I have never liked Pat Buchanan. He represents a particular strain of conservatism—Jew-baiting, skeptical of capitalism, overtly racialist—that ought to have withered in the 1950s. His books are all the same boring semi-Spenglerian riff on how the United States is succumbing to the wretched influence of “neocons” and non-white immigrants—as if an influx of white socialist Europeans would do us any good right now.
He also wrote a book the essence of which was that the Second World War was not worth fighting and that, insofar as there was a Holocaust, it was anyone but the Nazis who got the ball rolling on it. And though he is perhaps a few baby steps to the left of the late Sam Francis when it comes to race, Buchanan nurses his own form of racial collectivism even as he (rightly) condemns the same tribalism among minorities.
In other words, he is devoted to a regular schedule of both mediocrity and viciousness. His recent dismissal by MSNBC, however, is a laughable event for very unfunny reasons. Evidently the network was upset that Buchanan included phrases like “the end of white America” in his latest book, Suicide of a Superpower. Since “progressives” are only happy when the word “white” is appended to words like “racism” and “imperialism,” Buchanan has got to go.
Fine. Whatever. But was it not already long obvious to MSNBC that Buchanan held such views? Who is network president Phil Griffin trying to convince when he says that Buchanan’s opinions shouldn’t be a part of that elusive “national dialogue” we’re supposed to be having? MSNBC has in its employ a man, Al Sharpton, who led a pogrom against Brooklyn Jews in the early 1990s, and whose career as a racist, extortionist, and libelist had already been firmly established even before he urged urban blacks to go get those “diamond merchants.”
So I’m afraid there’s not much more to this story than fundamental hypocrisy. Buchanan’s dismissal reveals more about the moral state of “progressive” media (and perhaps cable news in general) than it was intended to. He played a very important role for MSNBC: that of the anti-war, anti-Bush conservative. Now that we have a black Democratic president who has helped invade another Arab-Muslim country, and whose proclivity for unmanned aerial vehicles surpasses Bush’s, the role of the resident white rightist is not only obsolete but dangerous. (He might, for instance, be so bold as to point out the similarities.) It is, never forget, election season. The same people who four years ago were clamoring for “change” are now, it seems, satisfied with the status quo. So not only is MSNBC guilty of knowingly employing at least two racist Jew-baiters, they are guilty of using one, Pat Buchanan, for the most obviously opportunistic purposes, and then discarding him for “liberal” reasons.
It all would be such a shame if Buchanan were someone who deserved our pity. The situation is, instead, a dance of the lemons: a bad network gets rid of a bad pundit. So what? The real shame is that Buchanan is still considered a “conservative” figure at all. If I’m not mistaken, he still has a perch at Human Events. I wouldn’t be against axing him, but this time for the right reasons. Let him become like Paul Craig Roberts and wander the strawberry fields of the lunatic paleo sites for good.
I’m curious about the hatred for Buchanan from so many ‘rightside’ writers. I think there are quite a few of us who think G.W. Bush was a weak progressive, worthless POTUS and very damaging to the Traditional Conservative movement as well as the country itself. This hatred for PB as well as a number of the R candidates for President by the the faux Conservative Punditry is repulsive and this writer has the distinct smell of a typical Fabian weasel.
Lemme guess, you’re gonna vote for Ron Paul.
I’m with Conservative Wanderer in my near certainty that you’re a Ron Paul supporter, someone for whom it’s Ron Paul or no one.
Jim Jones pick up the white courtesy phone please… Jim Jones please pick up the white courtesy phone.
Ha! Marvelous.
That’s why he refused to answer, even though I asked him twice.
He doesn’t wanna admit it… he just doesn’t realize that his silence answered the question.
Don’t you know that if you oppose Ron Paul you are opposed to LIBERTY? And the CONSTITUTION? You are neocons! Imperialists! Warmongers!
I’ve heard that many times over the years.
I let it go in one ear and out the other, just like I do when lefties scream “RACIST! BIGOT! CHICKENHAWK!”
Gotta have a thick skin to be a part of a blog like this, right, Robert?
Yes, definitely, although I like being attacked because I like to fight.
I was on the speech & debate team in high school. I think it set me up well for this.
Feel free to email me, Robert. My blog-name with no space at gmail.
I might quibble on some details but I agree totally with your last paragraph.
