Buchanan: A Decade of Self-Delusion

Grass is always greener on the other side. America is dominant in most fields. Most importantly, the military infrastructure of this world is so ridiculously biased towards the United States (as an example, to my recollection, the American navy is the largest in the world by far, dwarfing I think the next 9, of which around 7 or 8 are steadfast American allies anyways) that there is no conceivable way America will ever fall that low.

 

Even as a moderate liberal, I have always respected Pat Buchanan.

 

It's funny: I thought from the thread title this was going to detail Buchanan's own decade, but I'm glad I was wrong.

I don't necessarily love him, but on certain topics he is very solid, and this analysis and candor seem just spot on to me.

Agree with weslinder that we cannot disentangle China's rise with our own decline from 2000-2010 especially.

What would be more interesting here would be to more honestly grip what's been in the works from 1980-2010. As much as I would love to just blame one party for the decade, especially in this case, I don't believe it's that simple.

 

I don't think that's unfair. When as a nation, thank you Reagan, we continue to have policies that benefit corporate interests over national interests it's only natural to expect this on a national level. Free traders, globalization proponents, and corporations aren't interested in keeping America strong, they're just interested in profits. They don't think twice about hiring Indian engineers or off shoring manufacturing to China or hiding their money in Switzerland. That's the ugly truth about where our country is headed.

 

That navy isn't going to do any good if we cant pay for it. A large chunk of the defense budget goes to maintaining all those ships, airplanes and bases we have scattered around the world.

Anyways, I don't really blame the politicians that are running this country into the ground, we are the ones voting them into office.

 

Bingo! Looks like someone gets it. So what is at the root of all this? To me what MUST be done is bringing about an end to government as usual, which has been promoting corporate interest as national interest to the American people, perhaps committing a form of treason in the process. In effect, it has become painfully clear to anyone who gives two poops about this country that corporate greed has literally driven America's stature into the ground, while at the same time has propped up the economies of strategic rivals such as China which now is well poised to challenge our interests all over the world. Perhaps 50 years ago "what is good for GM" really was good for the country, but in the last 20 years or more that has proven not to be the case. We need to go back again to requiring American companies to act in the interests of America and its allies, not its enemies or potential rivals.

This is not just about American economic troubles, it is and should be about doing everything possible to reassert America's unquestionable dominance over the world, which is in question right now. Maintaining American hegemony should go back to being the foremost foreign policy objective of this country, and we need smart people in power to do it, that way we can avoid wars like Iraq and avoid prolonged occupations in marginal states like Afghanistan.

 

We've had 50 years and the boomer generation to feel entitled to our own success. I'm hoping the current generation will surprise America with it's Silicon Valley enthusiasm but there's many things our country needs to address that technology doesn't and won't properly touch.

Mostly the fact that we're bankrupt while in a hydra of deficits (trade, entitlement, state/federal budgets, and consumer).

Pretty audacious to add 30 more billion to fund the surge, while spending a total ~100 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. And that's only on the books.

 

there is nothing wrong with corporations being efficient.

there is something wrong with creating an environment where corporations have to go overseas to do it.

We've forgotten that every time you take out a withdrawal there is an associated cost.

 

I agree with Pat. The Bush decade has been horrible. It was more interested in oil imports than manufacturing exports.

One of the objectives of Obama's "Framework for Revitalizing American Manufacturing" is improving exports.

 

Its an interesting article and I agree with a lot of the points that Buchanan raises. I agree that corporate interests and a government that caters to corporate interests is one of our problems but I also think it is too easy to scapegoat corporations. Corporations are only powerful because we as consumers willingly voted with our dollars to empower them. If we are talking about the rise of corporate power it is us as a society that made that possible and not so much a nefarious conspiracy among corporate tycoons and the government. A consumption based society is going to empower those who provide the consumer goods.

I think a lot of our failures of the past decade have been driven by the standards with which we judge ourselves. That conspicuous spending is what defines us. I think if we could reform our economy and culture to not be dependent on consumer spending things might be very different.

 

If Yao Ming gives any indication about how great the Chinese are, then I wouldn't worry.

 

no one has created an environment to do it, its natural progression. we reached a standard of living where its not only cheaper to manufacture goods in China, its cheaper to go right across our border to our southern neighbor.

the only thing that created that environment is we are a wealthy nation and other nations are poor. there's nothing we can do about it. such is the natural progession.

obama and dems are right, instead of wasting our money in wars that don't benefit us, we should invest in our people, in our economy, to stay ahead of the curve. but wishing for the days when you could get a job that could get you a house in five years right out of college are gone.

edit: five years right out of high school

 

Buchanan has always been about protectionism, isolationism and his definition of 'small government.' Good on him for finally calling out GWB and his spending and his deficit financed tax cut. But the rest of his diatribe is his usual shtick.

Note that he laments health care reform as yet another 'entitlement program.' At least he resisted calling it socialist (this time).

New year -- same ol' Buchanan. Twit.

 

You're right. Its basic progression towards an equilibrium. The competitive advantage in a global market is stability and opportunity. Businesses invest money in safe bets. Unfortunately we have done a pretty piss poor job in those two areas in the last decade. There is no reason we can't turn it around, but the times of world dominance is over.

The reason china is doing well is because they are stable. You know the government will protect your investment even though you may not like the way they do it.

 

he's a free marketer protectionist

 

If I remember correctly, he's always been protectionist. Even when everyone was on the Free Trade bandwagon.

Here's the first google link that came up

So deferring to him on free trade is like supporting your opinion on TMac by quoting DD or on China by quoting MFW .

EDIT: If you click on the link you'll see his book was written in 1998 and says basically the same stuff he's ranting on here. Seems the last decade of the first century wasn't so great either in Pat's assessment.

He's just a grumpy old man.

 

No, Buchannan's always been a protectionist. I've always been interested by his isolationism, but his rampant xenophobia and protectionist ideals are such crap that I instinctually mistrust everything he says. That said, he's been mad at Bush for a loooonnnggg time, particularly regarding his wars (not that that isn't justified, and he had the good sense to understand Iraq was dumb from the beginning.)
Definitely hasn't been a good decade, but really that's due to the goddamned wars - Iraq was a mistake, and Afghanistan has been waged stupidly as we continue our obsession with building democracy. It's been balanced out by the reign of globalization and the reign of free trade that's been brought, but when we get out of Iraq and blow Afghanistan back to the stone age, then we can get back to competing better, if not being a superpower (which is a goal that we cannot accomplish as we long as we have our pathetic morals.)

 

no i understand he's always been a protectionist but i think he would also be a free marketer within our borders and that was irony i was trying to point out.

 

I don't think it's that ironic or inconsistent, PGabs. He wants to build a great big wall around the US -- and let the free market reign within its borders. He seems to have a great fear of socialism -- and a pretty broad interpretation of what it is. He's doesn't seem particularly fond of some Americans, so foreigners just freak him out.

I'm not a fan on so many levels. So if there are inconsistencies in his ideas, I'd probably miss them having dismissed his rantings based on the reputation of the source.