Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Tony Blankley :: Townhall.com Columnist
'Day of Reckoning': A Review of Pat Buchanan's Latest Book
by Tony Blankley
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Pat Buchanan's new book, "Day of Reckoning," is a tour de force, expanding on and combining the arguments and evidence he presented in three previous books ("The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "State of Emergency") to make a powerful case that free trade, multiculturalism and imperial overreach threaten to put America on the dustheap of history.

As my friend always does in his books, brother Patrick combines shrewd analysis and his own crisp and passionate words with wonderful quotes from others. He quotes George Orwell's observation that "ideology animates 'the streamlined men who think in slogans and talk in bullets.'" That description remains as fresh as this evening's cable political talk shows and news reports.

I cite that quote because, for me, one of the strongest elements in "Day of Reckoning" is Buchanan's remorseless assault on ideology -- whether being used by imperialists, free traders or cultural manipulators. This may sound surprising to some because these days, many people both on the left and right proudly support their respective ideologies.

But like Buchanan, I was educated in an age when conservatives proudly asserted that conservatism was, by definition, the absence of ideology. Ideology was -- and remains -- the product of intellectuals who substitute for the wisdom of the ages, the organic unfolding of their institutions, the teachings of their faith and common sense their own fanatical belief that their ideas can (in Russell Kirk's words) convert our world "into a terrestrial paradise through the operation of positive law and positive planning."

Or as Pat writes: "Ideology has one foot grounded in reality, but the other is ever on quicksand. For no one can know the future. Yet the True Believer has moral certitude, for his ideology foretells a future certain to come if the sacrifices are sufficient and the anointed leaders are faithfully followed."

And with that bit in his teeth, Pat runs riot through the ideologies of free trade, Bushian wars-for-democracy arguments and open borders theories. It is not only honest, solid historic reporting but also splendid, angry prose.

Although by both instinct and experience Pat Buchanan is a respecter of presidents, incapable of public rudeness to an American president, in this book, Pat barely disguises his contempt for the sometimes-foolish ideological words of President Bush -- which he quotes often (and in context) to the detriment of the president.

For instance, he quotes the president: "Governments accountable to their people do not attack each other." An exasperated Buchanan follows with: "This may come as a surprise to descendants of those who fought for Southern independence. Does Bush think Mr. Lincoln's Union or the Confederate States of America were not accountable to their people? Democratic Israel bombed democratic Lebanon. In 1914, the most democratic nations in Europe plunged into the bloodiest war in history. Democratic peoples are not immune to blood lust."

Pat always has written with passion, but in this book, there is a palpable anger at a president he believes has done terrible damage to America. He quotes President Bush: "Freedom is the design of our Maker and the longing of every soul. Freedom is the dream of every person in every nation in every age." Pat responds with uncharacteristic sarcasm: "One wonders: Who writes this, and does the president read it before delivery? Again, did Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Fidel, Uncle Ho and Pol Pot long for freedom in their souls?"

For anyone who can't put his anger or frustration with President Bush into words: Read this book. Because Pat gives you the words, the passion, the argument and the evidence to support your feelings.

But even if, like me, you are generally supportive of President Bush, this book will challenge you fairly to defend your views. Certainly his case that the ideology of free trade is contradicted by both history and current evidence is not easily dismissed. As I argued in this space last week, it is time to have a major, nonideological, practical national debate about free trade. Of course, his position about controlling illegal immigration, which he championed long before it was popular, now has gained clear majority support in the country -- in measurable part because of his leadership through the years.

Where I disagree with Pat most strongly in this book (and with which I will deal in my next book, to be published in the summer) is his assertion that America can best protect itself by broadly withdrawing from the world, bringing our troops home from almost everywhere and letting the world unfold without our active intervention and management.

Nonetheless, 15 years ago, Pat was dismissed as a paleoconservative at the margin of American politics. It is a tribute to the power of his words and ideas -- exemplified by and reaching climax in "Day of Reckoning" -- that he now may well be pointing the way to the future policy of the American people and their government.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Tony Blankley served as press secretary to then Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich. Tony Blankley is the author of The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations? .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Tony Blankley's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Wow!
Now I must get this book! This Review alone was staggering well written and very compelling.

Thank you for calling my attention to this book.

The 'greed'
part of the subtitle of the book hits me. We have free market gone amock as if economy will answer all the ills of a nation and the world.

The recalcitrants of pro illegal immigration crowd is one symptom of the greed of the general public not just a few. The entire nation is enslaved by the lust of the eyes which can never be satisfied.

But who could get elected if the so called health of the 'economy' was not front and center in policy. What politician would ever spout 'moderation in everything.'

Lip service is paid to 'morality'. Morality is more than talk it demands discipline and vigilance.

"What profit's a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul?" Or a nation.

