When Pat Buchanan Starts Making Sense You Know We're In Trouble

[2322]

Just read his latest op-ed piece at WND. I have to say, the man sees it like it is. I'm glad that at least one pundit can pop his head out of the rabbit warren to look around and wonder just what the fuck is going on in this country. It's a good quick read:

[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,][SIZE=+2]Is America
coming apart?[/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino,][SIZE=+1]Pat Buchanan wonders: 'In what sense
are we 1 nation and 1 people anymore?' [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[houtx48]

getting old and senile, perhaps? Pat, not you.

 

[vince]

Yes he right, *lol*, on some of his points, especially about the poisoned character of American politics. But coming from a guy who has been in the thick of the class/culture war and spread his own fair bit of divisive BS over the years, it's a bit disingenuous, don't you think?

 

[Industrialsize]

He lost me here:
The question invites itself. In what sense are we one nation and one people anymore? For what is a nation if not a people of a common ancestry, faith, culture and language, who worship the same God, revere the same heroes, cherish the same history, celebrate the same holidays and share the same music, poetry, art and literature?

 

[SpeedoGuy]

But coming from a guy who has been in the thick of the class/culture war and spread his own fair bit of divisive BS over the years, it's a bit disingenuous, don't you think?

Agreed. Pat Buchanan hasn't exactly been the voice of reason and moderation over the years.

Besides, I saw nothing new or insightful or noteworthy in that article. There've been better words on the topic in this very forum.

 

[Mensch1351]

I think the revered leader of the recent past said it best, "A vote for the Democrats is a vote for the terrorists!" (2004 election I believe). When the "Pres" of the US uttered those words (and never apologized by the way)............he might as well have re-shot the first round at Ft. Sumpter! The Democrats should have been out in FULL FORCE decrying the words and demanding an apology for just the reasons Mr. Buchanan sets forth. I believe it was also the revered Senator from North Carolina (I can't remember his name......he's dead now and of course forgotten) who said that if "Bill Clinton comes to NC, he'd better have a military guard with him." That comment too should have been fiercely challenged by the DEMS but they were once again asleep at the wheel.

You see -- it isn't enough for those who believe they truly are on a crusade to "save" this country to merely call those in their way "the opposition." They raise more money and frenzy by calling them "the enemy." And in their zeal they FAIL to see that their motto, "America -- MY way or NO way!" is about as anti-American as you can get. They will argue for Joe Wilson's free speech rights while opposing a President to speak to the nation's school children AND never see the "dis-connect."
I really don't agree with Mr. Buchanan's PREMISE that we were "ever" a united nation. The "culture" wars have been going on for a very long time in this country. I think it's more interesting that after 237 years.................we're STILL not sure who we are.............and the only things that really unites us are: that we always seem to NEED a common enemy to hate or a national crisis to pull us together and we all pay taxes to Washington. It's going to be an interesting 237 more years to see how we fair!!

 

[B_VinylBoy]

This isn't the first time that Pat Buchanan has said something that actually made sense. The problem is, so many of his other statements are so out there that I can't really follow or trust most things he says.

 

[HazelGod]

True...and it's not hard to sound sensible when what you're saying is patently obvious observation. It's not as if ol' Pat were offering any critical analysis on matters in this article.

 

[2322]

He lost me here:
The question invites itself. In what sense are we one nation and one people anymore? For what is a nation if not a people of a common ancestry, faith, culture and language, who worship the same God, revere the same heroes, cherish the same history, celebrate the same holidays and share the same music, poetry, art and literature?

Well yeah, he's spouting the same Norman Rockwell fantasy that America is a tribal nation rather than a nation of ideals. He naively believes the establishment PR or thinks he can garner points by repeating it.

Yes he right, *lol*, on some of his points, especially about the poisoned character of American politics. But coming from a guy who has been in the thick of the class/culture war and spread his own fair bit of divisive BS over the years, it's a bit disingenuous, don't you think?

