Face it Buchanan, America is Changing

November 21st, 2011 at 3:11 pm | 143 Comments |

| Print

In British tradition there is a one-line statement that announces the passing of a monarch:

“The King is dead. Long live the King.”

A political institution with a 1500 year history spanning war, conquest, and in several instances its own apparent extinction, can afford to take a little bad news in stride. The end of one reign is merely the dawn of the next. We, on the other hand, are seldom so stiff-lipped over the passing of an era.

Each generation of Americans seems to kvetch over their own morbid fantasy of our demise. During the ‘50’s the far-right fringe believed that the Communist juggernaut was “50-70% complete” with its conquest of America and Eisenhower was a conscious agent of the Soviet conspiracy.

In the ‘80’s we feared that the Japanese were going to dominate the world. Look how that turned out. Now some of us are convinced that a totalitarian third-world country that registers a GDP per capita less than the Dominican Republic is about to steal our thunder or that immigration, which has consistently enriched us is about to finish us off.

At the height of our power, we are running out of credible challengers to feed our favorite guilty obsession.

Pat Buchanan, is the latest in a string of commentators to announce the nation’s impending doom. The source of our demise this time around? Take your pick. Buchanan’s new book Suicide of a Superpower, blames America’s decline on just about every cultural innovation since the 16th Century.

He decries, in no particular order:

Vatican II, discrimination against white men, Muslims, birth control, the Pope’s failure to protect a Holocaust-denying bishop (it’s on pp.107-9), Martin Luther, Socialism, Commercialism, Global Capitalism, Secularism, Mexicans, blacks, desegregation, blacks who rape white women (p.243), diversity, free trade, black sororities, Chinese, the Voting Rights Act (pp.332-9), universities, “bigotry against white Christians,” immigrants, Republican efforts to win non-white votes (p.346), and, most of all, the “decline of the European Majority.”

Buchanan has created a comprehensive encyclopedia of terrors. Apparently he got tired before he could explain the dangers of spicy food and iPods. Expect an addendum.

America has always been radically secular and shockingly culturally diverse compared to standards of the contemporary world around it. At a time when European governments enforced one official state church as the only means to preserve civil order America tolerated an impossible diversity of belief. Congregationalists, Anabaptists, Baptists, Jews, Shakers, Quakers, Catholics, Episcopal, Presbyterians, Methodists, and frontier types with their own home-brewed factions came together in a frightening collection of faiths that could only coexist under a carefully secular government.

Buchanan insists that the only reason these folks were able to live together and build the greatest nation on Earth was that they all descended from the same Judeo-Christian heritage. Never mind, for a moment, that his history simply writes out of existence the contributions of a large percentage of Americans. The common European heritage he speaks of in such magical terms wasn’t nearly common enough to keep them from slaughtering each other without scruple in the old country. America has kept order for centuries by tolerating a shocking degree of cultural disorder.

The paranoid nativists warn that we are too culturally chaotic to survive. They are right. America dies over and over again in a thousand different ways, like the cells in your skin. The real test of a culture is not whether it dies, but whether it regenerates itself. What frightens these folks is our nerve-racking dynamism; our accelerating pace of reinvention.

We are in fact living through the end of white America. That “end” will be just as catastrophic as the end of Puritan American, the end of Colonial America, the end of White, Male Landowner America, the end of New England Whaling America, the end of Slaveholding America, the end of Rural America, the end of Pre-Industrial America, the end of Jim Crow America, the end of Industrial America and all of the other endings America has experienced in her short history.

In other words, we can be confident that this ending will be yet another in a jarring series of gateways to an ever freer, richer, and more powerful future. Such optimism may be out of step with the spirit of the moment, but it is still the most reasonable and sober expectation of what’s in store for us.

We are too independent to tolerate the claustrophobic, manufactured unity of a top-down cultural mandate. Conservatives may score a few short term points selling Buchanan’s white Tribalism, but in America the “culture warriors” of each new generation always lose. In the long run his vision is a blueprint for little more or less than Republican political failure. The nation, if necessary, will simply go on without us.

Our chaotic diversity, for all its many benefits, makes for a white-knuckled ride through history. Buckle up, because the next American Century will probably be even wilder than the last.

America is dead. Long live America.

Recent Posts by Chris Ladd



143 Comments so far ↓

  • Fart Carbuncle

    There will not be another American century, I’m afraid.

    Simply look at Mexico right now. It is a failed narco-state.

    “Mexico is moving north. Ethnically, linguistically and culturally, the verdict of 1848 is being over-turned. Will this Mexican nation within a nation advance the goals of the Constitution — to “insure domestic tranquility” and ‘make us a more perfect union’? Or have we imperiled our union?”

    “Historians will look back in stupor at 20th and 21st century Americans who believed the magnificent republic they inherited would be enriched by bringing in scores of millions from the failed states of the Third World.”

    Amen, brother Pat.

    • Ray_Harwick

      Get used to brown people, Fart/Fairy/snarg. You’ll keep a good digestion and whistle in your bath.

    • dugfromthearth

      How nice to term an unprovoked war of conquests as a “verdict” of 1848. It is always sad when those who have no morals and no interest in truth rant about the world and pretend that they are somehow superior.

      • Fart Carbuncle

        You need to move to Tiajuana. See how long you last under your future rulers.

      • jakester

        As I remember, that part of Mexico we grabbed was merely a vast tract of unsettled land that the Spaniards added to their Mexican royal colony centuries earlier.

        It was never part of pre-Columbian Mexico as well as the few Mexicans who did live there were granted American citizenship.

        As they say, we got the part that had all the good roads and shopping centers.

        • JimBob

          Very true Jake. The Mexicans asked people like Stephen Austin to come because the Spanish were being killed by the Indians. There were very few Mexicans in Texas. In fact there were very few Mexicans in the United States in 1970

        • Bingham

          A Constitutional Convention would solve our problems, wouldn’t it Jimbob? Just bring it.

        • Bingham

          No, Jim Bob. The Mexicans asked Steven Austin to visit because the Mexicans had developed spaceships by 1820 and they didn’t have anyone to work as janitors; so white Anglo-Saxons would have to fit the bill. Yeah, that’s it.

      • Bingham

        communist

    • Houndentenor

      No one could be surprised that smarg is cheering on fellow white supremacist Pat Buchanan. I tried giving Pat the benefit of the doubt for too long. I thought that surely he couldn’t really mean what it sounded like he was saying. The latest round shows that I should have trusted my gut. Yes, there are now people from different countries coming here. Different from the last round of immigrants. Those immigrants were also supposedly going to ruin America. Oddly enough Pat is descending from the Irish immigrants who were as feared and despised 100 years ago as today’s racists fear Hispanic and Asian immigrants. This too shall pass and people 100 years ago will wonder what all the fuss was about.

    • jorae

      Of course, the Republican answer to this, is to make the US a third world country too. Do you deny every policy the RWR have undertaken, seperates the haves from the have-nots?It’s your group that is pulling for this…no one else.

  • JimBob

    Very lightweight review. In the past people that came to America crossed oceans. The great wave from 1880-1920 There was no welfare state. You either fished or cut bait. Up to 40 percent of immigrants returned home. Now we have Mexicans running across the border to drop what’s known as an anchor baby. Automatic citizenship that qualifies for government assistance. All we’ve been doing is importing poverty. And the evidence is pretty clear. California once known as the Golden State is slowly collapsing.

    I haven’t read Buchanan’s book and I think he’s wrong on trade, but on foreign policy and immigration he’s right on the money.

    • Pavonis

      As a Californian, I have to correct you. California is not collapsing due to immigration; it is collapsing due to governmental dysfunction from abuse of direct democracy. Narrow ideological interests have written into our state constitution laws that prevent revenue from being raised without 2/3 of the legislature in favor. The GOP, as usual, blocks everything in their anti-tax extremism. Other initiatives mandate inflexible spending rules so money can’t be moved around to respond to changing conditions. Fix the government, and the state economy would be fundamentally sound.

