Sunday, April 20, 2014

Buchanan Loves Him Some Hitler Putin

I wasn't going to publish this, but with Putin pushing hard for World War III, I think it's a good time. A lot of the problems with our current fringe can be traced back to the 1990s. In the 1990s, conservatism was understandably upset at Bush the Elder. Unfortunately, the group that would become our fringe abandoned the values of Ronald Reagan and instead adopted the values and rhetoric of Pat Buchanan. And let me tell you, Pat Buchanan is the last person anyone should be listening to, as demonstrated with his recent fellating of Putin.

I’m not kidding when I say that modern conservatives abandoned Reagan and instead followed Buchanan. They worship Reagan in the abstract and wrap themselves in his cloak, but they align themselves with the pessimistic anti-American Buchanan over the optimistic pro-American Reagan. On issue after issue, they follow Pat's rotten views, which are the polar opposite of Reagan's -- if you look at the talk radio playbook today you will find that their standard quotes and knee jerk opinions come almost verbatim from Buchanan’s apocalyptic “culture wars” speeches, most of which are the exact opposite of what Reagan stood for. To give an example, earlier this month, Pat claimed that the GOP lost middle America by embracing free trade (Reagan was staunchly pro-trade) and by importing “30 to 40 million” legal and illegal immigrants (Reagan was pro-immigration) who he calls “people of color” (Reagan never judged people by race).

Becoming the party of Buchanan was a huge mistake because it led the right away from being the pro-American party of prosperity, a thriving party which grew every day under Reagan, and sent it down the path to becoming this brooding anti-immigrant party who see America as a hopeless, failing state beset by enemies behind every rock. It's no coincidence that conservatism has been losing support ever since it started this journey. Moreover, this led them away from conservative ideas like embracing the power of freedom and has instead engendered a leftist belief in the power of strongmen who promise stability. This can be seen with Pat Buchanan's recent embrace of Putin.

Earlier this month, Pat penned an editorial love letter to his new crush, Vladimir Putin. In this bizarre editorial, he assures us that God is on Putin’s side. Why? Because he sees Russia as “the Christian country” fighting against “a decadent West,” and he sees Putin as the defender of the faith basically. Of Putin, Pat says:
“Putin is plugging into some of the modern world's most powerful currents. Not only in his defiance of what much of the world sees as America's arrogant drive for global hegemony ... He is also tapping into the worldwide revulsion of and resistance to the sewage of a hedonistic secular and social revolution coming out of the West.”
Of course, his belief in a “worldwide revulsion” ignores the fact that the vast majority of people on this planet embrace every part of our culture, from our foods to our films to our consumer goods to our values. In fact, this has been a common complaint of fundamentalist Islam, failed dictators needing scapegoats, and our own left and right fringe for decades. His belief that social revolution is coming is ignorant fantasy; it is a view one reaches when one has no friends except other ideologues and there is ZERO evidence for it in the culture outside of tiny extremist blogs. His view of America as arrogantly driving for global hegemony is the same thing he used to attack liberals for saying as disloyal and traitorous.

As for Putin, Putin is the head thug of a neutered empire that is now a regional power. It has become the tallest among dwarves and pretends that makes it an NBA center. Pat doesn’t realize that because he's stuck in the cold war. And what makes Pat worship Putin is that Putin is running Pat’s kind of theocracy. Specifically, Pat mentions how Putin “imposed a ban on homosexual propaganda, a ban on abortion advertising, a ban on abortions after 12 weeks and a ban on sacrilegious insults to religious believers.” That’s how Pat defines good Christianity. Do you think Jesus would agree?

Of course, what Pat overlooks is huge. To see Putin as a hero, you need to forget that Putin is invading his neighbors and interfering in their internal affairs. Forget that he's supplying nuclear hardware to Islamic Iran. Forget that he's selling high end military hardware to China and Syria. Forget that he's trying to create an alliance with countries like Cuba and Venezuela to harass us. Forget that he's terrorized his people. That free speech, property rights and rule of law don't exist in Russia. That he locks up people with money if they don't support him, that he shuts down television stations that oppose him, that he locks up rock bands for criticizing him. That his favorite "business" practices are extortion and blackmail. Forget that Mr. Christian uses sex to advertise his candidacy, that’s he’s harassing Christian groups he doesn’t like, or that all the stuff Pat loves is just for show. Forget that Putin presides over a shithole of a country that has stepped backwards in every conceivable way under his reign of error. Yeah, forget all that because he hates them gays and that makes him Pat’s hero.

