Gay Patriot Header Image

Pat Buchanan: Ex-Conservative

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 7:03 pm - July 25, 2006.
Filed under: Ex-Conservatives,Ronald Reagan,War On Terror

Last week, many conservative pundits and bloggers criticized Pat Buchanan for calling Israel’s military actions against Hezbollah “un-Christian.” John Podhoretz called the one-time Nixon aide’s comments “anti-Semitism” while the more diplomatic Glenn Reynolds declined to say what he’d “call Pat Buchanan.”

Although Buchanan still styles himself a conservative, in the years since working for the greatest Republican president of the last century, has turned from nearly every cause his one-time boss championed, including the Gipper’s strong support for Israel.

While there was a time when a number of prominent American conservatives opposed U.S. support for Israel, today, nearly every sensible conservative stands with the Jewish State. And this not merely due to the decline of anti-Semitism on the Right. Today, serious conservatives recognize that, in fighting Hezbollah, Israel is defending Western Civilization against terrorism. These conservatives see Israel’s battle as one front in the War on Terror.

Perhaps, were Mr. Buchanan not obsessed with Jews (as he is with gays), he would understand that Lebanese Christians (many Catholic like he) are also eager to see Hezbollah defeated.

I would say that Pat Buchanan represents the last of the conservative anti-Semites. Except that in 1992, Pat Buchanan made clear that he was no longer a Reagan conservative. As you may recall, in his celebrated speech to the Republican National Convention that summer, not only did he make angry statements, but he spoke far longer than the time allotted to him, thus, delaying the speech of the man who was to speak later that evening, a man whose ideas Buchanan once claimed to have championed — Ronald Wilson Reagan.

By going over his time limit, Pat Buchanan bumped that great American’s speech out of prime time. It would be Ronald Reagan’s last address to a Republican National Convention. Any true Republican, knowing that he was speaking before Ronald Reagan, would, instead of extending his remarks (as Buchanan did), have cut them short, out of respect for the then-octogenarian Gipper. And acknowledged how humbled he was to be on the same platform as that great man.

But, apparently indifferent to delaying Reagan’s speech, Buchanan, in his arrogance, rambled on and on, his angry remarks hurting his party. On that day in 1992, Pat Buchanan, in deed if not in word, abandoned contemporary conservatism and cast his lot with those on the extreme fringe, his hateful words contrasting so clearly with Ronald Reagan’s optimistic vision.

So, this month, when Pat Buchanan criticizes Israel, he does so not as a representative of contemporary American conservatism, but of a conservatism long past, whose reactionary attitudes were melted away by the velveteen voice of Ronald Wilson Reagan — and that good man’s appeal to our best hopes and the noble ideals on which this great nation was built.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

WELCOME INSTAPUNDIT READERS!!! And I don’t dispute Glenn’s apellation for Buchanan.

Share

113 Comments

  1. http://www.spa.gov.sa/English/details.php?id=378151

    http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/06/07/27/10055382.html

    One of duhbyas masters has spoken, he will now bring the Israelis to heel.

    Comment by J. Wenzel — July 28, 2006 @ 6:26 pm - July 28, 2006

  2. Supposing we took Wenzel at his word (contradictory though they are) and assumed that is not an anti-semite, but simply sees no reason for the USA to support Israel. Let’s consider the implications of that position.

    First off, it would mean that the US would be turning its back on its only reliable ally in a vital region of the world, the only free democratic state in that part of the world (Afghanistan and Iraq still have a long way to go), and the only country in that part of the world where the rights of gays and religious minorities are protected. What would that say about us and our values, not to mention, our reliability as an ally? Why should any nation support us when we would sell-out an ally in its time of need?

