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

[jason_els]

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

Ridiculously hypocritical considering you have little idea of my roots or where I come from or the life I've had or where I live (unless you've lived here too). I know a great deal about Mr. Robertson's audience.

 

[mynameisnobody]

You know this and I know this but most of his people are quite sure the founding fathers were all God fearing Baptists

We know that the major personalities of the day were what we would now call deists; devout believers in the Allmighty, but not of Scripture, so as far as any organized church is concerned, essentially useless.

that slavery and segregation are over so what's the problem?

Slavery is over, though not of course "wage slavery" as per the Marxists. Segregation is a bit more complex; official policy was to segregate part of the population (aboriginals), but assimilate the freedmen (ex-slaves). One might argue that neither policy has been a clear success. "Racism" is distinct from both concepts. Racism will persist in America as long as it pays. For some people, it is currently paying very well indeed. As long as the rest of us put up with it, we'll be stuck with it.

and quietly believe that Manifest Destiny was a good thing because hey, they sponsor missionaries in poor backward countries.

Proselytization is not really part of Manifest Destiny. Manifest Destiny was "manifest" because it obviously looked so good and sensible on a map. It doesn't really extend past the California and Oregon territories, though.

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

It's an economic hotspot at the moment, which is not something the Feds can ignore as they become increasingly desperate for revenue.

 

[Bbucko]

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.

My parents loathed the Kennedys, with special animus directed toward JFK, whom they described as a "nigger lover". Their intense racism and the insouciance with with it was proudly verbalized didn't soften until the mid-90s, and then only in mixed company. Privately, their inherent superiority as white people remains self-evident (if only to themselves and the trogs with whom they associate). When I read/listen to Pat Buchanan, the POV is instantly recognizable.

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.

Perhaps the mouth-breathers who follow their news via WND will pause for a moment to assess the damage caused by the Culture Wars, but color me very skeptical. When I read it all I saw was justification for racist and homophobic reactionary-ism.

 

[D_Martin van Burden]

How about this?

I read a great article in my Welfare and Social Policy class by Jill Quadagno, the same author who wrote One Nation Uninsured. In her chapter on the development of American democracy, she found it out that, when compared to other industrial nations, the United States really behaved backwards. Instead of instituting slow, politically tense battles to secure rights from scratch, the United States had written in its very Constitution about "inalienable rights," "freedom," and "liberty." How grossly ironic that these sentiments were reserved exclusively for white men, especially in the Deep South that thrived on cotton farming...

So, how on earth could we in our history ever flock to one true set of beliefs, one true hero, one set of core values? If that were the case, we would be hunting Spirit Animals.

 

[jason_els]

My parents loathed the Kennedys, with special animus directed toward JFK, whom they described as a "nigger lover". Their intense racism and the insouciance with with it was proudly verbalized didn't soften until the mid-90s, and then only in mixed company. Privately, their inherent superiority as white people remains self-evident (if only to themselves and the trogs with whom they associate). When I read/listen to Pat Buchanan, the POV is instantly recognizable.

Reminds me of my great-grandmother who was once at a fancy restaurant with my mother and grandparents. When the kitchen door opened for a moment she saw inside and loudly proclaimed, "There are niggers! They have niggers working in the kitchen!" My mother was mortified and the maitre'd told them to leave. I tend to think my mother was fine with equality so long as white people were in charge. She'd never admit that because she wouldn't want to believe it's true and, I suspect, many other white people who thought themselves to be open-minded do the same thing. It makes me think of the hilarious dinner scene in Soul Man.

It's not just with blacks either. This fear extends to other races, and people of different non-Christian religions, sexual orientations, and ethnic backgrounds. It's as if they believe that so long as WASPs are in control, then civilization will be well husbanded. Right now, to them, the Democrats have sold out on the gentleman's agreement. When I raise the subject of the changing demographics of the country and the eventual futility of the current conservative position, my parents say that they've done their best and if the country goes to ruin it's not their fault. It's astounding to me that they actually believe this and nothing I say can change their mind.

Perhaps the mouth-breathers who follow their news via WND will pause for a moment to assess the damage caused by the Culture Wars, but color me very skeptical. When I read it all I saw was justification for racist and homophobic reactionary-ism.

I saw a glimmer of hope if only because Buchanan is worried about his legacy in the end. I want to think he's changing his mind a little. Time will have to tell.

How about this?