      • JimBob

        No, out of control immigration is dooming California. Productive American are fleeing the state and they are being replaced by very poor people from south of the border with very little eduction. It’s not because taxes can’t be raised. California is spending too much and lets not forget Jerry Brown signed off on letting public employees unionize. Lifeguards make a six figure income. So do prison guards.

        • Marquis

          I am a lifeguard in California and most of my friends have to work 2 jobs to get by. The full-time lifeguards do make too much money, in our opinion, but the part -timers like us make as much (or as little) money as any other part-time employee in the public or private sector.

        • Crime Dog

          What’s dooming California is having to send money to the states in the South that are more concerned with honoring dead racist traitors than in building a good economy.

        • Bingham

          The problem is the f***ing hogs who don’t understand that Rolling Thunder ended a long time ago.

        • Primrose

          Two things. Lifeguards have a skill that is in limited supply. California has a lot of water to be watched. This is called supply and demand, a key dynamic of capitalism. Presumably you can’t get people to be prison guards if there are other job choices, thus why they earn a lot of money. Everyone loves capitalism until they have to pay out.

          Secondly, our immigration is simply returning to its natural state, outside of the naturally low limits it had in the middle of the 20th century. If immigration didn’t kill us then, why suddenly will it now? As this article points out, there will be change. Yes, that is America. I thought we all hated “old Europe”.

    • jakester

      Mexicans and their enablers always go on about how proud they are. Well if they are so proud of their wonderful culture, they should fix their own country, not sneak into ours and then demand affirmative action, bilingualism and special rules for them. Whatever we did to the American Indians in the past is not going to be rectified by allowing this current crop of illegals to over run us.

      • Ray_Harwick

        I’m guessing you’ve never taught English as a second language to people who *want* to learn it. One thing that the study of linguistics has never failed us on is that when people are trying to learn a new language, the one’s who have the greatest success in achieving that goal are the ones who were first taught in their *native* language. So, that’s what our school systems try to do all over the country – use a person’s native language as a bridge to learning English. It works. It even works with *native* Americans who are born deaf, for whom American sign language is their mother tongue. Indeed, the overwhelming evidence of success is the example of using ASL to teach English. We’re not talking about “foreigners” drifting into this country. We’re talking about people who were born in the same country their ancestors have occupied since the 17th century – the United States.

        • jakester

          Ray
          that is disingenuous. I have no problem with bilingual education, but when half the signs in the stores and every automated call system seems to be bilingual (Spanish)

        • Ray_Harwick

          Well, you should offer disclaimers. I’m not pretending to know less about bi-lingual issues. Indeed, I’ve cited what you’ve apparently dismissed as part of the entire debate on bilingualism. It’s not just about signage. It’s multi-dimensional and all of the dimensions matter.

        • jorae

          It is a problem…The illegals can’t read spanish…so, our teachers have to teach them how to read, so they can undersand how to connect dog, with spanish, then dog with english.

          Another problem is, they come from a back ground where the woman stays at home to raise children and cook means…perfect for a person to have children and apply for welfare.

          So, who’s fault is it? The husband who got the job in America who is illegal. He might work from his truck, with no boss…speading the word in his spanish community about his labor skills. Gets paid cash. But that community developed because an American owner hired him under the table…

          It’s too late now…so, try looking at them as the perfect male/femals couple, a moral family, that God always intended…that gets a little help from others…as God preaches we should do…because republicans never cared how the owners got richer….and added these rich contractors to their sheep of fools… LOL

        • Primrose

          That’s a business decision, the bi-lingual signs in stores, not a “special” rights situation.

        • Primrose

          You really don’t know what you are talking about Jorae. Getting welfare is very difficult and based on the whims of the bureaucrats. It only lasts 5 years, and if there is a working husband even more difficult.

          More importantly, most immigrant women do work, often in housecleaning, but also as migrant labor. This fantasy you have that the new immigrants are lazy and trying to milk the system simply doesn’t face the reality check.

    • djmeph

      My business partner came here illegally and dropped an “anchor baby”. She is a very successful fashion designer and is now starting a new talent incubator to help other fashion industry professionals start their own businesses, bringing both creative and manufacturing jobs to Detroit, as well as bringing money into our economy from outside of the US. What are you doing to create jobs?

    • Houndentenor

      BullSH*T! My father’s ancestors all immigrated to the US between 1870 and 1888. They came here for FREE land. In what was was that NOT a handout from the government. Yes, they worked hard on that land, but they never paid a penny for it, unlike the landlords they were paying to farm back in Sweden. Sorry, but this kind of willful ignorance of American history makes my blood boil. My mom’s family moves west during the same time also taking advantage of the land giveaways. Unfortunately we don’t have farmland to give away to poor people who are overcrowding parts of the US. We do it a different way now, but it’s the same idea.

  • Nanotek

    individualism and Republicanism are no kindred spirits

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9gSWZxtN1g

    after that speech, I left the Republican party

    • blueshark

      I think it sounded better in the original German.

      (OK, I stole that line, but it’s worth repeating)

  • Southern Populist

    The GOP gets 90% of its votes from White Americans, so the looming immolation of White America will lead to the death of the national GOP among other consequences.

    I say good riddance.

    • Fart Carbuncle

      Think Mexico and Liberia. Within America’s boundaries in about 40 years.

      And you’re rooting for this? Jeeezus.

      • Pavonis

        It is only due to a roll of God’s dice that you were born in America rather than in Mexico or Liberia. Now imagine if you were born in one of those countries. You’d want to come here, too.

        Of course any country must protect its stability through immigration controls. But immigrants improve their lives dramatically through immigration as well as adding enterprising workers into the system.

      • ConnerMcMaub

        I don’t understand the Liberia reference. Your explanation of the process that brings this about is missing. Are you saying that Mexicans and black people will replicate foreign political structures because of genetics? Also not all Spanish people come from Mexico.

      • Primrose

        Only if people like you refuse to accept them as Americans and try to create second-tier citizens. Most of the unpleasant effects of the changes in the 60′s came from the refusal to accept the change.

        Which is the point of this fine article. Change happens, stop pretending you can keep a culture preserved in a bottle.

    • dugfromthearth

      I have wondered if the GOP will not call for unification of Canada. While it would hate the compromises on guns and other issues necessary for such a unification – it would mean bringing in millions of additional whites. It would be interesting to see the GOP wrestling with continued white rule – if that white rule is not the radical right theology they espouse. Are they a party of race or ideology?

      • Fart Carbuncle

        Tell ya what…go to downtown East St. Louis on a Friday night, and you will be starkly introduced to race politics.

        • SerenityNow

          What a sleazy, racist, bigoted, sorry sack of scum thou art, M. Carbuncle. Your mother must be very proud. Your dad might be, too, if he knew of your sordid existence.

  • Pavonis

    Food for thought:

    The USA itself will die someday as well. Though it might live a while yet. The Roman state existed in some form for about two millennia (if you count Byzantium too). Just think about where the USA will be in 2000 years. I think the USA will either collapse due to resource depletion/global warming into a new dark age from which there is no escape – or will unite with the rest of mankind in a joint effort to preserve and expand human civilization in the Milky Way.

    Either way, our current civilization is not sustainable. The oil will run out so even if we wanted to, we couldn’t maintain our current system indefinitely.

    • mlindroo

      > The USA itself will die someday as well. Though it might live a while yet.
      > The Roman state existed in some form for about two millennia
      > (if you count Byzantium too).

      That’s a good point. A few years after the sack of Rome in 410 (the first time in eight centuries that the Eternal City had fallen to an enemy), Namatianus wrote a confident poem about Rome, “whose glory has ever shone the brighter for disaster, and who will rise once more in her might and confound her barbarian foes…”

      The Romans were small-c “conservatives” and for good reasons too! Their slowly changing political & judicial system and deep respect for tradition seemed justified for hundreds of years, until changing conditions inside as well as outside the borders of their vast empire gradually made it impossible for government to effectively address the problems.

