October 22, 2011

McCain v. Buchanan

With John McCain issuing a vague death threat against Vladimir Putin following NATO's hit on Gadaffi, it's worth considering that McCain is an elder statesman of mainstream Republicanism, while Patrick J. Buchanan is a terrifying extremist. We similarly saw this back in August 2008, when little Georgia, then proposed for membership in NATO, invaded Russian-held territory. McCain responded with bellicose support for the aggressor, while Buchanan thought it was nuts for the U.S. to get militarily involved 600 miles south of Stalingrad.

As I mentioned in my review in VDARE of Buchanan's Suicide of a Superpower, Buchanan is one of the few people in Washington who took the end of the Cold War as a signal for anything other than self-congratulation. The struggle with the Soviets meant we had had to do many things that were painful, costly, dangerous, or distasteful; therefore, Buchanan reasoned in the early 1990s, let's now stop doing them. 

For example, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization had been an improvisation made necessary by superpower conflict. It had preserved the peace by heightening the stakes to a "balance of terror" via a mutual defense pact. It had done its job, so it was now time to wind it down. 
"As Russia had gone home, some of us urged back then, America should come home, cede NATO and all the U.S. bases in Europe to the Europeans, and become again what UN ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick called 'a normal country in a normal time.' Our foreign policy elites, however, could not accept that the play was closing after a forty-year run ..."

That heresy made Buchanan an outcast among the Serious Thinkers, to whom NATO wasn't an adventure, it was a job. (Brussels is lovely this time of year.) Their slogan became "NATO must go out of area or go out of business."

Hence, globalist leaders have gone looking far afield for wars, such as bombing Serbia and Libya, to keep NATO "relevant." The U.S., Buchanan points out, also repeatedly violated its pledge to Mikhail Gorbachev not to expand NATO "one inch to the East," in return for which the last Soviet leader agreed to West Germany taking over East Germany. Moscow's resentment of NATO backstabbing was then cited as proof that Moscow has a Bad Attitude, which requires NATO to encroach even more upon their natural sphere of influence.  

But, as Buchanan points out in Suicide of a Superpower, this empire-building-on-autopilot has reached economic, political, and geographic limits. The U.S. spends more on its military than the next ten countries combined. And the strategic logic of expanding NATO to unstable and unimportant countries such as Georgia or Ukraine, as once planned, is derisible. 

There's the public history of modern Europe that lauds the expensive international institutions that keep bloodthirsty nations from starting new wars, and then there's the hidden history: Stalin's massive ethnic cleansing in 1945 of nearly all Germans from Eastern Europe left Europeans with relatively little to fight over (other than their domination by the extra-European superpowers, the Soviet Union and the U.S).

Ross Douthat's column in the New York Times last Sunday does a good job of summing up the Buchananite critique of Pinkerian optimism. (Although Douthat doesn't mention Buchanan, he does namecheck the Derb). Buchanan and Douthat both cite Jerry Z. Muller, who wrote in 2008:
"The creation of ethnonational states across Europe, a consequence of two world wars and ethnic cleansing, was a precondition of stability, unity, and peace. With no ethnic rivals inside their national homes, European peoples had what they had fought for, and were now prepared to live in peace with their neighbors."

To say that Buchanan is pessimistic about American foreign policy, however, is to miss the key point: there isn't much reason to fight. Sure, we should continue to promise to defend Taiwan with our Navy, but are the Chinese really going to try to conquer Taiwan? Both sides are making too much money doing business with each other to have time for a war. 

Or, imagine that a majority in Ukraine decide to reunite with Russia, while a minority rebel. Would the American public agree to fight the Russo-Ukrainian army fighting the rebels? Would we be willing to reimpose the draft to liberate West Ukraine?  (Buchanan helped out way back in 1967 with Richard Nixon's hugely popular decision to phase out conscription.) Buchanan thinks the idea of the U.S. going to war in the ex-Soviet Union is politically absurd. 

Thank God lunatics like Buchanan are marginalized while thoughtful statesmen like McCain are accorded the respect their wisdom has earned.

139 comments:

Anonymous said...

It seems likely that McCain is becoming more senile and doesn't really know what he's saying.

As for Buchanan, if he were running for president, I would vote for him in a heartbeat.

NLF or Neanderthal Liberation Front said...

I agree.

But we must keep in mind the special relation between the MIC--military-industrial-complex--and the Jewish elites. It is a symbiotic relationship.

Despite stuff like 'gays in military' and etc, the US military is the most conservative institution in America. Jewish elites are among the most liberal.
So, why would Jews support the MIC? I call it the Freikorp Freakout Syndrome.

Though Buchanan calls for end of empire and bringing the troops home in the name of greater peace, the real reason is because Buchanan wants the REAL FIGHT between left and right to be in THIS country. For example, bring soldiers from Afghanistan and put them on the border.
This is why, for the Jewish community, the empire is useful. The most conservative element of American society are stationed abroad and their energies on expended against Muslims, Africans, Asians, Russians, etc. What if empire were to end? All those generals, captains, soldiers, and personnel would lose their privileges and come home. Their militant energies would focus on problem IN THIS COUNTRY.

During WWI, German soldiers were too busy fighting in France and Russia. But with the end of the war, all those men came home. Their energies focused on German problems, and it led to an intensified conflict between left and right within Germany.
Same with Russians. During WWI, Russian soldiers fought the foreign enemy. As the war drew to a close, all those disillusioned men returned to Russia to join the revolution. Russia went to the far left, Germany eventually went to the far right, but both events wouldn't have happened but for the return of masses of disillusioned soldiers.

If US 'empire' ends, American soldiers would not return as 'defeated men' as Germans and Russians did in WWI. But many would be angered by social changes in America: open borders, gay agenda, affirmative action, Wall Street, free trade and loss of good working class jobs, etc. With American Rightist energies no longer diverted or channeled at outside villains, it could focus on liberal villains. Thus the Freikorp Freakout Syndrome among Jews.

bjdubbs said...

Why promise to defend Taiwan? The British told Hong Kong, hey buddy, you're on your own after 1997. Sounds like a good plan to me. Does anyone honestly think we want to get in a war with 1.3 billion people over the Chinese equivalent of Nantucket?

Anonymous said...

Concerning our foreign policy entanglements with Israel, why don't the Israelis just remove all Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank and dump them on the territory of a US ally like Jordan? It would probably be brutal, messy work, but after doing that, expelling their Arab citizens and building some walls, they won't have to worry about Muslims again. Seems like no-brainer. And they wouldn't have to worry about PR, everyone hates Israel anyway.

It would solve America's and Israel's problems in one stroke.

Dennis Dale said...

http://vodpod.com/watch/1098931-the-onion-mccain-left-on-campaign-bus-overnight

dearieme said...

"Both sides are making too much money doing business with each other to have time for a war." That was a popular line of argument in 1913.

Dave said...

Buchanan was of course right about Georgia, and partly right about NATO. Expanding NATO to include Poland, for example, made sense. Offering membership to former Soviet Republics such as Georgia and Ukraine, ideas mooted by McCain and others, was always retarded, for lack of a better word.

"Sure, we should continue to promise to defend Taiwan with our Navy, but are the Chinese really going to try to conquer Taiwan? Both sides are making too much money doing business with each other to have time for a war."

Something not enough people appreciate is that the hegemony of the US Navy in East Asia is part of the reason why China and its neighbors have been making so much money. Without the stabilizing presence of the US Navy, China's neighbors would be spending a lot more time arming themselves and conspiring against China, rather than investing in and trading with it.

Whiskey said...

I'd agree with MOST of Buchanon's statements, except the idiotic view that everything is now hunky-dory and we don't need a military. We spend LESS of GDP than we did in any time since Truman's post WWII wind-down.

And Buchanon is trapped by the Cold War and his own reflexive anti-Israel ideology (a result of his Irish Catholic bigotry that by all accounts, resembles that of my Maternal Grandmother).

America has vital security interests that can only be secured at reasonable cost by spending some money now rather than engage in a life-death struggle later. China: seeks to dominate and control the South China Sea, and turn: Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia into Chinese fiefdoms, as China is predicated on mercantile, export-led expansion to keep domestic social peace it by its very nature will come into conflict with the US. US Naval military dominance assures the status-quo. The status-quo works for us. A Chinese invasion of Taiwan pretty much insures later invasions of Japan, South Korea, and particularly resource rich SE Asia.

