Buchanan's surefire flop. Home Bound

The New Republic ^ | July 11, 2002 | Franklin Foer

[NYCVirago]

Justin Raimondo is a "historian"? He's only a historian if that word is now a synomyn for "anti-semitic kook"!

[Torie]

Admitting Hispanics and Asians will cause this nation to become South Africa en route to Zimbabwe is that it? My view is that folks who think that should also think negatively of neocons. I certainly hope they do. It helps to keep down the cognitive dissonance.

[rightofrush]

I thought Neocon was meant as negative term?

It is, sorta like damnyankee.

[rightofrush]

Putting Asians and Hispanics in the same box is to demonstrate naivte. Atzlan has no Asian equivalent.

[Torie]

IC, I didn't realize Pat only wanted to stop just Hispanic immigration, as opposed to all immigration except of White Europeans. I am not sure if that makes him more or less execrable. Maybe neither: maybe still just plain old execrable.

[Truthsayer20]

"Is patriotism and love of the Constitution alien concepts?"

Patriotism? I'm sorry but it's pretty evident that some folks on the right have given up on America. They, like the left-wing America-haters, aren't interested in conventional political change. All they are interested in is undermining our institutions, our president and "understanding" our enemies.

[wheezer]

I am sorry, but like most neocons I don't agree with Buchanan on anything. I consider him an invariable political opponent, to be resisted at every turn.

As a conservative, although I may agree with neocons on some issues, I know from watching them operate that they are not to be trusted.

Watching their boy (John McCain), in action only convinces me that I am correct in my distrust.

[rdavis84]

"please explain their general stand on things."--- Isn't there some sheet you can get from the ones that send your "talking points" to you that explains various publications "stand on things"? If not, somebody will probably have to do that to increase effective defending and attacking of sources.

An admission in the open by a Bush Defender At Any Cost that they don't know these things will thwart your upward mobility in the organization. In the meantime, try clicking the links I've marked plainly, review the sites, and TRY to form your OWN opinion.

Buchanan's surefire flop. Home Bound  
The New Republic | July 11, 2002 | Franklin Foer
^click here^

"Interesting article. Although I am dubious about anything from The National Review, this seems to be a fairly logical analysis.
4 posted on 7/13/02 3:40 PM Central by Miss Marple

Isn't The New Republic a liberal essay magazine? That was the reason I made that comment. If I am wrong, please explain their general stand on things. Thanks!
7 posted on 7/13/02 3:50 PM Central by Miss Marple

National Review Online --- Try clicking this one for a Different site

[Deb]

Raimondo is a "historian" the way Courtney Love is a charm school graduate.

[rightofrush]

Truthsayer: Change your post name.

Torie: Pat excretable? - only to those who use the Constitution to remove the real thing.

[Ohioan]

You identify yourself as a "neocon," a term which appears a bit of an oxymoron, unless you mean only that you are newly converted the the Conservative position. The alternative idea, that there is a new form of Conservatism makes much less sense. Conservatism is about preserving tradition; traditional values, traditional forms; traditional associations, manners, culture, etc.. My point was that we should not let a lack of complete agreement on all of those, prevent our working together with other conservatives, wherever possible. You respond that you are in total disagreement with certain other Conservatives.

It seems to me that you have then merely claimed "Conservatism" as a key to respectability, with no real commitment to the preservation of traditional America. If I do you an injustice, perhaps you will point out where. I believe that Conservatism is a rather "broad tent," and do not want to exclude anybody who is basically on our side, so if you have Conservative principles, I will be happy to work with you to effectuate those principles, even as I will disdain your non-Conservative stands on other issues. I am not trying to expel you from anything.

Your comments on the Republican Party also make me wonder, however, at your Conservatism. The Republican Party since its Conservative rally in 1994 has tended to drift back to the pre-Goldwater "Modern Republicanism," which basically went along with the New Deal concepts, with a "me-to" but a little slower approach. That was not really conservatism, and to the extent that it was more Conservative than Roosevelt or Kennedy and Johnson, it is certainly not "neo" or new in any sense.

Republican Conservatism was represented in the 1940s and early 1950s by Senators Taft and Bricker of Ohio; in the late 1950s and early 1960s by Senator Goldwater; in the 1970s and 1980s by Ronald Reagan. That was not "neo-Conservatism," either, but a revival of traditional American values--the real thing.