      My main worry is the current political system just cannot deal with pressing issues such as e.g. entitlement reform or global warming, since it’s easy for a determined political minority to block reforms and consequently nothing gets done. Hence the same basic political system which worked well enough in the 20th century may no longer be up to the task.

      > our current civilization is not sustainable.
      > The oil will run out so even if we wanted to,
      > we couldn’t maintain our current system indefinitely.

      Well, new technology might save us … it’s difficult to tell but it has happened before. The dire “Limits to Growth” forecasts of the 1970s were proven wrong. We have more efficient farming methods and industrial processes today. For the same reason, I am not convinced dire Republican prediction of imminent social collapse due to demographic changes will happen in the end. Sure — the population is growing older who can estimate the social impact of further advances in medicine, robotics or nanotechnology?

      MARCU$

      • djmeph

        I agree, we will solve these problems and it seems like we would have solved a lot of them already if conservatives hadn’t stood in the way. (ie. stem cell research)

  • Graychin

    Good article.

    Pat Buchanan – opposing cultural change since the Culture Wars of the 1960s.

  • CautiousProgressive

    This article is good. I like it a lot.

    Kudos to Chris Ladd for showing wisdom.

    Every day I look at the roiling ethnic stew here in my laboratory building at Big Conservative University — and realize how hard working, smart, moral and *American* this amazingly diverse cohort is.

  • Frumplestiltskin

    Good article, as a parent of a mixed race household I welcome our increasing diversity and my kids are just as 100% American as any other kid, there is no part of them that is more “Asian” than there is part of them that is “European” and I thank God there is no chucklehead like Buchanan in my family because if anyone in my family disrespected my wife or kids there would have been hell to pay. But my Irish Catholic family has been very open and generous to my wife and treat our children the same as the others.

    We are not really though living through the end of White America, that dominant cultural ethos will be here for as long as I can foresee. But the ethos I am talking about is more the Northeastern variety (or California) and not the southern one (which has never been dominant)

  • Carney

    Aggressively hip, smirking adolescent “too cool to care” ism is not appropriate in a conservative site, and not a serious answer to the very grave issues of national cohesion, identity, and continuity Buchanan brings up.

    The fact that the vast majority of Americans could “pass” for descendants of the founding stock was a powerful psychological and practical enabler of assimilation and unity. That lesson has been over-learned and applied to new and irrelevant, inappropriate contexts. Not all trends continue forever. Assimilation, acculturation, and Americanization is not happening with this new and extremely different wave of immigration. The result will not be an endless upward trend of positivity (for which Ladd offers zero evidence or rationale short of airy hand-waving akin to late ancien regime obliviousness).

    Even David Frum, hardly a Buchanan type, points to the biggest immigrant group failing to succeed AS A GROUP (spare me inspiring unrepresentative anecdotes) even after THREE GENERATIONS here, a startling break from past patterns. But the so-called “reality based community” brooks no facts that challenge its strict egalitarian ideology, no dissent from its emotion-soaked, simplistic moralism on race. It’s as if the terms IQ and genes did not exist.

    • TerryF98

      Hmm! The “Founding Stock” were Native Americans!

    • Pavonis

      “founding stock”

      You mean Native Americans, right? Yeah, things were pretty hard when illegal immigrants arrived from Europe and proceeded to wipe out the original American culture. And the gall! These illegals lived off handouts when they first came.

      • Carney

        The first Europeans arriving here were NOT immigrants. There was NOTHING here to immigrate TO. No polity, no nation-state. Just a vast continent sized landmass, on which various Indian tribes (none of which had a faint inkling of its total geography or layout, or of the existence of any other tribes more than a certain distance away) eking out a subsistence living on this, perhaps the most bursting with wealth continent ever, often expelling or exterminating each other.

        Instead, the first Europeans arriving here (in this case the British) were SETTLERS, FOUNDERS. Once they set up colonies and then a nation, THEN there was something to immigrate to. Not before.

        • ottovbvs

          We should have stayed in the British Empire and kept out all those paddies, dagoes, greasers, wops, polacks, Ruskies, chinks, nips and other trash. Then we could be just like Canada.
          What’s so funny about Buchanan is that in the middle of 19th century his forbears were seen as a threat to society.

        • SerenityNow

          See “Blazing Saddles” to wit: “But we don’t want the Irish!”

        • djmeph

          The first settlers to arrive here were from Spain and Italy, not Britain. Our history goes back further than 1776.

        • ottovbvs

          Oh yeah…the first wop here was Columbus…did he have any jews with him? I’m being funny of course but how else does one respond to these (rather ugly) fruitcakes.

        • Kevin B

          When the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock (or so the story goes), they were met by native Americans, at least one of whom already spoke English.

    • Crime Dog

      I have a lot more in common with the Mexican-American who lives next door to me than the neo-Confederates with whom I share a race but not their desire to return to a time when they could hang people who didn’t look like them with impunity.

    • Primrose

      No most of the former immigrants could not pass for founding stock. This is the basic and fundamental flaw in your premise Carney. Italians do not look like the English, Dutch or French.

      Even Eastern Europeans were seen as outsiders. The exact same cries Buchannan made were made against them, and indeed against his Irish relatives. To marry Catholic was big, big deal.

      The second mistake is to assume founding stock were just white. Africans were here right alongside whites and were the founding stock of the South. Native Americans of course owned this country so they were here. But also, Latinos were here. In numbers. The Spanish influence was not simply in the West, but also Florida, even Tennessee.

      That they were ignored does not make them any less present.

      In the past, I had assumed that you were an older citizen, troubled by change, as one is. But you said you went to college in the 90’s which means you are younger than I am Carney. You never lived in the world you are yearning for. America was already changed by the 60’s, already changed by the new immigration wave by the time you were an adult.

      You think that everything was better in the past, but it wasn’t. As I’ve said before, most of white America was excluded from America. This is what people forget. Class and caste divided, and divided and divided.

      There was no greater sense of unity. I will also say that if there is a lack of unity, a lack of sense of being all in this together, it is not coming from the immigrants, or their children, or those younger than both of us Carney. My son and his classmates don’t see each other as separate, nor my daughter’s friends. The “lack of unity” is the refusal of others to accept change, people usually older than yourself.

      You want a more unified America? Don’t build a wall. Tear one down.

  • Carney

    Furthermore, the reduction of America’s current demographic majority group to minority status is constantly presented via wall to wall propaganda as inevitable and natural. Just become dispirited, lie down, and die America. Nothing you can do. Become a minority in your own homeland, hand control of your politics, culture, and way of life to others. Become the first people in history to voluntarily surrender its land, nation, and everything you love to others.

    But of course it is not inevitable. Immigration is not like the tides, and its opponents are not King Canute. Immigration is just another government policy, like tax rates, spending levels, regulation, you name it. Any decision made by one Congress and President can be undone by the next. Increased taxes can be cut. Cut spending can be raised. Immigration rates can be lowered, or halted, and previously permitted immigrants can be deported. Even new citizens can be induced to renounce their citizenship with sufficient incentive, which in the case of some with low IQs or other genetic red flags is worth it in the long run.

    Ignore the propaganda and act. The entire bipartisan political, business, religious, and ethnic lobby establishment was stopped dead in its tracks in 2007 by the core American people rising up to stop amnesty. Now the Republican field is desperately scrambling in competition over who is tougher on illegal immigration. A similar awakening on legal immigration can be imposed on our feckless political class with relative ease, especially in these tough economic times.

    Attrition through enforcement, states racing to out-tough each other to avoid being illegal magnets, comprehensive enforcement of employment verification, bank accounts, IDs, etc, and we will make life here impossible for illegals. We would allow them to leave once and never return. Legal immigrants who make trouble or become a “public charge” in violation of their promise can also get the boot.

