RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Buchanan, Patrick. Where the Right Went Wrong.
We need to begin with what this book is not. It is not an attack on George W. Bush. Indeed, Buchanan, writing in 2004, ends with an eloquent testimony to Bush’s character. It is not even an attack on the war in Afghanistan, as Buchanan supported that. It does not even pin Iraq on W. directly. No, the fault is entirely with the neoconservatives (whom, for brevity, we shall label ‘neocons”).
Although the neocons’ failures are legion, Buchanan organizes them around several themes: war, immigration, China, and the economy. In some sense, these are all related, as they show by weakening America at home, the neocons enrich themselves via international organizations and markets.
War
Let us pretend for a moment, for I will not judge either way, that Iraq was a good idea. That is not the issue before the house, though. Rather, was Iraq a “conservative” idea? In other words, did previous conservative icons, notably Reagan, make the same arguments that the neocons made? The answer will always be ‘no.’ Therefore, the question before the house is this: does Bush’s rhetoric (e.g., America has a duty to impose democracy) reflect historic conservative thought? The answer will always be no.
Attacking neocons on this point is not anti-American. Indeed, it is upholding American sovereignty. Charles Krauthammer writes of a “new universalism” that “would require the conscious depreciation not only of American sovereignty but of the notion of sovereignty itself” (quoted in Buchanan, 12). There is a good reason conservatives have always seen neocons as ex-Communists.
The Axis of Evil
That Syria, Iran, and North Korea are brutal regimes, no one denies. That the world would be a better place if North Korea did not exist is a given. But Bush’s rhetoric marked a clear contrast from that of the man who actually nuked people: Truman. Truman never once threatened Stalin’s Russia with annihilation when they got the bomb.
Historically, “America’s wars were fought for America’s ends’ (Buchanan 20). For Bush, by contrast, “Our nation’s cause has always been larger than our nation’s defense.” In terms of history, at least up to World War II, this is simply nonsense. Even during the Cold War, Reagan engaged in containment, not pre-emptive strike. Vietnam and Korea are wild cards.
The War Party
“Neoconservatives,” Buchanan writes, “were the boat people of the McGovern revolution that was itself the political vehicle of the moral, social, and cultural revolutions of the 1960s” (37). In other words, “Conservatives were cradle anti-Communists. Neocons had the zeal of the convert” (39). The problem, though, is that the world ran out of Communist regimes (though why the neocons never called for an invasion of Cuba is beyond me). Fortunately, there were Muslims available. The Iraq invasion was planned in 1998, according to the Wolfowitz Memo (46). I do not have time to go into the memo, but it does explain the shift from candidate George W. Bush’s rhetoric to President Bush’s rhetoric.
Islam
As a civilization in the modern world, Islam simply cannot keep up. Islamic armies will never be able to invade the West anymore. Immigrants, however, can and are. And while Islamist nations certainly hate us, it is hard to say that they hate us for our freedoms. Maybe they do, but more plausible reasons are at hand.
Islam is only a threat because of terror and immigration. Whether fighting terror actually works is one thing; we know, in fact, that stopping illegal immigration does work. Are neocons in favor of that?
Economic Treason
Libertarianism says that tariffs shift the costs onto the consumer. History says that tariffs actually work. We have to be careful here, for it looks like we are arguing from correlation to causation. Nonetheless, Lincoln’s protectionist tariffs set America to be a rising power while Britain’s embrace of liberal markets foretold its doom.
Buchanan explains that free trade is never actually free. The costs are hidden under the trade deficits (169). Other costs are even more invisible. Like alcohol, Buchanan notes, free trade “saps [man] of his vitality and energy, then of his independence” (171).
Even worse, free trade works only when everyone plays by the same rules. But why should China play by those rules? Who will make them?
Neocons hate Southerners
Neocons hate paleocons (i.e., the original conservatives). But they really do not like Southern conservatives. Given their Communist background, this is not surprising. Before we get to some of the uglier rhetoric, we need to see why they hate traditional conservatives. It probably is not even a Southern thing. Rather, as Buchanan notes, “To neoconservatives obsessed with Iraq, such matters as abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, cloning, are but distractions. But to traditionalists, they go to the most fundamental matters of right and wrong and whether we shall remain one nation and one people” (225). That is not to say that neoconservatives support gay marriage and abortion (though many do). Only, that it distracts from going to the middle east.
But back to the South.
“Howard Dean wants the white trash vote” (Krauthammer Nov. 2003). Chris Caldwell has a little more decency: “The most profound clash between the South and everyone else is, of course, a cultural one. It arises from the Southern tradition of putting values–particularly Christian values–at the center of politics (Weekly Standard).
Fun experiment: Go look up what that paragon of virtue, David Brooks, said about gay marriage.
It is not only Southern conservatives. All patriots get the neocon axe. Bill Kristol writes, “If you read the last few issues of the Weekly Standard, it has much more in common with the liberal hawks than with traditional conservatives.” Of course, we knew it was always like that.
Conclusion
Buchanan wrote this over ten years before Trump. Everything he said, particularly the restructuring of the GOP, has come true. And it is almost entirely the neoconservatives’ fault. Good riddance.
