Pat Buchanan was the third speaker in this year’s KLRU Distinguished Speakers Series, KLRU being our local Public TV station. I took copious notes and thought I’d share some of what he had to say with you all.
He’s currently promoting his book, Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency. Many of you may be familiar with his writings opposing the invasion of Iraq, since I’ve seen a number of links to his columns in The American Conservative Magazine over at Kos.
For anyone attempting to Convert the Red into Purple along with diane101 using advisorjim’s Right-Wing Chip-Busting techniques, American Conservative is an excellent source.
There’s more to my notes than I can fit into a reasonable-sized diary, so I’ll just try to pick out the things that I think might be of interest to Democrats/progressives/fightin’ liberals. (Everything paraphrased in my own words – I’m not a journalist, so I’m not sure I can take good enough notes for exact quotes.)
If you don’t know about her, click the link. She’s great.
He said that the Republican’s solid bloc is gone, but that the Democrats have a very strong base – all of the Northeast, the “left coast,” and two of the three big Midwest states. He said the Democrats can win the presidency in 2008 – but for sure won’t if they nominate H. Clinton. On the Republican side, he thinks Giuliani doesn’t have a chance – that they’ll kill him on the abortion and gay marriage issues if he tries. McCain, maybe, but probably not conservative enough on those issues. Frist, he thinks is possible, maybe Romney. He stated flatly that Jeb Bush will not run. He said that “cultural and moral issues” will be paramount in the Republican primaries.
He returned several times to his ideas on states’ rights: That issues such as abortion, homosexual marriage (I think that was his term), prayer in schools, etc. should be decided state-by-state. He thinks that this approach will actually strengthen the unity of the US – letting Alabama and Massachusetts go their separate ways on issues like these will let everyone calm down a little. On the other hand, he said that Roe v. Wade created the “marching troops of conservatism” and is the source of much of the right-wing’s success.
(See What’s the Matter with Kansas for a liberal who agrees with this assessment, at least on how the right used abortion to mobilize passionate activists for their side.)
Another issue he spent a lot of time on was what he sees as the erosion of the American Dream. That “if you take out the top 20%, wages have been stagnant for 30 years.” That whereas not too long ago, someone without a college degree could still have a good job in manufacturing, now we’re sending all of manufacturing overseas and the working class is left with no opportunities except to work at places like Wal-Mart for low wages, no health insurance, etc. “I used to be a die-hard free-trader” but no more, after traveling around the country seeing what outsourcing and illegal immigration (one of his hobby horses) are doing to the working class. He predicted that several Republicans will defect to vote with the Democrats to defeat CAFTA.
His views on Iraq are well known – see No end to War for a recap of his views. He spoke of his admiration for Howard Dean for speaking out against the war when the war was popular. He excoriated Kerry and H. Clinton for “voting for the war.” At least Bush and Cheney actually believed that the war was the right thing to do, he said. Did Clinton? Did Kerry? If they didn’t, why did they vote for it?
Couple of interesting Q&A’s:
Q: Wolfowitz to the World Bank?
A: He’s being moved “up and out.” He’s doesn’t want to be held accountable for his mistakes on Iraq, and has been told he has no chance for Sec Def if Rumsfeld goes. But Bush “takes care of his wounded.”
Q: Are you Deep Throat? If not, do you know who is?
A. No. Yes.
Q: Does Bush know or care that the world is running out of oil?
A: Probably knows, but “not cognizant of how grave the situation is.” However, the threat to the oil supply is why there will probably not be an invasion of Iran.
Q: How does a moderate get involved in politics and make a difference?
A: (Pause . . . “this is a very interesting question . . . “) I’d say, find a candidate you believe in passionately and do everything you can to get him elected. Stuff envelopes, drive all over town, all of that. And then, if you’re young, get a real job. Because if you don’t have a real career to go back to – if you end up an aide or an assistant in Washington and your guy loses – then you’ll just go down the street and get a job with someone you don’t believe in.
Well, sorry it turned out so long in spite of my best efforts. I left out a lot, believe it or not. There’s a long list of things that Pat Buchanan and I will never agree on, but I must say, he made me long for the days when I could disagree with a conservative and just . . . disagree. Instead of being filled with panic and outrage, as I am all too often these past few years.
Discuss among yourselves . . . .
There are days when I agree with every word Buchanan says and then the next day he’ll say something that absolutely appalls me. The man makes my head spin. I can almost detect the internal logic of his various positions… almost. But, I am left wondering how he can be so right about some things and so horribly wrong about others.
Last night most of the things he had to say that I would have taken real issue with were more or less delivered as throw-away lines. Like Reagan “won the cold war.” Or that the good economy of the 1990’s was the fruition of Reagan’s economic policies, which Clinton merely “ratified.”
When I hear him making sense, I have to remind myself that he is first and foremost, a Reaganite, and I basically hated Reagan’s guts.
But he does have a few ideas that I’m not sure I agree with, but I’d like to think more about. For example, his ideas about letting the various states go their own way on the “cultural” issues. At first blush, it’s appealing. But I live in the South and I’m old enough to remember how “state’s rights” was used to justify segregation and blatant, institutionalized discrimination.
Abortion. I firmly believe that every woman should have that choice. And that includes women in Alabama. Non-negotiable issue for me. So, state’s rights . . . eh, probably not. But I am wondering if there is some variant that I could live with.
At least he doesn’t march in lock step with all the zombies in the administration. You’d think Cheney eats their brains before they take office or something.
Calls me a liberal Pat Buchannan.
