Conservative Pragmatist Pat Buchanan

When did Buchanan become a neoconservative? The first neoconservatives were Jews, as you know, who became Republicans. The word was expanded to include people like Reagan who left the Democrat Party, or more truthfully, people whom the Democrat Party left behind as the Democrats moved into socialism. When did Buchanan ever fit either one of those categories? Buchanan, a devout Catholic, was against the war along with the late pope from the start and he still is. Others who call the war illegal and call for withdrawal are the Constitution Party. Of course, liberal Democrats like you, A-Pal, have been against the war and still are since the beginning also. It's nice to see the far right and the far left in bed together. One assumes that in this case any children will be aborted as usual for leftist Democrats.

 

When I found out Pat Buchannan is against Jews, he lost all credibility with me. I used to be a big fan of his.

 

CMG is right, Buchanan is no neocon! The first neoconservatives were not all Jews, as the Democrat Party moved into socialism, the GOP moved to the left to gain the liberal voters who didn't want to move as far to the left as the Democrat Party, these liberal members of the GOP who were once Dems are the neo-conservatives.

Neoconservatives, not only supports nation building abroad, but also support increasing the size and cost of the federal government here at home and they support opening our borders. Being a neocon has everything to do with a political way of thinking, and not with being a Jew, that is something the neocons have said so they can attack any real conservative that sees the error of neoconservativism as being against the Jews.

 

I never heard of Pat being against Jews though he does not give rubber stamp support to Israel on every thing.

Buchanan is certaintly no neo con! That is like saying Ted Kennedy is a Conservative. Buchanan is a traditional conservative with a isolationist view regarding foreign policy.

 

Buchanan is following The Vatican line on this issue.

 

Granted, there may be some Dems who are now neo-cons and that, at least on the domestic issues, side, there is something to the point, but on foreign policy, that is a ridiculous point. Are you talking about such libs as Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, and Jeane Kirkpatrick?

 

Your right, while these three neo-cons agree with the Dems on domestic issues, it's their foreign policy that sets them apart!

From 1969 to 1980, he worked as a staffer for Democratic Senator Henry M. Jackson of Washington. Perle advocates first-strike bombing of North Korean nuclear facilities. He has also at times advocated preemptive attacks on Syria, Iran, Libya, and a number of other countries. Which makes sense being that Perle is co-founder of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a spin-off from the American Enterprise Institute.

Elliott Abrams is a former member of Social Democrats, USA. Abrams is a member of the staunchly neocononservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and was one of the signatories of the January 26, 1998, PNAC Letter sent to President Clinton which called for "regime-change" in Iraq.

Jeane Kirkpatrick became active in politics as a Democrat in the 1970s, and was active in the later campaigns of former Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Perle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Abrams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeane_Kirkpatrick

My problem with the neoconservatives is that while they are touted by many as "foreign policy" heros in their efforts to "rid the world of evil", it's their liberal "domestic policy" that is destroying our Constitutional Republic from the inside out!

 

The key to Buchanan's foreign policy is the political stance of The Vatican.

As for Jeane Kirkpatrick, I like her. A lot of people are liberal when they are young and inexperienced. As they grow older and wiser, they see that liberalism just doesn't work and they become conservatives. Michael Medved was once a liberal Jew and now he is a Jewish Republican Bush defender. Many orthodox Jews have changed back to the Republican Party!

 

I think part of the reason that more Jewish people support the GOP is the shift in attitudes between the two parties since FDR. Think about it.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I think the domestic socialism of the FDR administration has helped mold the domestic policies of the current GOP as well. President Bush said, "Franklin Roosevelt did a wonderful thing when he created Social Security."

 

I think I was referring to the switch in attitudes from both parties about isolationism. The current Democrat Party would have let Hitler have his way.

Joseph Botwinick

 

JG,

Most of my problem w/ neo's is their, what I think overly, rationalist perspective. On the domestic side, while they are skeptical of government approaches to problems, such as welfare, I agree that they probably don't view issues from a Constitutional perspective as I think you and I agree they must. They are the liberals-who-were-mugged-the-night-before conservatives. However, I do agree with them, for the most part on foreign policy--there is evil in the world that is a threat to us and must be dealt with and it is better to do deal with it on their soil than ours.

 

Yes, I believe you and I both agree that the Constitutional perspective is a must for domestic issues, I also believe it is a must for foreign policy, and support 100% using our military to stop any group that poses a threat to us, but I understand that in doing so we can't expect to be successful if we continue to leave our borders wide open, it seems the neo-cons are less interested in fighting evil, and more interested in multi-billion dollar experiments in Islamic freedom, while selling our country to the highest bidder through their "trade" programs like the WTO, FTAA, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc.

We need a balance of protecting our nation from the terrorist who will always be in this world, and protecting our nation's liberties and rights from the government. Both must always be viewed from a Constitutional perspective. When we give our elected officials our permission to ignore the Constitution, we are giving them our permission to destroy our Constitutional Republic.

 

Neither party wants to close the border because of $$$ and votes, votes, votes. Fortunately for America, Bush only has 3 ½ more years. If he goes to the middle on the court, he will be trimmed back in 2006 and the GOP will go back into the wilderness. The GOP is hesitant because there is no tough-minded Evangelical out there to lead the way. It's fine to be tender-hearted but one has to be tough-minded, also. What we have is a bunch of tough-hearted lefties and a lot of tender-minded politicos on both sides of the aisle. Not being Christian, they tend to be materialistic. Am I right?

 

JG,

I think where we disagree, on this at least, is that I would give broader freedom to the President as CinC and as head of state, in dealing with foreign policy issues. While I would prefer a declaration of war, I do believe that the Iraq war was the right thing to do in protecting our country. And if a preemptive strike is what it takes to take out a crazy like Kim Jong Il, then it should be done quickly and without the advance warning of a declaration of war. I am NOT saying that is what we should do, at least at this point, as I certainly understand there is HUGE risk in doing so, but at some point we must weigh (and I assume this is an ongoing process but I don't know) the risk of precipitating a major war again in Korea, one that will certainly involve tremendous casualties given Korea's preparations, versus the long term risk of both proliferation by NK to others of our enemies and his using them himself either as a weapon or a tool of blackmail.

And you and CMG are both certainly right on immigration, though I don't think that it is necessarily a Christian or not solution. It is one that simply calls for being tough-minded and realizing the threat that massive illegal immigration poses to our economy, our culture, and certainly our national security. I'm not for putting the military there but I am for STRONGLY beefing up the Border Patrol's capabilities and to holding employers accountable.

 

I think your analysis sounds about right to me.

I believe what we are seeing is both parties being used to our political system slowly becoming a democracy over the years, so now instead of doing what is right based on the Constitution, they are looking at the polls, the money and like you said the votes. Having no regards for the US Constitution, they are dancing to the "will of the people", and slowly destroying our nation.

 

fromtheright, I think you and I disagree more about Iraq than we do about North Korea. While I don't believe Iraq was a threat to the US, I do believe both North Korea and China are possible threats, I support using our military defense for just that, defense, I believe the primary obligation of the federal government to provide for the common defense, and to be vigilant regarding potential threats. This is why I oppose unilateral disarmament and dismemberment of America's defense infrastructure, and support the maintenance of a strong, state-of-the-art military on land, sea, in the air, and in space. We need a fully-operational strategic defense system as soon as possible, that would allow us to not only closely monitor those nations that pose a potential threat to the US, but to respond with force as needed against those nations if needed.