In Defense of Pat Buchanan: Why Is the Left Attacking Its Greatest Ally?
What would you call someone who opposed the war in Iraq before it was popular to? You know, way back in the days when the likes of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Howard Dean voted for it. What would you call someone who has criticized Bush, voted against Harriet Meyers and supported Obama's decision not to interfere in the Iranian election? How about someone who feels that the days of American Imperialism are over and we must stop being the world's policeman? Someone who fought for civil rights back in the '60s when it was a hotbed of controversy. Someone who believes government can make a difference? You might call that person the very personification of liberalism. I call him Pat Buchanan.
I understand that, for many people, politics isn't really about ideas. It's about what team you're on. It's no different than Yankees/Red Sox. You support your team no matter what. The umpire got a call wrong in our favor? Yay! If the opposing pitcher throws a shutout, the skill and accomplishment isn't appreciated or admired. You're just upset for having lost. This is the way it is with Democrats and Republicans alike. If a member of one party does something wrong, the disciples quickly retort, "But so and so did something just as bad!" These tit for tat tactics are one of the reasons we continue to fail as a nation to rise above the petty grievances we should have conquered decades ago. And Pat Buchanan has gotten caught in the crossfire.
For the record, Pat Buchanan is a conservative. An Ultra conservative. But don't confuse that with someone who is a hard-line Republican, even though it's easy to categorize the "team" as such. Yet I so often see Buchanan put in the same box as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and other hyperbolic entertainers who not only don't share Pat's views, but would get their heads handed to them in three minutes by Buchanan if they ever had to sit down and seriously discuss issues.
It's true, Pat lives by an old school philosophy and in many ways he and I could not be more apart in thinking. This is especially true of the topic of separation of church and state. Yet although I consider myself a progressive thinker, I've come to realize that, sometimes the old way is the better way. I like the wheel round. It works just fine like that. But this isn't a defense of traditional thinking. It's a dismissal of the shortsightedness that put the Democrats out of power in the past and is setting them up for getting kicked right back out again.
Just because a viewpoint is new, doesn't make it better. And just because the intention is noble, doesn't make it good. This was perfectly exemplified with Pat Buchanan's interview with TV host Rachel Maddow. Maddow continually tried to put words in Buchanan's mouth about how he was against the hiring of Latinos because he opposed the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. But Buchanan was saying no such thing. He just felt she wasn't the best choice, in part because of her decision against the appeal of the New Haven firefighter Frank Ricci, who was denied a promotion after fulfilling the requirements due to the fact that no blacks passed the same test. This was spun by Maddow as Pat wanting only white men in positions of power, and hoards of bloggers piled on.
Isn't it funny that the self-righteous do-gooders who spout open mindedness are the very same people quickest to draw conclusions based on their own prejudices? If you disagree with their magnanimous gesture, you're obviously a bigot, racist, homophobe, or sexist. It's "Witch Burning 2009." Nevertheless, Pat remained gracious under the pressure of Maddow's continued smug imperiousness.
I agree with Pat Buchanan that affirmative action is an insult to all of us as a people. Not only does it discriminate, it sends the message to specific ethnicities that they aren't good enough to succeed without an unfair advantage. It's a slap in the face to anyone who has made something of him or herself fair and square. One such person is currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. No group of people has ever elevated their status in society due to a token few being given a bigger hand out. It's just something promulgated by special interests that enlist guilt-ridden individuals who want to feel better about themselves by helping " the little people." What they don't realize is that it's a direct contradiction to Martin Luther King's hope of a world where people are judged solely by "the content of their character." Sorry Martin. Some characters are apparently more deserving than others.
When my grandfather came to this country, he worked long hard hours as a longshoreman. It was the only work available so that's what he took. Because he was foreign born, he had the lowest pay rate of anyone on the dock. He did it so his children can have a better life and his children's children can have a better life still. And we did. The notion of being rewarded in compensation for my grandfather's efforts would be a disgrace to his memory.
Inequities of the past cannot be corrected by creating current inequity. If someone does wrong you don't punish his offspring -- or someone who just might look like they're his offspring. It's archaic and barbaric. In the case of firefighter Frank Ricci, he had no more advantage than any other participant. He was just the wrong color. This is what is at the heart of Buchanan's viewpoint. It had nothing to do with not wanting any minority group to succeed. It had to do with ignoring civil rights to fill a quota. And a little thing called the Constitution. And in case you haven't heard, it isn't something that is dragged out to justify a position when convenient. It applies across the board.
Buchanan, in many ways, is far more progressive than many of the mainstream political celebrities on either side. He holds no allegiance to the Republicans. He doesn't stand on a soapbox and postulate. He goes on left slanted shows like Rachel Maddow, and the McLaughlin Group and Hardball, not to spew Republican rhetoric, but to give an intelligent perspective from a conservative viewpoint. He has more experience than almost anyone in Washington and I appreciate his opinion -- not because it feels good to have my beliefs confirmed, but because it's simply an educated point of view. Even if I disagree, I know it's coming from a place of knowledge. I'll take that over all the TV and radio loudmouth talking heads who tell their audience what they want to hear. To bunch him with the right wing hate mongers and blowhards is as egregious as when the Republicans tried to link Obama to William Ayers. It's bottom of the barrel brandishing.
