Pax Americana

Buchanan Sees a Pattern...

I'm usually willing to hear somebody out, even if I know they have a POV diametrically opposed to my own. I'm especially interested if there's an amazing congruence between some of what they say, and some of what I think. Imagine that I should agree with conservative firebrand Pat Buchanan on something. Maybe it's not so strange -- he and Eleanor Clift, the liberal champion, are sometimes in agreement on "McLaughlin Group". In his recent book, "Where the Right Went Wrong", Buchanan makes several statements about America under W. Bush that ring true: We attacked Iraq, a country that had no relation to 9/11 and no weapons of mass destruction -- also a country which had not attacked us and had no such intention. When Bush's original reason didn't pan out, he changed his tune to that of a Wilsonian screed -- democratizing the Middle East. Bush created diplomatic problems by grouping other nations as an 'axis of evil' and saying 'you're either with us or against us'. Both statements, arrogant in nature, shut diplomatic doors that were open, and raised the hackles of other nations on the periphery. Bush and his administration have even gone so far as to tell nations such as China and India that they must never approach the nuclear weapons capability of the USA. And who are we? The supreme arbiters and nuclear police of the world? Such arrogance has inspired countries like Iran to do exactly what we wish them never to do.

Buchanan likens Bush to Caesar, who crossed a Rubicon in taking Rome from a Republic to an Empire. Buchanan feels that America's recent gauntlet challenge to 'terrorist nations' and our march to world democracy will cause the US to take on an unbearable weight -- one which has caused other empires to collapse. The beginning of every empire's end was the wrong notion that wars can be fought for preemptive reasons rather than practical considerations of national protection. Again, I'm dumbfounded in Buchanan's reasonableness.

But the story takes a turn when Buchanan pins the bad decisions on a cabal of 'neoconservatives' which has hijacked Bush's administration. Buchanan holds that true conservatism is a populist, more isolationist view -- one honed by Reagan but then corrupted by both the Bush presidents and Clinton. Then Buchanan's take gets really bizarre. The first neoconservative was apparently Woodrow Wilson, because of his quest to make the world safe for Democracy. Neoconservatives lay nearly dormant until the early 1970's, when disaffected Democrats, academicians and Jews left the Democratic Party and joined Republicans. The Jewish inclusion almost smells of anti-Semitism, but one can't be sure that Buchanan means to 'go there'. Apparently neocons are represented by Jean Kirkpatrick, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld and Charles Krauthammer among others. Condoleeza Rice is queen of the neocons in the way that she's molded policy and made particular decisions regarding Iraq.

Buchanan goes other places we may not want to go. He is so anti-immigrant as to appear xenophobic, maybe racist. Some immigration is healthy -- witness the fact that Texas and other states benefit from Hispanics that do jobs like farm labor and construction that Anglos are loathe to do. Buchanan is certain that we are a 'Christian Nation', never mind that many forefathers were Deist and made sure to protect freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights. Buchanan feels that sexual oriented media and tolerance of alternative religions has created a 'Roman Circus' diversion that is sure to pull us all down. Again, I think he's reaching in that regard -- our tolerance is a strength, not a weakness. The Statue of Liberty in New York bids the teeming masses to come, not go -- and no religious test has to be passed. In sum, Buchanan makes some rollicking good, thought-provoking points. Then he overreaches, far beyond healthy populism, to places none of us want to go.