I’ll know I’ve made it.
When I have listened to Buchanan (when I had could take watching him at all) I have been just like SJTC above, sometimes I think wow, a Republican saying these things, pretty interesting, and then in the sum up statement he seems to do a turn around and somehow refutes everything he has previously said. That is my impression at least.
In other words he seems to be on a track of reasoning that I can identify with and then his conclusion is the antithisis of everything he previously has said.
I always end up shouting a question to him at the tv set, he never answers, but I keep asking, then I sit down and slam out an email to the show. But he doesn’t raise my ire as much as some others like Scarborough do.
I find him very confusing. Republicans must really find him confusing.
There is also an interesting contrast with his sister, she is a very right, right repub.
Oh has anyone seen the Wolfowitz has a girlfriend story over at DK http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/25/8389/49703
I was just re-reading your diary and this phrase below stuck out to me and brought this thought to mind.
I remember when he was saying these things regarding Dean and others, he kept saying all through the summer, if the Dems, go totally anti war in campaign they will win. Because it gives the people the “other side” to vote for. I think he may have been right. I know I kept wishing for many in the Dem. party to just jump on this and make it part of their platform, unfortunately they pretty much waited until after the election to even voice that.
“”He spoke of his admiration for Howard Dean for speaking out against the war when the war was popular. He excoriated Kerry and H. Clinton for “voting for the war.” At least Bush and Cheney actually believed that the war was the right thing to do, he said. Did Clinton? Did Kerry? If they didn’t, why did they vote for it?”””
brings to mind an old cliche’ “beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing” it’s just a gut instinct these days.
I wish, and hope he is real, and can lay some form of guidelines for the real GOP to follow, but there are many hesitations on that thought. It’s more hope, than thought.
I can remember when Buchanan used to make me frothing at the mouth angry, especially when spouting off about what he thinks are the “moral values” issues. And Reagan – just don’t get me started. This past summer’s orgy of Reagan-idolatry when he died made me physically sick. I was traveling – flying – and all of those TV’s in the airports – there was just no escaping it. And Buchanan still thinks Reagan is god.
But I do like some of the points he makes. I thought that last Q&A answer that I posted above was outstanding. Certainly can’t argue that the war is a horrible disaster, that it violates everything America should be about, that it’s created more terrorists and more danger to Americans, and that most of all, it has been orchestrated by dangerous ideologues who really believe their own “American Empire” utopian fantasy.
I liked that he “gets it” about how the working class is being screwed by this neo-con crowd . . . and then he goes off on an illegal immigrant tirade. Sigh.
I guess I’m hoping that some conservatives who are more “traditional conservatives” will listen to his the neo-cons are hijacking our party and we’ve got to take it back points and help take the neo-cons down, because the neo-cons frankly scare me to death. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to be thrilled about “traditional conservative” values either. So if the “traditionals” do gain back R control, we can’t relax. But I’d much rather go back to the days of “you R’s are wrong, wrong, wrong about [insert issue here]” and fighting that – feeling like we are dealing with at least semi-rational people – than having to try to fight this amorphous blob of propaganda, religious zealotry, utopian ideologues, etc.
And thinking about advisorjim’s suggestions about how one can only hope to get right-wingers to at least hear what you are saying, you have to use sources they trust. If you quote the NYTimes, for example, they just tune it out as the “spin of the liberal media.” But if you’re quoting a true-blue Reaganite who writes for American Conservative, it’s hard for them to dismiss what you’re saying as “liberal spin.”
There was a time when Buchanan was thought of, by many, as a rightwing extremist. When he started sounding reasonable and rational, because the rightwing had moved into neocon never never land, I knew this country was in deep, deep trouble.
I feel the way you do; I just can’t trust him. Acknowledge that he’s intelligent and sometimes makes surprisingly thoughtful remarks. Almost like a real person. But God, he is ALWAYS mean!
Maybe I dreamed this, but for what it’s worth: Pat Buchanan on some cable talkfest, lots of yelling; his face was purple (I know, because Scarborough’s face remained soft and pink) and he was about to pop some veins in defending Terri Schiavo’s right to live. He was very scary. Did you see this? Just a small, but jarring incident.
I can’t watch TV anymore, it makes me nuts. He did talk about Shiavo. He explained that the people trying to “save” her (my quote marks, since I think they are just torturing her and are appallingly cruel) see her as a brain-damaged person who is being killed. And that people who think that “are truly good people.” but having said that, I got the impression that he thought they were misguided. That this was an example of unjustified and “unconservative” intrusion by the federal gov’t into what should be decided by – and already has been – the state of FL (that states’ rights thing again) and her family (i.e. her husband). But I may have misinterpreted his remarks.
The really bad part of all of it is, that we will really not know the whole, or real truth, until it is finally over. Even then, it will take some time to surface, and probably through some obscure writing somewhere years down the road.
Too much exposure, and too much short term gain, for those in the public eye.
Once again, buyer beware, rings loud here.
Janet, this was so interesting. Did he happen to say if he thought Wolfowitz would be confirmed by a majority of other countries? I hear he’s very disliked abroad.
at least it’s not in my notes and I don’t remember it. Just what I posted above, which I found interesting. Although I remember thinking when he said “Bush takes care of his wounded,” – which Buchanan seemed to really admire – I would call “rewarding incompetence and failure and just plain evil.”
Remember who he is.
Perhaps the best and most succinct political jab about Pat Buchanan:
The Base Camp of Christendom
A broken clock is correct twice a day.