True, I am sure there are a million snappy comebacks to the rhetorical question in the title of this thread: Who ever DID take him seriously? Anyone other than FOX News, you mean? White supremacists gotta have favorite columnists too, BK. Etc, etc, etc. But Buchanan was once thought of as mainstream enough to represent the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy on CNN's Crossfire. He's always been on the far right side of the spectrum, but even Death of the West seems mainstream compared to Cannonball Pat's latest deep thought: Was World War II Worth It? In the Bush vs. Putin debate on World War II, Putin had far the more difficult assignment. Defending Russia's record in the "Great Patriotic War," the Russian president declared, "Our people not only defended their homeland, they liberated 11 European countries." Those countries are, presumably: Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Finland. To ascertain whether Moscow truly liberated those lands, we might survey the sons and daughters of the generation that survived liberation by a Red Army that pillaged, raped and murdered its way westward across Europe. As at Katyn Forest, that army eradicated the real heroes who fought to retain the national and Christian character of their countries. To Bush, these nations were not liberated. "As we mark a victory of six decades ago, we are mindful of a paradox," he said: For much of Eastern and Central Europe, victory brought the iron rule of another empire. V-E day marked the end of fascism, but it did not end the oppression. The agreement in Yalta followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable. ... The captivity of millions in Central and Eastern Europe will be remembered as one of the greatest wrongs in history. Bush told the awful truth about what really triumphed in World War II east of the Elbe. And it was not freedom. It was Stalin, the most odious tyrant of the century. Where Hitler killed his millions, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot and Castro murdered their tens of millions. Leninism was the Black Death of the 20th Century. The truths bravely declared by Bush at Riga, Latvia, raise questions that too long remained hidden, buried or ignored. If Yalta was a betrayal of small nations as immoral as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, why do we venerate Churchill and FDR? At Yalta, this pair secretly ceded those small nations to Stalin, co-signing a cynical "Declaration on Liberated Europe" that was a monstrous lie. As FDR and Churchill consigned these peoples to a Stalinist hell run by a monster they alternately and affectionately called "Uncle Joe" and "Old Bear," why are they not in the history books alongside Neville Chamberlain, who sold out the Czechs at Munich by handing the Sudetenland over to Germany? At least the Sudeten Germans wanted to be with Germany. No Christian peoples of Europe ever embraced their Soviet captors or Stalinist quislings. Other questions arise. If Britain endured six years of war and hundreds of thousands of dead in a war she declared to defend Polish freedom, and Polish freedom was lost to communism, how can we say Britain won the war? If the West went to war to stop Hitler from dominating Eastern and Central Europe, and Eastern and Central Europe ended up under a tyranny even more odious, as Bush implies, did Western Civilization win the war? In 1938, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain refused. In 1939, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Poland. Chamberlain agreed. At the end of the war Churchill wanted and got, Czechoslovakia and Poland were in Stalin's empire. How, then, can men proclaim Churchill "Man of the Century"? True, U.S. and British troops liberated France, Holland and Belgium from Nazi occupation. But before Britain declared war on Germany, France, Holland and Belgium did not need to be liberated. They were free. They were only invaded and occupied after Britain and France declared war on Germany � on behalf of Poland. When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France � hundreds of thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires � was World War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of the Elbe were lost anyway? If the objective of the West was the destruction of Nazi Germany, it was a "smashing" success. But why destroy Hitler? If to liberate Germans, it was not worth it. After all, the Germans voted Hitler in. If it was to keep Hitler out of Western Europe, why declare war on him and draw him into Western Europe? If it was to keep Hitler out of Central and Eastern Europe, then, inevitably, Stalin would inherit Central and Eastern Europe. Was that worth fighting a world war � with 50 million dead? The war Britain and France declared to defend Polish freedom ended up making Poland and all of Eastern and Central Europe safe for Stalinism. And at the festivities in Moscow, Americans and Russians were front and center, smiling � not British and French. Understandably. Yes, Bush has opened up quite a can of worms.
Actually, he did have somewhat of a backing in the late 1980's and early 1990's. However, in his heyday, he was way too neocon for his own good, and is a large reason why he dwindled away. He still writes, but no one pays any attention to him anymore.
His article was actually a decent reminder of the iron curtain, etc. until he went off the deep end. I wouldn't label him a "neocon". Maybe radical conservative is more like it. He was very against the Iraq war, illegal immigration, etc. What is a neocon anyway? Pro-war conservative? I don't think it's fair to lump him in with FOX - doesn't he work for CNBC or something? He was a CNN employee at one point. Ann's got nicer legs than Pat and Rush.
He's been saying inane things for going on 2 decades now. Attacking all colors of people, gays, women, immigrants, etc. And he did actually have a sizeable following for a while until he started making perceived anti-Semetic comments about 10 yrs ago. That is the kiss of death for any American politician and he's essentially been blackballed out of politics by the media since then. So yeah, I don't know who takes him seriously anymore
Neo is basically another way of saying modern or new. From a political science perspective, whenever something is defined as neo-blah, it is a new interpretation of a previously established idea or principle. For example, a neo-Nazi refers to a person who has taken Nazi beliefs to give them a new interpretation (i.e. Hitler and his followers). Similarly, a neocon is a new interpretation and connotation of the conservative way of thinking. The reason I said that Buchanan was too neocon for his own good was because he had a lot of the ideas that Republicans have today, but in a different light and a different connotation.
thx! I actually did some quick research and came across this neocon quiz: http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html
Buchanan is not a neocon at all. It would be more accurate to call him an old school protectionist conservative. Neocon has come from a couple of different places. Some prominent neocons are former liberals who changed into believing that America needed a strong foreign policy to combat threats like Communism. William Kristol is one of the main examples. Recently they have become know for the Iraq war and the idea of spreading democracy in the Middle East. Neocons really have nothing to do with the religious right, but now every rightwinger perceived as extreme is labled a neocon.
I remember him getting stuck with the Paleo-Con label since his xenophobic tendencies were apparent before Bin Laden received any attention.
Are your sure? How about: neocon ideology ... military industrial complex ... bloated defense budget ... record national deficit ... higher interest rates ... whole can of worms ... and/or Neocon ideology ... expansion of US global dominance by means of wars ... more hostility towards US ... heightened knee-jerking security measures ... restrictions of personal freedom and civil liberty ... another can of worms ... Shall I go on?
Neocons are dangerous. They are immoral, and have wacked out views. Here is an excerpt from an article by Ron Paul a Texas Republican Congresman. http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm 1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual. 2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so. 3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends. 4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hardball politics is a moral necessity. 5. They express no opposition to the welfare state. 6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it. 7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive. 8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit. 9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it. 10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised. 11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem. 12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate. 13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country. 14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many. 15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.) 16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary. 17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.