    • ottovbvs

      “Legal immigrants who make trouble or become a “public charge” in violation of their promise can also get the boot.”

      Poor little Carney (with a name like that he has to come from the Irish bogs) is under attack in his own land. I’m bound to say Carney in the long chronicle of your inanities this is definitely a prize winner. What makes it doubly funny is that these folks like Carney are violent nationalists and they are blissfully unaware of the simple fact that one of the long term keys to us holding onto great power status is population growth and that growth is largely dependent on both immigration and the higher birthrates amongst those he’s anxious to send home. What a laugh.

      • Carney

        The fact that the Irish were looked on askance at our arrival is totally irrelevant to the current situation. Whatever rebuffs my ancestors suffered imposes ZERO obligation on me to open the flood gates to the Third World.

        Indeed, we were quite a handful to assimilate. We brought in huge slums, labor problems, riots, crime, political corruption on an unprecedented scale, major distortions in foreign policy, and rampant contagious disease. All that despite being physically all but indistinguishable, genetically very closely related, from the same corner of Europe, etc., assimilating us took a century of painful intense effort. The second wave, the southern and eastern Europeans, were even more difficult to assimilate. This is NOT a reason for careless insouciance about the prospects of millions from far more exotic shores to assimilate AS A GROUP.

        • ottovbvs

          “Indeed, we were quite a handful to assimilate. We brought in huge slums, labor problems, riots, crime, political corruption on an unprecedented scale, major distortions in foreign policy, and rampant contagious disease.”

          Yeah you were a pain the ass but the end result was the creation of an immensely stronger polity. What you’re denying is that process can work again, it was unique to the Irish apparently. And actually the assimilation of Italians, Poles, German was considerably easier than assimilation of the Irish. You’re also failing to recognize that demography is as I pointed out a key to remaining a great power.

    • Southern Populist

      The problem is that contemporary White Americans have an appetite for self-destruction that other ethnic groups simply do have. No other ethnic group would voluntarily surrender power as White Americans are presently doing. Buchanan calls it ethno-masochism. White Americans, most of them anyway, are so eaten up with false guilt and consumed with self-hate there is little that can be done at present to alter the situation even if change is theoretically possible.

      • ottovbvs

        “White Americans, most of them anyway, are so eaten up with false guilt and consumed with self-hate ”

        Some of them? Maybe. Most to them? Balls

      • Traveler

        Yeah, its known as democracy. You know, one man, one vote? not 3/5s…

        Voluntarily surrendering power my ass. DSP, you are all over the map some times.

      • Houndentenor

        The problem is that Buchanan (and obviously you too) doesn’t consider non-whites to be true Americans. It’s for this reason that he and other racists latched on to the idea that Obama was not born in the US. He’s not white, and therefore not a “real” American and consequently unworthy of the Office of the President. It makes decent people want to puke. Most of us work, go to school and socialize with people whose grandparents were not born in the same country, perhaps not even the same continent, as ours. We share and learn. There is no danger in this except from racist lunatics.

      • Marquis

        There is no such thing as this behemoth you call WHITE AMERICA. White Americans – that is Americans of European descent, or Caucasian-Americans – currently make up about 75% of the population. Most identify as Christian, but that could mean Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, Mainline Protestant, Evangelical, Mormon, Maronite, or Coptic. Politically, they are Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Greens, socialists, libertarians, or just don’t care. A White American may be a Romano from New York who roots for the Yankees, or a Sullivan from Boston who roots for the Red Sox. A White American could be a Norwegian who grew up in the Midwest playing baseball and eating apple pie, or a Southern Scots-Irish girl who loves her SEC football. A White American could even be the Cali surfer who counts among his relatives a Mexican Dominguez or a Korean Park. My point is that White Americans come in all different flavors….there is no massive, tribal body that says “OK White America, let’s do this!”

    • Oldskool

      “Even new citizens can be induced to renounce their citizenship with sufficient incentive, which in the case of some with low IQs or other genetic red flags is worth it in the long run.”

      Ya know, we could also give certain native-born lowbrows incentives too.

      • LauraNo

        Eviction panels? Who gets to be on them? The real Americans I suppose? I might be able to go along with some kind of IQ qualification. Image our country without the Palins and Perrys!

    • kuri3460

      Carney, if could jump into a time machine and go back 100 years, you’d find a lot of people who agreed with you, except they’d say “Catholics” or “Eastern Europeans” where you say “Mexicans”.

      Unless you can trace 100% of your ancestry to the original Protestant settlers from Western Europe, it’s a near certainty that several of your American ancesters experienced the same kind of animosity and loathing that Mexicans and Muslims face today.

    • think4yourself

      @ Carney: “Furthermore, the reduction of America’s current demographic majority group to minority status is constantly presented via wall to wall propaganda as inevitable and natural. Just become dispirited, lie down, and die America.”

      Just to make sure I understand what you are saying here: America’s current demographic majority group is White. Any change to that status means America dies. Therefore America is really only for white people. Cause that’s what I’m hearing.

      If that is your belief, then yes, this is the apocalypse. America can only be America if it’s White. Funny, I don’t even think that Supreme Court Justices, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, et al would agree with that.

      America is about a collection of ideas that all men were created equal.

  • Ridge

    First time I have agreed totally with an article here.

    The cultural warriors, current and past, have been wrong for centuries. “No Irish need apply” was said about Pat’s Papist ancestors and the mongrol Southern Europeans (dark complexion) with their strange ways was going to ruin it for the rest of us English Prot settler stock. And don’t get me started on the Yellow Menace. Now we have those damn Canandians coming down here and taking our conservative political jobs and blogging space; its the end I tell ya. This used to be a good country and I’d move to Costa Rica except for the Spics.

    R

    • shinnok

      +1 Ridge.

      It’s very convenient to forget the sting of “No Irish need apply” a hundred years latter and when your on top.

  • ottovbvs

    The other think these guys conveniently forget is that until the 1830/40′s California, Texas and great swathes of the SW were Mexican.

    • roubaix

      Ralph Nader interviewed Buchanan for CSPAN’s After Words and the subject did come up.

  • Nanotek

    “America’s current demographic majority group…”

    if there are equal rights, there is no problem

  • Southern Populist

    Multi-racialism is going to destroy this country. The question is when not if.

    And there are liberal intellectuals who agree with this position, or one close to it.

    Google:

    Who are We: The Challenges to America’s National Identity by Samuel Huntington.

    The Disuniting of America by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.

    • ottovbvs

      Would you like to provide us a link to where Art Schlesinger said multiculturalism was going to destroy the country? Since he was one of the pillars of the Kennedy/Johnson civil rights movement and I’ve read him reasonably extensively I find this a trifle hard to believe. As best I recall the theme of the book you refer to was the dangers of an over obsessive focus on ethnic differences by minorities. He was simply attacking Buchananism with a black, brown or yellow face.

      Huntington on the other hand is a classic right wing paranoid and the author of the classic clash of civilisations aka the clash of stupidities

      • jakester

        Of course, clashes of civilizations never happened in the past.

      • Southern Populist

        The book is almost 20 years old, so there are no links readily available, but you can pull down summaries from Amazon and elsewhere on the Interwebs. The theme of the book is that polyglot nations fail.

        • ottovbvs

          So you mean you haven’t actually got any support for your claim? I vaguely remember reading it and have probably still got it somewhere amongst over 3000 books in my my library but I’m not going to bother searching since I’m sure my broad recollection is correct that it was an attack on the obsessive focus on minority status of the sort promoted by Cornell Wilde also known as Buchananism with a black, brown or yellow face. In fact you’re confirming just that when you suggest the theme of the book was the failure of polyglot nations. I can’t imagine anything being further from the ideas being promoted by Buchanan who excoriates the melting pot while Art Schlesinger celebrated it.

