An 'Authentic' Conservative, Buchanan Parts With Bush

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY ^ | Wednesday, August 28, 2002 | BY BRIAN MITCHELL

[sixmil]

Patrick J. Buchanan isn't giving up. He's left the Republican Party for good. And he isn't planning a fourth run for the White House.

But he is finally trying something fans have been telling him to do for years. He's founding a magazine.

The new, bi-weekly magazine will debut next month and be called "The American Conservative." Scott McConnell, former editorial-page editor of the New York Post, will edit it. Society gadfly Taki Theodoracopulos will help with cash.

Buchanan is upbeat, about the magazine at least.

"We hope to have a conservative magazine which is genuinely and authentically conservative," he said. "We hope it will be sort of a rallying point for the conservatism that is really utterly unrepresented by either the K Street conservatives or the Weekly Standard, National Review, Commentary, New Republic neocons."

IBD talked with Buchanan at his home in Virginia to get a flavor for the new journal.

IBD: How are we doing in the war on terror?

Buchanan: I think the president did a bully job of diplomacy and moral leadership from September to January. The way they fought that war and won it was outstanding. It was a moral and just war, fought in a moral and just way.

But when he got into identifying an "axis of evil" and then threatening pre-emptive strikes against all nations that might develop the kinds of weapons we've had for the past century, he lost his focus. He has disrupted alliances. He has threatened actions that we don't have the troops in place to take.

He's asserting a right to wage pre-emptive war without the approval of Congress on any nation that aspires to build the kinds of weapons we've had since World Wars I and II. I don't think he's got the right to do that, and I think a policy of warning about pre-emptive strikes is the kind of policy that could invite pre-emptive strikes against us.

IBD: What about a war with Iraq?

Buchanan: Anybody who has a state, including Saddam Hussein, is going to be reluctant to go to war against the United States or to commit any atrocity which would put them in a war with the U.S. Containment and deterrence will work with almost any state.

Saddam is terrified of the United States. He wants to hand over his power to one of these sons of his. He's got all these palaces out there.

Why in heaven's name would he want to trigger a war with the United States of America and have all that blown to kingdom come along with him, his sons, his family, his dynasty, his army, everything?

I don't think we should give up on the policy of deterrence. It frightened Joe Stalin. It frightened Mao Tse-tung. These guys are not in that league.

IBD: What should we be doing here at home?

Buchanan: The first thing we should do is get serious about border security. Since 9-11, we've only had 411,000 illegal aliens come into the United States.

If there is a weapon of mass destruction smuggled into this country, the whole idea of global interdependence and 10,000 Mexican trucks coming into the U.S. every day, almost all of them not inspected, and over a million containers - that's going to come to an end.

It will be a very powerful argument for retiring to economic independence and economic nationalism, where you do not have thousands of people crossing your border every day. One or two more of these attacks and globalization itself is in trouble.

IBD: What will that mean for an open society?

Buchanan: I'm a believer in an open society, I'm a believer in a free society, and this is why I'm opposed to the idea of an empire. They say we need a Department of Homeland Security. I thought the Defense Department was in charge of homeland security. Apparently it's in charge of empire security.

Of what advantage is all this American empire, interfering in all these quarrels around the world, if as a consequence we lose freedom at home and live in constant danger of some kind of small atomic weapon detonated on American soil?

I think the American empire is going to go, and I think that's a good thing. The reason they were over here on 9-11 is that we are over there.

IBD: Where do you see things 10 years from now?

Buchanan: I regret that for the rest of Mr. Bush's first term, we're going to be at war. The president has subcontracted out our Middle East policy to Ariel Sharon, and I think that's a dreadful mistake.

Palestinian terrorists ought to be condemned and Israel has a right to peace, but you have to give the Palestinian people some hope. And I think Bush's (June 24) speech gives them very, very little hope. I think his speech could have been written in Tel Aviv.

IBD: Will there ever be a Palestinian state?

Buchanan: I think the question is not whether there'll be a Palestinian state. There may be two. The ultimate question is whether there's going to be a Jewish state in the Mideast. I think Ariel Sharon is leading them into a cul-de-sac from which there is no way out but back through Oslo and Tabaah and the Saudi plan.

[sixmil]

I still don't understand Buchanan's sympathy toward the Palestinians, but the rest is right on target.

[Under the Radar]

Isn't it possible to recognize that Israel's interests are not necessarily our interests, without being "pro-Palestine"?

[finnman69]

Why do I suspect that Buchanan's mag will go the way of Salon and Donahue's new show.

Pat, how about "The American Sore Loser" as a working title. You can get Gore and McKinney as contributing columnists.

[hchutch]

Buchanan's become the bitter old gadfly who pines for an era that never really was, and can never come to pass.

Furthermore, the fact remains that Reagan and Bush Jr.'s brand of conservatism is the type that can eventually make this nation stronger. Our nation and culture have survived worse trials in the past, and I believe we can survive the current tests.