Maybe. I think it's important that someone from the right, someone that other rightwingers will listen to, is questioning the value of Good vs. Evil politics. It's not a perfectly neutral piece, but it's a start given the source.

This isn't the first time that Pat Buchanan has said something that actually made sense. The problem is, so many of his other statements are so out there that I can't really follow or trust most things he says.

Nor do I. It's a big deal though when someone with Pat's history stops and wonders what the Hell is going on. I hope that it causes others in his usual audience to do the same.

 

[Bbucko]

True...and it's not hard to sound sensible when what you're saying is patently obvious observation. It's not as if ol' Pat were offering any critical analysis on matters in this article.

He can't offer any real analysis or meaningful solutions to counteract the coarseness of contemporary debate because he's been one of its prime instigators for the last 45 years. When he writes:

We seem not only to disagree with each other more than ever, but to have come almost to detest one another. Politically, culturally, racially, we seem ever ready to go for each others' throats.

He's being (in Vince's exceptionally charitable turn of phrase) "disingenuous" in the extreme. Watch his Culture War speech at the 1992 Republican Convention and try and find anything that suggests a greater civility:

Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Finale

He earned his place at the convention with a prime-time keynote address not through rational, reasoned debate but by attempting to defeat a sitting Republican president (Bush 1), and won the NH primary (among others) in the process. By breaking Reagan's 11th Commandment, he weakened his own party's candidate, making the choice between Bush, Perot and Clinton seem like a choice of left, lefter and leftest (which it most definitely was not).

Buchanan's crocodile tears for the destruction of rational discourse in American national politics expose him once again as the egotistical, hate-mongering fraud he's always been.

 

[2322]

True...and it's not hard to sound sensible when what you're saying is patently obvious observation. It's not as if ol' Pat were offering any critical analysis on matters in this article.

Again, I urge you to think of the audience who does take him seriously and how difficult it is for anything approaching reason to reach them (in at least some political matters). What's important is to recognize the source and who he's talking to. We know it's not us. I can assure you that batshit preacher out in Arizona considers Buchanan something of an ally.

I know Buchanan works for MSNBC and so has to sustain at least an iota of an appearance of openness, but he's the same guy who has been on 700 Club numerous times and welcomed there with open arms. The whole Norman Rockwell bit is a reassurance to his audience that he hasn't abandoned them by questioning their imaginary cultural roots. It's an imperfect message but I think it's an important one that opens the door ajar.

 

[mynameisnobody]

Pat B is perhaps recalling a Golden Age which never existed.

Vituperation has been a cornerstone of American politics since the early days. The election of 1800 (basically a battle between partisans of Adams, Jefferson, and Burr), for instance, was hardly decorous. But at least it was about issues, more or less. That ended, apparently for good, with the election of 1840 (you know, "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too"). The modern innovation is the increasing length of the election season, which is starting to make the country look like it's stuck on silly nearly non-stop.

American politics has always revolved around apparently irreconcilable conflicts. At one time the irreconcilable conflict was Abolition (of slavery). A bit later the irreconcilable conflict was Prohibition (of alcohol). Read some political commentary from the 1920s - H.L. Mencken's columns are often reprinted these days - and you'll wonder just what the hell was going on. The crisis doesn't translate well for modern readers. The question of Prohibition then dominated nearly everything. Now, it simply isn't an issue, or even a consideration. American irreconcilables tend to go away, given enough time (and, rarely, a war).

The great irreconcilables today are abortion and gun control. The abortion battle has perverted American liberalism such that over the last 40 years or so it has become unrecognizable, as all other principles have been sacrificed to the preservation of Roe v. Wade. But the abortion question's effect has been nowhere near as great as that of Abolition a century and a half ago. Likewise, Prohibition was a far sillier program than today's gun control efforts.

So I think Pat is just having one of his bad days.

Certainly his question about what does it mean to be a country is a legitimate one. But it's not a question which really needs to be answered, except for a few details. For instance, a country without border controls of some sort isn't a country at all, it's just a colored area on a map. That's a detail, but a moderately important one, and somebody should be working on it. At the moment the governor of Texas is giving it a go, since the Feds seem to be uninterested, or too feeble to manage.