That’s messed up. But it fits with the rest of Pat's views. In fact, at least three times (1977, the 1980s and 2009) Pat has publicly praised Hitler (he wrote that Americans are “introduced to Hitler only as a caricature” but that Hitler “was also an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier in the Great War, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him.”) and blamed the allies for forcing Hitler to go to war and said Word War II wasn't "worth it." He has declared America finished because of “people of color,” and he has flirted with every third rate dictator to come along for a decade now in the hopes of finding his own Fuhrer to impose a set of beliefs which the public ain't buying.

That is what motivates Buchanan. Buchanan hates that the American public refuses to embrace his vision of a racially and religiously pure America. And everything he says and does spews from that kernel of savage disappointment. But that isn't conservatism, and Putin is not someone conservatives should ever embrace. Think about that the next time some talk radio host praises Putin for being a reel 'merikan.

47 comments:

  1. never been much of a fan of Buchannan, and always kind of ignored him, but now that you mention it, what you say makes a lot of sense. Lord knows Vlad the impaler is a vile man who spouts his rhetoric because Obama makes himself such an easy target.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jed, I like Buchanan at one point. In the 1990s, when Bush Sr. had repudiated Reagan and was talking about the New World Order, the things Buchanan said about standing up for conservatism made sense. It didn't strike me at the time just how hostile and negatively he made his point. Then, over time, I came to see that Buchanan was wrong on every issue pretty much.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I would remind Pat that, in the Old Testament, God allowed victory to Israel's enemies when His people had gone astray. That didn't make any of the other tribes God's new chosen people. I'm not trying draw parallels between America and Israel, but if Pat has read his Bible, he'd know that God doesn't identify winners the same way people do.

    ReplyDelete
  4. tryanmax. I don't get the feeling that Pat is reading the Bible so much as skimming it to find confirmation of his own prejudices.

    I'm just amazed that conservatives, who love to claim that patriotism is a conservative trait, could embrace Pat in his treachery.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Pat is the ultra-right's version of the left's "useful idiot".

    ReplyDelete
  6. You left out "Forget that he murders journalists critical of his regime".

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kit, That's exactly what he is. He is spreading a view put out there by the Russians to hide what is really going on.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Kit, True. He also murders political opponents who leave the country.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Of course, murdering sissy journalists would probably sell on the far right.

    ReplyDelete
  10. When stuff like this happens, it forces other folks (including many whose stock in trade involves complaining about American pop culture) to admit that maybe we're not so bad after all.

    In other words, where's my tiny violin? ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Scott - did you vote for Obama just once (the hope and change express) or was it so nice you had to do it twice (General Romney's war on women?) Just curious.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jed -

    In the interests of full disclosure, I voted for Obama in 2008. I would've voted for McCain had he chosen a different running mate.

    (Even as an Independent, in 2008 my opinion was, "Well, this Obama guy sounds nice but isn't it a bit early for him to run for President?")

    I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012.

    Why? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Oh, Scott... just when you thought you knew a person... :)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Scott, American culture rocks, and the world loves it. Anywhere you go you will see that. The only people who oppose it are religious fundamentalists and dictators who need an excuse for why their country can't provide all the things Americans have... and people like Pat.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Rustbelt -

    I have no problem voting Republican (I just heard a couple - scratch that - many friends of mine faint)... I just need to encounter the right one. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Scott - I was just teasing you. I don't care who you vote for, although I suspect you are one of the very few who's vote rested on V.P. Same with the Gary Johnson vote

    ReplyDelete
  17. Jed -

    To put it plainly, I don't like Palin. It's a shame since I'm kinda sympathetic to her status as an outsider who didn't go to the right schools or grow up in the right state, etc. I get all that. But I cringe at the rest. And like so many others, her, uh, more "enthusiastic" supporters turn me off completely.

    And yes, I voted for Johnson knowing it would do jackshit. But I didn't want to vote for Obama or Romney... I guess I'm just one of those "It's your civic duty!" types. I couldn't just stay home.

    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jed, I care. If he's not going to vote for Snoop Dogg, then I don't want him here! ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  19. Fo' shizzle, Andrew.

    (I am so white.) :-)

    ReplyDelete
  20. At least you didn't vote for Obama in 2012...

    Besides, one of my closest friends voted for Obama both times. (She is a big liberal).

    ReplyDelete
  21. Religion and pop culture... Andrew, that reminds me of one Sunday service where our parish priest recounted an experience back in the '70's. He was asked to take some of the youth group members to a concert at Three Rivers Stadium. He said, "they told me, 'she's a new singer. We think you'll like her. Her name's Alice Cooper.'" He called it "one of those experiences you never forget." (It was part of his working Cooper's conversion into the homily.)

