Monday, June 22, 2009

Paleocons/Postmoderns Bash Democracy Promotion, Neocons

What does Patrick Buchanan have in common with Andrew Sullivan, Daniel Larison, E.D. Kain, and James Poulos? Perhaps a burning hatred of the "evil" neocons?

Here's Pat Buchanan on last weekend's Hardball:


Matthews: And that’s why you, Pat Buchanan, although you are a libertarian in many ways, you do not ... no, you’re a nationalist actually ... you are not what you like to call, derisively, a “democratist.”

Buchanan: No, I don’t believe there’s a great salvation in the political process at all. I believe in different, far different things. I mean I put democracy far down the line, in the ... I think a devoutly Christian, conservative, traditionalist country, even if it’s a monarchy, is fine with me.

Matthews: Your Franco is talking, Pat ... Franco is speaking even now.

Buchanan: He was better than the alternative.
Also, here's Pat Buchanan showing why the "paleo/post-modern conservatives" ("realist" Israel-bashers) are a disaster for America:


Yid With Lid has more, "Pat Buchanan Says Iran Protests Are Tools of Neocons and Israel":
How does a bigot like Pat Buchanan Stay on TV? The Racist, Holocaust revisionst anti-Semite made is claim on Morning Joe today, implying that Bibi Netanyahu and the neocons were helping the protests on Iran.
See also, "Andrew Sullivan: Update on Neocon Derangement."

Bonus: Riehl World View , "
Andy Please Phone Home."

15 comments:

Watcher said...

Sweet fancy Moses!

Someone please tell Pat to stop calling himself a conservative.

Rusty Walker said...

Oh! MY! Has Pat Buchanan become senile? Look at the delectable, devouring look on the faces of these liberal hosts as Pat sinks ever more downward into the sinking mud of the irrational.

Donald Douglas said...

Rusty! And the thing is, is Sullivan and the other are drawing on Pat's paleoconservatism...

Righty64 said...

Professor, you asked why MSNBC keeps someone vile as Mr. Buchanan on the air? Because he is what they believe to be the face of conservatism. And, it is not a good face. Pat Buchanan is no longer a serious thinker, just a showboat and on a network that does its level best to discredit conservatism every chance it gets.

cracker said...

for the money?

Philippe Ohlund said...

Great Post, Donald! :-)

I really don't understand why Pat Buchanan is so blind for Iranian aggression.

Which country did the Greeks fight with for so long?

Well, it was Persia - Iran.

And the Persians kept coming back all the time, occupying modern parts of Greece like Rhodes.

Historically Iran has been a militarily very aggressive and imperialistic country.

And all the thousands of rockets the Palestinians have sent against Israel lately would have been nuclear if Iran had had nuclear arms to provide the Palestinians and Hizbollah with.

For Iran foreign policy has always been more important than domestic policy.

Now we have a golden opportunity to help the educated resistance in Iran to get a modern and democratic and peaceful regime there.

But our political leaders both in Europe and President Obama in America sit at the sidelines and maybe hope and wait for someone else to do the job.

Where is the political leadership in the world?

Dennis said...

As a Conservative, I have never had much respect for Buchanan. Now I have even less. The next thing you know he will find Obama's penchant for Czars, isn't that an indication, a good thing. I guess one form of dictatorship is like another to the likes of Buchanan.

Old Rebel said...

It's posts like this that betray the Neocons' Trotskyite roots.

An eloquent defender of the real America is reviled as "racist" -- why, this man opposes Open Borders! -- and sounds the alarm about the inevitable loss of liberty resulting from the Neocon agenda of endless war, and is denounced as "un-American."

This is truly Bizarro world.

Watcher said...

Rebel, based on your comments I assume you agree with his paranoid claptrap about neocons and Israel... but did you miss the part where he said that he prefers monarchy to democracy?

Old Rebel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Old Rebel said...

Watcher,

Pat said, "a devoutly Christian, conservative, traditionalist country, even if it’s a monarchy, is fine with me."

It's fine by me, too.

And I bet you'd agree with us paleoconservatives on this one.

Wouldn't you also prefer living in Great Britain to living in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?

Watcher said...

Those are the only choices? A christian socialist country and a communist hellhole? WTF?

Old Rebel said...

Watcher,

I take that to mean that you agree a Christian, traditionalist monarchy that preserves its character and culture is superior to a secular, globalist democracy.

That's the conservative ideal, one which the revolutionary, egalitarian Neocons would destroy.

So count me with Pat, thank you.

Watcher said...

There is nothing even remotely democratic about North Korea... and if you consider Great Britain to be the perfect example of the conservative ideal, then I want nothing to do with your brand of conservatism.

Old Rebel said...

Watcher,

You're missing the point. A monarchy can be better than a democracy.

But even that's not the real point -- loyalty is not to an ideology, but to a cultural tradition, including the religious faith and political ideals of what constitutes liberty -- that's what human beings will fight to defend. That's the essense of real conservatism, as opposed to the statist philosophy of the Neocons.