 

[2322]

Buchanan's crocodile tears for the destruction of rational discourse in American national politics expose him once again as the egotistical, hate-mongering fraud he's always been.

Or perhaps he's realizing that he's been sewing the seeds of destruction and is questioning the value in doing so. I am leaving open that possibility though believe he needs to do much more to prove it. In this case, I'd urge us not to shoot the messenger as it's a good message sent to the right people tongue by the right person.

 

[Bbucko]

Well yeah, he's spouting the same Norman Rockwell fantasy that America is a tribal nation rather than a nation of ideals. He naively believes the establishment PR or thinks he can garner points by repeating it.

Actually, Jason, I think Pat Buchanan actually believes in what he says. But there's nothing naive about it: it's the last gasp of our parent's conservatism when it was called "The Silent Majority", when Bill Buckley was considered too effete and John Birch Society types were still smarting from having been marginalized. He's still in the trenches of 1960s reactionary activism to the point where he cannot see the United States in any other way.

Maybe. I think it's important that someone from the right, someone that other rightwingers will listen to, is questioning the value of Good vs. Evil politics. It's not a perfectly neutral piece, but it's a start given the source.

One part of America loves her history, another reviles it as racist, imperialist and genocidal. Old heroes like Columbus, Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee are replaced by Dr. King and Cesar Chavez.


But the old holidays, heroes and icons endure, as the new have yet to put down roots in a recalcitrant Middle America.



We are not only more divided than ever on politics, faith and morality, but along the lines of class and ethnicity. Those who opposed Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court and stood by Sgt. Crowley in the face-off with Harvard's Henry Louis Gates were called racists. But this time they did not back down. They threw the same vile word right back in the face of their accusers, and Barack Obama.

I see nothing but demagoguery and contempt in the paragraphs quoted above. There is no attempt at reconciliation, not even an attempt to view the perspective of his cultural adversaries as anything but contemptible.

 

[2322]

Pat B is perhaps recalling a Golden Age which never existed.

Vituperation has been a cornerstone of American politics since the early days. The election of 1800 (basically a battle between partisans of Adams, Jefferson, and Burr), for instance, was hardly decorous. But at least it was about issues, more or less. That ended, apparently for good, with the election of 1840 (you know, "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too"). The modern innovation is the increasing length of the election season, which is starting to make the country look like it's stuck on silly nearly non-stop.

American politics has always revolved around apparently irreconcilable conflicts. At one time the irreconcilable conflict was Abolition (of slavery). A bit later the irreconcilable conflict was Prohibition (of alcohol). Read some political commentary from the 1920s - H.L. Mencken's columns are often reprinted these days - and you'll wonder just what the hell was going on. The crisis doesn't translate well for modern readers. The question of Prohibition then dominated nearly everything. Now, it simply isn't an issue, or even a consideration. American irreconcilables tend to go away, given enough time (and, rarely, a war).

The great irreconcilables today are abortion and gun control. The abortion battle has perverted American liberalism such that over the last 40 years or so it has become unrecognizable, as all other principles have been sacrificed to the preservation of Roe v. Wade. But the abortion question's effect has been nowhere near as great as that of Abolition a century and a half ago. Likewise, Prohibition was a far sillier program than today's gun control efforts.

So I think Pat is just having one of his bad days.

Certainly his question about what does it mean to be a country is a legitimate one. But it's not a question which really needs to be answered, except for a few details. For instance, a country without border controls of some sort isn't a country at all, it's just a colored area on a map. That's a detail, but a moderately important one, and somebody should be working on it. At the moment the governor of Texas is giving it a go, since the Feds seem to be uninterested, or too feeble to manage.

You know this and I know this but most of his people are quite sure the founding fathers were all God fearing Baptists, that slavery and segregation are over so what's the problem?, and quietly believe that Manifest Destiny was a good thing because hey, they sponsor missionaries in poor backward countries. He's someone they listen to and he's speaking their language.

