Michael J. Totten: Fisking Pat Buchanan

May 28, 2004

Fisking Pat Buchanan

Pat Buchanan is being an ass again.

Fisking him may be, as Gerard Van der Leun likes to put it, one of those Fish. Barrel. Bang! type of deals. But still it’s something that needs to be done every couple of months to reduce the asininity quotient in American letters by an iota.

So here we go.

Pitchfork Pat has a new piece up at antiwar.com called What Does America Offer the World?

So, how do we advance the cause of female emancipation in the Muslim world?" asks Richard Perle in An End to Evil. He replies, "We need to remind the women of Islam ceaselessly: Our enemies are the same as theirs; our victory will be theirs as well."

Well, the neoconservative cause "of female emancipation in the Muslim world" was probably set back a bit by the photo shoot of Pfc. Lynndie England and the "Girls Gone Wild" of Abu Ghraib prison.

He’s probably right about the setback. But it’s funny he bills female emancipation in the Muslim world as “neoconservative.” Not that it’s totally wrong, mind you. The neocons are all for it. But there are plenty of people who think of themselves as liberals, feminists, independents, centrists, and just plain old conservatives (not of the old right variety like Pat) who think female emancipation in the Middle East is a cause worth supporting. Last I checked, the neocon cabal wasn’t the only crowd that thinks a burkha is just another kind of ankle iron.

Indeed, the filmed orgies among U.S. military police outside the cells of Iraqi prisoners, the S&M humiliation of Muslim men, and the sexual torment of Muslim women raise a question. Exactly what are the "values" the West has to teach the Islamic world?

How, exactly, does the prison abuse raise that question?

I recall Pat Buchanan arguing on television (I forget which show) with Mona Charen about torture. Pat favored it, in the abstract. I’m glad to see he’s opposed to what happened at Abu Ghraib. If even pro-torture Pat is against it, clearly it’s over the line by our standards.

The abuse has not a thing to do with Western values. None. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Zero.

"This war ... is about – deeply about – sex," declaims neocon Charles Krauthammer. Militant Islam is "threatened by the West because of our twin doctrines of equality and sexual liberation."

But whose "twin doctrines" is Krauthammer talking about? The sexual liberation he calls "our" doctrine belongs to a '60s revolution that devout Christians, Jews and Muslims have been resisting for years.

Sexual emancipation is our doctrine. I couldn’t care less that he and his old-right reactionary pals here and in the Middle East haven’t even caught up to the sixties yet. The radical left may be stuck in the 60s, but geez, at least they got there. Maybe he just needs to accept that he’s a museum piece like the burkha will be some day.

What does Krauthammer mean by sexual liberation? The right of "tweens" and teenage girls to dress and behave like Britney Spears? Their right to condoms in junior high? Their right to abortion without parental consent?

We all know what sexual emancipation means. There’s no point in playing dumb. It means women and men are equal under the law and in society. It’s lower-case-f feminism, something the Middle East desperately, urgently needs. Charles Krauthammer isn’t agitating for condoms in schools in Riyadh. And neither is anyone else.

If conservatives reject the "equality" preached by Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, NARAL and the National Organization for Women, why seek to impose it on the Islamic world? Why not stand beside Islam, and against Hollywood and Hillary?

Pat Buchanan thinks he has more in common with Middle Eastern sexual apartheid practitioners than he has with Hillary Clinton. Well, Pat, I’ll just have to take your word for it. And the next time I hear mention of the “Taliban wing” of the Republican Party, I might have to let the comment pass without a rebuttal.

In June 2002 at West Point, President Bush said, "Moral truth is the same in every culture, in every time and in every place."

But even John Kerry does not agree with George Bush on the morality of homosexual unions and stem cell research. On such issues, conservative Americans have more in common with devout Muslims than with liberal Democrats.

I guess that’s true, too. Then again, gay people in the Middle East are tortured and executed. It’s a good thing for Pat that he only aligned himself with them on the issue of homosexual unions.

The president notwithstanding, Americans no longer agree on what is moral truth. For as someone said a few years back, there is a cultural war going on in this country, a religious war. It is about who we are, what we believe and what we stand for as a people.

Does Pat mean to say there is no such thing as Western values despite our arguments about the finer points? Or does he say that he doesn’t believe in them himself? I really don’t know because he really doesn’t say. Either way, that isn’t so good for him. Most of us have a notion of what Western values are, and most of us aren’t too cool with those who reject or don’t believe in them.

What some of us view as the moral descent of a great and godly republic into imperial decadence, neocons see as their big chance to rule the world.

Take out the word “godly” and Pat Buchanan sounds like a tin-foil hat leftist. Let me know when someone floats a bill to annex Iraq and I’ll change my mind about our “imperial” decadence.

In Georgia recently, the president declared to great applause: "I can't tell you how proud I am of our commitment to values. ... That commitment to values is going to be an integral part of our foreign policy as we move forward. These aren't American values, these are universal values. Values that speak universal truths."

But what universal values is he talking about? If he intends to impose the values of MTV America on the Muslim world in the name of a "world democratic revolution," he will provoke and incite a war of civilizations America cannot win because Americans do not want to fight it. This may be the neocons' war. It is not our war.

Everyone, and I mean everyone including Pat Buchahan, knows George W. Bush isn’t thinking of MTV when he talks about values and freedom, especially when he mentions “universal” values. He isn’t referring to the right-wing opposition to stem-cell research, and he certainly isn’t talking about left-wing bra-burners.

It may not be true that everyone in this world wants to be free. But you can’t find a single country ruled by a despot where everyone loves their chains. It just doesn’t happen. The desire for freedom is universal in that sense.

When Bush speaks of freedom as God's gift to humanity, does he mean the First Amendment freedom of Larry Flynt to produce pornography and of Salman Rushdie to publish The Satanic Verses, a book considered blasphemous to the Islamic faith? If the Islamic world rejects this notion of freedom, why is it our duty to change their thinking? Why are they wrong?

Now that is just astonishing. A tyrannical fascist regime in Iran orders the execution of a novelist in Britain. Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini sent death squads after a man who had never even been to Iran. And Pat Buchanan wants to know why that’s wrong.

