Patrick J Buchanan's most recent article, "Whitey Need Not Apply," is obviously meant to stir the political pot in this country--today.
Why?
I don't know! But I suspect that this man with perhaps an increasingly large following wants to run again someday.
Be that as it may, I'm reading him, I'm listening, I'm waiting for his next post and anxious to comment--because, clearly, he reads those comments, some of them, and digests them before writing his next article. We're talking sometimes one thousand comments.
Mr. Buchanan clearly is not politically correct, but not to the point that he is excluded from national television. However, the other day, he left the set of "Hardball" before Andrea Mitchell took his very seat there. Buchanan had been introduced by Mike Barnacle as "an all around good guy." I love Mike Barnacle, the father of many kids--I'm the oldest of ten in a large Catholic family. I'm not sure yet I love Patrick J. Buchanan, but I enjoy hearing his comments, readings his articles and thinking about his "alternative" to the status quo in domestic and foreign policy.
Back in 1991, when Buchanan was running, he came to speak in my home town. They gym was packed. Next to me, standing up in the highest seats, was a Harvard Ph.d and professor of political philosophy. I think we were both amazed at Buchanan's speech which had been introduced by a man who'd strongly and prominently (in our University) supported/worked for Wallace in his 1972 Campaign. At that time, I proudly wore a McGovern button.
Buchanan's friends seem to include Robert Novak, Sean Hannity and Dr. Michael Scheuer, the latter of whom is an "America-Firster."
Well, who isn't an "America-Firster"? According to the Scheuer book I'm familiar with, "Marching Toward Hell," our foreign policy under Clinton and Bush has not been "America First," not by a long shot. In fact, according to Dr. Scheuer, our foreign policy has been "an ally of Osama bin Laden." (Not an exact quote, perhaps, but close.)
My big question, today, is, Is this highly unorthodox view true?
When I read "The Weekly Standard," which is almost daily, I get the impression that "continuity" in our foreign policy, i.e., the status quo, is going to be a good thing. What I worry about is that Buchanan, Novak and Scheuer are on to something: The status quo needs to be re-examined, re-thought out. (Code: we need to rethink our "friendship" with Israel.)
Well, this ain't gonna happen in the way (not that I know the way) that the aforementioned trinity might want. I don't think.
My position is this: There has to be a "win-win" deal in the Steven Covey sense of the term. Some of the concerns of Dennis Ross, the negotiator par excellence, need to be taken into account. The issue of Jerusalem obviously needs to be taken into account. The issue of the Golan Heights needs to be taken into account. The concerns of Dr. Michael Scheuer, former CIA analyst in charge of the "bin Laden unit," need to be taken into account. I'm an Independent. I'm poor. I'd like to see an absence of "mushroom clouds" in the not too distant future. Scheuer's book waves a huge red flag about the issue of "unaccounted for" nukes. Read this book only if you have good anger-management skills. I don't. I had to put the book down for a while. (Bill Clinton, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.)
Folks say that Buchanan and Company are "anti-semites." If so, maybe he wasn't screened before sitting down on the set of a major cable news network with Alan Colmes and Fineman and many others who, if they truly believed he was "anti-semite" would refuse to be in the same building, much less on national TV with him. (Alan Colmes shook his hand; Barnacle and many, many others clearly like him because, he's a very likable fellow, albeit a very serious political thinker, writer, pundit, philosopher and patriot.)
My bottom line position for the purpose of this blog is that Buchanan may have a point; Robert Novak may have a point; Dr. Michael Scheuer may indeed, in "Marching Toward Hell," have a point about what does and what does not constitute our "national interest." Ron Paul, to name another, may have a point about the reckless spending in both domestic and foreign affairs.
But this peon is worried about whether his Social Security will be there and whether, if it is there, it will be adequate. True enough, I have other very small investments. But I'm worried about the future of this country--for my sake and for the sake of my twenty-three nieces and nephews and their children.
Senator Obama, apropos of nothing in particular: I like you and I like you a lot--in spite of the fact you are not pro-life. One of your books inspired even a "Weekly Standard" author to the point that he praised it for its literary merit. I suspect many thoughtful Republicans would like to vote for you. Their reasons would be myriad. Personally, I'm waiting for your debates with Senator McCain.
But Senator Obama: When Rudy Giuliani, another great American hero, says that we need "all of the above" in order to solve our energy crisis, meaning drilling, wind, solar, altenative fuels, conservation, electric cars, nuclear and clean coal--I, an independent voter, am listening and thinking, This is just plain common sense.
So, Senator Obama: You have a choice. You can talk about solutions that people like me view as plain common sense--or you can side with Pelosi and Company and their Ideologies.
Senator Obama: What is your choice?