To avoid that happening, US Naval supremacy is cheap insurance.

Anonymous said...

@NLF or Neanderthal Liberation Front

The German and Russian armies in WWI included almost every male of fighting age. That's not true of the modern US military. When the army returned in those days, it was effectively all the men who weren't old, infirm or too young coming back.

The vast majority of American men are not in the army. Even less are stationed in far flung corners of the empire. If all the tens of millions of young men in the US are doing absolutely nothing about whatever situations you're whining about, the return of soldiers stationed abroad wouldn't have any perceivable effects.

The return of all those Iraq veterans hardly resulted in a Turner Diaries situation. Like all other young men they were lulled into a comfort zone with X-Box, porn, fast food and tv. There'll be no glorious revolution coming from the military or its veterans, especially not the kind revolution I suspect you're hoping for.

--Random Black Guy

Anonymous said...

crazy noam chomsky makes crazy point about our massive investment in NATO:


"Q. A question asked more and more is ‘what is NATO for?’ If no one knows what it is for, why do you think it has survived 20 years after the end of the Cold War?


Professor Chomsky: Yes, that is the right question, isn’t it? You might ask why it lasted even one month after the end of the Cold War. Why did it survive? If you look back to when the Soviet Union collapsed, Gorbachev agreed to a quite remarkable concession. He agreed to let a united Germany join the NATO military alliance. Now it is remarkable in the light of history, the history of the past century, Germany alone had virtually destroyed Russia, twice, and Germany, backed by a hostile military alliance, centered in the most phenomenal military power in history, that’s a real threat. Nevertheless he agreed, but there was a quid pro quo, namely that NATO should not expand to the East, so Russia would at least have a kind of security zone. And George Bush and then-Secretary of State James Baker agreed that NATO would not expand one inch to the East. Gorbachev also proposed a nuclear free weapons zone in the region, but the US wouldn’t consider that. I don’t think they even replied to the proposal. So that was it, no more Soviet Union – game over.

So what did the Bush administration do? They issued a defense strategy document that effectively said that the real threat was actually the advanced technological level of third world countries and the need to preserve the superiority of the US technological military industrial base, problems not attributable to the Kremlin. So suddenly the original threat turns out to be a lie and it is business as usual for NATO."

Whiskey said...

Buchanon is also an idiot on the ME front. Right now we depend on the ME for setting world oil prices. That means until we can fully develop our own gas, oil, and coal resources we need CHEAP oil to compete with cheap Chinese labor. That means continuing FDR's policy of dominance over the Persian Gulf oil producing regions.

It has been the policy of every President (save Barack Hussein Obama) since FDR to maintain military dominance over the Gulf, to prevent the Russians from conspiring to raise oil prices along with other players (principally the Iranians now) and choke US and other western nations. Just because the Cold War is over does not mean that national interests of the US (a nation still dependent on cheap oil to manufacture and also export agricultural commodities) are not directly opposed to Russia (basically expensive oil is their only hope).

Buchanon is LIKE Pinker, in that he assumes human nature has irrevocably changed into a Disneyland ride. That international conflict is gone because the USSR is gone. That deep conflicts between who controls resources cannot hurt the US because it can retreat behind its oceans and not pay any price (which wasn't true even in 1812 when the British burned down DC).

Whiskey said...

NLF - the US military vets are so tiny in proportion to the nation that they have no significant impact. Even the WWII Vets who dominated elected office after say, 1955, were tossed out by the 1968 generation. There are any number of Iraq War vets now elected to office, but they tend to look and act like Scott Brown, not exactly a revolutionary movement.

Nor do we have a MIC, in fact the fashion industry globally outstrips that of the arms industry in gross revenues (and probably margin). Across the US defense firms are restructuring, merging, cutting costs because Obama gutted defense to pay for non-White oriented welfare and Democratic union goodies.

We don't spend enough on defense to maintain fair and open access to SE Asian resources of oil, aluminum, rare earth, agricultural, and uranium and other resources against a China determined to just take (and with a huge sex imbalance that pretty much guarantees an aggressive, violent nationalism).

Buchanon is right that NATO is both useless (the US basically IS NATO) and provocative (it picks fights against Russia that are not in our interest). NATO should be dissolved, even the British and French are useless in any combat.

But Buchanon is stupid: Iran's nukes are a dangerous threat to the US, given how aggressive and violent the regime is. Chavez has agreed to the Iranians staging missiles aimed at the US on his territory. JFK threatened nuclear war with the USSR over such missiles in Cuba. A strong military can overthrow Chavez, install a regime to our liking (giving us cheap Venezuelan oil) and making your commute less costly. Buchanon believes "it's those awful Jews, otherwise the world would be all at peace" which is monumentally stupid. All of human history shows weakness invites attack, strength deters it.

Anonymous said...

I'd agree with MOST of Buchanon's statements, except the idiotic view that everything is now hunky-dory and we don't need a military.

Where does he say that we don't need a military?

Why don't you stop lying for once? Why are you so dishonest? Why do you lie so much?

Baloo said...

NLF, I think you're dead right about Freikorps Freakout. Reminds me of Florida 2000, when the left didn't want the troops voting. Whiskey, maybe there aren't a huge number of Freikorps possibles, but the ones we do have are pretty top quality people. Vets are tough and scary people. Quite enough to tip the political balance, as they are hard to intimidate. Janet Napolitano says they're all potential terrorists and should be watched. Oh, I plan to use "Freikorps Freakout Syndrome" a lot myself, and try to make it go viral. Thank you, NLF.

Anonymous said...

Iran's nukes are a dangerous threat to the US, given how aggressive and violent the regime is.

Iran's nukes are for defensive purposes. They don't want to be overthrown like countries that gave up nukes like Iraq and Libya.

How has Iran been "aggressive and violent"? Why do you keep lying? Why can't you tell the truth?

Anonymous said...

McCain's a mainstream elder statesmouthpiece per the NE news nets. Sailer, you really might try talking to corporeal Republicans voters once in a while rather than shadowboxing with the journalist interpreters' conceit of the more respectable RNC mandarins. Hell, turn on AM radio in L.A. for a few minutes now and then--it's not beyond your budget.

Anonymous said...

The Taiwan comment was not too bright. They can pay for their own defense, just like S. Korea--not quite the same as asserting they won't have to pay for any defense, which is an opportunistic bad-faith "point" at best. Awaiting the Derbyshire column in Takimag that rehashes 50% of your post and then politely explains that crazy East Asian nationalism thing.

Hapalong Cassidy said...

Whiskey, maybe you're one of those guys that should follow Steve's advice and find a college football team to root for.

Anonymous said...

whiskey said, "I'd agree with MOST of Buchanon's statements, except the idiotic view that everything is now hunky-dory and we don't need a military. We spend LESS of GDP than we did in any time since Truman's post WWII wind-down."

First, learn to spell Buchanan correctly.

Second, Buchanan has never said we don't need a military, unless of course, you believe the definition of having a military means endless foreign engagements that have little to nothing to do with American interests.

Third, let's contrast the most pressing issues to America as seen by you and your neocon friends compared to Buchanan and most iSteve readers. You and your neocons believe Iran and her nukes, Chavez, Putin, Al Qaeda, Kim Jong IL, and other foreign tinpots are the most serious existential threat to America. Additionally, America would not be long for this world if something bad were to happen to Israel.

Buchanan acknowledges the above are not necessarily good for America, but his most pressing concern is over third world immigration and the gutting of our economy through free trade.

On those issues you and your neocon friends not only will not acknowledge the problem, but you seem to actively pursue policies that promote them.

Before you describe Buchanan as idiotic, you and your neocon friends need to take a look in the mirror.

Anonymous said...

It is amazing McCain won the Republican nomination. He is idiotic. But Mormon hate is strong with primary voters.

Anonymous said...

We need cheap oil so that we can import cheap foreign junk and export jobs.

Is that really such a good deal for us?

What if we stopped importing cheap people, products and oil?

We might have more safety, space and peace.

Anonymous said...

"Freikorp Freakout Syndrome"

If you boys must play, play OUTSIDE.

rob said...

Where's the middle? Depends on where the edges are. McCain is now the far right on Russia. The Democrats are good at playing center and far left, so there won't be an explicit left position on Russia. Anyway, the acceptable opinions will be engage hard or engage soft. Only a lunatic like Buchanan would think something so smart as "who gives a shit."

