The following Claremont Institute article is a well written, thought provoking piece discussing Pat Buchanan's divorce from the long-standing core principles of the Republican Party.
The Political Beliefs of Pat Buchanan
By Bruce Herschensohn
{Appeared in the October 26, 1999 edition of the San Diego Union-Tribune}
Since taking office, President Clinton and Vice President Gore have said they wanted to "reinvent government." Please don't. Thomas Jefferson's and James Madison's invention was good enough.
Pat Buchanan has said that he wants to "redefine conservatism." Please don't. William F. Buckley's and Ronald Reagan's definition was good enough.
Their definition did not include a weird reappraisal of the prelude to America's involvement in World War II. It did not strike down the poem of Emma Lazarus on the bronze plaque of the Statue of Liberty, with its invitation of legal immigration. It did not adapt the George McGovern campaign slogan, "Come Home, America." It did not limit our national interest to our borders alone, turning blind eyes to the slaughter of those who live under tyrannical governments throughout the world.
Conservatism was, and remains, a belief in liberty. Conservatism wanted and continues to want the United States to have the power and the ability to oppose those who have no regard for the will of their people. If, in fact, the national interest of the United States is to be confined to our nation's own borders alone, then what makes our foreign policy any more admirable than so many other governments of the world?
The 20th century is recognized by friend and foe the world over as the Century of America. Without us, it would be recorded as the Century of Nazism or the Century of Communism. If we should now draw the defensive line only at our own shores, then what will the 21st century be called? There isn't a chance, under those conditions that it will be called another Century of America.
Buchanan uses, and defends, the term "America First." Both Buchanan and I are old enough not simply to read about, but to remember, what "America First" meant prior to World War II. We were kids, but that memory is indelible. It did not simply mean our nation should take precedence. The purpose of that phrase was to advocate that we should ignore Hitler. Why adopt that discredited phrase, whose own authors later disowned it?
During the Cold War, I saw, close hand, the magnificent work that Pat Buchanan accomplished in the administrations of Presidents Nixon and Reagan. Nothing can take that away. But former Presidents Nixon and Reagan didn't change their philosophy when the Cold War was over. It is Buchanan who has changed his philosophy. He should have no expectation that his old allies will join him in that. Those allies, including this one, cannot be expected to endorse ideas they fought against. Nor should they be expected to give up their political party that has been so idealistic and successful in world affairs.
Republican conservatives are dedicated to the opposition of all forms of totalitarianism: communism, Nazism, fascism, Khomeinism, Saddamism, Milocevicism or any other force that opposes liberty. Buchanan often cites the advocacy of George Washington and other Founders rejecting foreign entanglements. We all would have rejected foreign entanglements in those days. Such isolationism was a prudential decision -- it was the best one available under the circumstances of nothing more complex than the geography and the technology of two centuries ago when very large oceans left us isolated.
But during the 20th century, America's objectives expanded because the barriers once created by oceans diminished. Now jets cross the oceans in hours. Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles can cross the oceans in minutes, and communications move across the oceans in milliseconds. These powerful facts mean that our national interest is affected deeply by events abroad.
I know that Buchanan believes his new book is being misinterpreted by those who haven't read it. But I read it. He is a masterful writer, conveying his beliefs to his readers with alacrity. To those who have read it and disagree with his conclusions, Buchanan has said that criticism is being leveled by those who feel he has hurt the Republican Party by his recent remarks regarding the party, and by his decision to pursue the Reform Party nomination announced yesterday. But the release of his book and his harsh statements regarding the Republican Party, as well as his decision yesterday, have all come about during the same short span of time, and can't help but be put together -- not one because of the other, but because one and the other were placed on the same calendar by his publisher, and by Buchanan, himself.
There is no joy in any of this.
I prefer to remember Pat Buchanan as the Republican conservative he was during the 1960s, and the 1970s, and the 1980s.
You did too grand a job in those days, Pat Buchanan, for me to reject those ideals for which you and millions of other Republican conservatives fought so hard to accomplish. You may want to redefine conservatism, but you can't. It is what it is. Just as I don't want the current president to attempt to reinvent government, I don't want any presidential aspirant to attempt to redefine conservatism. Although you have written your analysis of foreign policy, past, present, and future, Republican conservatives will continue to be a force for liberty as we see that objective to be right, quoting often those things you used to say.
Bruce Herschensohn is a Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute.
