Prominent American conservative speaks out

by redJaDe Sun Mar 16, 2003 20:18

>Do you realize how stupid you sound

that's your opinion.

>Says who ?

Well, most historians of US politics would agree with this. It is not a new observation.

> It's really weird that you admire Buckley (who
> is pro-war)

When did I ever say that 'admire' Buckley??!

Just because I know who the guy is and respect him for his place in history does not mean I agree with him on most things. Maybe on the issue of drug legalisation, I do, but most issues, no.

> so much as to give him the status
> of deciding the status of anti-war
> conservatives such as Buchanan (and many
> others).

It is just my opinion, like assholes, everyone has one.

It is a good question whether to ally oneself with the far-right. I watched some in the Irish Left struggle with this question during the Nice Referendum in 2002.

While I doubt anyone in the Irish Left would stand side by side with Justin Barrett ( http://tinyurl.com/7kxg ) but none the less Anti-Nice campaigners tolerated him and his group in the effort to campaign against the Nice Treaty, the 2nd time.

In American politics Buchanan is a similar figure. He may be anti-NAFTA, anti-WTO, etc - but there is a big difference between isolationism and anti-imperialism.

Here's an essay that shows more of this issue:

Alexander Cockburn of http://CounterPunch.org
Writing about going to a conference held by AntiWar.com....
http://www.counterpunch.org/leftlibertarian.html

''Can we [Left & Right] unite on the anti-war platform? We have already, in the case of Kossovo for example. But where would you as libertarians want to get off the leftist bus? A leftist says "Capitalism leads to war. Capitalism needs war". But you libertarians are pro-capitalism, so you presumably have a view of capitalism as a system not inevitably producing or needing war. Lefties have always said capitalism has to maximize its profits and the only way you can maximize profits in the end is by imperial war, which was the old Lenin thesis.

''Leftists say that corporations must plunder the earth. Corporations will brook no resistance. Corporations don't care for interference with their ways, whether it's by the Zapatistas or by insurgent groups around the world. The minute you have a insurgent group then the capitalists, the corporations say, enough, and whistle up the state to do their bidding.''

- - -

So, yes there is a difference between Left and Right, even when they agree on some issues.

by joe ranii Sun Mar 16, 2003 18:27

"William F. Buckley is a writer and commentator who is more or less the grandfather of modern American Conservitivism...."

Do you realize how stupid you sound ? -- "More or less the grandfather of modern American Conservitivism" (sic) ? Says who ? William Buckley (more or less) ? It's really weird that you admire Buckley (who is pro-war) so much as to give him the status of deciding the status of anti-war conservatives such as Buchanan (and many others).

Buchanan is an isolationist. He believes America should not go looking for fights thousands of miles from its border. This is a long tradition in America, going back to the earliest years of the Republic, when the infant US refused to be drawn into the war between France and England. Buchanan also favours the rights of Palestinians to live in peace and freedom. Buckley doesn't, but that doesn't stop our pseudo-leftist from citing him approvingly.

Instead of commending these positions, this pseudo-anti-war poster condemns Buchanan for favouring peace! Just who is the "idiot" here, to use his choice of words ? I suppose he prefers "leftists" like Blair to conservatives like Buchanan...

But thanks anyway for the good list of Buchanan URLS.

by redJaDe Sun Mar 16, 2003 15:28

Listen to William F. Buckley.

William F. Buckley is a writer and commentator who is more or less the grandfather of modern American Conservitivism....

William F. Buckley 'told the Washington Post, somewhat equivocally, "If you ask do I think Buchanan is an anti-Semite, my answer is, he is not one. But I think he's said some anti-Semitic things." '
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2001/04/26/weyrich/

Buckley Later condemned Buchanan directly

'William F. Buckley condemned Buchanan in the National Review back in 1991: "I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what he did and said during the period under examination, the military build-up for the Gulf War, amounted to anti-Semitism," Buckley wrote, "whatever it was that drove him to say and do it; most probably an iconoclastic temperament."'
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/09/04/pat/index2.html

Here's a good synopsis of what the Buchanan has said in the past

from FAIR.org
http://www.fair.org/current/buchanan-bigot.html

'In 1990, Buchanan spewed out another hate-filled sound bite: "With 80,000 dead of AIDS, 3,000 more buried each month, our promiscuous homosexuals appear literally hell-bent on Satanism and suicide."'
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/09/04/pat/index1.html

Questioning the History of the Holocaust
Pat Buchanan wrote in the New York Post, Saturday, March 17,1990
'The problem is: Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody.'