Weevil Neocon, why can't you spell Buchanan? Is it some sort of inside joke between you and the voices? Also, you should research your shtick, the Scots-Irish, they ain't Irish Catholics.

Anonymous said...

Why should America defend Taiwan?

Anonymous said...

I'm confused about Buchanan's background. Steve refers to him as Scotch-Irish and German-Catholic. I often here him described as Irish-Catholic. So which is it, and/or in what combination are these ethnicities represented?

anony-mouse said...

'With no ethnic rivals in their national homes...'

Really?

What percentage of:

Romania is Hungarian
Germany is Turkish
England is Pakistani/Caribbean/Polish
Lithuania is Russian
Hungary is Roma
France is Morrocan/Algerian
Spain is Basque/Moroccan
Russia is (take your pick-the list is too long)

And I haven't mentioned the Balkans.

Currently the interethnic violence is at low levels (didn't anyone notice the recent riots in England-but not poorer and less diverse Wales or Scotland?)

But give things time. WW I wasn't built in a day, you know.

Anonymous said...

NATO exists BECAUSE it has an override on Germany.

THAT'S its purpose.

NLF...

the NAZIs were SOCIALISTS and as far left as the Commies.

Which is why it was a running gag back in the day that Nazis made the best Commies and vice versa.

You'd be shocked as to how many crossed over.

The only difference was the cult leader. Both wanted the whole planet -- and both were staggeringly racist.
-----

The political problem of liberal American Jews is their historical memory -- of the Pale. c.f. Fiddler on the Roof.

That cultural imprint is so strong that my Jewish peers were taught its history by their mothers -- apparently all of them -- to the exclusion of American history until their clan arrived.

Most non-Jews are entirely unaware that Jews have not fully assimilated at all. And this is why.

By comparison you don't find today's Irish Americans going on and on about the bastardy of the perfidious British. You have to go to lower class Bostonians to hear that kind of talk.

Jews, by comparison are constantly haunted by a self-imposed belief that America is only a split-hair away from Nazi Germany revisited.

This gets so bad that I've seen Jewish matrons get into wild fights with the LAPD over simple traffic infractions. The cops are, naturally, puzzled. She ends up going downtown for the full treatment.

Later we hear a wild tale of woe. It was all ever in her imagination. ( Yes, it's the same mother who taught her sons the history of the Pale. )

Along this line I've had Jewish classmates entirely fabricate fantasies about fellow non-Jewish students: like the time two boys discussing the LA Dodgers morphed into a compact to terrorize her!

The other pervasive Jewish myth you'll see repeated everywhere is that Henry Ford was a raving anti-Semite.

It's too long to go into here, but it is a historical fact that Ford used Jewish funding to liquidate the Dodge Brother's 40% ownership of Ford Motor Co.

He had no difficulties with Jews at that time, at all.

Then, after WWI, the economy contracted massively. His Jewish bankers used the reverse in fortune to gig him up short -- and force a horrific default on his MASSIVE note. ( Largest syndication ever circa 1919 )

They chose the very last hour to notify Ford that they were calling the note. By the standards of the day the Jewish banking syndicate figured to own all of Ford Motor Co. free and clear within weeks!

Henry was boiling mad. NOW he hated Jews, as in Jewish bankers. ( Many of his best dealers were Jews, of course. )

He pulled a rabbit out of his hat: he informed EVERY dealer worldwide that they'd have to IMMEDIATELY wire funds to pay for their inventory or lose their distributorship forever.

Upon receiving this telegram every dealer ran to his bank and borrowed to cover the demand. When the Labor Day Weekend ended million upon million were wired into New York.

The folks at Western Union leaked the bad news: the Jews were going to be entirely cashed out for no gain -- and then cut off from Henry's sugar forever.

This tale was common knowledge ninety-years ago.

But it doesn't stop there: now every retail bank in America was gouging Ford dealers.

So Ford established is OWN BANK: Ford Motor Acceptance Corporation. He went to Boston to get old time money from the insurance boys.

It was his single greatest invention: durable goods credit sponsored by the manufacturer. You now see it everywhere.

As you might expect - -Henry then opens up his own newspaper to spread his rage against Jewish finance nationally.

Ford is constantly brought up in Jewish circles to perpetuate the myth that they need to be hyper-active in American politics -- from the LEFT -- to stop Shoah II.

Anonymous said...

50 yrs, Buchanan vs Obama in a presidential race would have favored Buchanan 70 to 30.

Today, such an election would favor Obama 80 to 20.

HOw things have changed.

Duke of Qin said...

Amusingly Juan McCamnesty can't even be bothered to name Chinese dictators to be hung from lamp posts, that is if he even knew them. At least Putin was notable enough to get a personal shout out. Though likely the majority of Chinese would be hard pressed to do the same considering the bureaucratic (nay eunuch) nature of Communist Party rule in China. Unfortunately for McCain, the majority of the members of the politburo standing committee will be retiring next year rendering his dreams redundant.

An Anschluss of Taiwan is unlikely (but not impossible) but the rather more pedestrian future is looking more and more like Finlandization. I'm sure the Communists would be satisfied with a token garrison alas Hong Kong and some naval and air bases.

Anonymous said...

Cain: 9 9 9

McCain: dyin, dyin, dyin.

Anonymous said...

"But Mormon hate is strong with primary voters."

But don't voters know that Romney is not really a Mormon. In fact, he's not anything.

Funny that liberal Massers voted for a Mormon.
Romney is just a wheeler dealer.

David said...

>Why don't you [Whiskey] stop lying for once? Why are you so dishonest? Why do you lie so much?<

Maybe for the same reason he persists in spelling it "Buchanon"?

Truth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Harry Baldwin said...

I really wish we didn't have to hear what John McCain had to say anymore. He is an excruciating embarrassment. Unfortunately, while he couldn't bring himself to wage a real campaign against Barack Obama, he was motivated to do everything it took to beat the primary challenger for his senate seat. If he had lost that battle, he would be relegated to the obscurity he richly deserves. However, while it didn't bother him to lose graciously to a liberal, the prospect of being beaten by a right-winger drove him crazy.

eh said...

Someone had to say it.

Given the quality of his writing (and thinking, but some may have a different opinion about that), you can see why Buchanan had to be smeared and marginalized: He makes too much sense in a far too convincing way.

The BBC's main page come-on for this story about Marine Le Pen is/was "The charming face of France's far right National Front". The qualifier "far right" (a synonym for evil, as everyone knows) cannot be omitted, ever.

This passage is noteworthy:

She is a leader who has spent the last 10 months trying to detoxify, or (as she would say) de-demonise a political brand known for its anti-immigrant platform.

Of course there was never anything 'toxic' about Front National. But even the simple fact that it has been the media that has demonized that organization cannot be admitted.

Anonymous said...

"Cain: 9 9 9"

Cain: "Did I say 9-9-9? I meant 9-0-9. Poor people wouldn't pay taxes. That's what I meant."

Cain: "I said I am as pro-life as you can get--I am totally opposed to abortion.

"Well, what I meant was that if a woman and her family made the choice to have an abortion, that's their choice, not mine as a citizen or as a President. "


Cain: "I didn't know what the 'right of return' meant, but I do now."

Cain: "I did say I that I don't know much about foreign policy, but when I am elected President, I will have good advisors who will advise me of my options, and I will choose well because they will be good advisors."

Cain: "I will listen to what the military people advise when it comes to military affairs."
*********************************
Hmmmmmmmmm.

Anonymous said...

"Thank God lunatics like Buchanan are marginalized while thoughtful statesmen like McCain are accorded the respect their wisdom has earned."

Fascinating point. The world seems upside down to me when Pat Buchanan is the peacenik and what used to be called Liberals are all for sending troops everywhere, all the time.

Anonymous said...

"That means continuing FDR's policy of dominance over the Persian Gulf oil producing regions..."

"..All of human history shows weakness invites attack, strength deters it."

Ie - we need *their* oil, so lets go get it. If they get uppity, we have to kill them.

The end point of this line of argument is genocide for all Arabs. You should just come out and advocate for it Whiskey.

You and Cheney should be put on and island somewhere way far away from civilization and you can do your thing.

Anonymous said...

"It is amazing McCain won the Republican nomination."

But did you see the rest of the field?

Anonymous said...

"Nor do we have a MIC, in fact the fashion industry globally outstrips that of the arms industry in gross revenues (and probably margin)."