        • Southern Populist

          Here’s the summary from Amazon:

          [blockquote]
          The classic image of the American nation — a melting pot in which differences of race, wealth, religion, and nationality are submerged in democracy — is being replaced by an orthodoxy that celebrates difference and abandons assimilation. While this upsurge in ethnic awareness has had many healthy consequences in a nation shamed by a history of prejudice, the cult of ethnicity, if pressed too far, threatens to fragment American society to a dangerous degree. Two-time Pulitzer Prize winner in history and adviser to the Kennedy and other administrations, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., is uniquely positioned to wave the caution flag in the race to a politics of identity. Using a broader canvas in this updated and expanded edition, he examines the international dimension and the lessons of one polyglot country after another tearing itself apart or on the brink of doing so: among them the former Yugoslavia, Nigeria, even Canada. Closer to home, he finds troubling new evidence that multiculturalism gone awry here in the United States threatens to do the same.[/blockquote]

        • ottovbvs

          “Here’s the summary from Amazon:”

          Which confirms my memory was correct!

        • PST

          There is a line about Buchanan in Schlesinger’s journals at page 742: “I do like old Pat, reprehensible as his views generally are.”

          The cited book, The Disuniting of America, is not well characterized by the summary quoted from Amazon. Writing in around 1990, Schlesinger did see danger in identity politics, especially as practiced on university campuses, but he also emphasized repeatedly the dangers of what he described as monoculturalism. He warned against the trend he saw developing, but was optimistic throughout that the usual American pattern of assimilation would prevail, and noted especially that love and marriage constantly overcome ethnic particularism. His epilogue calls the right’s version of political correctness more dangerous than the left’s, and points out that one reason to suppress the urge to ban so-called hate speech, for example, is that “the right can turn out far larger crowds for monoculturalism than the left can for multiculturalism.” Today the pendulum Schlesinger worried about is quite obviously swinging the other way, and if he were writing now, he would see the danger he addressed in this book as mostly passed, while worrying about Tea Party populism and Buchananism.

        • movieland

          @ Southern Populist – The great part of the Internet is that one can check sources. Yes, you quoted Amazon correctly…as it quoted the Wall Street Journal. You would have been better to have stated that your quote was from the WSJ. A more complete and nuanced assessment of the book, for anyone who has not read it, can be discerned from reading the other reviews of the book at Amazon, or elsewhere. I think PST might be closer to the tenor of the other reviews. Though, that would be for others to check.

        • Southern Populist

          @movieland:

          I don’t think you are right about that.

          Here is the full quote:

          ===

          The classic image of the American nation — a melting pot in which differences of race, wealth, religion, and nationality are submerged in democracy — is being replaced by an orthodoxy that celebrates difference and abandons assimilation. While this upsurge in ethnic awareness has had many healthy consequences in a nation shamed by a history of prejudice, the cult of ethnicity, if pressed too far, threatens to fragment American society to a dangerous degree. Two-time Pulitzer Prize winner in history and adviser to the Kennedy and other administrations, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., is uniquely positioned to wave the caution flag in the race to a politics of identity. Using a broader canvas in this updated and expanded edition, he examines the international dimension and the lessons of one polyglot country after another tearing itself apart or on the brink of doing so: among them the former Yugoslavia, Nigeria, even Canada. Closer to home, he finds troubling new evidence that multiculturalism gone awry here in the United States threatens to do the same. “One of the most devastating and articulate attacks on multiculturalism yet to appear.”—Wall Street Journal “A brilliant book . . . we owe Arthur Schlesinger a great debt of gratitude.”—C. Vann Woodward, New Republic

          amazon [dot] com/Disuniting-America-Reflections-Multicultural-Enlarged/dp/0393318540/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1321940915&sr=8-1

          ===

          You will notice that the quotation marks appear at the END of the passage, setting off the comments from the WSJ and the NR reviewers.

          The part attributed to the WSJ is only this portion: “One of the most devastating and articulate attacks on multiculturalism yet to appear.”—Wall Street Journal

          But, I don’t want to quibble over it.

          The point is that Schlesinger recognized 20 years ago that multiculturalism had the potential to destroy America.

          He did name his book The Disuniting of America after all.

        • indy

          PST has a fairly good summary of the book. Schlesinger basically said that fracturing will occur under extremes of both monoculturalism and multiculturalism. Militant multiculturalism refuses to assimilate. Militant monoculturism refuses to allow others to be assimilated. Both of these extremes have essentially the same result and are ‘disuniting’. To somehow paint this book as some sort of a general warning against all multiculturalism is a complete misreading of it. Schlesinger saw a lot of value in multiculturalism.

          He missed the mark by a mile. The true disuniting of America—the Red-Blue divide—has little to do with multiculturalism except as a peripheral issue. But I’m also fairly certain some segment of society blames it on black people, or brown people, or whatever. Those people are always searching for ‘others’ to blame.

        • ottovbvs

          I don’t find the Amazon summary that far off the mark. Where does this quote vary in essentials from pst’s …

          Amazon:
          While this upsurge in ethnic awareness has had many healthy consequences in a nation shamed by a history of prejudice, the cult of ethnicity, if pressed too far, threatens to fragment American society to a dangerous degree.

          pst:
          Writing in around 1990, Schlesinger did see danger in identity politics, especially as practiced on university campuses, but he also emphasized repeatedly the dangers of what he described as monoculturalism. He warned against the trend he saw developing, but was optimistic throughout that the usual American pattern of assimilation would prevail.

          Hairs are being split with abandon here. DSP’s likening of the views of Schlesinger with those of Buchanan which are blatantly racist is absurd but what’s new about that. He has some strange ideas at times.

        • Southern Populist

          I’m not suggesting Schlesinger would have agreed with Buchanan on all points. He did, however, dissent from the orthodoxy liberal position that upholds multiculturalism as an unequivocal social good in all cases. His argument is that multiculturalism like any social force can be good or bad depending on the circumstances.

          PST says that Schlesinger would believe that the dangers posed by MC have passed. It’s a dubious claim (IMO), because every social and cultural trend that Schlesinger identified as having the potential to “disunite” America has gotten worse over the last 20 years not better.

        • ottovbvs

          “He did, however, dissent from the orthodoxy liberal position that upholds multiculturalism as an unequivocal social good in all cases.”

          Except this ISN’T the orthodox liberal position. It may be the position of the Cornell Wilde’s of this world but who the hell thinks he’s representative of liberal opinion which has many strands. Wilde and his type are no more representative of liberal opinion than Michael Moore.

    • think4yourself

      @ DSP: “Multi-racialism is going to destroy this country. The question is when not if.”

      Evidence of this please.

      Racial issues in the US have always ebbed and flowed. As noted by many, “Irish need not apply (or Poles, Slavaks, Italians, Chinese (West coast), etc.). Certainly Blacks have been here since the beginning. Pat B won’t admit to being a racist but that is what he is.

      The real challenge is when those who occupy a particular position in life have to deal with others who are moving into that position. It just makes it easier to identify and isolate when those moving in have a clear identifyer such as skin color, or surname.

      That does mean that other races (i.e. non-white) will destroy this country. In fact any who help raise the standard of living enhance the country. Those who start businesses, hire people, create revenue are of benefit – no matter what demographic they represent.

      It does mean conflict. That happens when group owns the status quo and isn’t interested in sharing and another group is not accepting of that.

  • willard landreth

    Fair andn balanced is Frum.

    Who needs to discuss this racist faux christian windbag. Buchanan is the last of a dying stinking breed called WASPs. I for one am glad they’re dying off. I regret that they’re bering replaced by people who really believe this lying stinking faux christian windbag.

    • jakester

      Well is he really a WASP if he is a Catholic? WASP bashing is so passe.

    • ottovbvs

      “Buchanan is the last of a dying stinking breed called WASPs.”

      Buchanan isn’t a WASP, he’s papist bog trotter. My great grandad thought the Irish were great domestic staff (housemaids and coachmen) but that was the limit of their abilities.