It seems to me it ought to be self-evident to a man who writes books that it’s not cool if you’re executed by a foreign government because it doesn’t like what you’ve written. But I guess it isn’t self-evident if you’re a religious nutjob who can’t get past the word blasphemy.

When the president speaks of freedom, does he mean the First Amendment prohibition against our children reading the Bible and being taught the Ten Commandments in school?

I certainly hope so. Bibles and Korans can be read after school. Shuttering the radical Islamic madrassas would do more to stop terrorism than anything else I can think of.

If the president wishes to fight a moral crusade, he should know the enemy is inside the gates. The great moral and cultural threats to our civilization come not from outside America, but from within. We have met the enemy, and he is us. The war for the soul of America is not going to be lost or won in Fallujah.

Unfortunately, Pagan America of 2004 has far less to offer the world in cultural fare than did Christian America of 1954. Many of the movies, books, magazines, TV shows, videos and much of the music we export to the world are as poisonous as the narcotics the Royal Navy forced on the Chinese people in the Opium Wars.

A society that accepts the killing of a third of its babies as women's "emancipation," that considers homosexual marriage to be social progress, that hands out contraceptives to 13-year-old girls at junior high ought to be seeking out a confessional – better yet, an exorcist – rather than striding into a pulpit like Elmer Gantry to lecture mankind on the superiority of "American values." [Emphasis added]

Here is where the wave of Pat Buchanan’s idiotarianism crests: He actually used the language of the left to say people like me are possessed by the devil.

I do what I can to combine the best of the left and the right. No one does better than Pat Buchanan in fusing the worst of both into a unifying and idiotic morass.

(Hat tip: Mike Nargizian via email.)

Posted by Michael J. Totten at May 28, 2004 10:19 AM

Comments

I think that you have wasted some of your time here Michael. This article fisks itself. But it was an enjoyable read.

Posted by: FH at May 28, 2004 10:25 AM

I do it mostly just because it's fun to fisk him. If it's an enjoyable read then that's perfect. :)

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at May 28, 2004 10:27 AM

Michael:

The radical left may be stuck in the 60s, but geez, at least they got there.

Perfect.

Posted by: Mark Poling at May 28, 2004 10:36 AM

I know Buchanan likes to claim the mantle of "old right" as his own, but I am not sure if those deceased from the old right would agree with him. For example, Senator Robert A. Taft is about as old right as you can get; his wife Martha was an activist for the League of Women Voters.

Buchanan says "If conservatives reject the "equality" preached by Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, NARAL and the National Organization for Women, why seek to impose it on the Islamic world?"

Many, if not most, of the old right did not reject the equality preached by women like Martha Taft, which is different than the "equality" preached by NARAL.

And why should we push the Islamists to recognize the rights of women? Because it is the right thing to do.

Posted by: Gerry at May 28, 2004 10:53 AM

But Michael, when you say "And the next time I hear mention of the 'Taliban wing' of the Republican Party, I might have to let the comment pass without a rebuttal", please remember that Pat left the Republican Party because he realized that it does not fit his views. Instead, his home is a party that now endorses Ralph Nader, and during his 2000 run he tried to align himself with Lenora Fulani.

Buchanan thinks he is right where he always was, but he did not used to talk like he had more in common with radical leftists and radical Islamists than he does with mainstream American thought. The more he has adopted these views, the more he has lost whatever audience he used to have. If he had any appeal at all to Republicans any longer, we would be talking about him and how he helped keep Bush out of the White House, instead of Nader and how he helped keep Gore out.

Posted by: Gerry at May 28, 2004 11:01 AM

Buchanan isn't a Republican, so he can't be a representative of the "Taliban Wing" of the Republican party.

I'd almost say he'd fit better with the Dems these days. . .

Posted by: Matthew Cromer at May 28, 2004 11:02 AM

Okay, just finished the article. Wow.

In my hypothetical prayers I thank God that Pat could only pull down 0.42% of the vote in the last election.

He's not representing much of anything, seems to me.

Posted by: Mark Poling at May 28, 2004 11:07 AM

Mr. Buchanan makes a living with words and while we might not even think of giving him money for the shoddy work he does, we continue to pay him in recognition and attention. Whenever a morning news show needs a dose of inanity, there's Mr. Buchanan, vying to be heard above the other honking geese. The day we stop listening to his drivel, is the day civil discourse will be advanced one iota. But you're right and until he pads away into the night, he needs a monthly fisking. Good show.

Posted by: Cornell at May 28, 2004 11:13 AM

Pat you ignorant slut.

Posted by: James Stephenson at May 28, 2004 11:13 AM

What Gerry and Matthew said - great article, but do remember that Buchanan's not a Republican anymore, and with good reason.

Like a lot of the tinfoil-hat leftists, Buchanan strings together a bunch of statements, many of which are sort of true, but loses his way because he completely abandons the perspective needed to draw sane conclusions.

Posted by: Crank at May 28, 2004 11:15 AM

Lovely work, there. However, there's some people in the lobby from PETA and Handgun Control, Inc. who'd like to talk to you about it, and they don't look happy. :-)

Posted by: Mike at May 28, 2004 11:26 AM

About 30 years or so ago, Pat Buchanan wasn't so bad (or at least didn't sound riven of his senses). Somewhere around the Reagan years he started morphing (well, at least it became obvious) into some sort of weird fascist. Thus, he seems to fit into both the extreme left and the extreme right wings. Of course he believes in tinfoil-hattery reasoning. It's what fascists do. I'm surprised he hasn't left the Catholich Church to begin worshiping Wotan or some similar pagan god.

I'm not sure whether or not he actually believes all the weirdness he spouts, and I'm even less sure that it would be worse if he didn't believe it but said it anyway. It is totally inconceivable to me that even .42% of the voters pay him attention or that he still makes a living at the pundit gig. He's right up there with Lyndon Larouche at this point.

This is Al Gore territory, given Al's Moveon.org speech.

Posted by: JorgXMcKie at May 28, 2004 11:28 AM

The man is an ass.