    But my brother had that beat. One day, one of the priests was driving him and a couple other group members back from a service project. The radio was up and on came "Bohemian Rhapsody." Everyone expected him to turn it off. Father's response? "Who wants to sing along?" A scene out of 'Wayne's World' quickly followed.

    Who says religion and pop culture can't mix? (Well, probably, Pat. He'd likely be foaming at the mouth.)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Kit, Don't they have pills for that now?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Rustbelt, LOL! Nice!

    I see no reason that religion can't go hand in hand with pop culture. Obviously, there are some lines it won't cross, but religion benefits a lot when a film or song comes out that everyone loves which has religious themes.

    ReplyDelete
  24. ... and yeah, Pat's probably foaming at the mouth. I get the sense his vision of Christianity aligns with 10th Century monks.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Andrew,

    I think 10th Century monks were more open-minded. After all, they were transcribing pagan Norse myths.

    ReplyDelete
  26. So you're saying they spent a lot of time looking at dirty books... of a sort.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Kit, Don't they have pills for that now?"

    Alas, no. :-/

    ReplyDelete
  28. It is interesting just how insane he has become. I read one of his books a few years ago (I don't know why, it just sounded interesting) where he discussed the possibility of what would have happened if Hitler (or at least the Nazis) stayed in power and especially controlled Eastern Europe. That is if the allies would have pushed him out of western Europe but stopped and let German defeat the Soviets. I think there is a Nazi love interest in him but he presented it as a choice of lesser evils. Basically he was very critical of how the Soviets treated the people in these countries and he argued that they would have been better off under German occupation.

    He definitely was right that the Soviets killed just as many Jews and raped and pillaged these countries. My point of bringing this up is he seemed far more critical of the communists than of the fascists. When you look how kids are educated about the 20th Century they are inundated appropriately by the evil of the Nazis, but often Stalin and the Communists are given a pass even though they are at least as ruthless and evil if not worse.

    Now this idiot is supporting the Russians? I think he needs to be put in a home. BTW, nice to have you back.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Thanks Koshcat! It's good to be back. This stuff is rotten. Half my family is still coughing and they "got over it" a week ago.

    I get that sense from Buchanan too. Our education system, run by leftists, rightly attacks the Nazis for all the evil things they did, but they give the communists a pass. Rather than pointing out the evil deeds of the communists, Buchanan tends to do the reverse and point out how back the commies were while letting the Nazis slide. Both groups are evil and neither should be looked upon approvingly.

    And yeah, he's infatuated with Putin now. He's bought into the idea that Putin is the world's only Christian soldier come to save us all from Islam and Western decadence. He's an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Koshcat,

    When Nazis are fighting Communists, you basically have to ask "Who is the bigger threat?" and hope they kill a bunch of each other.

    Unfortunately, when mass murderers fight each other, innocent people get caught in the crossfire.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I feel like I am just brushing the surface of the Russia/Ukraine issue. Noonan's article this last weekend was interesting and she referenced a writer who predicted this and a Russian crash over the next 10-20 years So the issue is an important one and the US should stand firm in support of democratic governments but ultimately the Russians was probably destroy themselves...again.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Can't we all just get along? The only reason Buchanan is given a place at the table in any debate is that he is incendiary. He is to conservatives what Sharpton is to race relations. Both can be counted on to be stupid and both make the people they purport to represent look bad.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Koshcat, I am concerned that things are only starting over there. This could become a real mess.

    As for Russia, I don't doubt they will crash too. Their economy is held up with oil money.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Bev, We need to shove guys like Buchanan away from our side.

    ReplyDelete
  35. FYI - I'm glad that you are feeling better, however the Management has taken notice. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  36. And yes, but how can we rid ourselves or marginalized people like Buchanan? Maybe if we just keep pushing people like him to the margins.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Thanks Bev! Tell Management, I have an excuse! I got a doctor's note just in case. :)

    On Buchanan, the only way to marginalize him is to keep pointing things like this out to other conservatives so that fewer and fewer people listen to him or mention him and so they start pushing back when liberals call him a conservative.

    ReplyDelete
  38. This one's for Kit:

    "If the Germans are winning the war, we should aid the Russians. If the Russians are winning the war, we should aid the Germans. That way, they'll be sure to kill off as many of each other as possible."

    -Senator Harry S. Truman, 1941

    ReplyDelete
  39. It is very illuminating that some on the far right end up in exactly the same place as the reflexively anti-western left.