It's really a battle between optimism and pessimism, and optimism is a far better path, IMHO.

[dwilli]

His leaving will bring many more people into
the party than will leave with him. You can't
put lipstick on pigs and expect them to not
still get muddy. Pat Buchanan is as racist today
as he was twenty years ago, he's just learned
to conceal it better.

[Burkeman1]

I have concelled NR after being a subscriber since I was 16. I will try Buchanan's mag.

[SunStar]

Buchanan: I regret that for the rest of Mr. Bush's first term, we're going to be at war. The president has subcontracted out our Middle East policy to Ariel Sharon, and I think that's a dreadful mistake.

Buchanan is a 1920's conservative, anti-Semitism and all.

[PuNcH]

It's really a battle between optimism and pessimism, and optimism is a far better path, IMHO.

DPS intelligence reports said Mexico-based rings were responsible for half of all homicides in Maricopa County. These are the kind of problems that Buchanan acknowledges and Bushbot's ignore. Ignoring problems and acting like they dont exist is not optimism.

So you brand Buchanan pessimistic and Bush optimistic. How lovely. You know the rest of the liberals simply brand themselves politically correct. They got it all covered in advance.

[ex-snook]

"Buchanan's become the bitter old gadfly who pines for an era that never really was, and can never come to pass. "

Let's see why Buchanan pines.

- Pat was right on the economy bubble while Bush/Clinton were on spending frenzy plus tax cuts for as far as the eye could see.
- Pat was right about illegal immigration problems.
- Pat was right that foreign entanglements would bring war to our shores.
- Pat was s right that gay sexual practices will cause problems. Check out aids and what happened to the Catholic Church.

No wonder he is pining - so should America.

[BlueNgold]

My two cents:

Pat Buchanen has never been anything other than a self-styled arch-conservative. Just because he says he is the epitome of conservatism does not make it true.

I, for one, put Mr. Buchanen's comments on the same level as any talking head who has never felt that burden of actual responsibility. He might be a fine professor of conservative thinking, but he has very little grasp of the realities of day to day command and decision making. It is not wrong to dream of a conservative Utopia, or to even espouse such a dream, but leaders deal with actual situations containing actual problems.

If Pat wants to put forth potential solutions and forward thinking ideas to better our country I might listen, but it seems that his greatest commodity is the ability to find fault in everyone else but himself. As for me - I'm not buying.

[hchutch]

Sorry, again, I don't buy it.

I don't know why Buchanan has his head in the sand vis-a-vis foreign policy. Saddam Hussein is a MALIGNANT CANCER who has to be taken down sooner, rather than later. The same deal was the case with the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and I could probably think of a few more places where we need to take a stand now.

A fair bit of our policy since World War II was not playing favorites, it was stopping things before they got to World War III, or it was standing up for what was RIGHT. Pat Buchanan's way is no better than "non-judgemental" liberalism applied to international affairs.

[Eternal_Bear]

We didn't attack the Soviet union. We allied with them though Stalin murdered millions more in his concentration camps than Hitler did! Two nations attacked Poland in September 1939 but the West declared war only on one of them. America was still doing business with Hitler as London was being carpet bombed. Chamberlain had the guts to declare war on germany. We waited till Germany declared war on us.

[rogerthedodger]

Wow. You, disagree with a man's ideas, so you label him a racist/anti-semite? Sounds like something the Left does really well. If I were to suggest that American foreign policy is being manipulated by the Saudi royal family or the Palestinian Authority, does that mean that I am anti-Arab?

[hchutch]

Of course, you just highlighted another reason why Buchanan is an irrelevant side-show: His slash-and-burn style, is, in my opinion, just as bad as the fact that he has been completely wrong on foreign policy, and if you want my opinion, stuck in the 1920s.

[hchutch]

We didn't attack them, we contained `em for 32 years, and then Reagan pretty much initiated something that was "short of war" with the USSR through attacks on their economy (remember how the Saudis really kicked up production in the 1980s?), and subverting their governments.

[Zviadist]

Buchanan's become the bitter old gadfly who pines for an era that never really was, and can never come to pass.

Bitter? Have you ever watched his show on MSNBC? The guy is constantly laughing and joking, often at his own expense. Say what you will about his policy views, but he is anything but bitter.

[hchutch]

I don't see him on MSNBC. I do read his columns, and there seems to be a sense of bitterness about him.

[PuNcH]

Of course, you just highlighted another reason why Buchanan is an irrelevant side-show: His slash-and-burn style,

I said that Buchanan acknowledges the problems coming across the border and that highlights a slash and burn style? I guess you believe we shouldnt be paying attention to all those murders committed by illegal immigrants and their gangs.

[That Subliminal Kid]

I don't know, why DO you suspect that?

[That Subliminal Kid]

What a bunch of garbage. He's a nationalist, he's a jingoist, but he's no racist. If you've read any of his books you'd know that. I think he's a brilliant man whose ideas are far too correct, and far to radical for our spineless sissified country.