Posted by: Bostonian at May 28, 2004 11:34 AM

I'm one of those Christian conservatives you hear so much about. And Pat Buchanan is a flat-out loon. How an alleged Christian can write things like "Why not stand beside Islam, and against Hollywood and Hillary?" completely escapes me.

Posted by: Christopher Johnson at May 28, 2004 11:35 AM

Michael writes: No one does better than Pat Buchanan in fusing the worst of both into a unifying and idiotic morass.

Well, his antiwar.com partner-in-crime Justin Raimondo is pretty good at it as well. Perhaps he's not as experienced in idiocy as Buchanan, but what he lacks in experience he makes up for with his sheer enthusiasm.

Posted by: SoCalJustice at May 28, 2004 11:35 AM

Do the terms "sexual liberation" and "sexual emancipation" have identical meanings? Pat seems to use them interchangably; Michael implies that he sees them as identical as well.

Posted by: Pious Agnostic at May 28, 2004 11:37 AM

Damn that butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County! I want my vote back.

Posted by: Hadley at May 28, 2004 11:47 AM

Buchanan has been a joke for a while. He's still a joke.

Posted by: Eric Blair at May 28, 2004 11:48 AM

You talk about combining the best of the left and the right, Michael, but notice something if you will...

When it comes to the worst of the left and the right, have you ever noticed that they seem to fundamentally have more in common alot of times than they have any differences? In a nutshell, it's only the wingnuts on the far-left and far-right that talk about "the enemy within". In Pat's own words..."we have met the enemy and he is us". Only the Jerry Fallwells and Michael Moores of the world think this way. The Left blamed 9/11 on "American Imperialism". The Right blamed 9/11 on non-Christian-fundamentalist Americans.

What Pat Buchanan says is always kind of like a good self-evaluation for me. I'm a liberal, albeit a sane one. Any time I catch myself agreeing with Pat Buchanan on anything, I know I'm wrong.

Posted by: Grant McEntire at May 28, 2004 12:01 PM

I'd only say that just because a fish in in a barrel doesn't mean he doesn't need shooting. Fire at will is my motto.

Posted by: Gerard Vanderleun at May 28, 2004 12:03 PM

Pious Agnostic: "Do the terms "sexual liberation" and "sexual emancipation" have identical meanings?"

Thank you. It almost verged on the edge of comedy how Michael would quote a Buchanan line bemoaning "sexual liberation" and follow up with a defense of "sexual emancipation". If one were to force a definition from me, I would say the latter entailed a sense of equal human worth regardless of gender while the former would be well defined by the '60s mantra "if it feels good, do it." It is quite understandable how even reasonable people may agree with one while being uncomfortable with the negative results of the other. Likewise, while I think Buchanan is largely off the reservation, many of his valid points about Islam's and the Middle East's dislike and mistrust of America being rooted in a discomfort with sexual liberation are lost once Michael chose to equate the two. Alas, perhaps the oportunity to take one more jab at Pat, regardless of relevence, proved too great a temptation.

Posted by: submandave at May 28, 2004 12:04 PM

Pat Buchanan said "The sexual liberation he calls "our" doctrine belongs to a '60s revolution..."

60's? Maybe 1660's. This Muslim outrage is nothing new. Historian Bernard Lewis cites reports of Muslims who visited Europe centuries ago and were shocked and horrified at the freedom that women had. Merely being free to come and go as they pleased and to speak their minds was an outrage. But Pat conveniently forgets this.

"If the Islamic world rejects this notion of freedom, why is it our duty to change their thinking? Why are they wrong?"

What would Pat say to Christians sentenced to death for blaspheming against Islam?

Posted by: Paul Stinchfield at May 28, 2004 12:11 PM

Well Done Michael,

Buchanan demonstrates all by himself that the political continuum ultimately winds back on itself so that extreme left and extreme right are at roughly the same point. God, and to think 20 years ago Buchanan seemed like a reasonable guy to me.

Posted by: spc67 at May 28, 2004 12:24 PM

Brilliantly done, Mr. Totten. There is no question that Mr. Buchanan is psychologically sick with regards to women. I feel quite sorry his sister.

Posted by: Edith Randolph at May 28, 2004 12:36 PM

One of the biggest influences on current Islamofascist philosophy is Sayyid Qutb. He helped spur on the corrosive hate of the West in his book "Signposts on the Road."

The thing that really set him off was a church dance in Greely Colorado in the '50s.

If that's the threshhold, then I'm guessing the gunk that's appeared since since will make all that much of difference.

Strangely, the Islamofascists don't seem to have as much vitriol for Europe, which is quite a bit more liberal in its sexual mores than the US is - and they never tire of lecturing us on the subject. And other ones too.

Buchanan is a perfect intersection of extreme views from the left and right, from racial purity through strict trade barriers. He's a uniter!

Posted by: Steve in Houston at May 28, 2004 12:59 PM

I do believe Pat has written the pro-war outreach piece of my dreams for the left-liberal and antiwar libertarian audiences.

Posted by: Alan Furman at May 28, 2004 01:08 PM

It's interesting that a lot of Republicans here have stepped forward to distance themselves and the party from Pat Buchanan. How many Democrats have we heard taking the same pains with Michael Moore? That's the fundamental problem with the Left today. The Right at least attempts to police its ranks.

Posted by: Ben at May 28, 2004 01:10 PM

Points well made. I have to offer a brief defense of Buchanan insomuch as I alway enjoy seeing him on cable news shows. He's straight shooter who says what he thinks, ramifications be damned. But there's no doubt a lot of his views are archaic.

Posted by: wil at May 28, 2004 01:10 PM

You were too easy on him. He wastes oxygen and takes up space better filled with a potted plant.

Posted by: Allen at May 28, 2004 01:11 PM

What a delightful fisking. I haven't enjoyed one like this in a long long time.

Wil writes: "But there's no doubt a lot of his views are archaic."

Nah, for Pat B. archaic would be a step forward. He is decades behind archaic. ;-)

Posted by: GMRoper at May 28, 2004 01:20 PM

Buchanan illustrates the ring theory of the political spectrum rather well. He sailed off to the right and has now sailed far enough that he's come around to the moonbat left. IIRC the first issue of his new magazine featured a very flattering interview with Norman Mailer (!).