    Mass immigration causes plenty of problems, but none of them has to do with race. Correlation isn´t causation. Someone should ask Buchanan if he would be ok with a million blue eyed, fair skinned Russian youths in his neighborhood. I´m sure some will even have orthodox symbols tattoed on their chests and knuckles. Or maybe some British yobbos? Though in that case the average immigrant "of color" is far likelier to know who Jesus was...

    ReplyDelete
  40. "...where he discussed the possibility of what would have happened if Hitler (or at least the Nazis) stayed in power and especially controlled Eastern Europe. ... Basically he was very critical of how the Soviets treated the people in these countries and he argued that they would have been better off under German occupation."

    That strikes me as unlikely. The communists did terrible things but they were no racial exterminators. They didn´t consider all Poles or Czechs or even Jews as subhuman. There just would not be as many of them alive today if the nazis has been victorious. Only the Baltic states might have been better off. But they are happy to be rid of the Soviets - and Buchanan, who acknowledges Soviet crimes against these peoples, supports Putin when he claims a kind of sovereignty over them?

    I understand a degree of disgust at the "decadent west" but if it turns a guy into an authoritarian douchebag, perhaps he never loved western civlization as much as he thought or claimed.

    ReplyDelete
  41. El Gordo, Agreed. It is interesting how often the far right ends up on the same anti-western bent as the far left.

    And you make a great point on immigration. An influx of yobs or Russian skinheads would be far worse than anything else that's been arriving. Race isn't the issue, it's behavior that's the issue... it's ability to integrate that's the issue.

    Immigration is a problem when too many people come to fit, but race isn't the issue. The issue is when the values of the immigrants are hostile to the local culture. And in that regard, adding a million skinheads or British yobs would be infinitely worse than adding a million hard working Mexican families.

    ReplyDelete
  42. On the decadent west, I've always seen that phrase as a giveaway for someone who intrinsically hates the freedom the west offers.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I would say decadence is a fact. The problem with Buchanan is, he wants to punish people for it. He is out for revenge. Consider the writings of Theodore Dalrymple, who often writes about decadent modern mores. He is very outspoken but the polar opposite of Buchanan. Not incidentally, he came to his conservative convictions through life experience as a doctor and living in several countries. And he does not claim to know every solution. He observes and comments, with compassion and no illusions about quick fixes.

    Regarding mass immigration, there is the problem of a lack of assimilation. Especially in a country whose elites have decided that assimilation isn´t important. There is also the economic problem of a lack of jobs. Mass immigration is by definition mostly unskilled. In a modern economy only about 15% of jobs are unskilled or very low skilled. This isn´t the 19th century where everyone could (and had to) work in the fields or factories. So the romantic ideal of people "working their way up" won´t come true for many immigrants. It is not widely known that even in the 19th century many immigrants returned home, at a time when the passage was quite expensive. That still happens but many will add to a very unamerican thing, a permanent underclass. And America already has an underclass of, what, 30 to 50 million?

    It is unfortunate that the opposition to mass immigration is always conflated with racism. Of course, actual racists are making sure that this won´t stop soon. But in Paris or London in the 1990s there was a great hue and cry about the influx of skilled and motivated craftsmen from central Europe (the dreaded "polish plumbers"). They of course looked just like the natives. From the point of view of a homeowner they probably were a godsend. At least in the UK for a while steps were taken to get rid of them. Not sure about the details, but when it is significantly harder for a white skilled christian pole to come to London than for a muslim from "the commonwealth" ie Pakistan, racism isn´t a factor. More like stupidity.

    ReplyDelete
  44. El Gordo, On the decadence point, I'm not so sure I believe the idea. To be clear, I do believe that there are good and bad values. I also believe that there are some people in this country who have the bad values rather than the good ones. And sometimes, our government endorses the bad values.

    That said however, when I look around, I see the vast majority of the public continuing to follow the good values and our society ultimately functioning on the good values. Indeed, for every "The Kardashians" there are dozens of "Dirty Jobs" and millions of hard working, decent people.

    I think the decadence idea stems from a cherry picking phenomena, where the observer looks at a handful of the bad things and says, "Gee, the fact these things exists means that society has become like this as a hole." But that's just not accurate and it can be done at any time to make the same claim about any society.

    Moreover, I've found that the people who talk about decadence are often longing for an outlier world that never existed. They seem to think that in the past all men were giants and they lament that the existence of modern comforts have made people seem so non-ideal to them. Also, this often seems to go hand in hand with the person accusing the world of decadence having their particular views rejected by the world, i.e. sour grapes.

    So while I see some people acting as hedonists or just being generally wasteful or immoral, I don't see any widespread decadence.

    ReplyDelete