“I have never liked Pat Buchanan.” Really? I would never have gathered that from your flattering portrayal of good ol’ Pat. Aren’t you a little over the top with your wrath? Pat has written and said a few good things in his long stint in journalism and politics. At least, on occasion, he does give us pause to think and not react too passionately – as your comments seem to be.
I can read his work and hear his take on issues and divine my own take on them. That he offers some divergence from the conservative ‘status quo’ is a good thing, to paraphrase Martha. I find some of the commentary on this site to be offensive to my way of thinking after I’ve read it, but at least I’ve read it and thought about it. Geeze, in some areas, some opinionators on this site seem to split hairs in order to stay in ‘good graces’ with the majority.
What I find, for example, reprehensible in a political web site, newspaper, or magazine, is the presumption to declare itself for a particular candidate for office, as if that has any import to a reader’s choice or decision to vote. How condescending is that? These, often, are the most vehement in declaring themselves dispassionate and neutral deliverers of news and content.
Let Pat speak and write and give him a venue for his work. Your screed is no more or less deserving of space than his is.
“Geeze, in some areas, some opinionators on this site seem to split hairs in order to stay in ‘good graces’ with the majority.”
What “majority”? Majority of conservatives? Majority of liberals? Majority of readers in general?
You also accuse me simultaneously of being broadbrushed and wrathful while also “splitting hairs.” This is incoherent.
I suspect I know what you’re getting at: I’ve criticized Buchanan for being racialist, so in your mind I’m only saying this to please moderates and liberals and make myself appear “tolerant” by criticizing “both sides.” I don’t know how to reply to this ridiculous argument, except to say that you have to be prepared for certain people to not always toe a party line.
“I don’t know how to reply to this ridiculous argument, except to say that you have to be prepared for certain people to not always toe a party line.”
And the above sentence is ‘coherent’? Anything you don’t agree with is a ridiculous argument? A writer can’t do both – be ‘broadbrushed’ and ‘split hairs’ in the same article? What world do you live in?
Your article is a screed and you reply is so full of anger that I’m sure you had to gasp for breath when you finished it.
I detest the Huffington Post, and I am familiar with the various, and contradictory opinions, of Buchanan (See Mitt Romney – and, no, I’m not going to list them), but that does not mean he hasn’t something significant to say.
You’re using a ‘tu quoque’ fallacy. You also make the argument that because Buchanan occasionally makes a conservative point, he is worth the effort. The mistake here is to consider him a conservative at all. (qv, Ron Paul)
And why shouldn’t a web page have a particular candidate in mind? Shouldn’t we compare & contrast the issues? The idea of an ‘objective’ press has always been a myth.
Another person who can’t come to terms with the fact that there is more than one type of conservatism. Buchanan is hostile to Israel, Jews, and free trade. He also has shown support for labor unions, higher tariffs, ethanol subsidies, and Hamiltonian central banking. Who’s the “Fabian”? I don’t agree with these positions. Go read the Huffington Post is you want every writer to agree.
*if
Exactly my thinking. Maybe Brock is turning conservative again under the radar.
I think a lot of reaction to this ‘screed’ against PB is that we fear what has become of our Republic when the leadership is unwilling to stand against tyranny and for freedom. All we hear from the silly pundits is cowardness or duplicity such as this attack.
I ask again, you’re gonna vote for Ron Paul, right?
“But was it not already long obvious to MSNBC that Buchanan held such views?”
Of course it was but Buchanan brought something useful to the table – he’s a “typical conservative” that the viewers will run away from. He’s the “far right-winger” to scare the kids into prostrating themselves before Obama.
But I also think he represents the “face of Conservatism” for the Republican Establishment. I recall the 1992 Republican Convention where both he and Bay spoke and I turned the TV off about 2 minutes into Pat’s harangue. I’ve always thought that the Buchanans had as much to do with GHWB losing as Perot did and have never understood why the GOP would give such a vile man that much exposure unless it was to paint Conservatism in a bad light. Given what the Establishment did to Palin my surmise may have some merit.