But Gaddafi's fashion sense didn't save him from bombs.

Anonymous said...

"Nor do we have a MIC, in fact the fashion industry globally outstrips that of the arms industry in gross revenues (and probably margin)."

A million fashion models vs a million soldiers. Who are gonna win?

Anonymous said...

Obama - or someone similar - could never been nominated -let alone elected - in the USA prior to 2000.

As for Buchanan, had he been given the microphone and a place in the Presidential debates who knows what he might have done in 2000? Maybe 20 percent? Pretty good for 3rd party.

Pat's POTUS runs were crippled by the fact that he's a writer/Journalist NOT a politician. If Buchanan had been elected Governor or Senator and THEN ran, who knows what he could have done.

IMO, had he become too dangerous to the powers that be some "random nut" would assassinated him. Reagan and Wallace were both shot, coincidence?

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

"But don't voters know that Romney is not really a Mormon. In fact, he's not anything. Funny that liberal Massers voted for a Mormon. Romney is just a wheeler dealer."

Romney devoted 2 1/2 solid years of his life to full-time missionary work and then another decade running a congregation and then several congregations while still having his family and regular job to attend to. While doing all of this he not only wasn't paid but was actually still expected to tithe 10% (technically redundant, I know) of his considerable income to the LDS Church.

Is he a true believer, or just a socio-cultural Mormon, or was it for him just another manner of networking? How the hell would I know? But his sacrifices for his faith are considerably greater than those of the Bush/Perry/Obama types who talk the God talk from the stump or use the Church in other ways but who never, in their personal or political actions, do anything that genuinely demonstrates their religious devotion or furthers the goals of the Religious Right.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, McCain is really too old to think things through anymore. He's decided to steadfastly hold his pose as a modern day Teddy R. He's only around anymore to cement his legacy as just that. The act is really pathetic because McCain is obviously not a Great Man at all. The real John McCain is Jim Webb.

Let's! said...

"Thank God lunatics like Buchanan are marginalized..."

On the other hand, he did score quite the bonanza in 2000 - $12.6 million in federal funds that Ross Perot left sitting in an abandoned bus with a "Reform Party" logo emblazoned on its side.

And Buchanan still got crushed - by Ralph Nader.

Anonymous said...

In England, we really have a vague idea of American politics, but generally speaking amongst educated people Ronald Reagan was hated and held in the deepest possible contempt - it was generally believed he was a low IQ mental incompetent, an elderely former washed up B-movie actor turned corporate salesman who in later life turned those acting skills into politics - whilst a syndicate of right-wing nut job corporate types (Bloomingdale et al) bankrolled their sock-puppet talking head.
Basically we thought of him as a sick joke and a disgrace to the august office of presidency.
Amongst educated left leaning types in Britain (a big and core constituency, basically the people who run the nation), the Republicans are generally despised.
They are seen as brainless, bombastic, dumb, arrogant christian/zionist, anally retentive, rednecks with no saving graces wisdom or intelligence.
The latter manifestations of that trend Bush II and McCain seem to confirm that Dr. Stangelove tendency in the Republicans is getting worse not better.
Curiously Jimmy Carter had a lot of respect amongst the English chattering classes, and Bill Clinton was generally liked.

Anonymous said...

The crazed neocon John Bolton said yesterday on Fox News regarding the Mideast:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFbpKKOEnAE

"The critical oil and natural gas producing region that we fought so many wars to try and protect our economy from the adverse impact of losing that supply or having it available at very high prices"

RWF said...

"Hence, globalist leaders have gone looking far afield for wars, such as bombing Serbia and Libya, to keep NATO "relevant."

Actually Buchanan was pretty much the first prominent politician who urged a US intervention in Yugoslavia. In his 1992 presidential campaign he was telling people that he would "send the Sixth Fleet on a courtesy call to Dubrovnik," in order to protect Croatian independence.

Truth said...

"Thank God McCain Lost"?

Isn't that synonymous for "Thank God Obama Won"?

Anonymous said...

Give him a break. He wears diapers for Pete's sake.

Anonymous said...

In the meantime, idiots on the Left like Bill Maher are positively crowing about Gaddafi's death.

Anonymous said...

"The U.S., Buchanan points out, also repeatedly violated its pledge to Mikhail Gorbachev not to expand NATO 'one inch to the East,' in return for which the last Soviet leader agreed to West Germany taking over East Germany."

Oh, we made a promise to the defunct Soviet Union?

Yeah, who cares?

Antioco Dascalon said...

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution envisioned a three-pronged military: Navy, Army and Militia. The aversion to standing armies among the founders is well known. The necessity of a large navy is even more pressing today than in 1776. I would be in favor of abolishing the US Army. We can have a Navy the size of the rest of the world combined and sufficient Marines to man the ships. Militia are sufficient to defend America itself and any attack would have to come through the Navy and the Air Force, an unlikely prospect. The Army serves mainly as an overwhelming temptation to become involved in land wars in Asia, a notoriously bad proposition. A permanent Army isn't constitutional, economical or prudent.

Jay said...

I just finished SOAS -- awesome book.

Anonymous said...

"Actually Buchanan was pretty much the first prominent politician who urged a US intervention in Yugoslavia. In his 1992 presidential campaign he was telling people that he would "send the Sixth Fleet on a courtesy call to Dubrovnik," in order to protect Croatian independence."

Always Catholic first.

Anonymous said...

"Romney devoted 2 1/2 solid years of his life to full-time missionary work and then another decade running a congregation and then several congregations while still having his family and regular job to attend to."

But then Romney devoted his term as governor in Mass in the service of statism and 'gay marriage'.
This is what drives people nuts. Clinton was a bit of everything.
Romney is 100% this and then 100% that. Worse, he pretends as though he was 100% this(or that)always.

Anonymous said...

"As for Buchanan, had he been given the microphone and a place in the Presidential debates who knows what he might have done in 2000? Maybe 20 percent? Pretty good for 3rd party."

The thing about Buchanan is his style is demagogic and alarmist. It puts people off. Reagan understood one has to offer a sunnier conservatism. Alarmism works when most people are really worried about society. But even with all our problems, the vast middle in America is complacent. So, they couldn't go for Buchanan's McCarthy antics.

Anonymous said...

In other words, there's a reason why Obama went far but Alan Keyes and Al Sharpton didn't. Buchanan's style is more like that of the angry negro.

Anonymous said...

Maybe wasps are just as devious as Jews, but it all depends on whom they are up against.
In the 19th century, wasps looked upon Indians as 'ignorant dummies' and ran circles around them with all these 'agreements' and 'settlements'. Indian simpletons got fooled over and over, and wasps were cracking up at Indian dummies.

But wasps were no match for Jews who ran circles around them. Since wasps got outwitted--and couldn't fight back accordingly--,they decided to go for principles. But they got outwitted there too for Jews control the terminology and rules of principles: 'anti-racism', which means whites must kiss ass.

Rule: smart people are devious with dumb people cuz they can fool the dummies. Dumb people try to be straight with smart people cuz in a game of wits, they'll lose to the smarties.

Big Bill said...

Whiskey: "That means until we can fully develop our own gas, oil, and coal resources we need CHEAP oil to compete with cheap Chinese labor. That means continuing FDR's policy of dominance over the Persian Gulf oil producing regions."

Exactly the opposite. Cheap oil means labor is a much more significant input to the cost of goods. Cheap oil makes Chinese goods very very competitive since labor costs dominate and manufacturing and shipping costs are reduced. Cheap oil for US means cheap oil for China. We don't get a lower price because we are the Global Hegemons (tm).

Worse, after p!ssing away all that money chasing Saddam and shooting up Iraq, we don't get the Iraqi oil any cheaper than China does. And Libyan oil is going to costs China and the US exactly the same after the war as it did before.

Where do you get this stuff from, Whiskey? Hasbara Central? I am almost offended that you expect us at Steve's to believe this. Your time would be better spend writing this stuff for USA Today. They'll believe anything.

Chad Buffington said...

"The folks at Western Union leaked the bad news: the Jews were going to be entirely cashed out for no gain -- and then cut off from Henry's sugar forever.

This tale was common knowledge ninety-years ago."

Funny, I couldn't find any information about this online. Can you provide us with some links to support this story?

Hunsdon said...

Truth said: "Thank God McCain Lost"?

Isn't that synonymous for "Thank God Obama Won"?