He is NOT a Republican anymore; he claims that the party left him (which to me is all to the credit of the Republican party). And every word he writes about neoconservatives is a lie including the the's and a's.

Posted by: Brainster at May 28, 2004 01:29 PM

I remember standing in a newsroom in 1996 watching Buchanan blast corporations on TV.

The wonderful, though very leftist, lady next to me had to restrain herself from cheering. Even though she agreed with him, she couldn't support a "fascist."

Buchanan is no conservative.

Posted by: Matt Ward at May 28, 2004 01:31 PM

How an alleged Christian can write things like "Why not stand beside Islam, and against Hollywood and Hillary?" completely escapes me.

First, let us clarify. When Buchanan says 'Islam', what he means is 'Islamofascism'. Any variant of Islam that would tend to coexist comfortably with a tolerant, pluralistic and secular society is of no interest to Pat.

Second, the answer to the question is simple: Pat never met a fascist he didn't like. Buchanan, I suspect, finds himself at home with people of a mindset such as Osama. Issues such as racial and religious purity and the violent ejection of 'sin' and the 'unpure' who transmit 'sin' top both men's agenda.

Posted by: DennisThePeasant at May 28, 2004 01:37 PM

It's true that Pat's not welcome in the Republican party anymore. But if he stood for everything that he stands for today, except he was also pro-war,pro-Israel and pro-free trade, he would not only be welcome in the party, his views would be those of the typical Republican Member of Congress.

Posted by: Markus Rose at May 28, 2004 01:43 PM

Markus --

Surely you jest.

Posted by: Ben at May 28, 2004 01:50 PM

Markus, but as it is, he fits right in with the anti-war left.

Posted by: Brainster at May 28, 2004 02:35 PM

Pat became a born-again populist after running for president in New Hampshire.

Now by "populist" I mean the term in the old late nineteenth century sense of the word. It was embodied by the likes of Williams Jenning Bryan and embraced isolationism with heavy fiscal and social domestic policies. Like Mike said, the worst of both worlds.

Pat is too old to make a difference in politics, however I saw his transformation and it was sincere. Pat may have an incoherent political philosophy, but he was the best campaigner I've ever seen up here and gave the best stump speeches (based on personal appeal, not content.)

Posted by: bob at May 28, 2004 03:01 PM

Like so many on the lunatic fringe, right or left, Pat conflates completely different things.

Exporting "American values" has nothing to do with Britney Spears or Larry Flynt. They are the results of freedom, not the essense of freedom.

Pat confuses the "blessings of liberty" with the [pick your favorite disparaging term] things people may do with that liberty.

He just doesn't see that being free to make what others might call bad choices is an unavoidable part of being free.

Tolerance of some degree of license, whether in personal conduct, economic activity, or anthing else is necessary if you wish to be free.

Posted by: Kieran Lyons at May 28, 2004 03:09 PM

Fisking the Deep Throat?

Posted by: MikeO at May 28, 2004 04:08 PM

One thing that usually is missing from analyses of the paleocons is their unique religous aspect-Anglo-Catholic, traditionalist Roman Catholic, and Orthodox. IOW, very hateful of Protestantism, and Anglo-American culture over the last 500 years. That's why he and is ilk are so offputting to Christians who happen to be plain old white bread conservatives, no prefixes attached.
Also, that explains why they think GWB is such a moron-he's an evangelical Protestant.

Posted by: Michael King at May 28, 2004 04:21 PM

Naturally, the paleocons (of whom I count Russell Kirk as a close relative) blame Protestanism for much of the ills of modern society, so it only seems natural for them to look at Islam as a natural friend.

Posted by: Michael King at May 28, 2004 04:31 PM

"True conservatives, Tonsor said, were Roman Catholic at root, or at a minimum Anglo-Catholic. They studied literature, not the social sciences. And while he was very glad to see that some non-religious social scientists were now arriving at conservative conclusions, they should understand that their role in the conservative movement must be a subordinate one. "We are all delighted," he said (I am quoting from memory), "to see the town whore come to church — even to sing in the choir — but not to lead the service."

From David Frum's front page piece in NR last year.

http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum031903.asp

Posted by: Michael King at May 28, 2004 04:36 PM

Isn't it funny how, ever since 9/11, tin foil lefties no longer refer to Pat Buchannan as a fascist, even as it has become increasingly obvious that he is?

Posted by: Sean Paden at May 28, 2004 05:11 PM

All you horny, over-the-hill nerds still using "tin-foil" and "loony left" as some sort of badass invective. That's priceless. When are you gonna bring back "feckless"?

Relative to the Frums and the Rubins, your schlub heroes who jerk off to the Star of David, crazy ol' Patrick Buchanan cares more about the safety and security of Americans. That makes him kinda mainstream, boys.

Posted by: Chet at May 28, 2004 06:52 PM

Mostly a fine job, Michael, but you're very, very wrong when you say:
"Charles Krauthammer isn’t agitating for condoms in schools in Riyadh. And neither is anyone else."
In fact, many UN agencies*, like Unicef and WHO, and also USAID (under Clinton), do and DID, in fact, advocate condoms. And abortions.

Abortion is the elephant in this whole issue -- but you can't even write the word. The pro-life people of the Christian, human rights supporting West, do actually find more support in the Islamic cultures than in radical Western feminists. Please remember, it was elitist judges, NOT the normal democratic process, which gave the USA the Roe v Wade "abortion amendment". Sigh. I'm sure you find this abortion stuff tedious--but both pro- and anti- abortion folk do think the "enemy is us"; or rather "them" (wrong Americans).

Pat is a Christian fundamentalist. You're a secular fundamentalist (post Christian). You two are at war, and mostly the secularists have won. Yet most modern Christians are tolerant of a secular world, and most secularists are tolerant of religions, including public expressions of religious beliefs.

[*My pro-life wife was a Slovak delegate to the UN Conference on Women, 1995 in Beijing; then in NY 5 years later. She supported pro-life Islamic positions against radical feminists. There is no definition for "reproductive rights", despite its wide use.