I read a great article in my Welfare and Social Policy class by Jill Quadagno, the same author who wrote One Nation Uninsured. In her chapter on the development of American democracy, she found it out that, when compared to other industrial nations, the United States really behaved backwards. Instead of instituting slow, politically tense battles to secure rights from scratch, the United States had written in its very Constitution about "inalienable rights," "freedom," and "liberty." How grossly ironic that these sentiments were reserved exclusively for white men, especially in the Deep South that thrived on cotton farming...

So, how on earth could we in our history ever flock to one true set of beliefs, one true hero, one set of core values? If that were the case, we would be hunting Spirit Animals.

So many people did not learn this growing-up. To them, what little American history they had in schools was given unto them as the truth and no difference will they hear. As a northerner I certainly raised my eyebrows at the idea that Robert E. Lee was a hero of any sort. I consider him a traitor.

My cousin is getting a PhD in the racial dynamics of 20th century American history and we've spoken for hours about this very issue. She laments that she gets these kids, even today, and has to deprogram them from what they think is the only history they know. They're introduced to bias, sourcing, and events which went completely unreported that describe a very different history for minorities in this country. She then has to teach them how history is, even when we believe we live in an age of accuracy, frequently subjective and designed to serve the myths of the ruling classes. She's quite a shock to her grandparents who are part of the Washington green fuzzy book set and listed in Colonial Families of America :tongue:.

 

[HazelGod]

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

I'll take this with a grain of salt because I know you're smarter than to mean such a sentiment in earnest.

For those not so enlightened, be aware that there is a viciously bloody narcotics turf war raging along the US/Mexico border. So far, the majority of assassinations of public officials has been contained to the Mexican side, but US nationals and traveling civilians have been caught in the crossfire. The Mexican federal government thus far has been unwilling or unable to establish control of law in these borderlands, and it's demonstrably encouraged the cartels to expand their illicit enterprises.

If our federal border enforcement isn't stepped up, the spillover onto American soil will continue to escalate. I applaud Gov. Perry for taking executive responsibility for handling this threat...and in his defense, he has made multiple requests of the federal government for more National Guard troops to shore up the thinly stretched CBP forces in these war zones. To date, none have been provided...thanks in large part to our idiotic previous administration's decision to deploy NG troops into foreign theaters.

I wouldn't worry too much about us being invaded if we're cut loose. Holding the largest contingent of Army Nat'l Guardsmen of any state, plus several wings of Air Nat'l Guard (including two fighter wings), along with the Texas State Guard...Mexico isn't a threat. Nor for that matter is much of the remaining USA. :wink:

 

[SpeedoGuy]

As a northerner I certainly raised my eyebrows at the idea that Robert E. Lee was a hero of any sort. I consider him a traitor.

I feel the same. By all rights Lee (and others of his ilk) should have gotten the gallows.

That Buchanan would even suggest Lee as some type of American hero shows just how wingnutty he really is.

 

[jason_els]

I feel the same. By all rights Lee (and others of his ilk) should have gotten the gallows.

That Buchanan would even suggest Lee as some type of American hero shows just how wingnutty he really is.

I wouldn't have gone that far. By that reasoning we should have hung every southern volunteer too. The moment the war ended, it ended. Civil wars with grudges only beget more civil wars. The whole thing was a tragedy.

I'll take this with a grain of salt because I know you're smarter than to mean such a sentiment in earnest.

I wouldn't worry too much about us being invaded if we're cut loose. Holding the largest contingent of Army Nat'l Guardsmen of any state, plus several wings of Air Nat'l Guard (including two fighter wings), along with the Texas State Guard...Mexico isn't a threat. Nor for that matter is much of the remaining USA.

I actually do mean it in earnest. I think the Union was wrong to prosecute the Civil War in Texas as I believe Texas has a sovereign right to secede if it wants to. I think it would be unwise for Texas to do so for precisely the reason you mention because I do not believe Mexico is a stable country and Texas could suffer for it. Otherwise I believe Texas, Hawaii, and Vermont each, as former free nations in their own right, retain the right to peacefully secede from the union if they choose to do so. There's no rancor in my statement though there is a little cynicism.

 

[Bbucko]

Reminds me of my great-grandmother who was once at a fancy restaurant with my mother and grandparents. When the kitchen door opened for a moment she saw inside and loudly proclaimed, "There are niggers! They have niggers working in the kitchen!" My mother was mortified and the maitre'd told them to leave. I tend to think my mother was fine with equality so long as white people were in charge. She'd never admit that because she wouldn't want to believe it's true and, I suspect, many other white people who thought themselves to be open-minded do the same thing. It makes me think of the hilarious dinner scene in Soul Man.