    Second, what would it gain us to turn our backs on Israel? Some seem to think that we should instead support the “moderate” regimes in that part of the world. So, instead of supporting a free, democratic state the Islamists hate, we would end up supporting the corrupt, despotic Arab regimes the Islamists hate. That has been the European approach, and it does not seem to have earned them a respite from terrorism. Perhaps, by abandoning Isreal, they think we might make some friends among the Islamist radicals in the region. This, in the parlance of the State Department, is known as “even-handedness.” The radical Islamists don’t hate us because we support Israel, they hate us because we are not Muslims. And, re-read my #74 if you think the radical Islamists are honorable men we should be negotiating with.

    So, why not justBuchanan and his ilk are essentially isolationists, who think nothing of throwing Israel to the dogs because we can hole up here in our Fortress and not be bothered by them. This, again, naively assumes that the jihadists have no ambitions beyond Israel. It also naively assumes that in a world where Iran has the ability to produce nukes, the will to use them, and the terrorist infrastructure to send them anywhere in the world they want, covertly… simply walling ourselves off will not protect us from the conflagration while the rest of the world is consumed.

    In short, the Buchanan/Wenzel view is based on isolationism, selfishness, and a naive, Arabist view of Middle East politics. Selling out Israel would make America, essentially, into France… a cowardly, selfish, callow nation selling itself out for the false illusion of security. We would be selling our soul, and getting nothing in return.

    Comment by V the K — July 28, 2006 @ 6:29 pm - July 28, 2006

  3. Trace Phelps, good eye! Thanks for correcting my comment #69. That’s exactly what I meant-that McCain is PRO-LIFE (not choice) and in effect, he is certainlt very conservative in his positions; therefore Republicans who would choose to support a Hillary-type over him would be doing it out of spite against McCain’s often-media ass-kissing at the expense of party unity. But in substance, they would certainly get what from their perspective would be much better consequences from a Pres. McCain than almost any Democratic president.

    Comment by polanalyst — July 28, 2006 @ 7:43 pm - July 28, 2006

  4. Republicans who would choose to support a Hillary-type over him would be doing it out of spite against McCain’s often-media ass-kissing at the expense of party unity.

    No. Not true.

    I oppose McCain because of his open contempt for the First Amedment, because he is a vain opportunist, because he supports Amnesty for illegal immigrants (and, “Mr. Straight Talk” denies that it is amnesty when illegal immigrants who dodge their taxes and commit social security fraud are rewarded with citizenship, and US citizens who did the same things would be sent to prison), because he hold the safety of American soldiers hostile to his ego and uses his position in the senate to settle personal scores.

    Hillary would be preferable to McCain because congressional Republicans would be in a better position to stop her liberal initiatives than they would McCain’s.

    And the fact that so many libs who want Republicans to lose are mad about McCain is just something that makes me go “Hmmmmm.”

    Comment by V the K — July 28, 2006 @ 7:54 pm - July 28, 2006

  5. ^ Blah, blah, blah – you are such a cliche. “Liberal this & liberal that…”

    The American public are being played, using the oldest trick in the book.

    “Divide and Conquer.”
    –Sun Tzu

    Comment by J. Wenzel — July 28, 2006 @ 11:12 pm - July 28, 2006

  6. No one here considers you to be liberal, Wenzel.

    In fact you are about as illiberal as they get.

    Comment by Attmay — July 29, 2006 @ 4:36 pm - July 29, 2006

  7. Actually I’m quite liberal on social issues, if gays (I’m not) desire to get married I have no problem with it – everyone has the right to be miserable AFAIC. 😉

    I am a mass of contradictions – just like everyone else, the difference being that I recognize this and try not to think of, or catagorize a person using sweeping terms like liberal or conservative.

    It’s just not that simple, though in terms of political effect such a mindset has now become the ultimate wedge issue and does us all a great disservice.

    Well, all of us except the Republicrats seeking or holding office…it boggles my mind that I’m reading arguments over which turd in the Presidential sweepstakes stinks the most – people…they all stink.

    Oh, for one real hero, circa 1776 (revolution?), or, better, 1787 (nation of laws?).

    John Adams. Benjamin Franklin. Alexander Hamilton. John Marshall…or somebody else.