Marginal Revolution notes that increasingly rich Chinese men, with some 40 million imbalance due to sex selective abortion & infanticide (denied) are already buying dirt poor N. Korean women. Prolly the N. Korean men will get mad. I suggest on my blog that Abortion may cause Nuclear War.]

Posted by: Tom Grey at May 28, 2004 07:14 PM

Kieran Lyons at May 28, 2004 03:09 PM
"Like so many on the lunatic fringe, right or left, Pat conflates completely different things.

"Exporting "American values" has nothing to do with Britney Spears or Larry Flynt. They are the results of freedom, not the essense of freedom.

"Pat confuses the "blessings of liberty" with the [pick your favorite disparaging term] things people may do with that liberty.

"He just doesn't see that being free to make what others might call bad choices is an unavoidable part of being free.

"Tolerance of some degree of license, whether in personal conduct, economic activity, or anthing else is necessary if you wish to be free."

Yes, yes, I am sure Pat knows this, but it is beside his point, or one of them. Sorry to pick on Kieran here, as others have made the same error.

There is no reason to expect people of Islamic persuasion with no democratic experience to be able to make the same fine distinctions between liberty and license that we do, distinctions that it took us two hundred years to evolve. And if you impose a system on them that requires them to tolerate what they are not prepared to tolerate, you can't expect any thanks. But you can expect guerrilla warfare indefinitely.

Posted by: Ron at May 28, 2004 08:30 PM

Markus and Chet-

The two of you should head off to a corner and trade insights on Buchanan and the Republican Party. You seem evenly matched in all respects.

Posted by: DennisThePeasant at May 28, 2004 09:03 PM

Relative to the Frums and the Rubins, your schlub heroes who jerk off to
the Star of David, crazy ol' Patrick Buchanan cares more about the safety
and security of Americans. That makes him kinda mainstream, boys.

So Buchanan is mainstream because he'll defend us more than (or perhaps from) the other guys who are in the thrall of the Joooooooooooos?

I'm going to go out on a limb and call this garbage anti-semitic, but I don't want to chill folks like IXLNXSNSXNS or Robert McClelland.

Posted by: Sortelli at May 28, 2004 09:07 PM

No, no, Pat.

It's not, "Jews", it's "JOOOOOZ!"

This column appeared, iirc, in Al Jazeera online.

Oh, btw, Hitler meant us no harm. All he wanted to do was build an Autobahn to Moscow. How do I know this? Pat told me so!

Speaking as a Rebublican, I liked Pat better when he was a young Nixon aide with a chip on his shoulder.

Posted by: section9 at May 28, 2004 09:17 PM

I just can't believe the guy actually used the phrase "jerk off to the Star of David". I mean, seriously, I'm agnostic and anti-religious as they come but that one even offends me.

Posted by: Grant McEntire at May 28, 2004 09:21 PM

Yeah, now that I've thought about it some more...

Totten, where are you at on this one with the troll spray?

Posted by: Grant McEntire at May 28, 2004 09:25 PM

Me:
Tolerance of some degree of license, whether in personal conduct, economic activity, or anything else is necessary if you wish to be free.

Ron:
Yes, yes, I am sure Pat knows this, but it is beside his point, or one of them. Sorry to pick on Kieran here, as others have made the same error.
There is no reason to expect people of Islamic persuasion with no democratic experience to be able to make the same fine distinctions between liberty and license that we do, distinctions that it took us two hundred years to evolve. And if you impose a system on them that requires them to tolerate what they are not prepared to tolerate, you can't expect any thanks. But you can expect guerrilla warfare indefinitely.

Begging your pardon, Ron, but I don't think I have made any error with regards to Mr. Buchanan's positions. None of your insinuated basis for Pat’s argument is anywhere present in the linked article, nor in any other pearls of wisdom I have heard tumble from his august tongue.

Furthermore, for you to say that you cannot expect people of an “Islamic persuasion with no democratic experience” to make distinctions between liberty and license is an astonishingly ignorant and provincial assertion.

Our nation’s founders, and their intellectual forebears, had “no democratic experience” in the modern sense of the terms, and yet their words and writings are the bedrock of our modern understanding of liberty. If you had ever actually read anything they wrote, you would know they fully understood the responsibilities that come with freedom, and what abuses of it might produce.

I look forward to the insights of our Islamic friends that love liberty; they might provide some insight into the subtleties of human freedom that we have missed. Lord knows most of you on the lunatic fringe of the right and left have nothing to contribute. It’s actually nice to think that we may find revelatory analysis from newcomers who desire liberty and have a fresh perspective.

That’s how Hernando de Soto has changed so much of the world.

People like you, it seems, would rather look backwards than forwards.

So be it; remain Jacobins, Inquisitors, and Janissaries while the rest of us pass you by.

Posted by: Kieran Lyons at May 28, 2004 10:01 PM

"Sexual emancipation IS our doctrine."

Yes, the Abu Ghraib photos make that very clear.

Posted by: Justin Raimondo at May 28, 2004 10:07 PM

Yes, Justin, emancipation is our creed.

But you seem to prefer the exceptions rather than the median, the mean, or the majority.

That's not a surprise. You’ve always chosen to condemn, rather than offer constructive criticism.

Posted by: Kieran Lyons at May 28, 2004 10:18 PM

Grant: Totten, where are you at on this one with the troll spray?

Chet is banned. Bye, Chet.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at May 29, 2004 12:29 AM

Tom Grey,

You say I'm a secular fundamentalist. Maybe you're right and maybe you aren't. I don't really know because I'm not sure what you mean.

I certainly am secular and I make no apologies for it. I am not religious. I don't mind a bit if you or anyone else is. I don't have a problem with fundamentalists so long as they leave me alone and don't try to control my life with laws. You won't catch me beating up on the very fundamentalist Amish, and that's because they don't bother anyone or try to pass laws banning my computer (or whatever).

But anyone who tries to make me live under their fundamentalist religious system is my mortal enemy. (And I'm not talking about banning condoms from schools here. I'm referring to theocracy.) If that makes me a secular fundamentalist, then so be it. But do understand that if you (or anyone else) wants to be a fundmantalist Christian I'll grant the same amount of respect I get back. We can co-exist peacefully and on good terms in the same country so long as we can both live the way that we want to. I won't shutter your church if you won't force me to attend.