As for Texas, I say let them go. Then Mexico can invade them again.

 

[Bbucko]

Or perhaps he's realizing that he's been sewing the seeds of destruction and is questioning the value in doing so. I am leaving open that possibility though believe he needs to do much more to prove it. In this case, I'd urge us not to shoot the messenger as it's a good message sent to the right people tongue by the right person.

Darling, you give Mr Buchanan WAAAAAAAY too much credit :wink:

 

[D_Harry_Crax]

Yes he right, *lol*, on some of his points, especially about the poisoned character of American politics. But coming from a guy who has been in the thick of the class/culture war and spread his own fair bit of divisive BS over the years, it's a bit disingenuous, don't you think?

Disingenuous is being polite. More like total hypocrisy.

 

[b.c.]

Or perhaps he's realizing that he's been sewing the seeds of destruction and is questioning the value in doing so. I am leaving open that possibility though believe he needs to do much more to prove it. In this case, I'd urge us not to shoot the messenger as it's a good message sent to the right people tongue by the right person.

Well yes, I'd agree that those among his own constituency might be more receptive to the "self reflection" than if it had come from someone else. And perhaps it'd come to the (greater) attention of those "on the other side" as well, coming from one such as he.

But as I-Size noted, he might speak from a better perspective in realizing that America is not made up of a people of a common faith, language, or who necessarily worship the same God.

While this is perhaps an admittedly "Rockwellian" perspective of Americana, it suggests a need for us to be just as accepting of our differences as our commonalities.

 

[mynameisnobody]

Again, I urge you to think of the audience who does take him seriously and how difficult it is for anything approaching reason to reach them (in at least some political matters).

Seriously - what the hell do you know about his audience? There is no possibly way you can do more than guess. And guesswork is nothing more than the attempt to dignify personal prejudices as ersatz fact.

What's important is to recognize the source and who he's talking to. We know it's not us.

Finally - something which isn't wild-assed guesswork. The us includes you, someone whose opinion you can presumably speculate about with some authority. But that's the end of it. How do you claim to know what Buchanan's saying? Have you read all his books? Or any of his books? Or are you a member of the TV soundbite generation?

I can assure you that batshit preacher out in Arizona considers Buchanan something of an ally.

You can speak with assurance only of your own preconceptions. You have no justification whatever for this pernicious little piece of bigotry.

The whole Norman Rockwell bit is a reassurance to his audience that he hasn't abandoned them by questioning their imaginary cultural roots.

"Norman Rockwell" roots are hardly imaginary. You may pretend that you personally have managed to overcome them, in an equally fictional - say, Brave New World - sort of way, but that doesn't make them disappear.

 

[2322]

Actually, Jason, I think Pat Buchanan actually believes in what he says. But there's nothing naive about it: it's the last gasp of our parent's conservatism when it was called "The Silent Majority", when Bill Buckley was considered too effete and John Birch Society types were still smarting from having been marginalized. He's still in the trenches of 1960s reactionary activism to the point where he cannot see the United States in any other way.

My mom and stepfather are in the same boat. They're quite certain that the downfall of American civilization is at hand. As my mother likes to say, "I am not biased! Remember I voted for John Kennedy!" and then she goes on to say how Obama is a raving socialist, that the country is doomed with a Democratic supermajority, and how much they love wintering in South Carolina and then say how much I would love it down there.

I see nothing but demagoguery and contempt in the paragraphs quoted above. There is no attempt at reconciliation, not even an attempt to view the perspective of his cultural adversaries as anything but contemptible.

That's because he's not calling those things into question-- at this point. He's simply focusing on the vitriol. We're at a point now where being Republican in a Democratic state and Democratic in a Republican state are virtual crimes. There will always be the most unreasonable, narrow-minded, uncompromising opposition to whatever the prevailing political climate is. Buchanan has been one of those people fostering that element. It's my hope that his op-ed will at least cause some people to not treat the other side as an enemy so much as fellow Americans with different opinions. He is someone they listen to and that's why I find this important.