  • Frumplestiltskin

    poor DSP and Carney, how scary the future must be to them. Their cup is filled with bitter ash since they and their progeny likely lack the necessary skill sets to navigate in the global economy. Hey Carney, maybe in 30 years my multi-lingual bi-racial children will hire your descendants to mow their lawns.

    And my family was part of the original white settlers, on both sides, we even have an early Supreme Court case named after my family. (t is really boring though) I am the very definition of WASP, my family exploited the hell out of the Irish as their British overlords. So damn what? This doesn’t make America more mine. I am not threatened by Latinos (hell, I learned Spanish) nor Asians (Mandarin too) but am glad they are part of America.

    I must admit, I am positively delighted by the reactions by the likes of Carney and DSP because their defeat will be ever so sweeter in the end. Not only will their prognostications be proven dead wrong, they will be fed and diapered by these very people they despise (Obviously they don’t know the make up of the staff of most nursing homes)

    • ottovbvs

      “Tell Bridget to bring in the tea and Sean to get the horses ready”

      So are mine (one of mine is reckoned to be the founder of Yale…could be bs of course) although we have a hint of hun on my mothers side. Where does this incense sniffing, potato gobbler get off?

  • Fastball

    Carney needs to dispense with his Hollywood caricature of pre-Columbian American history. Not all of the tribes were “eking out a subsistence” living. Before 1492, many tribes had established permanent settlements, managed sophisticated agricultural systems, practiced forestry, built cities, traded with each other across long distances, and had complex social structures.

    That cleared up, let me say I cherish my daughter-in-law. She is as welcome in my loud Italian-American family as I am in her sprawling Filipin0-American clan, and God help any narrow-minded dolt who would step into our Thanksgiving dinner this week and argue that it shouldn’t be so.

  • think4yourself

    Chris Ladd, I like your conclusion (America is dead – long live America). Change is always difficult, especially to those whose long-held positions require adjustment to new times.

    Clint Eastwood’s “Gran Torino” is great example of ethnicities in flux. I suspect Buchanan quit watching anything with Eastwood after “Dirty Harry”.

  • Marquis

    Most folks don’t really care much if their son or daughter – in law is of a different race or ethnicity, as long as he or she shares the same goals, values, norms, and ‘approximate’ traditions and life philosophy, as their own child. Typically, in these relationships, the children will be raised in one religion or the other, but the family will celebrate both Christmas and Rosh Hashanah, or both Diwali and Nowruz. It’s really no big deal. It’s only a big deal among the super-ethnic folks, like Orthodox Jews and Salafi Muslims, who place preserving heritage above everything else. For instance, a good friend of mine has parents that allow her to date nice White, Black, and Hispanic guys, but EXPECT and DEMAND that she eventually settle down with a Punjabi Sikh.

    These people give a bad rap to a lot of ethnic immigrants, who for the most part, assimilate easily into American culture (American Muslims are more assimilated than European Muslims). Believe me, being second-generation of parents from Asia, there really is a world of difference between highly skilled and educated immigrants, who share most of the same values as native-born citizens, and the unskilled and uneducated, who cling ferociously to an anti-assimilation ethic even into the second and third generations. If you want to prevent the “catastrophe” that Buchanan seems to portend, you have to increase the immigration of the former and limit the immigration of the latter.

    David Frum himself makes this case:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0stVi6iy7Q

    By the way, kind of strange that Southern Populist’s handler links to a Wagner melody, isn’t it….

  • armstp

    Most of this stream of posts is full of racists comments by racists. The comments are all about the color of skin.

    Hispanics are an important positive part of this country. No different than anyone else that ever came to this country.

  • nhthinker

    By focusing on race, Buchanan loses too many. The real issue with the lost of the country is the loss (or change) in morality outside of government.
    Charity used to be primarily focused outside of government and the concepts of entitlement have grown dramatically in the “American” psyche.

    Stephan Covey wrote about principled centered leadership requiring a growth in individual human lives from dependence through independence to interdependence. The new American psyche seems to discount the importance of a period of independence and self-reliance in the maturity of adults.

    Having an electorate that wants a government as a wet nurse puts on a on a path to follow Greece.

    Unlike Obama, slackers in high school should expect to have to work harder to make up for past bad efforts instead of being entitled to placements in schools that were not available to better students.

    • Crime Dog

      Yeah what a lazy bastard! Slacked his way to graduating with honors from one of the best law schools in the country! Why can’t he be as hard working as Mitt Romney or George W. Bush who rose from nothing without any benefit from their birth status!

      I don’t think think every person who dislikes President Obama is a racist. Far from it. But I’m sure you are.

      • nhthinker

        Obama himself admits he was a significant beneficiary of Affirmative Action.
        Any high school student that uses the yearbook for a shout-out to his pot-smoking buddies obviously did not use high school to be a model student. I guess he was too afraid of “acting White” at that point in his life.

        • ottovbvs

          “Any high school student that uses the yearbook for a shout-out to his pot-smoking buddies”

          Considering Dubya had a crack habit and was an Alcho this is another laugh from the thinker. God the thinker is consumed by racism and hate…it rises from everything he ever writes like the odor from dog poop.

        • think4yourself

          Clarence Thomas also admitted that he was a beneficiary of Affirmative Action.

          As far as high school yearbook – have you looked at yours lately? I know I put some pretty stupid stuff in mine – it’s high school for crying out loud. Which is not nearly as stupid as some of the stuff that has been said recently by Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann, Cain (need I go on?).

        • nhthinker

          So you are not at all disagreeing with my assertion:
          “Unlike Obama, slackers in high school should expect to have to work harder to make up for past bad efforts instead of being entitled to placements in schools that were not available to better students.”

          What do you think slackers in high school should expect?

  • bdtex

    Buchanan thinks we can go back in time to the 1950′s and preserve the “white Judeo-Christian majority”. The reason it was so good for some in the 1950′s was because it was so bad for others. In 2006,demographers were already saying that even if we immediately sealed the borders,deported all illegal aliens and stopped all legal and illegal immigration,by 2050(I think),whites would be 46% of the population,Hispanics would be 30%,blacks would be 19% and others,mostly Asian,would be 5%. Of course,none of that happened in 2006 and still hasn’t. The only way Buchanan’s vision for America could be realized would be in ways that are unthinkable.

    • Crime Dog

      Not unthinkable to Buchanan. He’s an Eichmann just waiting for his Hitler.

  • valkayec

    I wish to heaven that people like Buchanan would find a hole in which to crawl. His racism is anathema to anyone who believes that God created and loves all mankind or to those who believe in the evolution of a specie.

    In a world growing ever smaller, views such as those espoused by Buchanan represent a failed legacy. The world he wishes to reprise is over and will never be seen again. That is reality and nothing can change it. Just as the Vatican worked to remain Italian, the realities of the world ultimately changed it’s mix. Thus, anyone who takes Buchanan seriously is a fool: rolling back time is a losing proposition.

  • Stan

    I can’t believe Buchanan was happy about including the “Judeo” in his praise of our “Judeo-Christian majority”. Father Coughlin, of unblessed memory, was one of his family’s heros, and Buchanan’s book about World War II skated close to the idea that it would have been no great tragedy if Hitler had won and had gone on to end Communism in the Soviet Union. At the time of the first Gulf War his writing caused William Buckley to write “I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what he did and said during the period under examination amounted to anti-Semitism, whatever it was that drove him to say and do it”. And then there’s his defense of John Demanjuk, convicted as an accessory to the murder of over twenty thousand Jews and sentenced to five years in prison by a German court. It may be unfair of me to say this, but I think Buchanan is the last prominent representative of the kind of antisemitism Buckley and other intelligent conservatives despised, and that his disdain of Latinos is a surrogate for his dislike of all Americans but white Christians from northern Europe.

    • nhthinker

      http://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/24/us/politics-patrick-j-buchanan-the-roots-of-a-populist-who-would-be-president.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

      Several years ago, William F. Buckley Jr. examined Mr. Buchanan’s public record and wrote in National Review magazine: “I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what he did and said during the period under examination amounted to anti-Semitism.”