Hunsdon replies: Admittedly, when the results were announced, I DID in point of fact murmur a quiet "Thank God Obama won." I figured, hey, sure we'll get some economically redistributist policies I oppose, but at least the insane policy of eternal foreign warring will cease, and if you add that to the way he'll stick it to the entrenched money men, I was optimistic.

Of course, all the pretty lies Obama told on the campaign trail were just like Bush's "more humble foreign policy" schtick, i.e., pretty lies you tell to get to 1600 Penn Ave.

Upsides? Well, at least we're not all Georgians now. Then again, we're all Israelis, so maybe that's a wash.

Hunsdon said...

Steve said: Their slogan became "NATO must go out of area or go out of business."

Hunsdon replied: I think it was more a case of "NATO must go out of area lest it go out of business."

Bill Buckley famously dictated that we must have Big Statism to oppose the Soviet menace. You know, the (big) standing army, the (big) surveillance state, the strong executive. Guess Bill never read Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy.

Sometimes I think it might have been better for the Reds* to take us over. At least that way we'd have known who to shoot, the guys named Igor and Boris and Ivan.

* Reds! How's that for some 50's nostalgia for you?

Svigor said...

10/22/11 3:59 PM

True, but it's obvious you keep a military class occupied with wars, and more importantly, jobs. Conditions are ripe for a new age of Condottieri. I was just thinking about this the other day, and how I'd be surprised if we don't see proliferation of mercenary armies (of largely European stock) in the years ahead.

Anonymous said...

"Isn't that synonymous for "Thank God Obama Won"?"

I think it means better Obama than WWIII.

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

"Thank God McCain Lost"?

Isn't that synonymous for "Thank God Obama Won"?

No, it isn't. It's the difference between liking the man your daughter chooses to marry and just being grateful she didn't marry that other jerk.

And Buchanan still got crushed - by Ralph Nader.

What does that really prove, but that Republicans are a relatively sane and pragmatic people, at least compared to Democrats?

If I'd have been living in a safely "red" or safely "blue" state (terms not really used until after the 2000 elections) I would have voted and even campaigned for Buchanan.


"Curiously Jimmy Carter had a lot of respect amongst the English chattering classes, and Bill Clinton was generally liked."

Well, why bother that we are headed towards insolvency and Third World status so long as England likes us? Interestingly, England is pretty much in the same boat with regards to being headed down the shithole, despite being so much better than America. This is sad for me, because I actually love England.

Anonymous said...

You think maybe Sarah Palin looks like the wife in King of the Hill?

Anonymous said...

Pat's problem has always been that he doesn't choose to (or actually, that he can't) package and express his views and statements in a friendly-voiced manner.

He comes off almost always as the pugnacious bully you find in a Southie bar. He has mellowed a bit in recent times, a sign of age and wearied resignation, I supppose, but still, that face, that voice, that Irish temper, that face that turns red in a split second, that feeling that with no warning he might lurch over the desk and grab the guy across from him by the collar....that's Pat.

Kylie said...

"Amongst educated left leaning types in Britain (a big and core constituency, basically the people who run the nation), the Republicans are generally despised.
They are seen as brainless, bombastic, dumb, arrogant christian/zionist, anally retentive, rednecks with no saving graces wisdom or intelligence."


Yes, we know. It isn't just left leaning types in Britain who read The Grauniad.

"a big and core constituency, basically the people who run the nation"

Yes, we know. We saw a good demonstration of their effectiveness last August. Among the right leaning types in America, there are many who think that core constituency is not just running the nation but running it into the ground.

Anonymous said...

The creation of ethnonational states across Europe, a consequence of two world wars and ethnic cleansing, was a precondition of stability, unity, and peace.

So, multiculturalism led to terrible wars that culminated in the destruction of multiculturalism. But after a period stability, unity, and peace, demands arose for a new multiculturalism.

The old multicult arose in the premodern era of empires and died in modern era of nationalism. The new multicult arose in the postmodern era of... whatever we have now... and died... whenever, however.

Maybe I'm just Rorschaching, but I think there's a pattern here I can't quite see.

Cennbeorc

Anonymous said...

Does anyone honestly think we want to get in a war with 1.3 billion people over the Chinese equivalent of Nantucket?

Strictly speaking, it's more the equivalent of Massachusetts.

Cennbeorc

Jacob Roberson said...

Buchanan keeps himself sane and reasonable on almost everything, so he can stay crazy about Jews and black people. It's just a small part of his brain that's cracked up in there.

Anonymous said...

Though Buchanan wrote a book called REPUBLIC, NOT AN EMPIRE(which also could have been called 'republican, not an imperialist'), his geopolitical worldview could be called SPHERE-ISM, which amounts to 'limited empire, not an extensive empire'. It could also be just as dangerous as McCainism.

Buchanan isn't really calling for America minding its own business. Rather, he's saying our empire is too extensive. What we should do is rule over our sphere of influence: the Americas. Meanwhile, we should allow Russia to rule over Eurasia and China to rule over Asia(or share it a little with Japan)--while Indians rule over South Asia. In the 80s, he wished South Africa would pretty much dominate all of Southern Africa. South Africa did get involved in places in Angola and Mozambique.
The Middle East is trickier. Iran and Shia Iraq can become a major power, but most Muslims are Sunni. Israel is the #1 power in the region, but it's Jewish, and Muslims don't like Jews. Turkey, a half-European/half-Near Eastern nation, is politically too ambiguous to lead or dominate Middle East.

Also, one reason why Buchanan is eager to see Americans out of Europe is cuz it will revive German power. Without US 'protecting' Germany, Germany will have to rearm considerably. It will again become the premier military power in Europe(which is why many Europeans and leftist Germans want US to stay). Buchanan wishes Germany had won WWI cuz Western/Central Europe would have fallen under the German sphere of influence or Germany's limited imperialism. In the early 19th century, Napoleon sought to dominate Europe as a French sphere of influence(and might have succeeded too if not for British 'balance of power'-ism. Germans in WWI would have succeeded too, again if not for Brits. And who knows... if not for Anglos and Anglo-Americans in WWII, Russians might have swept through all of Europe with the downfall of Germany.)

Sphereism is dangerous. We saw it with Napoleonic Wars. We saw it with WWI--largely a war between German sphereism and Russian sphereism--, WWII(revival of German sphereism), etc.
And though US came to dominate the sphere of the Americas, it also led to a lot of anger and resentment among Latin-Americans who've hated the 'arrogant yanquis'. Sphereism isn't anti-imperialist but limited-imperialist.

It's also counterproductive for US foreign policy. If US favors the big powers and sends a message: "Russians should dominate Eurasia" and "China should dominate Asia", then US will make lots of enemies. Russia and China may be major Big Powers, but the fact is there are many more small nations than big nations around the world, many more midgets than giants. We'll alienate just about every Eastern European nation, every Central Asian nation. And we'll alienate all the smaller nations around China. That won't be good for our standing in the UN or world community. Do we wanna win China as member of the 'big boy club' while losing Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Laos, Burma(which is close to China only in an uneasy alliance), Philippines, Cambodia, etc?

Anonymous said...

Whiskey - why do you always spell Buchanan's name wrong? No way is it an accident.

Dennis Dale said...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-18/u-s-shouldn-t-ignore-iran-s-speedboat-threat-jeffrey-goldberg.html#disqus_thread

Anonymous said...

Russia complains of how Gaddafi was killed. But Russia ruthlessly killed 10,000s in Chechnya. Russia also assassinates people outside Russia through poisoning.
Yet, US, which hails the overthrow of Gaddafi, supported Putin's war in Chechnya as a 'war on terror'.
Never a dull moment.

Mr. Anon said...

"Whiskey said...

I'd agree with MOST of Buchanon's statements, except the idiotic view that everything is now hunky-dory and we don't need a military."

He's never said any such thing, nor does he believe any such thing, you deceitful idiot. And why can't you even be bothered to spell the man's name correctly.

Whiskey, you are a beta loser nitwit.

Anonymous said...

Truth admits he's weird. I agree.

S.Anonyia said...

"The most conservative element of American society are stationed abroad and their energies on expended against Muslims, Africans, Asians, Russians, etc. What if empire were to end? "

Soldiers are far from being the most conservative element of American society. Only a minority of soldiers come from traditional military families (which are pretty conservative). A lot of people simply join the military because they have no other options to afford a middle class lifestyle. The only reason much of the military votes "conservative" is due to the fact that they don't want the defense budget cut.