It's not just with blacks either. This fear extends to other races, and people of different non-Christian religions, sexual orientations, and ethnic backgrounds. It's as if they believe that so long as WASPs are in control, then civilization will be well husbanded. Right now, to them, the Democrats have sold out on the gentleman's agreement. When I raise the subject of the changing demographics of the country and the eventual futility of the current conservative position, my parents say that they've done their best and if the country goes to ruin it's not their fault. It's astounding to me that they actually believe this and nothing I say can change their mind.

My grandparents, who were all born between 1899 and 1912 to solid, old New England families, all carried around the prejudices of their age to their respective graves. The worst of the lot was my paternal grandfather, who literally seemed to despise everyone and was openly racist, homophobic and virulently anti-Semitic. He also openly insulted women (not just feminists) and people of any ethnicity not 100% WASP. He had no patience for anyone with a disability and was openly contemptuous of anyone with political philosophies that differed from his own.

My maternal grandmother and he shared much in common except for his anti-Semitism, which she considered barbaric. Their horror of Catholicism was legendary, as was their deep distrust of anything intellectual: one was expected to go to school (and excel) but hate it.

Interestingly, they each married people who were, for their generation, much more moderate. My maternal grandfather, for instance, was a union man and a staunch FDR Democrat (though still a terrible snob and racist), and my paternal grandmother considered herself enlightened (though her condescending attitude toward blacks, Catholics, Latins, women, etc make for many cringe-provoking memories). Of the four, only she held an education to be of any value in and of itself.

All four had a strong sense of Noblesse Oblige that they passed to my parents, that feeling you described so well as "fine with equality so long as white people were in charge". Just make sure you restrict your concept of "white people" to exclude the Irish (drunks and Catholics), Italians (overly emotional and Catholic), French (utterly contemptible in every way and Catholic) and anyone from Eastern Europe (inherently stupid, foreign and most probably Catholics).

I saw a glimmer of hope if only because Buchanan is worried about his legacy in the end. I want to think he's changing his mind a little. Time will have to tell.

I think his vanity is more likely to enjoy being remembered as having his opinions hardened in his old age rather than softened, but time will indeed tell. Just imagine his sister Bay's reaction if, in his twilight, Pat "goes soft".

So many people did not learn this growing-up. To them, what little American history they had in schools was given unto them as the truth and no difference will they hear. As a northerner I certainly raised my eyebrows at the idea that Robert E. Lee was a hero of any sort. I consider him a traitor.

My cousin is getting a PhD in the racial dynamics of 20th century American history and we've spoken for hours about this very issue. She laments that she gets these kids, even today, and has to deprogram them from what they think is the only history they know. They're introduced to bias, sourcing, and events which went completely unreported that describe a very different history for minorities in this country. She then has to teach them how history is, even when we believe we live in an age of accuracy, frequently subjective and designed to serve the myths of the ruling classes. She's quite a shock to her grandparents who are part of the Washington green fuzzy book set and listed in Colonial Families of America :tongue:.

His defense of Lee (and the rebel rag) is pandering to what is left of his audience; as Northeasterners of our parent's age die off, those who consider such things "heritage" rather than symbols of the sedition that they are will be the only ones left.

As to any historical accounting taking the poor and dispossessed into account: in doing so, there is an implication that they emerged "victorious" in their goal to unseat the privilege that came with that Nobelesse Oblige. It will be fought tooth and nail, because if the previously-ignored "win", then they will "lose". Boo-Fucking-Hoo.

 

[deleted15807]

The end of empire is never easy

 

[JustAsking]

The end of empire is never easy

Kevin Phillips called it a few years ago in his book, American Theocracy. He traced the common elements of the downfall of the last 5 empires and came up with:

1) Energy crisis
2) Excessive religiosity
3) Financial sector dominated the GNP.

Sound familiar?

However I can see Jason's point. I don't think he is defending anything about Buchanan except that Buchanan is making an uncharacteristic observation in an uncharacteristic venue. I find that interesting, as well. I think thinking Republicans are attempting to unravel the work that Karl Rove did in making far right wing wingnut behavior respectable. It left the GOP with a big problem.

Look at Jason's thread title. When Buchanan starts making sense compared to, say, Michelle Bachman, or Sarah Palin, and publishing it in Wingnutdaily, somewhere GOP tektonic plates are shifting.