All pages copyright © 1999 The Claremont Institute
The Political Beliefs of Pat Buchanan
By Bruce Herschensohn
{Appeared in the October 26, 1999 edition of the San Diego Union-Tribune}
Since taking office, President Clinton and Vice President Gore have said they wanted to "reinvent government." Please don't. Thomas Jefferson's and James Madison's invention was good enough.
Pat Buchanan has said that he wants to "redefine conservatism." Please don't. William F. Buckley's and Ronald Reagan's definition was good enough.
Their definition did not include a weird reappraisal of the prelude to America's involvement in World War II. It did not strike down the poem of Emma Lazarus on the bronze plaque of the Statue of Liberty, with its invitation of legal immigration. It did not adapt the George McGovern campaign slogan, "Come Home, America." It did not limit our national interest to our borders alone, turning blind eyes to the slaughter of those who live under tyrannical governments throughout the world.
Conservatism was, and remains, a belief in liberty. Conservatism wanted and continues to want the United States to have the power and the ability to oppose those who have no regard for the will of their people. If, in fact, the national interest of the United States is to be confined to our nation's own borders alone, then what makes our foreign policy any more admirable than so many other governments of the world?
The 20th century is recognized by friend and foe the world over as the Century of America. Without us, it would be recorded as the Century of Nazism or the Century of Communism. If we should now draw the defensive line only at our own shores, then what will the 21st century be called? There isn't a chance, under those conditions that it will be called another Century of America.
Buchanan uses, and defends, the term "America First." Both Buchanan and I are old enough not simply to read about, but to remember, what "America First" meant prior to World War II. We were kids, but that memory is indelible. It did not simply mean our nation should take precedence. The purpose of that phrase was to advocate that we should ignore Hitler. Why adopt that discredited phrase, whose own authors later disowned it?
During the Cold War, I saw, close hand, the magnificent work that Pat Buchanan accomplished in the administrations of Presidents Nixon and Reagan. Nothing can take that away. But former Presidents Nixon and Reagan didn't change their philosophy when the Cold War was over. It is Buchanan who has changed his philosophy. He should have no expectation that his old allies will join him in that. Those allies, including this one, cannot be expected to endorse ideas they fought against. Nor should they be expected to give up their political party that has been so idealistic and successful in world affairs.
Republican conservatives are dedicated to the opposition of all forms of totalitarianism: communism, Nazism, fascism, Khomeinism, Saddamism, Milocevicism or any other force that opposes liberty. Buchanan often cites the advocacy of George Washington and other Founders rejecting foreign entanglements. We all would have rejected foreign entanglements in those days. Such isolationism was a prudential decision -- it was the best one available under the circumstances of nothing more complex than the geography and the technology of two centuries ago when very large oceans left us isolated.
But during the 20th century, America's objectives expanded because the barriers once created by oceans diminished. Now jets cross the oceans in hours. Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles can cross the oceans in minutes, and communications move across the oceans in milliseconds. These powerful facts mean that our national interest is affected deeply by events abroad.
I know that Buchanan believes his new book is being misinterpreted by those who haven't read it. But I read it. He is a masterful writer, conveying his beliefs to his readers with alacrity. To those who have read it and disagree with his conclusions, Buchanan has said that criticism is being leveled by those who feel he has hurt the Republican Party by his recent remarks regarding the party, and by his decision to pursue the Reform Party nomination announced yesterday. But the release of his book and his harsh statements regarding the Republican Party, as well as his decision yesterday, have all come about during the same short span of time, and can't help but be put together -- not one because of the other, but because one and the other were placed on the same calendar by his publisher, and by Buchanan, himself.
There is no joy in any of this.
I prefer to remember Pat Buchanan as the Republican conservative he was during the 1960s, and the 1970s, and the 1980s.
You did too grand a job in those days, Pat Buchanan, for me to reject those ideals for which you and millions of other Republican conservatives fought so hard to accomplish. You may want to redefine conservatism, but you can't. It is what it is. Just as I don't want the current president to attempt to reinvent government, I don't want any presidential aspirant to attempt to redefine conservatism. Although you have written your analysis of foreign policy, past, present, and future, Republican conservatives will continue to be a force for liberty as we see that objective to be right, quoting often those things you used to say.
Bruce Herschensohn is a Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute.
All pages copyright © 1999 The Claremont Institute
