Re: Unless you are not so serious about running for the US president, every guy (GOP or Dem) out there today competes fiercely to show he's most loyal to Israel than any other candidate.
Who doesn't?
Pitchfork Pat! (granted, he may not be THAT serious about running for the WH...)
Reexamining Pat Buchanan: The Right Candidate for Wrong Times
If you ask the average American what they think of Pat Buchanan, they'll probably dismiss him as "bigoted" or "anti-Semitic"-- the chief proponent of all that is Right Wing or reactionary.
But consider a statement like this: "What happened on September 11, 2001, was a direct consequence of an interventionist U.S. policy in an Islamic world where no threat to our vital interest justifies our massive involvement. We are a republic, not an empire. And until we restore the foreign policy urged upon us by our Founding Fathers-- of staying out of other nations' quarrels-- we shall know no end of war and no security or peace in our homeland."
That statement is a paragraph from Patrick Buchanan's 'Death of the West' (St. Martin's Press, 2002, pg. 242). And where most Americans assume Buchanan to be a hawkish conservative, he has in fact been critical of the Bush administration's action in Iraq. Buchanan demands an end to adventurist U.S. foreign policy, and his recent body of work reveals a deep disagreement with U.S. involvement in Eastern Europe, the Third World, the Middle East, and the Gulf.
How might this be possible, that Right Wing Pat Buchanan shares the concerns of the American Left about Iraq? Quite simply, he's an avowed patriot who worries for the long-term security of the United States and believes that preemptive military action, and a sprawling military deployment, violate founding tenets of the American republic.
San Francisco Herald publisher Gene Mahoney recently described Pat Buchanan as "the closest America has to a populist nowadays among presidential candidates." By that, Mahoney was referring to Buchanan's unlikely candor and forthrightness, his outspoken disregard for both Republican and Democratic Party politics. Indeed, in the wake of the tumultuous 2000 presidential election, and in light of West Palm Beach's confusing "Butterfly ballot," Buchanan had no qualms about editorializing to CNN's Larry King, "I don't doubt a number of those votes that were cast for me probably were intended for Vice President Gore."
Ironically, American politics has reached the staggering point where Buchanan and the American Left share a number of similar views on foreign policy. However, the Left abhors Buchanan's opposition to abortion and gay rights. And conversely, Buchanan is highly critical of both political correctness ("the most intolerant system of thought") and the nation's declining moral values. This places the two camps at bitter odds despite a shared disagreement with the Bush administration. Buchanan has also angered many in the media by publicly criticizing affirmative action, which he deems inherently discriminatory. Such outspoken views have led, in some quarters, to allegations of racism. That Buchanan's choice of running mate for the 2000 presidential election was a black woman, former schoolteacher Ezola Foster, seems to matter little to his detractors.
But disregarding domestic policy for a moment, there seems much Buchanan can offer the Left. Where protesters cry "No War," Buchanan calls for disengagement and the removal of U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia. And where activists strive to "End the Occupation," Buchanan advocates halting aid to Israel. Unlike the Left, Buchanan understands the importance of proffering concrete alternatives. Thus, if politics makes for strange bedfellows, then Buchanan's doctrine of nationalism suggests the more realistic approach to achieving their shared goals.
Buchanan is often derided as an "Isolationist," but it's a label he shrugs off as "a term of abuse intended to silence an adversary, end an argument, and stifle debate." Historian Wayne Cole gives a more historic perspective: "'Isolationism' was a pejorative term invented and applied to discredit policies that the United States had followed traditionally during the first one-hundred and forty years of its independent history" (University Press of America, 1995, pg. 2). Buchanan's "unilateral" agenda is more a policy of non-intervention, a continuous re-evaluation of "vital interests." As he declares in the preface to his 'A Republic, Not an Empire' (Regnery, 1999): "Present U.S. foreign policy, which commits America to go to war for scores of nations in regions where we have never fought before, is unsustainable. As we pile commitment upon commitment in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, the Middle East, and the Persian Gulf, American power continues to contract-- a sure formula for foreign policy disaster."
Below are some of Buchanan's major positions.
1. Foreign Policy. The United States, though currently suffering record budget deficits, provides military and economic assistance to dozens of countries worldwide. Buchanan asks, "For what reward?" NATO expansion into the former Soviet republics has earned Russian enmity, and has obligated the U.S. to intervene in historic feuds between regional enemies, even at the risk of open conflict. Though the Cold War has ended, the U.S. still maintains costly bases throughout Europe, providing defense for countries currently downsizing their own militaries. What vital interest is served by continued U.S. presence in Eastern Europe? Buchanan advocates a complete withdrawal of U.S. ground troops from Europe and Asia.
2. Israel. Buchanan notes in 'A Republic, Not an Empire' (pp. 382-83) that combined U.S. aid to Israel and Egypt reaches $5 billion annually, with Israel's longstanding occupation of Palestinian territory embroiling America in an interminable conflict. Buchanan demands an end to aid for Israel and Egypt as well as the formation of a demilitarized Palestinian state followed by limited delivery of military hardware considered essential to Israel's survival.
3. North Korea. In 'A Republic, Not an Empire,' Buchanan questions what vital U.S. interest is served by the continuance of 37,000 American troops stationed along the Korean DMZ. South Korea has made little effort to provide for its own defense, or to fully deploy its own troops. The larger question, as indicated by recent tensions with North Korea's leader Kim Jong-Il, is why an armed and belligerent North Korea should be more of a U.S. problem than a grave worry for neighboring superpowers Russia and China. In a January 7, 2003 article, Buchanan pithily wrote: "We should tell Seoul all U.S. troops will be out of Korea within two years. If Seoul wishes to play the hand with Pyongyang, let Seoul take the risks... no vital U.S. interest would be imperiled, so long as no U.S. troops are in South Korea. And no U.S. army should be sent to fight it. South Korea has 30 times the economy and twice the manpower of the North. It is past time Seoul took responsibility for her own defense. Moreover, withdrawal of U.S. forces from the peninsula would moot America's quarrel with the Communist North."