 

[Calboner]

Kevin Phillips called it a few years ago in his book, American Theocracy. He traced the common elements of the downfall of the last 5 empires and came up with:

1) Energy crisis
2) Excessive religiosity
3) Financial sector dominated the GNP.

Sound familiar?

You forgot to mention an excessive dependence, internally and externally, on debt (though maybe that is implied in no. 3).

Attempts at prediction from history do not have a good track record, but when you read the details of Phillips's case, it is difficult not to see handwriting on the wall.

 

[JustAsking]

You forgot to mention an excessive dependence, internally and externally, on debt (though maybe that is implied in no. 3).

Attempts at prediction from history do not have a good track record, but when you read the details of Phillips's case, it is difficult not to see handwriting on the wall.

Yes, the debt is a huge part of his case. However, ironically, it may be our diversity and lack of unity that Buchanan is lamenting that saves us in the end. I don't mean the nasty demonizing that we see back and forth in the political spectrum, but rather the multi-culturalism that might be our strength rather than our weakness.

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

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

Absolutely. He's only starting to question the vitriol once it's apparent it's no longer working in his favor. Pity poor navel gazing Pat, who now would like a shot a redemption. Should have thought of that years ago when he was on Cross Fire. Perhaps his introspection is due to the passing, earlier this year, of Tom Braden, who played the Classical Kennedy liberal to Buchanan's nasty Goldwater-Nixon (cum troglodyte) persona. There are plenty of pols, on both sides whom I have disliked over the years, but none more than Buchanan. He'll have to venture a lot deeper in the arena of common good before I see any sense of real acceptance or remorse on his part.

As to Robert E. Lee being a hero, perhaps this is only something you can understand if you are Southern. Lee is a hero because, he was smarter than his opposition, beating the pants of Union General after General with less men, less militarily trained men, and money than the Union. More importantly to many Southerners, of whom I am related to many, Lee was fighting to preserve his family, and home, something most Northerners never had to consider; it changes the nature of the conflict from ideological to personal, instantly. By contrast my Northern family simply paid a conscript to fight in their place. Nonetheless they felt good about being on the right side of the War, and the part they "played" in it.

None of this is in anyway an attempt at vindicating the inherent racism in Southern culture, or vilifying the hypocrisy of Northern liberalism, but merely spelling out their point of view, flawed as it, and we all maybe.

 

[jason_els]

Yes, the debt is a huge part of his case. However, ironically, it may be our diversity and lack of unity that Buchanan is lamenting that saves us in the end. I don't mean the nasty demonizing that we see back and forth in the political spectrum, but rather the multi-culturalism that might be our strength rather than our weakness.

Do we fall apart gracefully like the USSR and Czechoslovakia or do we go the Balkan route? That's where multiculturalism appears to lead when the unity of government collapses. Perhaps we will partition into two or more nations, each with its own political ideology like India and Pakistan or North and South Korea. If so, will one side try to recapture the other? Would the rest of the world permit it?

This country has enough guns, enough wealth to buy guns, and such a lack of cultural, religious, ethnic, and otherwise tribal cohesion that I'm not above suspecting anything is possible. Maybe the survivalists aren't nuts.

As to Robert E. Lee being a hero, perhaps this is only something you can understand if you are Southern. Lee is a hero because, he was smarter than his opposition, beating the pants of Union General after General with less men, less militarily trained men, and money than the Union. More importantly to many Southerners, of whom I am related to many, Lee was fighting to preserve his family, and home, something most Northerners never had to consider; it changes the nature of the conflict from ideological to personal, instantly. By contrast my Northern family simply paid a conscript to fight in their place. Nonetheless they felt good about being on the right side of the War, and the part they "played" in it.

None of this is in anyway an attempt at vindicating the inherent racism in Southern culture, or vilifying the hypocrisy of Northern liberalism, but merely spelling out their point of view, flawed as it, and we all maybe.

I do not understand the southern culture which cannot let go of the civil war. It's just so over for the north. Surely southerners must notice this when encountering northerners. Unless you're a civil war buff or traveling through Gettysburgh, it doesn't enter into daily thought or conversation. It's not part of our identity. It appears to me southerners are preventing a wound from healing by reopening it time and again. Please tell me what it is I'm missing here.

I find no solace in the irony that these two replies may be more linked than I care to admit. It frightens me a bit.

 

[AllHazzardi]

Yes, the debt is a huge part of his case. However, ironically, it may be our diversity and lack of unity that Buchanan is lamenting that saves us in the end. I don't mean the nasty demonizing that we see back and forth in the political spectrum, but rather the multi-culturalism that might be our strength rather than our weakness.