      But Mr. Buckley has recently written that those who saw his article as a condemnation of Mr. Buchanan as an anti-Semite were wrong. “The anti-Semitic pulsations of what he was then saying were prompted not by anti-Semitism but by the allure of audience titillation/shock, the Lenny Bruce Syndrome,” Mr. Buckley wrote.

      • Stan

        You may be right about Buckley. But I am still convinced that his original condemnation of Buchanan’s attitude was on target.

        By the way, I’m amused by the similarity of Pat Buchanan’s views to those of another Buchanan, Tom in The Great Gatsby.

        • nhthinker

          You may be right about Buckley. But I am still convinced that his original condemnation of Buchanan’s attitude was on target.

          Yes, but the next time you attribute such a quote to Buckley, you will know you are doing it in a manner that Buckley disagreed with. …And you are too honest to want to do that, right?

        • Stan

          I quoted Buckley correctly. I did not know that he subsequently changed his view of Buchanan’s atitude. But I still think his original quote was right. There was a strong anti-semitic tendency in the Catholic church during the 30′s and 40′s, as exemplified by Buckley’s own father, Father Coughlin, Father Feeney in Boston, the French church, as shown by its sheltering of Vichy war criminals, and of course, Pope Pius XII, as discussed in a recent history of the papacy by John Julius Norwich

          http://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Monarchs-John-Julius-Norwich/dp/1400067154

          At the present time, anti-semitism has largely vanished from American life, in part due to the attitude of William Buckley and Russell Kirk. But largely doesn’t mean entirely, and Pat B is an example.

          If you disagree, please tell me why.

        • nhthinker

          Buckley never “changed his mind”- You unknowingly took his quote out of context… (BTW, what paragon of objectivity did you lift the quote from?)

          http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/07/16/specials/buckley-rosenthal.html
          “OP-ED
          In Search of Buckley
          By A. M. ROSENTHAL

          After more than a year of study of the abundant record, William F. Buckley Jr., columnist, novelist, television host, lecturer and distinguished sailor, finally has delivered the judgment that Patrick Buchanan, Republican candidate for the Presidency, really has said “things about Jews” that are anti-Semitic.

          For this discovery, part of a voyage for which he felt it his duty to skipper first his intellectual ship and now the readers of his magazine through 40,000 words, Mr. Buckley is receiving the applause of those editorial writers, columnists and friends who had worried about him while he was pitching so far out at sea.

          He devotes a whole issue of his National Review to the article, which he calls “In Search of Anti-Semitism” and will preserve as a book. Obviously he considers he has made landfall after an arduous and significant exploration, although it may surprise many that anti-Semitism is so very difficult to find.

          Mr. Buckley is considered the delineator of American conservatism. Mr. Buchanan now is thoughtfully trying to transfer this weight from Mr. Buckley’s shoulders to his own.

          So the judgment by Mr. Buckley is understandably welcome to Americans — conservative or otherwise — who have long regarded Mr. Buchanan as an anti-Semite, even though Mr. Buckley still cannot bring himself to use so blunt a noun about him.

          Also, Mr. Buckley’s article will buoy those who felt they had to wait for somebody certifiably both conservative and non-Jewish to lead before they spoke up about Mr. Buchanan’s “things.”

          But unfortunately Mr. Buckley’s pronouncement is not likely to change the minds of readers inclined toward Mr. Buchanan, in New Hampshire or anywhere else. One reason is that Mr. Buckley does not even try to make sense of Mr. Buchanan’s anti-Semitism by dealing with its roots — and particularly its political motivations. And he does not even suggest to fellow Republicans that Mr. Buchanan’s anti-Semitic comments might be a reason to vote against him.

          Moreover, the Buchanan section is so genteel about him, written with such absence of real censure, with such contradiction and evasion and is so late and tortuous that politically and intellectually it destroys itself — a pity.

          Mr. Buckley’s only outrage is for those who had previously attacked Mr. Buchanan as an anti-Semite. For instance, Mr. Buckley was ballistically annoyed when on Sept. 14, 1990, I wrote that Mr. Buchanan’s demeaning of Holocaust reality, his lie that only Jews wanted war with Saddam Hussein, and so on, were anti-Semitic and dared suggest that anti-Semitism could lead to Auschwitz.

          In the current article, Mr. Buckley reprints his column denouncing the idea. He now assures us that “an anti-Semitic crack like Buchanan’s isn’t of the kind that threatens” what Mr. Buckley delicately calls the ” discrete territory of Auschwitz.” In the post-Hitler world, he says, “workaday” anti-Semitism is not genocidal.

          Workaday.

          But then he writes about people trying to distinguish between “country club” anti-Semitism and ‘naked-anti-Israelism and genocidal indifference.” And he adds that the “pain” — whose? — comes from the “historical knowledge that prejudice of the first kind can metastasize — and has done so, to be sure by mutation — into Auschwitz.”

          So what does he really believe about Mr. Buchanan? Not much. In 1990 Mr. Buckley found Mr. Buchanan guilty of nothing worse than “clumsy forensic” manners. Even now, musing on the mystery of Mr. Buchanan’s anti-Semitism, he suggests graciously that it may be an “iconoclastic temperament,” which implies bravery.

          No: anybody who keeps saying anti-Semitic “things” is no mystery, just one more anti-Semite. Over the centuries, as now, that has taken no iconoclastic daring, just hate and cowardice.

          Since the 1990 explosion about his anti-Semitism Mr. Buchanan has refused to retract a word. But he keeps his obsession about Jews better zippered. Temporary, but it does demonstrate that the best weapon against anti-Semitism is to spot it and expose it fast and plain.

          Mr. Buckley has often shown himself a man of intellectual clarity and good heart. So I hope he gets back in the boat and keeps sailing and searching. If he makes true landfall, he can send us a more helpful log. ”

          Now if you use the same Buckley quote without its context of what Buckley meant, then you know it will be implying something about Buckley’s view of Buchanan that is patently not true.

        • ottovbvs

          That well known paragon of objectivity the thinker speaks….

          (BTW, what paragon of objectivity did you lift the quote from?)

          Given that Buckley himself notoriously espoused racism and opposed the civil right legislation of the 60′s, his condemnation of Buchanan for anti semitism and subsequent real or imagined withdrawal of such charges (in his usually tortured prose) is largely academic. Buckley btw rather falls into the category of Ryan who is the sort of guy who stupid people would consider smart. His complete inability to express complex ideas in anything other than complex terms is the sure mark of the pseudo intellectual

        • ottovbvs

          Funnily enough I re-read Gatsby a few weeks back and remember Tom Buchanan quoted someone who was clearly based on the 20′s racist writer Stoddard who was an earlier incarnation of our real Buchanan.

        • Reflection Ephemeral

          Pankaj Mishra just compared Niall Ferguson to Stoddard. Entertaining review, and exchange of letters afterwards: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n21/pankaj-mishra/watch-this-man

        • ottovbvs

          “Pankaj Mishra just compared Niall Ferguson to Stoddard”

          It was Mishra’s piece which I read more or less coincident with rereading Gatsby that reminded me of Stoddard. Ferguson’s blustering rebuttal in the lrb is hilarious, it made him look like a total jackass. Almost as big a jackass as he looked when he got into that arm wrestle with Krugman a while back. I’m a great admirer of the British empire which was an incredible tour de force founded as it was on a lot of factors other than size which are the usual basis for superpowers like the US, Russia and China but Ferguson is a poor advocate in my opinion.

  • Stan

    nhthinker, I took Buckley’s quote about Pat Buchanan from Wikipedia and from my own memory, not that I think the New York Times is a bad source. But that isn’t the point at issue. I can’t say for sure that Pat Buchanan is an antisemite because I’m not privy to his thoughts. But I suspect it, and you feel that I’m wrong. Maybe you could explain why.