A Good Overview of Buchanan and American 'Populism'
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96feb/buchanan/buchanan.htm

'The Cultural War for the Soul of America'
by Patrick J. Buchanan - September 14, 1992
http://www.buchanan.org/pa-92-0914.html

'It's the Mexicans, Stupid
The Phony Populism of Pat Buchanan'
May/June 1996
http://www.fair.org/extra/9605/buchanan.html

1992 US Republican Party
National Convention Speech - Houston, Texas
by Patrick J. Buchanan - August 17, 1992

http://www.buchanan.org/pa-92-0817-rnc.html

'Friends, this is radical feminism. The agenda Clinton & Clinton would impose on America--abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat--that's change, all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call God's country.'

....

'My friends, this election is about much more than who gets what. It is about who we are. It is about what we believe. It is about what we stand for as Americans. There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself. And in that struggle for the soul of America, Clinton & Clinton are on the other side, and George Bush is on our side. And so, we have to come home, and stand beside him.'

....

Speaking of the 'Rodney King Riots' in 1991

'They had come into LA late on the 2nd day, and they walked up a dark street, where the mob had looted and burned every building but one, a convalescent home for the aged. The mob was heading in, to ransack and loot the apartments of the terrified old men and women. When the troopers arrived, M-16s at the ready, the mob threatened and cursed, but the mob retreated. It had met the one thing that could stop it: force, rooted in justice, backed by courage.

Greater love than this hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friend. Here were 19-year-old boys ready to lay down their lives to stop a mob from molesting old people they did not even know. And as they took back the streets of LA, block by block, so we must take back our cities, and take back our culture, and take back our country.

God bless you, and God bless America." '

More Buchana Speeches
http://www.buchanan.org/000-p-articles.html

Pat Buchanan: In His Own Words
http://www.adl.org/special_reports/buchanan_own_words/print.asp

by Tony Martinez Sun Mar 16, 2003 05:59

But for Hitler, Buchanan would be open about his fascism. Because of nazi atrocities it is just not possible to admit one's fascism. But Buchanan comes from the same stream that produced the populist fascist, Fr. Coughlin. And the roots of Coughlin's ideology lay in Ireland and in the Catholic church in Ireland.

by Noname Sun Mar 16, 2003 03:45

Everyone knows he's a looper, his opinions carry weight only with the deluded.

by Joe Rebel - Stop Fascism! Sun Mar 16, 2003 03:36

I beg to differ. Buchanan's voice is valued at this juncture. Many of us may never wish to see a President Buchanan in the White House, but his remarks about key members of the Administration are correct. Richard Perle has acted as an Israeli agent in the past. This is a matter of public record. Zionist Americans, both Jewish and Christian, are pushing the United States into war. Like it or not, on this issue, Buchanan speaks the truth.

by joe ranii Sun Mar 16, 2003 01:18

It is probably a waste of my time to ask this individual, redJaDe, to back up his/her stupid and histrionic claims about Buchanan being an "anti-semite", but I will do so nonetheless.

Give us some evidence, please, or else admit that you are barking in the same chorus as the NeoCons Perle et al in Washington, who place the interests of Israel before the interests of their own country.

by Mike Sat Mar 15, 2003 23:25 stepbystepfarm at shaysnet dot com

The only thing illogical is imagining politics can be described by a one dimensional line left to right. The reality is that there are multiple dimensions involving centralized vrs local scale, individualism vrs collectivism (and again with "scale" issues), freedom vrs compulsion, etc.

You correctly identify Buchanan with the "nativists" but THAT "interest" can't necessarily be placed in some fixed spot in the traditional left-right linear spectrum -- "populist" movements are notorious about being able to "flip".

Look, some of us would like to imagine that we can redefine everything into a simple linear left-right conflict. Oh so much simpler, but wishing won't make it so. People are MUCH more complicated about what they desire.

by redJaDe Sat Mar 15, 2003 21:08

Pat Buchanan is a nutcase and an Anti-Semite - he was also White House Communication director for both Reagan and Nixon.

Regardless, he is no longer taken seriously by American conservatives nor liberals - even though he has a small and loyal flock of devotees on the Right.

It is not suprising that he is against the War. More so, he is a danger to the anti-war side because he is good at getting media exposure and is able to distort the anti-war cause into a nativist know-nothing propaganda.

He did this with his anti-WTO efforts and the media often went to him(!) to explain the protest in the streets in the US, while actually having nothing to do with the protest organisers nor their organisations.

Buchanan represents that odd part of the Left-Right political spectrum where both extremes illogically connect, full circle.