Anonymous said...

I think potentially more dangerous than McCain's statements are those of Paul Krugman, who maybe should be called Paul Kriegman. Kriegman says we need WWII-level spending. Krugonomics isn't much different than Hitleromics. If Friedman's book was WORLD IS FLAT, maybe Krugman's book should be called FLATTEN THE WORLD.

To be sure, Krugman isn't saying the spending must be on the military or that we should trigger WWIII. He means we need massive public spending, the kind that happens during wartime.

Even so, politics being what it is--and Kriegman being such an influential figure--, some politicians and thinktankers might spin Krugonomics into MORE SPENDING ON MILITARY and MORE ADVENTURISM ABROAD. That can lead to real major wars, and US government might exploit it to 'revive' the economy.

From McDonalds to McCain to McWars.

Carol said...

The world seems upside down to me when Pat Buchanan is the peacenik and what used to be called Liberals are all for sending troops everywhere, all the time.

Actually that is the old order of things, prior to WWII. The crusty reactionary old right like Taft tried to keep us out of another Great War, while the *enlightened* liberals like FDR and Willkie were internationalists.

Anonymous said...

Now we finally know which side won WWII in Europe.
Arbeit does indeed macht frei.

corvinus said...

Or, imagine that a majority in Ukraine decide to reunite with Russia, while a minority rebel. Would the American public agree to fight the Russo-Ukrainian army fighting the rebels?

My observations from my six weeks in Kiev talking to Ukrainians:

Ukraine is not too well off economically (but then again, what country is right now?), and there is a rift between West Ukraine and East Ukraine, but it seems to me to be about as serious as that between the Red States and the Blue States here at home. They don't like each other, and think the other are boneheads, but they also recognize that they also need each other.

Ukrainians are most ticked off now with the government's handling of the economy (same as here in the USA) and Yanukovych's Putin-style power grab. I should also point out that this crosses ethnic lines; Russo-Ukrainians are little different from autochthonous Ukrainians in their attitudes toward the government and the country's split, although the Russo-Ukrainians tend to be somewhat better off (at least those in Kiev). Likewise, most Russo-Ukrainians, at least those in Kiev, consider Ukraine to be their home country, not Russia, and Russian-majority Crimea to be an integral part of Ukraine. So, Russo-Ukrainians are not an obvious minority at odds with the Ukrainian nation, but a related ethnic group that feels as much at home there as they could be, perhaps comparable to German-Americans in the USA. The only obvious difference I noticed is that Russo-Ukrainians seem to be more likely to be blond than the autochthons.

Nanonymous said...

And speaking of Libya again:

I am looking at two AP articles: "Libyan doctors say Gadhafi died of shot to head" and "Libya's transitional leader declares liberation". Choice quotes:

1. "The 69-year-old was captured alive Thursday, then taunted, beaten and killed in unclear circumstances in his hometown of Sirte."

Unclear my ass. Seems like lying is a way of life in MSM.

2. "The transitional government leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil set out a vision for the post-Gadhafi future with an Islamist tint, saying that Islamic Sharia law would be the "basic source" of legislation in the country and that existing laws that contradict the teachings of Islam would be nullified."

As was bloody obvious from day one. Great job of toppling two secular and friendly regimes in N. Africa and replacing them with Sharia crazies!

Marlowe said...

Buchanon is the evil robot double of Buchanan.

Phillip Buchanon said...

I don't know who this Whiskey guy is or why he is attributing these foreign policy views to me, but I never said any of that stuff. I'm just a mediocre pro football player.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/3545/phillip-buchanon

Anonymous said...

"He comes off almost always as the pugnacious bully you find in a Southie bar."

...which is why he was fun as a TV personality--Bob Novak was fun for the same reason--, but it's not good for politics.

Novack always struck me as being the Daffy Duck of conservatism.

Anonymous said...

"I don't know who this Whiskey guy is or why he is attributing these foreign policy views to me..."

Whiskey is a brilliant riot. I think he's half-serious/half-kidding. HIs stuff about fashion industry being bigger than MIC is an instant classic.

Dave said...

"http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-18/u-s-shouldn-t-ignore-iran-s-speedboat-threat-jeffrey-goldberg.html#disqus_thread"

Now we know why Goldberg doesn't enable comments on his Atlantic blog. As long as the US Navy gets a green light WRT rules of engagement, those Iranian speedboats are no threat. Our ships have these newfangled weapons called .50 cal machine guns.

"Krugonomics isn't much different than Hitleromics. If Friedman's book was WORLD IS FLAT, maybe Krugman's book should be called FLATTEN THE WORLD."

You're missing two key points here. The first is that one component of Hitlernomics was autarky: Germsns bought stuff made in Germany. Hitler didn't lend money to electric car companies that made their cars in Finland.

The second point is that it wasn't the "flattening" that boosted Germany's economy, but the pre-war rearming and infrastructure build-out. Krugman at least understands that much. The war actually turned out to be economically destructive, as millions of productive people were killed and German cities were bombed to rubble.

NLF said...

Though people like Buchanan warn that American tough talk about Russia and China are pushing those giants together, maybe some people in American politics want it that way.

American elites need to focus--or focus our attention--on some great enemy. It's like a movie needs a great villain to be captivating. The first Dirty Harry movie was great cuz Scorpio was a scary bad guy, but the sequels sucked cuz the villains were forgettable. We had great villians during WWII. And a great one during the Cold War. Soviet Empire spanned from East Germany(and Warsaw Pact Nations) to Central Asia all the way to Mongolia to North Korea. USSR was also sort-of-allies with India and Middle East nations like Iraq. Cuba became part of the Soviet Empire. At one time, China and USSR were allies.
But Cold War ended and the Warsaw pact nations dropped communism in no time and joined Nato. Soviet Union itself broke apart. And Russia went through bad times. Russia has made something of a comeback since then, but Russia alone isn't much of a bad guy.

China has been rising steadily and does scare some people, but Chinese international rhetoric is 'peaceful rise'. China doesn't have a leader like Mao preaching death to American capitalism. Politically, China seems boring.

So, neither China or Russia alone will do as a grand villain. But, by alienating both nations, we drive them closer together politically and create a monster-villain that might be called Chussia or the ODA--Oriental Despotic Alliance(or maybe the Sinoviet Union). It may actually not be much in reality, but in the paranoid American mind that wants to believe in some grand villain, Chussia will do.

Anonymous said...

"And why can't you even be bothered to spell the man's name correctly."

I'm going to start referring to "Whiskey" as Wusskey.

Anonymous said...

McCain wouldn't have been a successful politician had he spoken like Buchanan. Buchanan could not have been a successful intellectual had he thought like McCain. You can't have it all.

Anonymous said...

The interesting thing is if America had remained just as Buchanan wished in the 50s, he would have been less of an interesting thinker.
He would have seen the elephant from just one angle. But with changing times, his position shifted and he saw the elephant from many angles. Even the same thing looks from different angles. Buchanan as a white male grew up seeing America from the top. Now, he also sees it from the bottom.

Kudzu Bob said...

Truth admits he's weird. I agree.

Actually, Twoof originally called his first blog post "Yes, I'm know I'm wierd," but when Kylie was racially insensitive enough to point out the spelling mistake in his title he quietly corrected it.

Speaking of people who can be counted on to be wrong with all the reliablity of a compass, I now wait for Whiskey to make known his views on whatever the burning issue of the day is. Then I take whatever the oppostie position happens to be.

This technique means that I no longer have to go to a great deal of time and trouble keeping up with current events. Because of Whiskey I probably manage to produce an additional three thousand words of copy each week and even have the time to take in a movie on Sunday afternoon, all while being a better citizen.

Thanks, Whiskey! I owe you big time!

Anonymous said...

I'm confused about Buchanan's background. Steve refers to him as Scotch-Irish and German-Catholic. I often here him described as Irish-Catholic. So which is it, and/or in what combination are these ethnicities represented?

Well, it's complicated.

The way these things work is that if you're of Irish descent but your Irish ancestors were Protestant, you're "Scots-Irish". If you have Irish ancestors but they were Catholic, you're just "Irish". Which makes Pat Irish-Catholic, as you say.

On the other hand, Steve has a bee in his bonnet about the Irish and is convinced that they are all a subversive fifth-column in America. Since Pat is a patriot, Steve instinctively moves him into the noble "Scots-Irish" category.