I believe in liberal ideals. But if they are to succeed, they must do so because they are truly superior just as if the Yankees are better than the Red Sox, they must prove it. They can't just hope the Red Sox make more errors. Good ideas must stand on their own merit. And will. So if we want people to listen, we must also listen ourselves -- not to those who shout the loudest, but to those who can help make the country a better place. I want to hear all opinions as long as they're intelligent and informed and few are more so than those of Pat Buchanan. He can be an ally in that he's someone who reaches to conservative America with some of the values embraced by the left.
It's time to put the poseur pundits out to pasture. And open up to Pat Buchanan -- the man who back in 2001 admonished Ann Coulter and insisted the war was "not one of necessity but of choice, and the wrong choice since Hezbollah had nothing to do with 9/11."
Had we done so then, we'd be a lot better off today.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It's not Pat Buchanan's vitriol that's the problem. The problem is a media that compensates Pat well for it.
Andrew Sullivan. Shepard Smith. Chris Buckley.
These are conservatives willing to have thought provoking, respectful conversations with liberals.
Understandably, they don't get the press or attention of a Limbaugh or Coulter. And because they're reasonable, they can't command a television audience like Hannity or Beck.
Mr. Buchanan may be well prepared and a reasonably pleasant person. But his general politics don't seem to have changed much in 40 years, as his recent debate with Rachel Maddow clearly demonstrates.
See Nelson Montana's Profile
Buchanan proved who had a true grasp of the issues. Maddow's expertise ends with her ability to smirk and conflate issues.
I quote you " We must listen to ourselves" If the author is discussing Affirmation Action and Mr. Ricci case, he was discriminated against, he sued and evenutally won his case. Two lower courts upheld the city ruling and the Supreme overtuned it. Is that not how the U.S. Justice System should work for all Americans.
I am not sure where the author of this article is going stating Patrick Buchana is more progressive than most political celebrities. Pat Buchanan, said "He felt Sotomayor wasn't the best choice", that''s a personal opinion, which is like @xx holes, everybody has one. His opinion are Not fact based. Again quoting you" AffirmativeAction is special interest enlist elist guilt ridden individuals". That's a pretty broad brush sweep you made there and not a provable fact, just your opinion or point of view just as Patrick Buchanan said "Only White Men" built America. If that was the case, then why was salvery necessary to build America? There have been many posts about the contributions of African American's during the Revolutionary War, Civil War and World War II, so when you state Pat Buchanan gave you an intelligent perspective, that's egregious.
Finally, your poor grandfather came to America and worked on the docks, at least he got paid whereas slaves didn't. You may not agree with Affirmative Action and that's okay. But the rest of your article was very weak.
See Nelson Montana's Profile
Yes, an opinion piece, often has opinions. But they are backed by facts. Unlike @xxholes , everyone may have one but some are more valid than others. And PB DID NOT SAY ONLY WHITE MEN BUILT AMERICA! You see, you too are entitled to your own opinion but you're not entitled to your own facts.
I'd like to add the same for you.
I will not accept Pat Buchanan's vicious, virulent, racist, hate-mongering. I will not watch any TV show who hosts this disgraceful man. I canceled my cable after one too many appearances on MSNBC. Is Rachel Maddow still referring to the person who has expressed so much enmity toward AA as "Uncle Pat'? That is very telling.
Is this guy serious? Is this column a satirical piece?
i take exception to the bloggers point that affirmative action stigmatizes people as not being able to compete. we can compete and entirely on our own..but not after the games are over and all the trophys have been handed out and all the participants and spectators have gone home. should we continue to race doggedly around the papercup littered and trash strewn sports complex after everyone has left, and the gold, silver and bronze medal have already been won? imagine yourself in the shoes of black folk. all the land..bank
See Nelson Montana's Profile
Give me an example of how you suffered because your ancestors were enslaved. And why am I responsible?
And for the record, blacks also owned and sold slaves. Should you be held responsible for that?
Your failures are no more due to your ancestors being slaves than a Jew's failure would be due to the Holocaust. The 60's are over bro. Move on.
When the center has been corrupted, as it has been, the left and the right do need to work together to fix it.
That doesn't mean not calling out those who put their foot in their mouths as Pat does from time to time.
I'd agree with your position on affirmative action if we had eliminated the disparities intentionally caused. Policies were formed by racists to create disparity in everything from education and housing to hiring and health. Firehouses too weren't immune.
Pretending like everybody has an equal chance now is factually inaccurate
Which groups are more likely to live in polluted neighborhoods?
Which groups have higher infant mortality?
Graduation rates, lifespan, income...
... name one factor where King would say "close enough".
Those who feel that nothing should be done are in denial about the past, and how things done in the past continue to affect us to this day... and our continuing responsibility for them.
See Nelson Montana's Profile
You're talking about poverty. I just visited Mississippi. You want to talk about income, graduation rates and infant mortality? Drive through one day. It comes in all colors. I am not against helping people. But preferential treatment based on color is wrong.