What are you saying?
I mean, other than that you're a religious nut?

Pat is no Prophet Amos
Frankly, when shrieking WEREALLGONNADIE! the Prophet Amos does it better and in only a few chapters.

Save me.

Pat at his best!
Pat Buchanan interviewed by Hannity & Colmes~Ron Paul

WATCH VIDEO

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/pat-buchanan-inter viewed-by-hannity-colmesron-paul


No, Tony B, Pat B Is Not Persuasive
I must part company with Tony Blankley on this one. The far more intelligent review of Pat Buchanan's book was in David Horowitz's frontpagemagazien.com site. Pat Buchahan's latest book is harshly criticized there, as it should be. Pat Buchanan is a paleocon and does not represent mainstream conservative thought, as he has become an isolationist spouting George McGovern type nonsense concerning foreign policy matters.

The Issues
Buchanan is uncompromising. Years ago - he attacked those who ignored the growing immigration debate. He also understood that trade works only if both sides play by the same rules. As far as his view of the international arena, he brings up issues that those who disagree find difficult to argue with.

Just as we create bureaucracies who survive long after they've filled whatever purpose they once had, we seem to have the same problem with our international commitments. We've been in Korea for 60 years. Yet South Korea is far stronger these days than North Korea. We continue to finance a disproportionate cost of the defence of Europe - whose economies combined are stronger than on own. We continue to pay a disproportionate amount of the UN's bills - while letting Asia and Europe pay far less. It's a very long list.

The issue is not just about pulling in our horns, its about the fact that we seem unable to convince others to pay their fair share.

We are trying to finance a defence establishment that is costing us 6X as much as the next largest defence establishment - China -(not including the cost of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). Germany has 40% of our economic output, yet spends less than 5% of what we spend on defence.

This is simply unrealistic. It has nothing to dow with a war on terror.

Militarily, the world is simply exploiting us.

Blindly condemning anyone who suggests we need to take a hard look at all of this does not resolve the fact that in our attempts to pay for both guns and butter, we have gone deeply into debt. And that debt is owned by countries who are exploiting us not only militarily, but also economically. And, because they are now our bankers, we've lost the ability to defend ourselves against their exploitation.


ApolloSpeaks
Do some research on Woodrow Wilson, the man whom you regard as a positive influence on the world, and who shares a similar idealism with G.W. Bush.

I am unsympathetic with politicians infusing their world visions with messianic certitude and moral idealism, for the consequences of their actions can be grave.

Some people maintain Wilson was so willing to get the U.S. to join the League of Nations that he was prepared to cede aspects of U.S. national sovereignty to the world body...which were among the reasons the U.S. senate refused to ratify it.

This was a case where Wilson's foolish idealism trumped his most basic role as president of the U.S., i.e., protect AMERICAN interests.

League of Nations was as ineffectual as the U.N. today, for it could not prevent Japan from invading Manchuria, nor prevent Germany from rearming, in clear violation of Versailles Treaty(which was the deeply flawed vehicle out of which evolved the League of Nations itself).

Incidentally, given Wilson's obsession with promoting "self-determination" of peoples, in today's Iraq his position logically would be one where sunnis, shias and kurds should devolve into independent nation-states, which is the LAST thing Bush and his crew want to see happen(for it would facilitate Iran gaining control of shia Iraq, increasing its reach).

The "liberal world order" you seem so smitten with seems to be suffering substantial setbacks in Russia, China, the muslim world, three not so inconsequential parts of the globe.

I agree with some of your contentions, but I am opposed strongly to an idealism that is blind to reality.

To various degrees,, both Bush and Wilson are guilty of this destructive idealism.

Phil Byler
Some might argue the "evil" Paleoconservatives are the legitimate heirs of traditional conservatism, and that former(and current)leftists who abandoned the democrat party beginning in the 1970s formed what is now termed "neoconservatism"...a movement that took control of the foreign policy apparatus of the GOP(especially under G.W. Bush presidency).

Neocons hijacked the foreign policy of the GOP, transforming it...much like a virus hijacks the DNA of its host, forcing it to make copies of itself and destroying the host in the process.

Neocons are an infestation.

I was going to say some things
but eben said them all for me. Well done.

NeoCons, PaleoCons, are just words.
No one knows what they mean, and what difference does a label make?

Pat Buchanan was right a LONG time ago, about the Illegal Immigration and open borders problem, and he was right about the consequences of wide open Free Trade (as was Ross Perot). It's time to stop arguing about what kind of Conservative he is, and start working to fix the problems he's outlining. He has been right on the money with past predictions, and you will dismiss his latest one, at your own peril.

I did not vote for Buchanan when he ran for President, because I did not believe he could win. I will never do that again.

