and committed. I can’t say the same for the Paleocons who seem irritated by the demands of making their case. Ideas and values mustn’t only be stated but argued. Also, it’s not enough to say there’s a culture war but to devise the weapons that may win it. Paleocons have been unimaginative in this. Therefore, many traditional conservatives were won over to the neocon side because of the sheer lack of intellectual ideas of their own.
Finally, there is the American Conservative magazine… but it’s become a bigger joke than Neoconservatism. Its editor Scott McConnell endorsed Barack Obama for president!! Obama, the man who will nominate people like Breyer and Ginsburg. Obama the socialist ideologue. Obama, the man who wants to give away 90 billion of US tax dollars annually money to some global welfare program. Obama the ideological associate of Ayers and Wright. Obama the secular messiah and narcissistic braggart. Obama, the beloved of Naomi Wolf and Naomi Klein. Is it ‘American Conservative’ or ‘American Contrarian’? I like surprises but not shocks like this.
We thought we had a genuine conservative magazine with The American Conservative but it endorses Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008! I can understand conservatives being disenchanted with Bush and McCain and refusing to vote. But, voting FOR Kerry or Obama? American Conservative magazine is worse than Weekly Standard and American Spectator. With paleoconism such as McConnell’s, who needs neoconism. Actually, I have more respect for guys like Krauthammer who stood by McCain to the end than the punks at American Conservative who bowed down before Obama.
And, why didn’t Buchanan stop that idiot McConnell from taking over the magazine and turning it into Looney Con? This is why Paleocons lose. They finally have a magazine to call their own and then endorse Kerry, Nader, and Obama.
Actually Geo, a slice of what you so hatefully label “the religious right” (I’m assuming you mean people who value conservatism, attend church, believe in traditional values, and try to raise their kids right) did finally leave the Republican Party and vote for Chuck Baldwin this year. I was among them. The rest are still suffering from years of media and public education brainwashing believing that neo-conservatism is conservatism. They just don’t know the difference. More and more are finding their way to authentic conservatism as their distaste with neo-conservatives deepens.
The Republican party will need to transform itself to authentic conservatism to stop the hemmoraging and bring Christians and Catholics back into their fold. Failure to do so will result in a continued exdous. Watch and see.
“If Jesus were alive with us today, he’d be for a 99.9% tax rate for the successful, total open borders, undermining of national borders, a total dismantling of our military.
Christianity is useful because it makes us reflect on meaning of life and the universe beyond this world. But, it’s an ideology that, if practiced, leads to racial, national, and cultural suicide.”
Hans, what a skewed perspective you have of Christianity. It was Christians that repelled the Muslim invaders saving Europe and all of western civilization from Islamization. It was Christians that restored the New Holy Roman Empire as a unifying force and from which sprung modern science and western culture. I could go on. I think you are confusing Christianity with modern liberalism… something the left adheres to. It wasn’t until very recently, the early 60’s and the rise of evangelical Christianity (which was very heavily influenced by modern liberalism), that we saw the type of results you are describing.
“There is often a vitality to demonism that mere virtue lacks.”
-Herman Melville
Paleoconservative, it’s true that Christians fought the Muslims and all that, but NOT BY ACTING CHRISTIAN. Jesus told us turn the other cheek. Jesus told us not to accumulate wealth. Jesus told us to give away all our belongings and be poor. Jesus had no use for national or racial identity or loyalty. He was neither pro-Jewish nor pro-Roman. He was supposedly The One.
Through most of European history, Christianity was a battle flag or war cry. The West did NOT practice Christianity. Had it done so during the Muslim onslaught, the West would have been overrun. Christian West fought like pagan warriors. They fought for their own kind, their own race, their own heritage, their own land, their own women. Christians grew powerful not be practicing Christianity but using it as a justification for its aggression, ambition, violence, and heroism. The American continent was not conquered by Christian goodwill but by cavalrymen with guns. John Wayne characters are not pacifist saints but men of action who would NEVER turn the other cheek–that’ll be the day!
Christianity has been useful because it made the triumphant West reflective AFTER victory. After winning, there was some degree of remorse, reconciliation, forgiveness, and soul-searching. In this sense, yes, Christianity was essential to Western culture and values. But, ONLY AFTER VICTORY. US didn’t defeat Japan by Christian but by warrior pagan means. US acted magnanimous and compassionate–somewhat Christian–afterwards but only as warrior-victors.
The problem today is secular liberals want the West to practice Christian values above all. They want us to abandon racial and national consciousness–at least if you’re white. They want to open up borders. They favor pacificism in the face of people-of-color aggression and trangression. They want white folks to feel apologetic and guilty all the time, even when white lands are being overrun and white women are being attacked and raped. Christianist liberals have convinced Western folks that they are sinful and evil for being so rich while much of the world is poor–as though it’s the West’s fault. Though secular liberals are not religiously Christian, they are morally Christian. That is the problem. The stupid suicidal fools actually want to implement Christianity as a social policy.
