Return of America first

Town Hall ^ | 4/18/06 | Pat Buchanan

[NotchJohnson]

Friday's lead story in America's largest newspaper must have made for sober reading at AEI and the Council on Foreign Relations, the twin dorms that house the Wilsonian wings of our national parties.

Americans, it appears, have had a bellyful of interventionism and globaloney. Reporters Susan Page and David Jackson merit quoting at length:

"In a USA Today/Gallup Poll, nearly half of those surveyed said the United States 'should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along as best they can on their own.' ...

"The leave-us-alone mood is apparent not only in the proportion of Americans, 64 percent, who want all or some of the U.S. troops in Iraq to come home now. It's also reflected in concern about illegal immigration -- eight of 10 said it was 'out of control' -- and in the furious public reaction to reports last month that a Dubai-owned firm was poised to take over cargo operations at ports in six states.

"Attitudes have soured toward trade, as well. Two-thirds said increased trade with other countries mostly hurts U.S. workers. By 50 percent-39 percent, respondents also said it mostly hurts American companies."

What do the polls mean? Bush and The Wall Street Journal may say America is trudging backward to the dark days of "isolationism and protectionism," of "Fordney-McCumber and Smoot-Hawley that gave us the Hoovervilles, Hitler and World War II."

But the truth is less dramatic.

What the polls are saying is that America, having tasted the fruits of Bush's foreign, immigration and trade policies, rejects them. Why? All three, of dubious conservative parentage, have failed.

Three in five Americans now believe the Iraq war -- whether we invaded to oust Saddam, strip him of WMD, turn Iraq into Vermont or establish our "benevolent global hegemony" -- was and is not worth the cost in blood and money.

They are saying that a NAFTA-GATT trade policy that results in $800 billion trade deficits and the loss of 3 million manufacturing jobs -- one in every six in just five years -- should be jettisoned.

When they read of China growing at 10 percent a year, as factories close in the United States and GM and Ford, once the two greatest companies on earth, are lingering outside bankruptcy court, they think we can do better. And, we can.

They are not saying they dislike foreigners. But they are saying a government that cannot stop an invasion across our Mexican border that has left 11 million to 20 million intruders in our country, stomping around under foreign flags and demanding the benefits of U.S. citizens, is a failed regime that needs to be replaced. After all, what does it profit us if we save Anbar province but lose Arizona?

What the polls are saying is that neoconservatism has failed and we wish to be rid of it, that Davos Republicanism has failed and we wish to be rid of it, that the open-borders immigration policy of The Wall Street Journal is idiotic and we wish to be rid of it.

This is not only understandable, there would be something wrong with Americans if they did not seek to regurgitate the fruit of such failed policies. Yet, when one looks at the large Republican field of presidential hopefuls shaping up, not one has broken with, and all seem to stand behind, George W. Bush. None so more than John McCain.

And what do the Democrats offers? Taxes, censure, amnesty, Cynthia McKinney and a four-year rerun of "The Clintons."

In 1964, Barry Goldwater and his 110-proof conservatism were repudiated in the largest landslide since FDR's stomping of Alf Landon, who carried only Maine and Vermont.

But by 1968, Great Society liberalism had been tried and had transparently failed. The no-win war in Vietnam and the urban riots bespoke a failed philosophy and policy. Today in 2006, it is neoconservatism and Wall Street Journal Republicanism that have failed as badly as had Great Society liberalism by 1968.

Where Bush has remained faithful to a Reaganite philosophy, on taxes and judges, the country has remained with him. But where he listened to the globalists and the Vulcans, who altered the liturgy and diluted the dogma, he lost the country.

Fred Barnes has written darkly of a "paleo moment" in America.

But paleoconservatism is simply the faith of our fathers before we built that shelter for the neocon homeless booted out of their own house by the McGovernites, who appear, in retrospect, to have been more savvy than we thought.

What does the old-time conservatism stand for? Limited government. Balanced budgets. A defense second to none. Secure borders. A trade policy that puts America and Americans first. And a foreign policy that keeps us out of wars that are not America's wars.

Unfortunately, when the USA Today/Gallup poll shows Americans are looking for precisely such authentic conservatism, neither party is offering it. The children were right. The system doesn't work.

[Dane]

Where Bush has remained faithful to a Reaganite philosophy, on taxes and judges, the country has remained with him. But where he listened to the globalists and the Vulcans, who altered the liturgy and diluted the dogma, he lost the country

Oh BTW CC, Bush hasn't remained "faithful" to the Reagnite philosphy of blanket amnesty as Reagan did in 86(and Pat was part of Reagan's administration at the time).

I guess pat is saying President Bush should remain faithful and follow Reagan's path of complete amnesty.

[Iscool]

Pat may speak a few truths, but until he gets off of the anti-semitism and radical ideology; he is relegated to a curiosity.

I've never seen or read anything that could label Buchanan as anti-semitic...He is not afraid to discuss Jewish people or Israel but I've never seen him attack Jews as a whole...