4. Immigration. In 'Death of the West,' Buchanan notes that 9/11 demonstrated the folly of an "open borders" policy. Due to lax immigration policies, "the enemies are already inside our gates." Current statistics show approximately 1 million new immigrants entering the country each year, along with half a million illegal aliens. Up to 11 million illegal aliens currently reside in the U.S. In 1999, the Clinton Labor Department estimated that 50% of real wage loss sustained by low-income Americans was due to immigration. The cost in economic resources of massive immigration, estimated at $80.4 billion in 1995 (National Bureau of Economic Research) is projected to rise to $108 billion by 2006 (Donald Huddle, Rice University). The situation now arises where America's overtaxed social services simply do not have the resources to handle an expanding urban plight. Polls show that most Americans favor a reduction in immigration. Buchanan advocates capping the annual quota at a maximum of 250,000 immigrants and strongly increasing border security, our military forces, and homeland defense. He also points out that bilingual education has failed in American schools. Due to simple economics, he seeks both recognition of "English as the official language of the American people" and an end to welfare benefits for illegal aliens.
5. Foreign Aid. On his 'American Cause' website, Buchanan notes that the U.S. spends $17 billion a year in foreign aid, with 25% of America's national debt traceable to foreign aid: "America needs a policy that phases out foreign aid and focuses instead on forgotten Americans here at home." One way to accomplish this is to cease funding the IMF and World Bank, which breed "a steady siphoning off of America's wealth." Buchanan believes the U.S. should enter into bilateral trade agreements that serve its best interests and reverse subsidized trade imbalances, most notably with China.
6. Iraq. In various books and articles, Buchanan argued that a war against Iraq would not be justified, and not in the best long-term interests of the United States. In 'A Republic, not an Empire' (1999), he stated: "As for Saddam, murderous though he may be, he is not a threat to America; should he use a weapon of mass destruction against U.S. forces, or smuggle one into our country, his destruction would be total-- and he knows it." In recent essays, before the invasion of Iraq, Buchanan wrote: "The United States intends to invade and occupy a nation that has not attacked us, to reshape its society, rebuild its government, and redirect its foreign policy to reflect American ideals and serve American interests" [March 3, 2003]; "George W. Bush intends to launch a war on an Iraq that has never threatened or attacked the United States... Let it be said: America has an inherent right to strike first to prevent imminent attack. Had we sighted that Japanese task force north of Hawaii, before Pearl Harbor, we would have been within our rights to attack it. But to declare a new U.S. strategic doctrine that mandates pre-emptive wars on any rival powers that seek to acquire weapons we already have was an act of hubris" [March 12]; "The world we knew has changed forever. Old institutions have been shaken, old alliances riven... Some will not be rebuilt or repaired in our lifetime. Interventionism appears to have bred the very isolation that the interventionists most feared" [March 19].
So what does Buchanan suggest in alternative? For starters, in 'A Republic, not an Empire,' he advocates less dependence on Middle East oil, with consequent oil conservation, an upping of domestic production, reconsideration of alternative power sources, and rapid development of emerging Russian oil reserves. Dual containment of Iran and Iraq has led to a stretching of U.S. military resources in the region and Buchanan observes bluntly that "the United States cannot police the Gulf forever." Presciently, he writes that "Saudi Arabia is less stable than in 1991. The presence of five thousand American troops and fifty thousand civilians there calls to mind the huge U.S. presence in Iran prior to the revolution, and is resented deeply enough by some Saudi radicals to justify in their eyes acts of terrorism... [A] revolution in Saudi Arabia would sweep away the West's position in the Gulf. But in preparing for such a catastrophe, the United States has some impressive resources. We still produce 40 percent of the oil we consume... [and] we have secure access to the oil fields of Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and West Africa, to our own Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and to limitless deposits of natural gas and coal which would come on stream in any run-up of oil prices to $40 a barrel." Recent decisions to remove U.S. ground forces from Saudi Arabia, and stop safeguarding the nebulous House of Saud, fall strongly in line with Buchanan's agenda. Following Iraq, he simply continues to argue what he has argued for years, namely, that the U.S. should not get involved in affairs not vital to the national interest. It's the same acidic commentary he offered during the first Gulf War, of which he states that he "did not believe Kuwait was vital to the United States or [that] the emir's regime was worth the life of a single marine."
Pat Buchanan presents a blunt worldview, one that recognizes an America facing a major crossroads. In the course of his writings, he hammers home the same theme again and again-- that America must disengage from outmoded alliances and protect its own interests; desperate times call for desperate measures. Recent partisanship at the United Nations, where post-Cold War self-interest has reared its ugly head among a variety of nations, suggests a new "Every man for himself" détente. In response, the U.S. must conserve its own resources. Whether the country's fate could be decided by internal dissension or external attack remains to be seen. But with the American foreign relations torn asunder by rancorous worldwide debate on Iraq, a common sense middle ground must be found. Buchanan represents a fascinating glimpse into what might save America, a man on the Right holding much in common with the Left. As Buchanan concludes in 'Death of the West': "the best way to avoid any attack on our nation or its armed forces is to get them out of harm's way, by disengaging the United States from ideological, religious, ethnic, historic, or territorial quarrels that are none of America's business."
sfherald.com |