John McCain is Scots-Irish in the sense of being Protestant, which makes me wonder why some people believe that beng Scots-Irish is a badge of honor. At the end of the day what makes patriots patriots is that they are, well, patriots. Ethnicity and religion don't factor into it.

NLF said...

About McCain and McCexicans...

Is our main problem with Mexicans that they tend to vote Democratic or because they're, well, Mexicans?
Suppose 70% of Mexican-Americans voted GOP. Suppose, AS A HYPOTHETICAL, 60% of illegal Mexicans polled say they would vote for GOP if they were made citizens. Should we be for amnesty? It would certainly be good for the GOP.

IN some ways, are white conservatives relieved that majority of Mexican-Americans vote Democratic since it serves as a handy excuse to block more non-white immigration?
Suppose Bush-Rove had succeeded and majority of Mexican-Americans did vote for the GOP. Wouldn't that be reason for more immigration to increase GOP votes?
Btw, if majority of immigrants voted Republican, would Democrats be for less immigration--to save their party--or would they still support it in the name of 'diversity'?

Bush-Rove proved to be very wrong, but maybe it didn't seem so wrong back in 2000. Bush got 40% of Hispanic vote, which aint negligible. All they needed was to turn only 10% more, and Hispanics would be 50/50 Republican/Democratic. Just 10% more!
Suppose the economy had succeeded with housing boom. Suppose amnesty had passed. Suppose Bush presidency turned out successful--not least by avoiding the ruinous Iraq War. Could it be possible that in 2008, at least 50% of Hispanics would have voted for the GOP?
But then, do white conservatives want that? Or, would they prefer Mexicans remaining majority-Democratic cuz it reserves the GOP as the white party?

Anonymous said...

In Texas, Texican culture goes way back. To many of us that grew up outside SW, Mexicans are aliens. But to generations of Texans, Texicanism is part of what America is about. So, it might be misleading to say Bush or Perry sold us out. What seems alien to us is mother's milk to them. Anglo-Mexican culture is what Texas is. Naturally, Texicans--which is what they should be called--wanna spread what they consider to be Texican-American.

Anonymous said...

These 1980s-era squabbles about the Kremlin and NATO don't suit Buchanan/Buchanon well (McCain on the other hand is thoroughly clueless; who knew?) The global economy is shifting under his feet and there are more serious tech/cultural problems facing the nation-state paradigm. Hence, the need for ever-more-preposterous conspiracies such as Iran in cahoots w/ the Zetas now...

Anonymous said...

Maybe it'd be cool to have a McCanan or Buchain.
McCain, at his best, is not without positive qualities. Fuse best of John and Pat, and maybe GOP would be in better shape.

What they do have in common is a kind of renegade-maverickism from orthodox GOP. Both have moved 'left' in some areas. McCain with campaign finance reform and amnesty. Buchanan with his anti-free trade and proletarianism.

Anonymous said...

"You're missing two key points here. The first is that one component of Hitlernomics was autarky: Germsns bought stuff made in Germany."

But Germany borrowed tons of money from abroad to finance stuff like autobahn and military buildup.

Anonymous said...

"I am looking at two AP articles: "Libyan doctors say Gadhafi died of shot to head" and "Libya's transitional leader declares liberation"."

If you really think about it, he committed suicide. An assisted one at that.

Anonymous said...

"The only obvious difference I noticed is that Russo-Ukrainians seem to be more likely to be blond than the autochthons"

"autochthons"? First time I heard of such a critter.

Anonymous said...

"Buchanan keeps himself sane and reasonable on almost everything, so he can stay crazy about Jews and black people."

Funny. Those are issues where I think he's most sane. His insane stuff is Creationism and anti-abortionism.

Anonymous said...

"NATO must go out of area lest it go out of business."

I wish Russia and China apply for Nato. That oughta render it pointless.

Anonymous said...

"And Buchanan still got crushed - by Ralph Nader."

I think he had a black female VP candidate. Surely the most bizarre spectacle in American politics. Too bad they didn't win--just for comic effect. And if Buchanan had died in office, we would have had a Larouchite black woman as president. Oh, that would have been HISTORIC alright.

Anonymous said...

"Give him a break. He wears diapers for Pete's sake."

Sure, as long as he doesn't sling the soiled diapers at Putin.

Anonymous said...

Whiskey: "That means until we can fully develop our own gas, oil, and coal resources we need CHEAP oil to compete with cheap Chinese labor. That means continuing FDR's policy of dominance over the Persian Gulf oil producing regions."

Btw, why do people refer to fossil fuel economy as 'old energy technology'? Isn't it PRESENT fuel economy? Besides, isn't harnessing wind, waves, and sun even more crude and primitive. Just how did windmills get tagged as 'new'.

Anyway, wheels are 1000s of yrs old. So, should we stop using wheels cuz it's 'old' technology?
And fire has been used since primitive times. I guess we better stop using fire for cooking. That is so 'old'. I'll just leave my meat under the sun and let solar energy cook it.

Anonymous said...

"The world seems upside down to me when Pat Buchanan is the peacenik and what used to be called Liberals are all for sending troops everywhere, all the time."

Remember this. Pat Buchanan vs Abe Rosenthal. 'Blood libel'.

Anonymous said...

Speedboats are a huge threat. I've been worrying about them for some time. We definitely need to work on a speedboat proliferation treaty or something. Or else the terrorists are going to get their hands on a speedboat and zoom right into New York Harbor.

Anonymous said...

Ok and the reason we should defend Taiwan other than to stick it to the Chinese is?????

What if the Chinese decide to defend Hawaii from its imperialist mainland oppressors?

Anonymous said...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-18/u-s-shouldn-t-ignore-iran-s-speedboat-threat-jeffrey-goldberg.html#disqus_thread

Rofl, pretty impressive takedown. That mendacious hack like Goldberg can have a job anywhere is... well, it sure is something.

Silver

ATBOTL said...

"The struggle with the Soviets meant we had had to do many things that were painful, costly, dangerous, or distasteful..."


Most conservatives in America are still in total denial about this. They will argue that the regime in El Salvador, Suharto and others of that ilk were really, truly good guys rather than just scum we had to support to stop communism from spreading.

SF said...

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/10/23/calls-for-investigation-as-autopsy-reveals-qaddafi-died-from-gunshot-to-head/

Our allies in Libya have called for Sharia law, loosened limits on polygamy, and banned the charging of interest on loans. Isn't it wonderful that we won that war.

Another County said...

Re: your vdare column. Heard the Pretenders "Back to Ohio" for the first time in a while the other day (the song is also the intro music to Rush) and found it compelling. It's ok to bemoan the development and commercialization of your hometown, actually that's great. But the ghettoing/barioing of it, no, I would not go around bemoaning that...

Roger Chaillet said...

Is Whiskey deranged?

The U.S. has a surfeit of fossil fuels.

Come to Texas, and he will readily understand this fact.

Or better yet, read the following: http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Barnett-Shale-Drilling-Slackens-in-North-Texas-132411558.html

Here, too: http://fuelfix.com/blog/2011/10/10/dominion-seeks-exports-of-marcellus-shale-gas/

When I speak of fossil fuels, I mean oil and natural gas. Include coal, and the U.S. has enough domestic sources of fuel to power the economy for hundreds of years. http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=2930

The U.S. is not dependent upon imports of oil from the Middle East: http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

Anonymous said...

He ain't the modern-day TR (maybe the modern Estes Kefauver?) Aside from opposing earmarks/"pork" and abortion he doesn't have a conservative record to speak of, though you wouldn't confuse him with John Lindsay. In a way that's much worse, not knowing what to expect--will he decree amnesty first; or invade China; or suddenly refi everyone's mortgage, or what...

Here on the West Coast it's a common plaint of progs that "term limits have ruined Amer. politics" (to be sure some right-wingers have said similar). I doubt whether candidates seeking these medium-paying politician jobs possess intellectual depth such that legislative experience ever proves valuable. McCain should've called it a day after the 2000 primaries.

Anonymous said...

Cast your mind back to the Iranian revolutio of 30 years ago.
Although the mullahs were a leading part of the anti-shah movement, who we mostly saw on the TV as 'spokesmen' for the revolution were young, good-looking lefties with long hair who spoke English with Farsi accents.
When the revolution was a done deal the young trendies and the lefties slowly disappeared form view one by one (many were executed), and the true face of the Iranian revolution became known - elderly, grey haired, bearded, scowling and turbanned.