But radical ideology is what gave us the American Revolution and the Constitution...Radical ideology is what allowed George Patton to be as successful as he was...Radical ideology is what gave us the U.S. of A. and radical ideology is what we have to have to keep it...

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

Guess this doesn't describe any of you...

What does the old-time conservatism stand for? Limited government. Balanced budgets. A defense second to none. Secure borders. A trade policy that puts America and Americans first. And a foreign policy that keeps us out of wars that are not America's wars.

Those words all sound real pretty strung together, but in the context of the other 99% of what Pat Buchanon has to say, they are no different then anything you could have heard from Father Coughlin in 1936.

Buchanan wasn't allowed into the Presidential debates because they knew he would have walked away the winner...

Or because he couldn't even manage win over the majority of the members of the miniscule Reform Party.

[UncleDick]

How did that "America First" thing work out last time?

Great, until FDR betrayed neutrality and embroiled us in the bloodiest war in world history. We've been on the offense ever since. Perhaps its time to rediscover G. Washington's advice on foreign affairs.

[JamesP81]

What does the old-time conservatism stand for? Limited government. Balanced budgets. A defense second to none. Secure borders. A trade policy that puts America and Americans first. And a foreign policy that keeps us out of wars that are not America's wars.

Unfortunately, Iraq is our war. We can't bury our head in the sand.

Other than that, most of what he says is true. Bush has abandoned the idea of small government. Where he has stuck to reagan style conservatism he is rightly lauded, where he's gone all liberal on us he's rightly criticized.

[Final Authority]

I believe what Pat is saying is that we need to observe our Borders, language, and culture, if we are to remain a nation. I believe I've heard that elsewhere as well.

I see the move to closing our borders as precisely that. We as a nation will retain our national heritage and culture, that which made us the best nation and culture on Earth in direct comparison to our third world broken culture to our south. Our English language is superior for developing ideas. It is exactly why in the past German was used in technology, but now English is used worldwide. It is because our language, English, is more precise and can more completely convey what the mind is thinking.

We as a nation have finally realized that we can't stay a nation if we are diluted by the ignorant, third worlders that the deconstructionists wish upon us.

Pat isn't always right, but he certainly makes us think.

[1rudeboy]

Perhaps its time to rediscover G. Washington's advice on foreign affairs.

What was Washington's advice? Sign a treaty with France?

[dfwgator]

Great, until FDR betrayed neutrality and embroiled us in the bloodiest war in world history.

Yep, we should have just waited until Nazi troops were on the Mexican border.

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

I've never seen or read anything that could label Buchanan as anti-semitic.

You're truly an Army of One, or your definition of anti-semitism doesn't apply to anything less then actually loading up the trains.

[fizziwig]

"Great, until FDR betrayed neutrality and embroiled us in the bloodiest war in world history"
________________________________________-

Hitler and Tojo did that...FDR had no choice...unless of course he wanted the axis powers to succeed as apparently was the case for the America firsters.

[dfwgator]

Now now, Pat lost a relative in the Holocaust, his Uncle fell out of the guard tower.

[Republican Wildcat]

The War on Terrorism is America's War, as was World War II, which he also has said was a mistake. Yes, he does lose people with basic intelligence and common sense with such comments.

[JamesP81]

What was Washington's advice? Sign a treaty with France?

Actually, it was to not get embroiled into permanent alliances from which it would be hard to get out of. I don't think it precludes aggressively defending ourselves, however.

Pat is a bit nuts. His ideas of not going after problems while they're small are insane.

However, he's absolutely right about the tearing down of our culture and the export of our heavy industry. Something needs to be done.

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

Perhaps its time to rediscover G. Washington's advice on foreign affairs.

Perhaps it's time take into account about two hundred years' worth of advances in military technology and the rise of totalitarian ideologies. And the inconvenient fact that we no longer can hide ourselves behind the British Navy.

[Republican Wildcat]

Great, until FDR betrayed neutrality and embroiled us in the bloodiest war in world history.

No, that was a guy named Hitler that started all of that. Germany declared war against the United States before we got involved over there.

[canuck_conservative]

Get off the sly "traitor" insults, already.

Or perhaps you should apply them to the US Founding Fathers - they also warned their country against "entangling alliances". Do you consider THEM traitors too?

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

Get off the sly "traitor" insults, already.

Actually, he was responding to a post calling FDR a traitor. Pot. Kettle. Any bells going off yet?

Or perhaps you should apply them to the US Founding Fathers - they also warned their country against "entangling alliances". Do you consider THEM traitors too?

Wonderful advice in a world without aircraft, nuclear weapons, ballistic misiles, chemical and biological weapons, totalitarian ideologies, etc, etc, etc.

You think that two hundred years of history might not be enough cause to maybe reconsider that advice?

Do you think that standing up NATO was a bad idea? If so, why?

[canuck_conservative]

NATO was a purely defensive organization. It didn't go around attacking countries.

[canuck_conservative]

And FDR was a near-traitor, they way he sold out Eastern Europe at Tehran in 1943.