It woud serve the Right better to convert to Judaism than to Christianity. Jews believe in tribalism, blood identity, violence and subversion against the enemy, sticking together, and being utterly ruthless. Jews balance universalism(concept of one God)with particularism(our people uber alles). Jews don’t come across as hypocritical when they support Israeli power while undermining white US power. It adheres to the concept of Jewish Identity/Power and subverting the power of gentiles. Nothing in Judaism says Jews must see or treat gentiles as their equal. At most, Jews say that gentiles living under Jewish power must be treated with tolerance and modicum of justice. Christianity, on the other hand, says that we must treat ALL people as our equal. Up until relatively recent times The West employed tribal or national Christianity, but that gave way to universal Christianity. This meant that that Western Christians could no longer stand for White power or Western power but must think in universal terms. Secular liberals abandoned the religious tenets of Christianity but they want to push the pacificist/socialist/universalist aspects of Christianity on all of mankind.
The reason why Buchanan is a controversial figure is he’s a Hard Christian AND as Hard Tribalist. You can’t be both. One can be a Hard Jew and a Hard Tribalist because even though Jews believe in the one and only universal God, they also believe in the concept of the Chosen People. Christianity says All Men are Equal under God. So, Christians must look upon all of mankind as potential converts and all the converts as their dear brothers and sisters.
That mindset will lead to the suicide of the West.
Before the semitic religion of Christianity spread Westward, Europeans had their own religion, culture, values, and achievements. That’s what the Right needs to reconnect with.
As for science, its roots are Greco-pagan. To be sure, Christianity, at least in its tribalist form, imbued the West with social peace and stability that allowed science to flourish, but let’s not forget that religious Christians often stood in the way of science. Think of Galileo. Think of Darwin. Why is it so difficult to believe that men evolved from apes when so much of mankind is no better than apes or even worse?
No offense Hans, but again your understanding of history and Christian systematic theology are misinformed. Since this isn’t really the venue for me to debate/discuss/and educate you in detail we’ll have to leave it here for now. I’ll just point out that:
1) It was very Christian to turn back the Muslim conquering hordes and enslavers. Research respected Christian scholars on the subject of war and you’ll quickly see where your one-dimensional presentation fails. I recommend you start with Norman Geisler’s Christian Ethics: Options and Issues and for a historical backdrop on the crusades Thomas Maddox would be a good place to start.
2) Raised in orthodoxy, Jesus certainly did have a racial and cultural identity and valued loyalty highly as evidenced by gospel first person accounts. All you have to do to see that is read the Bible.
3) A material number of Christians certainly have practiced Christianity from the first century all the way to the present. I’m speaking of true believers. To assert they were all paying lip service or were not true believers because they don’t follow your misinformed version of what a Christian is simply is in error.
4) It is not a prerequisite of Christianity to give away everything you own and wander the world as a beggar. Jesus often spoke in parables and metaphors. Understanding the greatest commandment is the key to understanding one’s relationship to the material.
5) Judiasm found its fulfillment in Christianity and no authentic Christian is going to trade away the grace of God to be bound again by a system of Judiac law. Jesus came to fulfill the law. It would be in error to go back.
6) I said modern science as in nova scientia; however, I would say ancient science sprung from the the Mesopotamian peoples around 3,500 BC which is far earlier than the earliest Greek pre-Socratics.
Anyways, you seem to have a synthesized white nationalism with a misinformed view of some liberal Christian theology you picked up from somewhere. Instead of arguing… you should continue your studies.
Hans Lucas’s denunciation of Jesus is really disheartening to read on a Buchanan website. The notion that Jesus’ teachings led to Mao Zedong (a mass murderer and pioneer in the field of thought control) is preposterous and insulting to all Christians. Jesus taught us to love our enemies, to forgive, and to turn the other cheek. This was not the behavior of Mao or the other villains mentioned by Mr. Lucas.
Jesus’ teachings are indeed hard to live up to. It is especially difficult to know what to say about warfare conducted in the knowledge that one will inevitably kill civilians and other innocents. “Just War Theory” would be better named “Just More Theory.” But at the very least Christians can agree that the Utilitarian theorist is wrong when he sacrifices lives and freedoms here and now to bring about some ill-conceived utopia in the future. Secondly, they can agree on the value to society of Jesus’ ethical teachings and the hope for salvation, which is ultimately the belief that the universe is not a giant accident but has a governing purpose. One last thing they might agree on if they thought it over is that the belief that it is somehow improper to let religious convictions affect political beliefs in effect forces us to approach every issue from the standpoint of an agnostic or atheist - which makes no more sense than forcing atheists to pretend they are Baptists when entering the voting booth.
Crude formulations of the “separation” doctrine should become our intellectual “public enemy number one” as we prepare to continue the struggle.