I think more specifically, it'll be the unity provided through our multi-culturalism that saves us. It's one thing to be able to agree when you have similar ideals, religions, beliefs, and genetics. It's an entirely different ordeal when you're able to agree even though those things differ. By respecting all ideals equally, we end up left with a system which can be driven by unity created through the interconnection of multi-culturalism- the inherent desire to partake of everything which people of other ideals consider good to see if you yourself enjoy them. It doesn't hurt that the difference of base ideals lends a lot of additional perspective that helps spur development of new technologies, products, services, and even new ideals as offshoots or counter-cultures. It really is amazing how much we stand to gain when we decide to work together for mutual benefit while preserving individuality and diversity, and equally amazing is how few people seem to understand that very same fact.

 

[JustAsking]

...I find no solace in the irony that these two replies may be more linked than I care to admit. It frightens me a bit.

That's what Kevin Phillips concluded, too. He spent quite a few pages justifying why he thought that part of the large cultural divide in America is due to the South's inability to recover from losing the Civil War and the wounds from the aftermath.

He drew a quantitative correlation between election results from the last few Presidential election (pre-Obama) geographically, and the changing % of the population that are Southern Baptists geographically. He uses Southern Baptist membership as a kind of demographic indicator that correlates with the cultural factors he was describing.

It is easy to understand how a culture of anti-institutionalism evolved out the Southerner's post civil war distrust of the Northern federal government both during the war and after as carpetbaggers came to exploit the ravaged South.

It makes me uneasy, but I don't find it surprising that Southerners revere confederate heroes and battles. For a Southerner, Robert E Lee was simply one of their own who was fighting for the preservation of their culture. There is almost no sense for a Southerner of Lee being part of an institution.

For a Northerner, however, General Grant was part of the institution of the federal government fighting mostly in the South to keep the union intact.

As a Northerner, I feel no sense of being related in any way to General Grant. For me, he is simply a historical figure and the Civil War was something that happened in the past. But I bet the Southerners here would say that they feel almost related to Robert E Lee, as if he was a cousin or an uncle, and that the Civil War happened only a short time ago.

 

[JustAsking]

Do we fall apart gracefully like the USSR and Czechoslovakia or do we go the Balkan route? ....

No, I think US multi-culturalism is much different than those examples. In all of those examples, countries were formed artificially from a number of different cultures that had a definite and distinct identity of their own going back hundreds of years. Then they were held together by force for a short time, only to fly apart when the force was removed.

I don't think that describes the US.

 

[Calboner]

No, I think US multi-culturalism is much different than those examples. In all of those examples, countries were formed artificially from a number of different cultures that had a definite and distinct identity of their own going back hundreds of years. Then they were held together by force for a short time, only to fly apart when the force was removed.

I don't think that describes the US.

I don't think it does either. It seems to me that Americans have very little idea of what "ethnic differences" mean in the world at large, as for instance in Europe. We tend to think that it's like having a bunch of restaurants run by people from different parts of the world on one street, all serving the foods of their home countries or regions: you can go eat Indian for one meal and Italian for the next and so on. We tend to think that ethnic differences are a lot of innocent fun. Americans are always confusing ethnicity, nationality, and descent, and saying things like "I'm Irish" when what they mean is that their forebears were Irish, or "I'm half Polish and half Jewish," as one might say "My dog is half schnauzer and half poodle." The idea of going to war over ethnic differences is difficult for us to comprehend because such differences are so shallow here. Immigrants may belong to peoples divided from other peoples by customs, language, descent, and religion, but by and large those differences do not propagate themselves here: people can only maintain them, to a limited extent, by deliberate effort. The only exceptions, I think, are racial differences, or what are perceived to be such, which have been more persistent, though they do not reliably coincide with differences of customs, language, and religion.

I'm not denying that there is cultural and ethnic fragmentation and consequent conflict here; I just mean that there is nothing here like the divisions between historically stable, internally homogeneous groups that have underlain conflicts in the Old World.

 

[HazelGod]

But I bet the Southerners here would say that they feel almost related to Robert E Lee, as if he was a cousin or an uncle, and that the Civil War happened only a short time ago.

Having spent most of my summers in college framing houses in the Mississippi River delta, I can confirm your supposition with absolute certainty. For the majority of the "salt of the earth" folks in the Gulf area, the sting of injustices from the War of Northern Aggression (both real and perceived) have not faded much during the four generations that separate us from Appomattox.