Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Thanks, Pat

Readers of Dow Blog will know that I greatly admire Pat Buchanan. I voted for Pat three times, and in 2000 I even spent a chunk of my spring and summer trying to rustle up votes for the cause. So I was taken aback by Pat's endorsement of G. W. Bush leading up to the November election.

I think Pat actually believed that Bush had learned something from the Iraq disaster and would muster up the will to clean out the barn, hoisting the cabal of neocons out of their offices in the Pentagon and State Department, depositing them over at AIPAC, AEI, or Commentary magazine where they could devise more nefarious schemes to advance Israeli rather than American strategic interests.

Now, writing about the inauguration, Pat says, "President Bush is launching a crusade even more ambitious and utopian than was Wilson's." Pat writes that the president has proclaimed "a unilateral American right to interfere in the internal affairs of every nation on earth, without regard to whether these nations have threatened us or attacked us." Predicting disaster, Buchanan ominously warns that, "This is a formula for endless collisions between this nation and every autocratic regime on earth and must inevitably lead to endless wars. And wars are the death of republics."

Whatever you do, don't blame me, I voted for Peroutka.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Taken aback? You're most kind. I could smell it coming - the Bush endorsement - like a particularly noxious odor several months before the fact. Most of Buchanan's pre-election criticism of Bush was cushioned in such a way as to offer absolution in advance in the event that it turned out to be prescient. The trouble at the White House was always seen to be neo-con influence, not a neo-con president. Buchanan could never quite find himself convinced that Bush was, in fact, deserving of any blame at all for the Iraq disaster. He'd simply been duped by those around him.

In endorsing Bush, Buchanan lost all the respect I'd ever had for him. Never again could I take him seriously. But perhaps the final portion of Buchanan's endorsement is the most telling. In it he speaks of it being time to return "home". Some home! Truthfully, I don't think Buchanan has the economic stomach for opposition anymore. For someone with his job prospects and lifestyle it doesn't pay as one ages to offend those that can be helpful. You might have to give up your Mercedes and take both more seriously and personally the version of foreign trade you'd spouted for so long.

John Lowell

3:15 AM  
Blogger Darrell said...

I think you are on the money, John. I try to not watch the talking-head shows on television, so I'm largely confined to reading Pat's thoughts, which generally seem to be on the money. But you are correct that Pat always identified the problem as the neocon influence rather than the president himself.

In "Where the Right Went Wrong," Pat described Bush as essentially an empty vessel waiting to be filled by the likes of Richard Perle. Well, now he's overflowing, and yet, Pat still seems to believe there is distance between Bush and the neocons.

You may also be correct that Pat is so fully a part of the establishment that he can't really offer up a full-throated critique of the existing regime without some personal consequences, and that explains his double-mindedness.

I think what shocked me was reading "Where the Right Went Wrong" which includes a compelling critique of the administration for 250 pages and then out of nowhere he says, "Forget everything I just said. Vote for Bush."

5:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't forget that Pat mentioned the 2004 election turned up feelings for him of a Hatfield-Mcoy type rivalry. I believe Buchanan's endorsement of Bush was really more of an indictment of Kerry. I have become a little suspicious since the revelation that Armstron Williams accepted money to tout no child left behind. I respect Pat too much to beleive he was paid off for his endorsement, I really believe he was just caught up in the hoopla of politics and didn't want to alienate his Republican friends.

4:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pat is too close but has never really been on the inside, Just like McCain. They use him to get the true conservative vote with out his even knowing it. As he is no fool he is begining to see but if he accepted that Bush was one of them then everything else he's believed for so long would be wrong. Bush (the father) worked along side of him, he thought he was a great guy if this were untrue, this God fearing anglican would be at the heart of it and Pat can't accept that. Actually Bush (the father) was one of the first to speak of the "New World Order" but not the first to imagine it. And certainly is not as high as the disturbing thing goes but none the less is steeped in it. I think Pat may also have a hard time understanding (as do many) that the neocon agenda does not line up with the House of Saud agenda (Bush Buddies) So it must be Perle or Libby. But the truth is the Bushes couldn't care less about the "New world order" or Libby or Saudi Arabia or The American People for that matter. It's about money & power & who they can use to get it.

10:50 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home