Anonymous said...

"The struggle with the Soviets meant we had had to do many things that were painful, costly, dangerous, or distasteful..."


Most conservatives in America are still in total denial about this. They will argue that the regime in El Salvador, Suharto and others of that ilk were really, truly good guys rather than just scum we had to support to stop communism from spreading.

Very true. And I wonder if many conservatives realize how many otherwise moderate people opposed them in the 70s and 80s squarely on this issue. If they would have handled the Latin America/CIA spook/death militia thing differently their opposition would have been a fair amount smaller.

Anonymous said...

"Although the mullahs were a leading part of the anti-shah movement, who we mostly saw on the TV as 'spokesmen' for the revolution were young, good-looking lefties with long hair who spoke English with Farsi accents."

I remember differently. Ayatollah was in the news all the time, and the media didn't indicate that most of the protesters were idealists but hotheads.

bruce banner said...

I´ll never understand why Buchanan never ran for the senate before running for the presidency. As a republican senator, he would have a better shot at POTUS.
Was it hubris, GOP hostility, or did he really never mean to win?
You´d think GOP always needs a token conservative (Pat), libertarian (Paul) or Black (Cain) to cover up what the party is really about: big corps and warmongering.

Anonymous said...

Anon Brit, why doesn't it surprise me that your countrymen favored American leaders willing to kowtow to the exhausted empire over those who realized their responsibility as the leaders of the Anglophone world?

Conatus said...

Iraq,Afghanistan, and so many of our recent military incursions are Resume Wars. The leaders like them because it adds to their curriculum vitae.
These wars get pushed by the Captains and Colonels and Ivy league advisors so they can burnish their chops and rise to General or Assistant Secretary. Sure there might be other legitimate sounding reasons but don't forget to mention or underestimate the role bureaucratic ambition serves in driving us into places we do not belong and are not, in our national interest. The greatest assets the United States has, militarily, are called the Atlantic and the Pacific.

rob said...

But, by alienating both nations, we drive them closer together politically and create a monster-villain that might be called Chussia or the ODA--Oriental Despotic Alliance(or maybe the Sinoviet Union)

Pretty sure it's Eastasia.

Kudzu Bob, I know! When you disagree with Whiskey, it's hard to be wrong. I just wish he'd start telling us which stocks would be terrible, terrible buys.

Dennis: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-18/u-s-shouldn-t-ignore-iran-s-speedboat-threat-jeffrey-goldberg.html#disqus_thread

Holy F! I think you've found out who Whiskey really is. How many people could be crazy enough in that particular way?

Dutch Boy said...

Buchanan's father: Scots-Irish
Buchanan's mother: German-Irish
(as detailed in his biography: Right from the Beginning)
Whatever you think of Buchanan's strategic ideas, we can no longer sustain our present imperial course - we're broke!

Anonymous said...

"Buchanan's father: Scots-Irish
Buchanan's mother: German-Irish
(as detailed in his biography: Right from the Beginning)"

No, Buke's mother was all-German.

Anonymous said...

"Most conservatives in America are still in total denial about this. They will argue that the regime in El Salvador, Suharto and others of that ilk were really, truly good guys rather than just scum we had to support to stop communism from spreading."

Not so. Few cons are proud of those alliances. It was a realist understanding of 'they're sons of bitches but our sons of bitches'. Besides, Suharto was still better than Mao, North Viet, North Kor, Khmer Rouge, etc.

Anonymous said...

With respect to Buchanan's ethnicity, it's all there in "Right from the Beginning." The Buchanans were Scots-Irish and Protestant. Pat's paternal grandfather married an Irish Catholic woman and his children were raised Catholic. Pat's mother was German Catholic. Thus, Pat is one-quarter Scots-Irish, one-quarter Irish, and one half German.

Dutch Boy said...

Anonymous said...
"Buchanan's father: Scots-Irish
Buchanan's mother: German-Irish
(as detailed in his biography: Right from the Beginning)"

No, Buke's mother was all-Germ

You're right. His father was Scots and Irish and his mother German.

Anonymous said...

Thus, Pat is one-quarter Scots-Irish, one-quarter Irish, and one half German.


But 100% Catholic. And in the great distinction between Scots-Irish and Irish, what matters is whether you are Protestant or Catholic. A Scots-Irish Catholic is an oxymoron.

That's an American distinction of course. People in Ireland take a more nuanced view of thngs.

Anonymous said...

The Buchanans were Scots-Irish and Protestant.



I don't know whether they were Protestant or not. However, many people who have read the book "Albion's Seed" use the phrase "Scots-Irish" to refer to Englishmen from the north of England/south of Scotland. And the Buchanans were not that - they were true Gaelic speaking Highland Scots. They fought on the losing Jacobite side at the battle of Culloden, after which many of them fled abroad to America. In some cases they were forcibly deported to America.

The clan was founded (as "Bohannon") sometime after 1016 AD by Anselan O'Kyan, an Irish prince who was granted land near Loch Lomond in return for helping King Malclom II repel Viking invaders.

Pat Buchanan's early American ancestors retained the "Bohannon" spelling of their name, changing it to "Buchanan" in the early 19th century.

Anonymous said...

If all them politicians and military brass want wars, make sure to send their own kids into battle. I agree with Michael Moore on this point.

NOTA said...

I like the term Fred Reed uses for crap like our Libyan adventure: hobbyist wars.

Svigor said...

I supppose, but still, that face, that voice, that Irish temper, that face that turns red in a split second, that feeling that with no warning he might lurch over the desk and grab the guy across from him by the collar....that's Pat.

I know. If we just had a couple thousand more like him...

Svigor said...

Whiskey is a brilliant riot. I think he's half-serious/half-kidding. HIs stuff about fashion industry being bigger than MIC is an instant classic.

Attributing a sense of humor to Rotgut is a stretch. I'm an imaginative fellow, so I'll just scratch my chin and "hmmmm" here, but that's one hell of a stretch.

Funny people break eventually. They wink, break out laughing, something.

shame said...

"Buchanan also told Rehm that "the argument that diversity is a strength is a canard. It is nonsense."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/25/color-of-change-msnbc-pat-buchanan_n_1031274.html

That's got to be the last time that someone openly says that diversity isn't strength. I'm surprised it /was/ said, actually, this late.

David said...

>Bush got 40% of Hispanic vote, which aint negligible.<

As a percentage of the voting public, yes, it is negligible.

>Suppose the economy had succeeded with housing boom. Suppose amnesty had passed. Suppose Bush presidency turned out successful--not least by avoiding the ruinous Iraq War. Could it be possible that in 2008, at least 50% of Hispanics would have voted for the GOP?<

Suppose my aunt were my uncle.

>But then, do white conservatives want that?<

Dunno about white conservatives, but White Nationalists don't particularly want it.

Anonymous said...

Is our main problem with Mexicans that they tend to vote Democratic or because they're, well, Mexicans?


What makes you think that the two things are separable?


Suppose amnesty had passed. Suppose Bush presidency turned out successful--not least by avoiding the ruinous Iraq War. Could it be possible that in 2008, at least 50% of Hispanics would have voted for the GOP?


Amnesty depresses the percentage of Hispanics who vote Republican. Back in 1984 Reagan got 35% of the Hispanic vote (while winning the white vote in a landslide in every state). In 1986 he signed what was at the time the biggest amnesty for illegals in history. In 1988 George H.W. Bush won the election, but with only 25% of the Hispanic vote.

The notion that Republicans can increase their share of the Hispanic vote by supporting an amnesty for illegals is so stupid, only somebody in DC could fall for it.

Anonymous said...

"Is our main problem with Mexicans that they tend to vote Democratic or because they're, well, Mexicans?"

"What makes you think that the two things are separable?"

But remember.. blacks historically voted Republican, but many--perhaps most--white conservatives in the GOP never felt very good about it.

Anonymous said...

But remember.. blacks historically voted Republican


And they stopped when the Democrats offered them more money. In fact, blacks started voting Democrat even though at the exact same time the Democrats were the party of segregation and Jim Crow in the South! Not a lot of noble principle involved there.

The moral of the story for the GOP is that if it wants to take the Hispanic vote it will have to buy it with cold hard cash. Not with some stupid amnesty.



many--perhaps most--white conservatives in the GOP never felt very good about it.


Boo hoo! Want some cheese to go with your perpetual whine?