Nelson, you obviously haven't been witnessing Buchanan's complete fragmentation and loss of any logical , creditable positions over the past 11months. Buchanan is still living in the 1960's when "the east coast white rich men" ran this country in an arrogant and unopposed manner. Buchanan's rant on Rachel Maddow's show demonstrates how far he has fallen. He appears to have reached Dante's ninth circle.
See Nelson Montana's Profile
Listen again to that interview. She completely twisted his words. Quote me one sentence where he said he supported white men running the country and I will personally write you a check for $10,000.00
"What would you call someone who has criticized Bush, voted against Harriet Meyers and supported Obama's decision not to interfere in the Iranian election? How about someone who feels that the days of American Imperialism are over and we must stop being the world's policeman? Someone who fought for civil rights back in the '60s when it was a hotbed of controversy. Someone who believes government can make a difference? You might call that person the very personification of liberalism. I call him Pat Buchanan. "
This pretty much sums up the entire piece. Distorting history, eliminating context and facts. So Pat Buchanan supported Obama's aproach to the Iranian election, but no mention of the thousands of other criticism that he leveled at Obama personally and politically. He voted against Harriett Myers. Explain to me the "voted" part- Considering the fact that wasn't in an elected position for or against her. You say he fought for civil rights back in the 60's, uhm... no he didn't. Unless your talking about Caucasians. Plus no statement on his opposition to making MLK a federal holiday, or his past comments on homosexuals, woman, and other minorities.
You seem to view him the way MSNBC does. As just a loveable old coot.
The McGlaughlin Group left leaning?
Fantasy.
He said Obama was endorsed by Hamas.
2nd sentence aint right.
Dean didn't vote for the war.
See Nelson Montana's Profile
You are correct . I realized that a minute after posting it and edited it , but it hasn't taken. However, it's important to note that Dean's record shows he's supported more military action than Buchanan.
Pat Buchanan supported the Vietnam war which included most of the US military action that has taken place in the last 50 years. Howard Dean opposed it. 2.7 million Americans served in uniform in Vietnam. 58,000 died. Howard Dean's brother Charlie was not in uniform, but he was killed in Laos by the Pathet Lao. His parents believe he was working for the CIA although Howard Dean does not.
Well said. The problem I have is that Buchanan's comments re: White men and the Constitiution, White men and the war (pick one), and previous comments that have suggested that blacks should be happy for what Whites in this country have provided them (he lists; slavery, welfare and other events along that line) are just flat inaccurate. It's not like there were not people of color who were willing to step to the plate earlier than when they got the chance.
He speaks of how he is contacted whenever new tapes of Nixon conversations are going to be made available for listening, so he can call in sick (think Nixon's take on when abortion is okay). When he was on Ms. Maddow's show, he spoke of the prospective judge not measuring up to Scalia, of how Ivy League schools today give A's out like they were candy (the judge is in her 50's, so she's been out for a good bit). He makes no mention of Thomas. Is Thomas an affirmative action hire? Does he measure up to the White guys? Did Obama get all he got from Harvard because of affirmative action? What of the whole legacy policy with various schools? How would he qualify Bush's time in college? Did that takeaway from some white guy who plays by the rules? Buchanan is no ally. He may provoke thought at various times, but more often than not, he appears to me to believe; if it's white,it's right.
Mr. Montana you say, "When my grandfather came to this country, he worked long hard hours as a longshoreman. It was the only work available so that's what he took.....T
If I tell you that two great grandfather's ago my family fought in the American Revolution but they were disallowed to enjoy all the liberties that came with the end of that war. I think you are asking me to accept Mr. Buchanan position that black people ought to get down on their knees and thank this country because he feels this country saved them by enslaving them.
I wholeheartedly reject this notion. My family has been here since the 1600s. They built this country just like any other person regardless of race or ethnicity. Pat Buchanan can't seem to reconcile that people of color pulled more than their weight to build and shape this place we know as a country, a nation and as home.
Furthermore ,when the union was at stake, my great grand uncles were on the battle field in Tennessee fighting for the right to live free. One of them lost his life on the bloody battlefield What's the thanks for this? Jim Crow. So no, I will not accept Pat Buchanan's vitriolic tomes.
See Nelson Montana's Profile
That's not what he said. He said white males made the laws in the beginning, therefore they had control. Maddow twisted it into making it out that he just wanted white males in power. I'd say that was "yellow journalism" but Maddow doesn't deserve to be called a journalist.
What he said was par for the course. I actually watch Mr. Buchanan where ever he goes (including writing) and his argument is the same every time. It hasn't changed. He looks back through the annals of American history with tunnel vision. The official U.S. record, census schedules, wills, deeds, chancery orders, death certificates, pensions--all at once-- say Mr. Buchanan is wrong. We all have the right to our opinion but we can't ignore the facts.
Yes, they made the laws -- including those that enslaved Africans, denied women the vote and led to the slaughter of Native Americans. Didn't see that in your writing. Must have been cut.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