    • nhthinker

      Well, Stan, if you did not read the Buckley articles and are taking the quote from Wiki, then your POV of Buckley’s view of Buchanan is just projections. Most of the projections I see of that quote have come from Buchanan’s enemies and not experts on Buckley. Buckley himself being the expert that counts the most as to what Buckley meant.

  • Primrose

    “They are right. America dies over and over again in a thousand different ways, like the cells in your skin. The real test of a culture is not whether it dies, but whether it regenerates itself. What frightens these folks is our nerve-racking dynamism; our accelerating pace of reinvention.”

    This is an absolutely great paragraph. It is what America is about and what makes it great!

    • Gus

      Agreed. This post was a real tonic after reading Sean Linnanes idiotic anti-PETA rant.

  • think4yourself

    I haven’t read Buchanan’s book and don’t intend to. But the premise that all these “other people” are the reason for America’s decline I disagree with.

    First, I don’t see America as in decline (we’re going through a recession – that’s different than the fall of Western Civilization). It may feel like a decline when a “special group” (ie white upper middle class) no longer are exclusive.

    Second, the nation needs the vibrancy of new blood. The US was built on immigration from the beginning (Carney’s torturous logic that original Europeans were not immigrants but “settlers” not withstanding). Those immigrants in waves have created two distinct advantages, first a generation of workers who provided services that others wouldn’t and then second, their children who were educated here and provide upper class services, business ownership and therefore created jobs for others.

    That pattern continues with the immigrants (both legal and not) that have come since the ’50′s. These people add value by consuming goods, and providing labor. Thomas Friedman and Fareed Zakaria among others argue that this very process over the last 300 years is one of the reasons for America’s economic dominance.

    Pat Buchanan better hope we don’t become a nation that he hopes for. White families with advantages have the lowest birthrate in the nation. If you look at Japan – a homogonized nation, there aren’t enough young people to take care of the economic needs of the elderly. If the Whites are all who are left in this country, there won’t be enough people earning money to take care of Buchanan’s sorry ass.

  • think4yourself

    My last comment on this. I suspect that Carney, DSP, NHThinker and Pat Buchanan would have tried to run my family out of America.

    My grandfather’s family were poor Pennsylvania Dutch farmer from York, PA. My grandfather dropped out of school in 8th grade to work at the farm and then at 15 lied about his age and joined the Army. He ended up in Panama in the ’30′s and after the Army worked as a US civilian contractor building roads in Panama and rose to become superintendent of road construction (not bad for 8th grade education). He married a Panamanian girl who became an American citizen. They had two daughter that they raised as Americans (went to the canal zone US schools, didn’t learn Spanish). Both daughters are US citizens, living in the US, both married USAF officers.

    So I am 1/4 Panamanian, grew up White (look mostly Hispanic), don’t speak Spanish. I guess that makes me part of what’s wrong with America even though my grandparents did what people in this country have been doing for 300 years. As for me, I went to college, own a business and employ people. I have a younger brother who did not go to college, managed a truck shop for years and now is self employed as a specialty appraiser (he doesn’t look Hispanic but learned Spanish – go figure). But our family is the cause of America’s decline.

    Yeah right.

    • nhthinker

      I never agreed with Buchanan that the issue is race/ethnicity. My view of the issue is more in line with what George Washington said in his farewell address.

      “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness – these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them.

      A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are instruments of investigation in courts of justice?

      And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.”

  • Southern Populist

    @think4yourself

    Re: evidence.

    Are you familiar with Robert D. Putnam’s work?

    See:

    en.wikipedia [dot] org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam#.22Bowling_Alone.22_and_its_critics

    His conclusion based on over 40 cases and 30 000 people within the United States is that, other things being equal, more diversity in a community is associated with less trust both between and within ethnic groups. Although limited to American data, it puts into question both the contact hypothesis and conflict theory in inter-ethnic relations. According to conflict theory, distrust between the ethnic groups will rise with diversity, but not within a group. In contrast, contact theory proposes that distrust will decline as members of different ethnic groups get to know and interact with each other. Putnam describes people of all races, sex, socioeconomic statuses, and ages as “hunkering down,” avoiding engagement with their local community—both among different ethnic groups and within their own ethnic group. Even when controlling for income inequality and crime rates, two factors which conflict theory states should be the prime causal factors in declining inter-ethnic group trust, more diversity is still associated with less communal trust.

    en.wikipedia [dot] org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam#Diversity_and_trust_within_communities

    Putnam makes a distinction between two kinds of social capital: bonding capital and bridging capital. Bonding occurs when you are socializing with people who are like you: same age, same race, same religion, and so on. But in order to create peaceful societies in a diverse multi-ethnic country, one needs to have a second kind of social capital: bridging. Bridging is what you do when you make friends with people who are not like you, like supporters of another football team. Putnam argues that those two kinds of social capital, bonding and bridging, do strengthen each other. Consequently, with the decline of the bonding capital mentioned above inevitably comes the decline of the bridging capital leading to greater ethnic tensions.

  • Pat Buchanan wrote this in his book... - Page 3 - Christian Forums

    [...] Face it Buchanan, America is Changing | FrumForum America has always been radically secular and shockingly culturally diverse compared to standards of the contemporary world around it. At a time when European governments enforced one official state church as the only means to preserve civil order America tolerated an impossible diversity of belief. Congregationalists, Anabaptists, Baptists, Jews, Shakers, Quakers, Catholics, Episcopal, Presbyterians, Methodists, and frontier types with their own home-brewed factions came together in a frightening collection of faiths that could only coexist under a carefully secular government. // We are in fact living through the end of white America. That “end” will be just as catastrophic as the end of Puritan American, the end of Colonial America, the end of White, Male Landowner America, the end of New England Whaling America, the end of Slaveholding America, the end of Rural America, the end of Pre-Industrial America, the end of Jim Crow America, the end of Industrial America and all of the other endings America has experienced in her short history. // The paranoid nativists warn that we are too culturally chaotic to survive. They are right. America dies over and over again in a thousand different ways, like the cells in your skin. The real test of a culture is not whether it dies, but whether it regenerates itself. What frightens these folks is our nerve-racking dynamism; our accelerating pace of reinvention. // We are too independent to tolerate the claustrophobic, manufactured unity of a top-down cultural mandate. Conservatives may score a few short term points selling Buchanan’s white Tribalism, but in America the “culture warriors” of each new generation always lose. In the long run his vision is a blueprint for little more or less than Republican political failure. The nation, if necessary, will simply go on without us. __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. [...]

  • Candy83

    In “An Unreasonable Man,” Pat Buchanan revealed electoral strategy from Republicans, after the 1968 first-term election of Richard Nixon, that was nothing but divide-and-conquer social destruction. It disgusts me that is he even regarded, let alone his being a regular on the so-called-liberal MSNBC.

  • TheoryAndPractice

    A poor review, if only because it doesn’t address Mr. Buchanan’s reasoning as to why a more culturally diverse America will be poorer and less free. Which is not to say that his arguments are necessarily good, but it would be nice to know what they are.

    David Frum’s former National Review colleague John Derbyshire offers a more thoughtful review here:

    http://takimag.com/article/the_melancholy_roar_of_retreat/print#axzz1eZExf3EC

  • Pax Romana

    How dare this man suggest that Rome is not eternal!!! Do our legions not fight in every corner of the Known World for the glory of the empire, at the cost of only a few hundred billion denarius ? Is our senate not peopled by the wisest men of the land, who’s sole concern is for the welfare of the citizens? Granted, we may be paying a “token” tribute to Attila and his eastern hordes, at the present time, but rest assured this a temporary matter until the empires treasury can once again be filled by our fair and understanding tax collectors. Rome has existed for 1000 years, so let me assure you, the Huns, Vandals and Visigoths are absolutely no threat to the empire, if we were only to offer full Roman Citizenship to these peoples, I’m sure they would become as loyal as any Roman born.

    Morituri Caesar! Ave caesar!