I agree that MSNBC kept Buchanan to embarrass the Right but their dimwitted viewers needed “Sarcasm Alert” or “We’re Just Kiddin’” in the news tickers at the bottom of the screen so Buchanan was kicked out. Oddly those same dimwitted viewers seem impervious to the conspicuous and very out front racism of Melissa Harris-Perry and Al Sharpton who are regularly far worse than anything Buchanan ever wrote or said that I know of – plus Buchanan didn’t make a career out of racial matters as do MSNBC’s Goebbels analogues.
Good points. Are you talking about the Culture War speech in 1992?
If this is directed to me (Post #8) then yes. The concept behind the speech was fine, it’s just that Pat is Newt Gingrich without the charm. He succeeded in furthering the Liberal canard that Conservatism is about hatred. Which I think was the point of those in the Establishment as the Bush mantra at the time was “a kinder, gentler nation”. They couldn’t have done a better job in discrediting Conservatism in favor of Liberal Republicanism. The only problem with the plan was that too many people fled to Perot.
A couple decades ago, I rather liked Paul Buchanan. Then the nastiness started leaking out. This is, perhaps, the greatest function of a negative campaign such as we’re having now: the nastiness leaks out. I will always vote against nasty.
I have very little patience for racism, even if it is subtle and expressed only through implication, as it usually is these days. Buchanan didn’t have to publish a series of newsletters like Ron Paul for us to know he is an anti-Semite. It’s right there between the lines for anyone who cares to look.
Maybe it’s only my imagination, but it seems to me Buchanan was a better pundit before he ran for the GOP nomination against Bush. Something in the process drove him over the edge…or maybe it only made plain what was already there.
Either way, I usually skip his rants these days when I see them. And you’re right – he was only at MSNBC because liberals love “conservatives” who will attack other conservatives, even of the neo-con variety. Buchanan had outlived his usefullness there…and I guess the powers that be didn’t think a GOP admin was likely enough in 2013 to justify keeping him around.
This is a neocon site and antisemitism is the usual charge to destroy the character of anyone who disagrees with the Bush policy of preemptive war in the middle east. I would love to see Mr.Wargas debate Pat Buchannan face to face. To label and libel someone as Mr. Wargas chooses to do is despicable but not unexpected.
I willingly enlisted in the sixties and chose Infantry as my PMOS. I am distressed that almost all prominent neocons avoided military service but are ready to send other people’s sons to war. Chicken hawks abound as do libelous screeds and the kiss ass commenters eager to please the owners of PJ Media.
You might be interested in knowing that I, too, oppose the Bush policy of pre-emptive war in the Middle East.
I’ve never “sent” any body’s “sons to war”–as you yourself admit you willingly enlisted. You sent yourself to war. I usually oppose war except for clear national security purposes or in extreme cases of stopping genocide. Does this all of a sudden make my opinions valid to you? Would you be happier if I enlisted and then got blown up so that your vulgar “chickenhawk” argument could be carried to its full logical extent? You make me sick.
If we’re so terrible here, why are you bothering with us?
I don’t go and comment on DemocraticUnderground, HuffPo, or DailyKOS, because I know it’s useless.
He just wants to play his military card because he’s used to everyone crumbling at his feet and apologizing when he does it. He uses his military service as a rhetorical trick; it’s sickening.
I apologize for nothing.
My late father was Navy and Naval Reserves till mandatory retirement. I even videotaped his retirement ceremony.
Even though I have a hidden disability, soon after I turned 18 I called the local Navy recruiter to see if there was any place in the service for me. There wasn’t.
Calling me chickenhawk is childish, immature, and something I’d expect to hear from someone who is not secure in themselves. Because I am secure in who I am, such insults just roll off my back.
Military people who call others chickenhawk betray their not-so-secret contempt for the same civilians whom they’re supposed to protect. This is akin to a cop expressing contempt for crime victims or community citizens and then claiming that those same citizens can’t criticize him back bc they’re not cops. I for one am glad I’m not so twisted and jaded as to have contempt for most Americans.
And of course, “neocon” is just another term for “Jooooooooooooooooo!” in these people’s lexicon, hence the commenter is displaying his own feelings.
Please always — always! — mention Comcast whenever commenting on MSNBC.
If just a small percentage of Comcast customers cancelled their cable connection because their monthly fees support Sharpton, Matthews, and the other lefties Comcast management might do something about it.
The worst part about his firing…he’s already showing up on Fox. At least at MSNBC he was bottled up on an unwatched network; now he’s free to spew on other channels again, channels people actually watch.