Pat Buchanan was part of that Conservative revival. If he has strayed a bit on some issues, he has still served those genuine Conservative values more consistently than have the heirs to those "Modern Republicans," who were really much closer to New Deal "liberals," than the Conservative wings of either party.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[Torie]

McCain has moved from being a neocon on the couple of issues with which he was identified, to being more of a conventional liberal on a host of issues. You really should try to keep up to date. :)

[Torie]

Goldwater didn't have much in common with Taft and Bricker in the sense that he was an internationalist, and they were isolationists. Neocons tend to favor free trade, a robust defense, internationalism, welfare reform, vouchers and a meaningful affording of equal opportunity to the young, a social safety net to the extent that it is not self destructive of the recipients and doesn't bust the economy, and a tax system that is progressive up to the point that supply side considerations make it counter productive. They tend to be rather permissive on social issues up to the point that it threatens the fabric of the commonweal, but strongly believe faith and religion are a good thing, even if not religious themselves. They are strongly opposed to all forms of irrational discrimination, including certain inane and destructive forms of quotas. It really is a rather clearly defined point of view, and defines my views. And I was never a leftie.

[rdavis84]

"They, like the left-wing America-haters, aren't interested in conventional political change."

I suspect you couldn't be trouble to give us about 4-5 examples of good, conservative change in the last 1 1/2 yrs., could you?

Ooops, I forgot, We're at War!

[Torie]

Per SelectSmart.com selector: here are my results:

   
 
Rank
#1 Neoconservative 
Click for more information
 
#2 Centrist 
Click for more information
 
#3 Conservative 
Click for more information
 
#4 Third Way 
Click for more information
 
#5 Liberal 
Click for more information
 
#6 Libertarian 
Click for more information
 
#7 Radical 
Click for more information
 
#8 Left-libertarian 
Click for more information
 
#9 Paleoconservative 
Click for more information
 
#10 Paleo-libertarian 
Click for more information

Can't we all just get along?

[cascademountaineer]

The man who will now carry the pitchfork for his "America First" peasant populism is a European aristocrat. Taki Theodoracopulos

Okay, hold on. While he is the heir to a shipping fortune, (Bill Buckley is also the heir to an oil fortune - what was the point the author was trying to make?) Taki is not an "aristocrat" by any means.

He is essentially (as I understand it) a free market libertarian that has written columns for most of the libertarian rags around. I dont agree with his politics for the same reason I dont agree with alot of the politics of other libertarians - which often come off as ethically bankrupt when dealing with complex issues relating to the larger society in general.

But a Statist or Monarchist he is not. That in itself in the first paragraph is a little misleading. Bankrupt libertine I could understand. But "aristocrat"? I went into this article for an appraisel - good or bad of Buchannons faults or strengths, but that comment made me a little suspicious about this authors motivations right off the bat.

Then, he argued the United States had no right to interfere in Balkan tribal feuds.

Uh huh. Along with half the Republicans in congress...

Buchannon is a controversial character to say the least. And he has ruffled more than his share of feathers and taken some pretty - how should I put it, badly advised stands. I dont have to agree with Buchannon, but by the same token this authors analysis, while lengthy, more or less starts out with the preconceived supposition of "I disagree with Buchannon, well...just because" and then proceeds to work backwords to find a case to build around.

No offense Torie, but this article, while lengthy, comes off as thinly veiled hit piece and not much more.

[Phillip Augustus]

Hmmm, let's see.

A neo-con, in a neo-con magazine takes an amazing leap of faith, and predicts that Pat Buchanan's magazine, which will compete with aforementioned neo-con magazine in the marketplace, is going to flop. Yep! There's a point.

Here's my view: The Weekly Standard is a joke.

By your theory of point-tabulation, Phillip Augustus 1, Weekly Standard 0.

[Phillip Augustus]

Oops! This was a New Republic article, not a Weekly Standard article. But aren't these two neocon trash-rags one and the same, at the end of the day?

[Phillip Augustus]

Stop complimenting Duke by comparing him to a great man like Buchanan. Duke doesn't deserve the glory.

[Phillip Augustus]

You forgot: neo-con are opposed to muslim terrorism when it threatens Israel, and will support Israel first and foremost over anything or anyone. But when muslim terrorism threatens, let's say, Christian Serbia, and when Serbia responds, then the neo-cons demand that the US bomb the hell out of Serbia.