    Some 21st-Century Lincoln, Churchill, or Roosevelt.

    Just one, one authentic American hero.

    Just one…is that too much to ask?

    Comment by J. Wenzel — July 30, 2006 @ 1:25 am - July 30, 2006

  8. old topic, but… this is probably the worst-argued post i’ve seen relating to Buchanan. ironic that it links to a blog post calling Buchanan an “idiotarian.”

    why is Buchanan an anti-Semite? because he’s generally opposed to Israeli policy? i think some of that opposition may be very well misguided. and perhaps some of that opposition is rooted in conservative Catholic anti-Semitism, though i’ve yet to see evidence of that. Buchanan has never advocated the destruction of Israel — he most likely thinks that a two-state solution would work best in the end, which pretty much everyone who’s serious about eventually solving the conflict does. it’s only a matter of when the Palestinians will accept it.

    also ironically, this post blasts Buchanan as anti-Semitic _based on_ his opposition to Israeli policy. this type of “criticism” is why certain people get very much annoyed by pro-Israeli stalwarts — because instead of making serious arguments, they resort to the anti-Semitism canard. everyone opposed to specific Israeli policy must be an anti-Semite. i don’t rule out that Buchanan may be anti-Semitic in other ways, but the post didn’t make that clear.

    getting away from anti-Semitism, the fact of the matter is that on foreign policy, Buchanan is much more intelligent than the prominent neoconservatives in the Republican Party today. he’s a bit too much of an “America-firster” for my tastes, but he is much closer to smart Kissinger-type realism than the democratic idealism (idealistic idiocy) of the neoconservatives. even if you disagree with him, he makes much more cohesive arguments in this regard than do most neoconservatives. and he realizes that neoconservatism worked in the ’80s while failing us now. in the ’80s, with the U.S. pulling ahead of the Soviets, democratization was very possible in countries that had faced years of both socialist and right-authoritarian governments. The same does not apply so easily in the Middle East at this time, as we have found out.

    hateful words? well OK, but it was from a culturally conservative perspective. the fact that it was angry doesn’t make it un-conservative.

    anyway, i disagree with Buchanan on some things — most notably his hardline positions on trade and immigration — but in terms of foreign policy, he’s much smarter than today’s Republicans. and i should note that there is nothing un-conservative about his foreign policy, just like there was nothing un-conservative about Kissingerian realism.

    Comment by Trey Stone — August 15, 2006 @ 6:43 pm - August 15, 2006

  9. and obviously, the “un-Christian” remark means he thought Israel’s actions were not compatible with Christian morals — morals plenty in the U.S., Israel’s primary ally, share. to treat it as if it was some kind of nefarious anti-Semitic remark just further proves how overused that word is on the Right with regards to criticism of Israel.

    could’ve phrased it better, probably. but all he meant was that he viewed Israel’s actions as immoral. i don’t know about that, but they certainly fucked up massively in their response.

    Comment by Trey Stone — August 15, 2006 @ 6:47 pm - August 15, 2006

  10. and to the guy who slimed Buckley as an anti-Semite — what?

    Comment by Trey Stone — August 15, 2006 @ 6:47 pm - August 15, 2006

  11. […] You mentioned Bob Barr; he, Pat Buchanan, Andrew Sullivan, have been demonized as liberals or “ex-conservatives” for criticizing the president. Now that you’re getting a little bit of that, what’s […]

    Pingback by Joe Scarborough on why he toasted Bush on his show: at Memnison Journal — July 27, 2007 @ 2:45 am - July 27, 2007

  12. […] I’ve noted before, he showed so little regard for the leader of American conservatism, Ronald Reagan, that he chose […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Pat Buchanan: Nazi Sympathizer? — May 22, 2008 @ 2:41 pm - May 22, 2008

  13. naked gay guys having fun…

    Sounds interesting but not for every one….

    Trackback by naked gay guys having fun — July 6, 2008 @ 9:07 pm - July 6, 2008

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.