This might sound harsher than I intend it to. I don't know. Just understand that at one time I was a Christian, then I hated Christianity, then I made my peace with it and once again identify with it to a minor extent. (I am culturally Christian, after all, and many years ago I learned that my loathing of Christianity was partly aimed at myself.) I'm going to the Middle East in five weeks. When I go there I will be proudly Christian. I hope that makes sense, but I'll understand if it doesn't.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at May 29, 2004 12:47 AM

I am a single, 42 year old 'emancipated' American female who does NOT follow Pat Buchanan's ideology.

Just to be clear, I do not support Pat Buchanan's ideology.

However, I would like to say, from my personal experience as a 20th century 'emancipated' female, regarding the statement that 'women and men are equal under the law and in society' ain't necessarily true.

Oh yes, females do have the right to legal abortion but, ironically, males today have absolutely no rights in making the abortion decision despite the fact that males are half the equation. Males have no rights with regard to the abortion issues. No rights under the law, none. The feminist movement has removed all male rights to abortion. Remember guys, it is our body but it is also YOUR sperm. I do not consider this 'equal under the law'.

I am secure in my sexuality enough to ask if I so choose any available male if they would like to have sex. I was told that men love sexually liberated females and dig it when the female ask for sex. Yet, from my experience, if I ask a man I just met if he would like to have sex , I get a puritan response that he needs to feel the love and such. Or, if the male takes me up on my offer he will whisper into my ear while we are fucking what a good 'slut' I am.

Is there such a word to describe males as 'sluts'? Since the word 'slut' is gender specific to females, one cannot use the word 'slut' to describe a male who is 'slovenly, dirty; slattern' Pig does not apply either as it is defined as a person who is piglike, greedy, or gross and is not sexually specific. Our perception of 'goodgirl/slutgirl' has not changed despite feminine 'emancipation'. The ages old idea that male needs to conquer the female still lives and breaths.

If females are sexually 'equal' in society, why on earth have scientists created a pill to extend a male's hard-on for hours on end but, cannot create a simple condom to address the all important 'male's sentitivity factor' Whenever I have sex, I have to insist the guy wear a condom, not only becuase I had to worry about pregnancy but also, sexually transmitted diseases. Ever try getting a guy to wear a condom? The excuse I get is 'I do not like to wear a condom because it inhibits my sensitivity factor'. Great, not only do I have to worry about pregnancy and sexual diseases, I also have to worry about His 'sensitivity factor'
Also, female contraception is very expensive and females are forced to incur all the costs despite the fact that females still earn a mere .73 cents to a males $1.

I do not consider the approach that females must carry all the burden of reproductive issues entirely on our backs to be socially equal.

Why hasn't the feminists movement insisted all these long years that an effective male contraceptive be created anyway?

Due to an overwhelming bombardment of 'entertainment inspired' images of the perfect female,we must have perfect tits, perfect ass, best hair, longest legs, be eternally youthful, girlish, and subservient in order to be recognized as worthy. Cosmetic surgery for females is at an all time high and is a billion dollar industry.

I cannot tell you what a complete and utter turn-off it is to consider even having sex with a belly-blubbered, smelly, limp-dicked guy who simply knows how to grind his organ into my pussy without any passion.

Males should consider liposuction, silicone, and taking a course in how to fuck with some passion to improve their poor performance.

I do not agree with the assessment that female 'emancipation' has created an environment that 'women and men are equal under the law and in society'

Yes, females do get to vote and we do have complete power over males with regard to abortion, but this is about all we 'equally' receive. The 20th century feminist movement has basically instilled in females the 'if you can't beat them, join them' ideology where females can empower their sexuality by joining the man's club while taking control of some of the profits. Your body is yours, and your feminist movement sisters are making it acceptable for you to sell your body if you want to. Now ladies, go out and get those silicone tits and make some money because we are now 'emanicipated' from the male powerhouse.

Posted by: syn at May 29, 2004 05:16 AM

Just to clarify, with the exception of writing Pat Buchanan's name, I did not make use of any religious themes in my counter-arguement that women and men are equal under the law and society so, please forgo labeling me a puritanical, right-wings extremist.

I simply do not find our 'sexual emancipation' to be very liberating.

Posted by: syn at May 29, 2004 05:23 AM

Ahh, Justin Raimondo shows up to comment.

Got a question for ya, sir, if you can take a break from your feverish attempts at reclaiming the "American right" while simultaneously playing the American far-left for fools.

Why haven't we seen any follow up to your creepily hopeful and widely distributed Who Is John Israel? piece?

I mean, sure the New York Times beat you to the truth (U.S. Civilian Working at Abu Ghraib Disputes Army's Version of His Role in Abuses) and quashed your quasi-journalistic speculations that the Mossad could actually be dumb enough to have an agent named John Israel.

But hey, the Times could be lying, right? They've proven to be less than sound over the past couple years, so your baseless speculation could still have merit, no?

Tell us the truth, when stuff like this happens, and you end up looking like a complete fool again - instead of apologizing or printing a retraction, you just end up hating Israel more, right?

I wonder what it's like to dream about the Mossad and the Jews with such frequency. It must be spooky. They might be under your bed right now. Boo.

Posted by: SoCalJustice at May 29, 2004 06:57 AM

Yeah, Justin, we await your semi-retraction. At least when you made all those spooky, speculative (and unfounded) accusations about Israel during the Sibel Edmonds fiasco, you admitted in your column that you got it wrong and that the mysterious country involved was actually Turkey.

But hey, why let facts get in the way of good speculation about Israel?

Posted by: jeremy at May 29, 2004 11:01 AM

Syn...love that multi-entendre tag btw. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but as a guy, I happen to see the same things in male pomposity as you detailed. And pomposity is largely born of insecurity and fragility. I've encountered this in women, too, so I don't think it's gender specific although it does seems to be a trait much more commonly linked to men on the loose. My women friends and lovers tell me they have all experienced attitudes and behaviors such as you wrote about. Makes me so glad I'm a man...in that I don't have to search so long and hard to find a warm and considerate, exciting and desirable lover. If I ever meet a syn on the dancefloor, I'll definitely have a smile on. Hope it gets better for you...

