America: a Beacon, not a Policeman	Buchanan's Enemies Make Him Great	Americans Against World Empire  Homepage

>The Enemy of My Enemy Is My Friend
>by Gene Healy (LIBERTY Dec'99 (Subscriptions--800-854-6991)

>During the 1996 cycle of Pat Buchanan's perennial presidential campaign,
>Joe Sobran remarked that even though "Pat would leave government bigger
>than he found it" supporting him was hard to resist, given the caliber of
>enemies Buchanan's made. (Now that Sobran's agreed to the V.P. slot on
>Howard Phillips's Constitution Party ticket, he'll be spared that
>temptation this year.)
>
>I know how Sobran feels. The more the Respectable Right flusters and
>screeches about Buchanan, the better Buchanan sounds. Castigating Buchanan
>for his new book, A REPUBLIC, NOT AN EMPIRE, most of the neocons have
>refused to debate the book's claim that U.S. involvement in World War II
>was unwarranted. Instead, they've engaged in the dissent-stifling tactic of
>reductio ad hitlerum. Virtue salesman Bill Bennett accuses Buchanan of
>"flirting with fascism." George Will also used the "f" word, denouncing
>Buchanan on ABC's "This Week." (Strong words, coming from the author of
>Statecraft as Soulcraft.)
>
>Once again, the loudest squeals come from Bill Kristol, editor of what some
>disaffected right-wingers refer to as The Weekly Reader. Kristol leads a
>pack of bellicose neocons, including Robert Kagan and David Brooks:
>puffy-faced armchair hawks whose closest encounters with hand-to-hand
>combat consist of throwing elbows at Georgetown hors d'evours tables. Given
>to statements like "We'll kick [the Serbs'] skulls in!" Kristol and his
>lieutenants denounce dissenters from the interventionist party line with
>epithets like "McGovernik." It's no wonder that they find Buchanan's
>challenge to G.O.P. foreign policy orthodoxy so galling.
>
>In an October 11's Weekly Standard, Kristol outlines a bill of particulars
>against Buchanan. Each charge therein sounds like a reason for libertarians
>to join the Buchanan Brigades. Buchanan's offenses? He "claim[s] that the
>United States had no business getting into World Wars I and II"; thinks
>"the American government has been hijacked by elite and ethnic interests
>that do America harm"; and "believes the American government [has] stupidly
>and malevolently sent hundreds of thousands of men to their deaths." Most
>disturbing of all, according to Kristol, is "the core belief" behind
>Buchananism: "that American government throughout the twentieth century has
>been a disgrace and a fraud." Yes! Sign me up! I'll man the phone banks!
>Gimme some bumper stickers!
>
>Of course, when one achieves some critical distance, it becomes clear that
>Buchanan isn't quite the state-hating saviour Kristol inadvertently makes
>him sound. As Liberty's readers well know, Buchanan is an unrepentant
>statist and advocate of redistributionist policies. While Al Gore panders
>to the suburban anomie of Jane Cellphone, Buchanan courts Joe Sixpack with
>farm aid and trade restrictions. He's made his peace with Big Government,
>going so far as to criticize congressional attempts to slow Medicare
>growth. Buchanan's previous book, The Great Betrayal, is dedicated to the
>odd proposition that the American worker will benefit from an
>across-the-board tax increase on imports. His economic views consist of
>pernicious nonsense that noone seems capable of reasoning him out of.
>
>Worse yet, Buchanan is given to using the royal "we". There's a hint of
>megalomania here. How can you trust a guy who talks about himself in the
>third person? (Florence King satirized this tendency in 1996, imagining the
>teenage Bob Dole on the make: "You put out for all those other guys; how
>come you won't put out for Bob Dole?")
>
>And even on foreign policy, Buchanan makes some significant mistakes. He's
>called for an increase in the defense budget, saying that America must
>"retrench and rearm." That's half-right. But why "re-arm"? A peaceful
>"republic" doesn't need a quarter-trillion dollar defense budget. Indeed,
>the very existence of an oversized war machine feeds the imperial
>temptation. As Madeline Albright remarked to a flabbergasted Colin Powell:
>"what's the point of having this wonderful military you're always talking
>about, if we never get to use it.?"
>
>Libertarians know all of Buchanan's many flaws, and vigorously, even
>savagely, criticize Buchanan for them. Fair enough, but let's give credit
>where it's due. Buchanan is the only candidate pushing withdrawal from the
>entangling alliances that threaten to embroil us in foreign wars, the only
>one to suggest that compulsive interventionism makes us vulnerable to
>terrorist threats at home. On foreign policy, he represents "a choice, not
>an echo," and this is a positive development.
>
>And let's apply the same yardstick of ideological purity to the other
>non-LP candidates. I've heard self-described libertarians declare their
>intention to vote for Steve Forbes. It's true that Mr. Forbes often makes
>agreeable noises about tax cuts and Social Security, but on foreign
>policy--the one area over which a President has virtually unchecked
>authority--he's a hairtrigger interventionist maniac.
>
>Forbes's foreign policy philosophy can be summed up as: intervene early;
>intervene often. Here are a few quotes from a recent WASHINGTON TIMES
>interview with Forbes. On China: "So you send the [U.S.] fleet to the
>Strait of Taiwan. Make it clear we will defend Taiwan." On East Timor: "The
>time to have sent in the peacekeeping force was before the referendum." On
>future Kosovos: "Make it clear to the Milosevics that if they want an
>offensive, we're going to hit them from the air. Don't wait for it to
>happen." On foreign policy, Buchanan takes his cue from Harry Elmer Barnes,
>Bill Kaufmann, and Murray Rothbard: our people; Forbes takes his cue from
>Bill Kristol.
>
>I don't intend to vote for Buchanan, nor would I urge any libertarian to do
>so. I've only voted once since I read Gordon's Tullock's statement that one
>has a greater chance of being struck by lightning on the way to the polls
>than having a decisive impact on a state or national election. But I do
>intend to buy Buchanan's book, and I hope other libertarians do the same.
>
>Years ago, the pugnacious young Buchanan was suspended from Georgetown
>University after kicking an abusive policeman in the balls. With A
>Republic, Not An Empire, Pat is up to his old tricks. The book is a
>well-timed and well-deserved shot to the Establishment's crotch. It took
>real courage for Pat Buchanan to challenge the dominant imperialist
>consensus, and weather the abuse that was sure to follow. Good for him.
>
>--GH
>
>

______________________________________________________