Talk Elections

Where The Right Went Wrong - by Patrick Buchanan
How NeoConservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency

Im 5 pages in and so far so good.  :)

Where did the right go wrong? ;D

In one word:  Neoconservatives.

Nick, what do you think of Buchanan?

Obviously, I am a conservative, but I've always had reservations about Buchanan's brand of conservatism.  He's right about some stuff, but I could never get past his apologist attitude toward some of the things the Nazis did, and his implication that a whiter America is a better America.

I don't dispute the point that the Republican party has somewhat gone off the rails, particularly with respect to fiscal policy.  I do think the Democrats are off the rails in a worse manner, particularly with respect to national defense and some social issues, but I'm sure Buchanan makes some good points.

What is Buchanan's ultimate verdict on Reagan?  Not altogether positive, I suspect.

Ill get back to you in a week or so.  Im a very slow reader. :)

So far he's basically just nailing Bush and the Neocons for overstretching our military. Comparing the USA to the Roman Empire and the British Empire.  He claims we are the last great super power because in the past we've know how to stay out of wars until there is absolutely no other option.

I think Bush has definitely overstretched our military, but that trend actually began under Clinton.  Not to use that as an excuse, but Bush didn't start the problem, just continued it.

Where I find fault with Buchanan on this issue is that he uses a period when we were not a superpower (the period before World War II) to advise how to remain a superpower.  The fact is, back then we were largely inaccessible and had long periods of time to mobilize after threats developed, a luxury we don't have today.  So I don't think we can go back to a completely reactive foreign policy, as Buchanan seems to be suggesting.

That's not to say that I like wars.  I hate war, and think in general we've been involved in too many wars since World War II.  The world is still way too dependent on the US cavalry to ride to the rescue when there is a problem.  I especially resent the fact that the Europeans couldn't handle the Kosovo mess on their own.  Would they help us in dealing with Central American problems?

Part of our problem is that we have enabled our "allies," many of whom are at best fair weather friends and hanger-oners, who want the benefit of our defense shield while they criticize everything we do and make not the slightest effort to defend themselves.

I'd love to be able to credibly and safely go back to an isolationist foreign policy and throw some of our nasty and ungrateful "allies" to the wolves, as Buchanan effectively suggests we should do, but that would hurt us in the end.  That is the big conundrum we face.

I have a question?  Why are you reading Buchanan?  Just because he hates Neocons?  I've read Buchanan before.  He has some good points, but on the whole, he is insane.  He isn't even sure the US was justified in entering WWII.  Honestly, if you just want to hate on people who are trying to take an active stand in making the world a better place, there are far better reads than Pat Buchanan.

Please don't tell me you're going to suggest an Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity book.

Pat Buchanan is like Lyndon Larouche, someone who is crazy, and has a lot of crazy ideas, but some of them are right.

I work in a library.  I stumbled over his book today while cleaning up.  Read the cover, flipped though a couple pages, and thought to myself... Why the hell not?

On top of that, Ive always had a certain degree of respect for Buchanan.  He is consistent with his ideology and doesn't change his philosophy to suit changing political trends.

Guess What Everybody?

I read (part) of this book!!

It came out last year, and I got it at the library and read the first few chapters. I stopped liking it b/c in the end he is still a reactionary but at least he has the cojones to stand up to Bush from w/in the party.

Dazzleman- No, Buchanan really likes Reagan in this book. One of his main themes is how the Bush II Admin. is subverting the Reagan legacy.

I like some of Buchanan's ideas, b/c he doesn't tow the current corrupt GOP line, he is more traditional. In a way he is more like Henry Cabot Lodge than a segregationist. (A stretch I know). Recently in one of my posts I linked to an article Buchanan wrote about how French-Muslims are a threat to that country's future and safety. Call it scare tactics and un-PC if you want but the man is right.

He doesn't have any incentive to change his ideology, unlike elected officials who have to deal with the changing winds of the electorate, his support is based on his reputation and changing himself could only hurt himself.

I've read parts of the book neo-cons have really destroyed the conservative movement.

His kind of conservatism is IMO worse than even neocons.

I think you will now be haunted by Henry Cabot Lodge's ghost because you just called him such a grave insult.

I meant no disrespect to Mr. Lodge  ;)

My point was that both he and Buchanan are paleo-conservatives, not neo-cons. At the time I didn't realize that there were 2 Senators named Lodge (same family), one defeated the League of Nations in 1920, his grandson was Nixon's VP candidate in 1960.

If Lodge is a paleo-conservative than basically every American politician before 1990 was a paleo-conservative. If anything Lodge was a liberal Republican of the type that used to dominate the Northeast not a paleo-conservative, and in no way a ideological predecessor of Buchanan. If anything Buchanan is just the old nativist populist reactionary beliefs of some parts of America, the Know-Nothings, the Populists of the late 19th century the America First crowd of the 30's, manifest in a modern individual.


The older Lodge was from the tradition of Republican isolationism which contributed to his dislike of the League of Nations along with the fact that it was proposed by Woodrow Wilson didn't really endear it to him or other Republicans of the day. Many saw the TR/Wilson pre-emptive and agressive foreign policy fail by it bringing America into a European war which many thought it didn't belong in. Henry Cabot Lodge though was very much of the internationalist moderate vein within the Republican party of the day.

I am shocked. Repeat SHOCKED!!111 that Pat Buchanan is blaming the Neocons for the death of his beloved conservative party. The same neocons whom he hates so much. How convienent.

Buchanan is a closet(?) anti-semite who combines the worst aspects of American conservative idealism with the worst aspects of the anti-liberal evangelical (I know he's a catholic) crusaders which seem to be plague in vogue right about now. I value his opinions as much as I value a shaker of salt's.

Proof?

It's a pretty good book, if a little overlong.