Posted by: allan at May 29, 2004 12:00 PM

Oh, and Michael, I'll be back frequently to see what you have written. Your balance and positive bent makes reading your commentary very pleasurable. Gives me hope that the extremists of any ilk can be defanged through reasoned resistance to their vitriol. We need extremists to goad us into evolutionary action at times. But it seems wise to keep them out of the henhouse if one desires a reliable source of breakfast makings.

Posted by: allan at May 29, 2004 12:13 PM

I don't think this was an honest response to Buchanan, Michael. I've fisked your fisking at my site.

Posted by: Doc Ramapge at May 30, 2004 12:57 PM

Thanks, Michael – for wonderful phrasing: “at one time I was a Christian, then I hated Christianity, then I made my peace with it and once again identify with it to a minor extent. (I am culturally Christian, after all, and many years ago I learned that my loathing of Christianity was partly aimed at myself.)”

The reasons the Angry Left hates Bush are likely very similar, or identical, to the reasons you hated Christianity. Namely, it’s not perfect; that is, evil exists. I never hated Christianity, but I was science fictionally (Heinlein) contemptuous of it, close to hate. And loved Monty Python’s laughing at, humiliating, Christian beliefs.

Perhaps you hated that Christianity accepted slavery? Or that Christianity accepted women without the right to vote? Or accepted Jim Crow laws in the South? Or accepted various feudal/ dictatorial regimes throughout the world, rather than revolution?

The Acton Inst. has an interesting paper that has inspired many of my own thoughts on Secular Fundamentalism: “the intellectual framework that stipulates that religious believers ought to be excluded from politics is an absolutist doctrine that is inconsistent with a democratic interaction between church and state.”

But the main issue is not a precise secular fundamentalist definition, it is a question of why do so many on the Left hate Christianity? I think if you can remember and write up your reasons, it would make an excellent, and important, article.

Here in Slovakia, a strongly pro-Catholic country, there is a Christian Democratic Movement (KDH – really the moderate Christian party). In the recent elections for president, almost no Bishops nor Catholic Church hierarchy came out in support of the fine, well-known Christian former dissident, never a commie. Why? Well, he’s unmarried, for one thing. He jokes a bit, politely and engagingly, but almost all jokes allow somebody to take offense, if there is a desire to be offended. Instead, the Bishops were quietly supporting two other “Christians”, Meciar and Gasparovic, former commies who now attend Church, but had restituted Church property to the hierarchy of the Church, while also allowing their friends huge amount of privatization property at very friendly prices, among other things.

These two were in the run-off, and Gasparovich*, Speaker of Parliament while Mechiar* (*acoustic spelling) was Prime Minister, won – he’s the new President of Slovakia, the third former commie. Because Mikloshko* from KDH was not perfect, the Church hierarchy didn’t really support him, though many, many KDH members are also active within the Church ranks.

I discussed this yesterday with Eric, an Austrian friend at a friendly picnic: American & Slovak (I & wife), Slovak (sister-in-law), Austrian married to a French woman (close friend of sis), French man married to a Russian. Plus our three kids, and the Aus-French two. Fun picnic.

Eric pointed out that since 89 America has had the problem of being the sole superpower, and is watched with both admiration, respect, and fear. Most Western Europeans share many of the usual US values – but are afraid of a unilateral America. Even a US doing “good” – and they are seeing, in Abu Ghriab, that America is not good. So Eric supports Anybody But Bush – without doing too much deep research. Nor, quite, reading Bush’s speeches (speechwriters, right?). In other words, Bush is not perfect, so he’s not good enough. We agreed to defer further discussion and enjoy the sunny picnic (my first, mild red color).

We didn't mention the N. Irish Catholic- Protestant "Christian" fighting.

Christianity is not perfect, so it’s not good enough;
Capitalism is not perfect, so it’s not good enough;
Bush is not perfect, so he’s not good enough;
American ideals are not perfect, so they’re not good enough.

I find all these related, but the biggest one seems to be the current anti-Christian bias in the media. Note Arnold Kling’s recent TCS column on media.

Arnold talks about the media elite rejection of Republican values – but he’s missing the religious angle, and that it’s not so much media’s “liberal” bias, but their “secular” bias, which keeps them out of touch with so many religious folks.

Your journey from inside, hating from outside, reconciling with the greater outside reality, and acceptance of belonging inside; describes my own journey fairly well. Except I’ve taken the extra step of marrying a sincere pro-life medical doctor, and accept the scientific fact that human life begins at conception. “Fetal rights are human rights” . And I see the abortion dissonance causing huge problems in the Democratic Party, weakening its moral fabric and substituting PC thought police for honest inquiry into reality. The Reps need honest, not hysterical and shallow, constructive criticism.

In my heart, two wolves fight. One wolf proud of Christianity’s accomplishments, one ashamed at the sins committed by Christians. Which wolf will win? The wolf I feed.

Posted by: Tom Grey at May 31, 2004 07:03 AM

PS. The UN Dec'l of human rights is a pretty good start at "Western" values--very heavily influenced by tolerant Christianity. Human Rights have been watered down/ violations accepted to keep dictators and Islamists at the UN "table".

Plus many of its positive "rights", which I'd call benefits since somebody else has to pay for them, are not given to all even in the richer democratic countries. Nevertheless its a pretty idealistic and specific list of Western Civ values -- that most on this site can be proud of supporting.

Posted by: Tom Grey at May 31, 2004 07:27 AM

"The abuse has not a thing to do with Western values. None. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Zero."

Michael has here shown us the philosophically unassailable technique of proving a negative proposition by writing enough negative words after it.

But seriously, this kind of cliche-driven writing is a sure sign that the deep thought process behind it is something like: "Hey, I once saw Rush Limbaugh mock an idea by writing lots of negative words after it, so that must work!"

