Buchanan: Bush blew up GOP, but...

Nightstalker presents a case why Palin will gone down in a landslide in 2012.

Pat is precisely correct on this one. The Republican Party leadership refuses to admit its policy errors because it lacks the courage to even question the outcomes of a flawed governing philosophy: neoconservatism.

Also, what's wrong with the Republican party? Look at the recent passage of the bailout. Enough Republicans joined the bailout effort because of pork projects. So we have a big government party that likes to intervene both domestically and abroad and avoid cultural issues because it's not what the lefties want. So tell me: What's distinctive about the Republicans?

We need a conservative party that is distinctively traditional, federalist, and antiglobalist to emerge from the electoral carnage McCain is experiencing tonight. Until the Republican Party has this much needed debate, they will, barring some major scandal or catastrophe, cease to be relevant in the race for the White House.

I hope that this won't be perceived as insulting, but your friend is retailing a load of twaddle. Anyone who is minimally conversant with paleoconservative discourse, and does not already subscribe to the mentally primitive and Pavlovian reductionism, according to which the merest whiff of skepticism concerning the interventionist consensus in American foreign policy is tantamount to "waving the white flag of surrender", would acknowledge that "neoconservatism", in the mouth of a paleoconservative, means the doctrinaire embrace of a militaristic and interventionist foreign policy, globalization in economics and finance, and the cynical and manipulative deployment of social issues (which are used to mobilize the base, and nothing more, ever). Insofar as Israel figures in this, it does so not with respect to "the Jews" qua "the Jews", but with respect to a rejection of the neoconservative perception of an identity, or close correspondence, between the respective national interests of Israel and the United States. The equation of talk of "neoconservatives" with invidious talk of the Jews is merely a way of smuggling into the discussion the presupposition of this identity, so that it need never be defended, and critics can be dismissed as bigots. This is every bit as dishonest and despicable as the left's quick recourse to accusations of "homophobia" and intolerance whenever the subjects of marriage and sexual ethics are broached.

Or, more succinctly and specifically, where Israel is concerned, paleoconservatism is the conviction that, say, Bibi Netanyahu is a lunatic, that the infliction of collective punishment upon Lebanon for the actions of Hizbollah is unjust, and that, if Israel truly desires peace with the Palestinians, it's all about those third rails, the settlements.

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.

Uh, yeah, that's the problem. It's an utterly discredited ideology. I tend to agree that Buchanan has his problems with the Jews, but his use of neoconservative is perfectly legitimate, and it's been used by neocons like Irving Kristol himself. They were crowing about it after during the flush of 2003, so let them take the ignominy now.

A succesful ideology would have been able to make more gains. Even before the financial panic hit, the whiff of death was wafting off the McCain campaign.

"Meanwhile it's a damn rallying call for the entire Muslim wingnut world." But fortunately they aren't going to be listening today.

Pat,

I think a lot of liberals are a bit confused. Really, look at Clinton's foreign policy and compare it to both Bush's policy. It's the same moralizing intervention. The only difference you can point to is a question of competence.

Other Jim, I say BS.

It was Bush who was responsible for the twin delights of Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay as Speakers of the House?

It was Bush who cheered on the Club for Growth, the K Street Project and jeered at RINOs?

It was Bush who keeps alienating entire regions of the country with this "Real Americans" claptrap?

It was Bush who keeps confusing the term "people of faith" with "conservative/orthodox Christianity", snidely suggesting that all those progressives whose faith is a tremendous part of their political outlook are insincere liberal phonies?

It was Bush who politicizes and desecrates Jesus by linking His name to pro-death penalty, pro-gun, pro-war, pro-torture rhetoric, blithely calling peacemakers or whose calling for justice appeasers, unAmerican terrorist-sympathizers, and yet insists it represents Jesus and the culture of life?

It was Bush who blithely says that the family and friends of gay people who have the temerity to believe gays ought to be able to civilly marry are inherently part of the culture of death?

By all means, keep believing it is all about Bush. Don't think about what you good people have wrought.

I wake up pretty angry this morning, but not at Obama, or even necessarily at McCain. I am angry at Bush, and what he has wrought, mainly because his administration has completely wrecked what it means to be 'conservative.'
Faith-based programs are conservative? Let's see how you like them when they aren't run by a 'born-again Evangelical.'
Government-sponsored pharmaceutical drug coverage is conservative? In what universe?
War is conservative? Yeah, sure it is...and Wilson, FDR, Truman and Lyndon Johnson are also conservatives, right?
Domestic surveillance?
Bailouts of our largest financial institutions?
Forced governmental ownership of private firms (i.e. the TARP)?
Trillion dollar deficits?

None of these things are conservative by my definition. Yet many of them will be identified as such for years to come, and will surely be a cross to bear for anyone who calls themselves a conservative. Conservatism will be branded a failed ideology, when in fact, it was barely tried. This, of course, will lead to nonsense from people like David Frum, who will inform us that the best way for it to succeed is to abandon the Constitution, abandon the free market, and be soft core liberals. Truly, we will succeed when we rediscover what conservatism truly meant.

Peace be with you.

ps. The 'neocon' distinction is a vitally important one, and will help determine what the GOP looks like 8-12 years from now. Their history has been chronicled several times. Their primary concern is defining America's greatness almost purely by our ability to police the world (and by falsely denigrating their enemies as 'isolationists.') Historically, the movement was liberal-to-ambivalent with respect to domestic policy. Their conservative 'beliefs' in this arena serve as fig leaves allowing them entrance to the GOP. They believe in the free market in as much as it provides the necessary grist for the 'defense' mill.

"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.

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.

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.