Pat Buchanan says that George W. Bush's foolish policies led to this GOP massacre tonight, but he asks -- as well he should -- where are the Republicans who are blaming Bush's policies instead of merely faulting the man? Excerpt:
The country wishes to be rid of the Bush policies and the Bush presidency. But where does the Republican Party think Bush went wrong, other than to be asleep at the wheel during Katrina?The GOP needs to confront the truth: The failure of the Bush presidency lies not in a failed execution of policy but in the policies themselves and the neoconservative ideology that informed them.
Yet, still, the party remains in denial, refusing to come to terms with the causes of its misfortune. One expects they will be given the time and opportunity for reflection soon.
Well said. If the GOP makes Bush the scapegoat for its catastrophic failure, it will only delay its reckoning, and it's rebuilding.
UPDATE: A friend writes to point out that when Buchanan condemns "neoconservatives," he means Jews. I have gotten into the habit over the years of glossing over the word "neocons," because it's usually used by liberals who don't really know what they're talking about. Mind you, there really is a difference between neoconservatives and paleoconservatives, et alia, but the taxonomy of the Right means very little in general discourse. Most of the doctrines associated with the neocons are thoroughly mainstream on the Right. For all intents and purposes, neoconservatism is American conservatism, as it is actually lived and experienced in our political life. Following Buchanan's reasoning, it would be interesting to survey all the Republican members of Congress, and ask them how they would distinguish their kind of conservatism from what they consider to be neoconservatism. I bet not ten of them would know what to say (Daniel Larison is not in the House, is he?)
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"Yes, a lot of prominent neocons happen to be Jewish, but the policies have failed."
One of the most insightful critics of neo-conservatism, Paul Gottfried, is himself of Jewish descent. He's also a great dissector of liberalism and Marxism. IMO, all thinking conservatives need to read him.
Paleo-con Mark Henrie gave one of the better brief explanations of the difference between neo-cons and other conservatives that I've heard: neo-cons have made peace with modernity, the other conservatives have not. That makes a lot of sense.
Rod, did JPod e-mail? Bush is the first Neocon President and he's not Jewish. Traditional Republican foreign policy realism was thrown out the window with Bush. He followed the Neocon playbook and it has been a disaster.
Eisenhower left office warning the country about the military industrial complex. Nixon campaign on getting us out of Vietnam. Ford called the Iraq war a huge mistake. Reagan was attacked by Norman Podhoretz for selling out to the Russians. George H.W Bush refused to occupy Iraq recognizing it would be a disaster.
Go back to 1999 when Republicans stood proud against Clinton's little Kosovo war. But Insane McCain and Bill Kristol were leading the charge for boots on the ground. Expand the war.
Republicans would be wise to listen to Ron Paul. A foreign policy of non interventionism. Not isolationism, but a Humble foreign policy. You know, Junior Bush ran on it back in 2000.
I just keep looking at the map and thinking the odds were stacked even if the Democrats had nominated Spongebob Squarepants.
They did ... for VP.
The two Bushes did a number on Republican conservativism, it seems.
My natural father was Jewish and I was adopted at a young age. No, neocons had many Jews included but the neocons believed that the United States should take over the world. If you go to Wiki and search "PNAC" you will get the story. PNAC wanted an "event" to speed up the process for going into the middle east to control the oil. We got 9/11. I believe they had something to do with allowing 9/11. Also they wanted to steal middle east oil, which is why Wolfowitz slipped when he said Iraq was swimming on a sea of oil. He used WMD as a cover. Study Leo Strauss who taught Wolfowitz and was an atheistic neocon. Strauss taught that you keep the form of democracy bu lie to the masses. You can study him in Wiki as well.
Bottom line, the danger is still there with the neocons. They also want a pax americana, and their version is an endless conflict, not peace. They want to surround Russia, and they are a threat to the security of the entire world. Russia will strike with nukes if pushed. Don't be fooled, Sarah Palin is a neocon and Pat Buchanan is absolutely right that they are the war party. PNAC, Bill Krysol, Karl Rove, Wolfowitz, the Heritage Foundation and the Rand Corporation are all to be watched carefully. They could destroy the world.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.