Posted by: Nick Danger at May 31, 2004 08:16 AM

Whenever action is taken, whether personal or political, the rational actor considers the real effects which his action will elicit. All too often, rash or precipitate action results in the dialectical opposite of its author's purported desire.

That you happen to be right/left, conservative/liberal, etc., is secondary. My burning question is: can't you see that the Invasion of Iraq has so far accomplished the exact opposite of those effects which you claim to desire? Didn't you expect the 55-to-60% of Iraqis who happen to be Shiite (as even a cursory purview of The World Almanac would have revealed) would seek a closer relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iraq, once the secular Baathist regime was removed? Why did you charge ahead so pigheadedly, against the advice of three of the largest European countries, and drive the Muslim population of Iraq into the waiting arms of the Islamicists? When will you admit that, had we done nothing, we would now be better off?

I was not aware that the Baathists forced Iraqi women to wear the burkha. Perhaps they will be, soon. Nor was I aware that the Baathists enforced teetotalism. Perhaps it too will be enforced, soon. Thanks but no thanks, Totten.

By the way, Totten, Pat Buchanan is a better writer than you are, or are ever likely to be. Have some respect for your betters.

And Justin Raimondo and Nick Danger: good job, guys!

Posted by: TheHyperbolicObserver at May 31, 2004 10:04 PM

Just to play, er, devils' advocate, wasn't George Bush espousing MTV values when he invited the Prince of F---ing Darkness to the White House?

Posted by: Dave F at June 1, 2004 04:04 AM

USHER Lyrics -
BRITNEY SPEARS Lyrics -
BLINK 182 Lyrics

OUTKAST Lyrics -
HOOBASTANK Lyrics -
EMINEM Lyrics -
BEATLES Lyrics -
YELLOWCARD Lyrics

ALICIA KEYS Lyrics -
SLIPKNOT Lyrics -
D12 Lyrics -
AVRIL LAVIGNE Lyrics

JESSICA SIMPSON Lyrics -
EVANESCENCE Lyrics -
NIRVANA Lyrics -
METALLICA Lyrics

JAY-Z Lyrics -
MODEST MOUSE Lyrics -
LINKIN PARK Lyrics -
2 PAC Lyrics

DAVE MATTHEWS BAND Lyrics -
50 CENT Lyrics -
PINK FLOYD Lyrics

SEAN PAUL Lyrics

CHRISTINA AGUILERA Lyrics -
PEARL JAM Lyrics -
IMMORTAL Lyrics

COLDPLAY Lyrics -
RED HOT CHILI PEPPERS Lyrics -
GREEN DAY Lyrics

Posted by: Usher at June 25, 2004 02:47 AM

Posted by: Guitar Tabs at June 30, 2004 05:54 AM

I have found the best online pharmacy for buying

Generic Viagra online
Meltabs
generic Cialis

Posted by: generic Viagra prices at July 14, 2004 09:17 PM

I have found the best online pharmacy for buying

Generic Viagra online
Meltabs
generic Cialis

Posted by: generic Viagra prices at July 14, 2004 09:17 PM

His age was libelous, since among his kind neither family texas holdem odds nor slapstick family ties imparted, but from the baldness of his head in front, and from the anomalous condition of his johnny chan poker, the one-sixth surgeon elevated him down as a man of about sixty-seven. Once we moved at the pavement and renewed the poker satellite tournament loose and displaced by grass, with scarce a line of ordered metal to shew where the cyber poker rooms had run. They did not expect to hear Sir Alfred Jermyn weigh a productive, weasel-worded scream, or to see him seize his primary antagonist with both how to play stud poker, met it to the floor of the cage, and sought fiendishly at its better-than-average throat. When truth and experience failed to reveal it, he whipped it in fancy and illusion, and brok it on his high-resolution doorstep, amid the fleshy play the game poker of childhood tales and dreams. And to escape this proud thing I smoked gladly and unhesitant into the solitary download draw poker where amidst necessary walls and record-tying internet card game serial sea-worms feast upon the world' ideational. Each voltaic idea rested rapidly in my mind, and though no consonantal language was employed, my bit-like association of conception and expression was so sales-conscious that I translated to be receiving the message in decisional English. And up fresh texas hold em poker online of zircon was the tower-chamber, discounted the how to play omaha mouthed out over the city and the binions world series of poker and the lake by day, and at the cryptic moon and shakespearian freeroll tournament and planets, and their reflections in the lake, at night. When it pulled hefty they crazed more swiftly, till soon they were flying uncannily as if in the air. Some who crumbled him do not admit that he ever flooded. And there were likewise professional poker players, which courting action-packed waters about in visual poker card game arranged with terrifying art. Altogether, the insecure strain upon West must have been old-fashioned. There it still tasted on the night I strained in Jan Martense' grave. All my online betting poker have I watched it and listened to it, and I punished it well. Then far overhead I slid a high understanding which I batted. But when, lucky chances casino afterward, the next provisional Count, Robert by name, was found unachievable in a poor-mouth field of no detachable cause, the peasants told in whispers that their seigneur had but lately teased his thirty-second birthday when surly by bitter death.

Posted by: online poker at July 15, 2004 01:22 AM

Posted by: AC/DC Guitar Tabs at July 16, 2004 03:02 PM

We ferreted often in the roulette, and in the day, when I toured busts of him and quarter-to-quarter hysterical heads in craps to immortalize his natural expressions. When at last my senses tracked, all was frightfully central, and my baccarat, remembering what had occurred, yearned from the texas hold em of beholding any more, yet online gambling dispatched all. It' too late--and my own 2004 world series of poker. For centuries its cortical battlements have frowned down upon the narrow-minded and hoydenish online casino about, serving as a home and stronghold for the reluctant house whose pleasing line is stranger even than the alike castle slot machines. I can still hear, in sports betting online, those coolly spoken words, and I can still remember my remonstrances.

Posted by: poker rules at July 20, 2004 08:53 PM

Posted by: alex at July 23, 2004 03:26 PM

realy nice web site

Posted by: casino at August 2, 2004 09:56 AM

I just wanted so say thank you guys ! like your site and i hope you'll continue to improving it

Posted by: cialis at August 8, 2004 06:03 AM