We need to begin with what this book is not. It is not an attack on George W. Bush. Indeed, Buchanan, writing in 2004, ends with an eloquent testimony to Bush’s character. It is not even an attack on the war in Afghanistan, as Buchanan supported that. It does not even pin Iraq on W. directly. No, the fault is entirely with the neoconservatives (whom, for brevity, we shall label ‘neocons”).
Although the neocons’ failures are legion, Buchanan organizes them around several themes: war, immigration, China, and the economy. In some sense, these are all related, as they show by weakening America at home, the neocons enrich themselves via international organizations and markets.
War
Let us pretend for a moment, for I will not judge either way, that Iraq was a good idea. That is not the issue before the house, though. Rather, was Iraq a “conservative” idea? In other words, did previous conservative icons, notably Reagan, make the same arguments that the neocons made? The answer will always be ‘no.’ Therefore, the question before the house is this: does Bush’s rhetoric (e.g., America has a duty to impose democracy) reflect historic conservative thought? The answer will always be no.
Attacking neocons on this point is not anti-American. Indeed, it is upholding American sovereignty. Charles Krauthammer writes of a “new universalism” that “would require the conscious depreciation not only of American sovereignty but of the notion of sovereignty itself” (quoted in Buchanan, 12). There is a good reason conservatives have always seen neocons as ex-Communists.
The Axis of Evil
That Syria, Iran, and North Korea are brutal regimes, no one denies. That the world would be a better place if North Korea did not exist is a given. But Bush’s rhetoric marked a clear contrast from that of the man who actually nuked people: Truman. Truman never once threatened Stalin’s Russia with annihilation when they got the bomb.
Historically, “America’s wars were fought for America’s ends’ (Buchanan 20). For Bush, by contrast, “Our nation’s cause has always been larger than our nation’s defense.” In terms of history, at least up to World War II, this is simply nonsense. Even during the Cold War, Reagan engaged in containment, not pre-emptive strike. Vietnam and Korea are wild cards.
The War Party
“Neoconservatives,” Buchanan writes, “were the boat people of the McGovern revolution that was itself the political vehicle of the moral, social, and cultural revolutions of the 1960s” (37). In other words, “Conservatives were cradle anti-Communists. Neocons had the zeal of the convert” (39). The problem, though, is that the world ran out of Communist regimes (though why the neocons never called for an invasion of Cuba is beyond me). Fortunately, there were Muslims available. The Iraq invasion was planned in 1998, according to the Wolfowitz Memo (46). I do not have time to go into the memo, but it does explain the shift from candidate George W. Bush’s rhetoric to President Bush’s rhetoric.
Islam
As a civilization in the modern world, Islam simply cannot keep up. Islamic armies will never be able to invade the West anymore. Immigrants, however, can and are. And while Islamist nations certainly hate us, it is hard to say that they hate us for our freedoms. Maybe they do, but more plausible reasons are at hand.
Islam is only a threat because of terror and immigration. Whether fighting terror actually works is one thing; we know, in fact, that stopping illegal immigration does work. Are neocons in favor of that?
Economic Treason
Libertarianism says that tariffs shift the costs onto the consumer. History says that tariffs actually work. We have to be careful here, for it looks like we are arguing from correlation to causation. Nonetheless, Lincoln’s protectionist tariffs set America to be a rising power while Britain’s embrace of liberal markets foretold its doom.
Buchanan explains that free trade is never actually free. The costs are hidden under the trade deficits (169). Other costs are even more invisible. Like alcohol, Buchanan notes, free trade “saps [man] of his vitality and energy, then of his independence” (171).
Even worse, free trade works only when everyone plays by the same rules. But why should China play by those rules? Who will make them?
Neocons hate Southerners
Neocons hate paleocons (i.e., the original conservatives). But they really do not like Southern conservatives. Given their Communist background, this is not surprising. Before we get to some of the uglier rhetoric, we need to see why they hate traditional conservatives. It probably is not even a Southern thing. Rather, as Buchanan notes, “To neoconservatives obsessed with Iraq, such matters as abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, cloning, are but distractions. But to traditionalists, they go to the most fundamental matters of right and wrong and whether we shall remain one nation and one people” (225). That is not to say that neoconservatives support gay marriage and abortion (though many do). Only, that it distracts from going to the middle east.
But back to the South.
“Howard Dean wants the white trash vote” (Krauthammer Nov. 2003). Chris Caldwell has a little more decency: “The most profound clash between the South and everyone else is, of course, a cultural one. It arises from the Southern tradition of putting values–particularly Christian values–at the center of politics (Weekly Standard).
Fun experiment: Go look up what that paragon of virtue, David Brooks, said about gay marriage.
It is not only Southern conservatives. All patriots get the neocon axe. Bill Kristol writes, “If you read the last few issues of the Weekly Standard, it has much more in common with the liberal hawks than with traditional conservatives.” Of course, we knew it was always like that.
Conclusion
Buchanan wrote this over ten years before Trump. Everything he said, particularly the restructuring of the GOP, has come true. And it is almost entirely the neoconservatives’ fault. Good riddance.