People now say that Fred Thompson can't win, so don't waste a vote on him. I will, and I believe he can win. Fred is right on the money with a workable solution to the Illegal Immigration problem, and that is the most important first step.

We need to get a handle on the uneven Free trade deals, and cut off funds to our enemies, and I think Fred will do it. He did not just come around on all his policy positions last year, when deciding to run for President, as so many others have done, and I don't believe he will betray us the moment he is elected, as I fear so many others will do.

Learn from Pat, and think ahead when you vote.

Hillary's Swan Song

Hillary is still singing the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" tune (all the Dems, really), not realizing it is her swan song.

The only issue I have ever seen 75-80% of Americans agree on is stopping illegal aliens. Any GOP candidate that is credible (not Rudy, McCain, or Huckabee) on this issue could win in a landslide.

The biggest problem is the RNC has sold it's soul to the cheap labor express. They are determined to nominate an amnesty candidate, even if it means losing the election. Stupid Party, indeed.

HUNTER FOR AMERICA


Securing the border and enforcing the law is the only way we get to keep our rule of law, our representative Republic, and our Constitution. We must elect a President who WILL secure the border and enforce the law. If citizenship becomes meaningless, this will no longer be the United States of America.

The so-called "top tier" will not get out the voters necessary for a GOP win. Increasing turnout is the key. Give people something to vote for. Not just the lesser of two evils. Won't work this time. People are fed up with the inundation of illegal aliens. They would come out in droves for the clear choice of D=amnesty or R=enforcement. They will stay home if they both equal amnesty.

There is a huge majority of American citizens waiting for someone to pledge to uphold the laws and secure the borders, let's not ignore them any more.

http://www.gohunter08.com

More plugs for Pat
Pat's problems with immigration is that today many simply aren't white. Pat has more in common with John Edwards than he does with real conservatives.

The US is hardly fair in its trade policies either. Is the US that weak that Chile is an economic threat? How am I served by paying more for a product made in Clevland over one made in Xiamen? Economics is the dismal science, one that is a zero-sum game. An extra dollar spent on a product is a dollar I can't spend on something else or invest and save to spend on something later. Did it really help the American consumers or the American economy in general for Bush to put tarriffs on foreign steel in the first year of his regime? Did the extra dollars spent on cars built in the US do a service to consumers?

Would New England be better off today if it still had the textile mills from the 19th century? Are textile jobs in the Carolinas better than higher paying skilled jobs? Should the US still be in the textile business in the first place?

Was Smoot-Hawley a good idea?


Pat, wrong on immigration, wrong on trade, wrong on the social issues, wrong on WWII. So he was right on Iraq, even a broken clock is right twice a day.


Buchanan`
indeed has thoughtful points to make in this book and his other books. For me, the offputting part of reading him as always been his note of hysteria.

Pat is also wrong on this
Bush is basically right when he says "Governments accountable to their people do not attack each other." This is the Democratic Peace thesis, and except for Spain in 1898 (a nominal democracy) and Finland in 1941 (who sided with the Nazis) there have been no cases of democracies fighting each other. Neither Lebanon (elections do not equal democracy) or Germany and the Ottoman Empire in 1914 or the CSA would qualify. The CSA was a regime not recognized by any nation on earth--it was an internal conflict not unlike Texas-Mexico in 1836 and thus this case doesn't violate the DPT.

Democratic peoples aren't immune to blood lust (US, 1846, 1898 for example), but democracies rarely fight. Now the critique of the DPT is that the sample size is quite small as more and more democracies arise the number of cases of them fighting with each other may also rise.

Ho Chi Min was more of a nationalist than a communist not unlike Sun Yat-sen or Tito he and read from the American Declaration of Independence in a speech in 1945, if the US had turned to him instead of the French, who knows.

"...that he now may well be pointing the way to the future policy of the American people and their government."

If that is true, you are in alot of trouble. Get your passports in order.

Mr. Buchanan sounds shrill
One pictures Mr. Buchanan with a red face and veins popping out of his neck. Maybe it's just the way that Mr. Blankley quoted him; but I have trouble listening to shrill people.

Other than the democracy vs. democracy argument that ApolloSpeaks rebuts, Mr. Buchanan's protest against Pres. Bush's "everyone wants democracy" statement is merely an example of using exceptions to disprove a general truth. If Pres. Bush had said, "Generally speaking, people want freedom," Mr. Buchanan would not have had a hook on which to hang his hat; but pundits everywhere would have protested that the speech was too tepid.

America's greatest strength is the freedom that allows Mr. Buchanan to write this book. We need people like him. Iron sharpens iron. But he would do well to remember that just as he sharpens others, others sharpen him.

wei ji ni ya ai guo ren
"The only issue I have ever seen 75-80% of Americans agree on is stopping illegal aliens. Any GOP candidate that is credible (not Rudy, McCain, or Huckabee) on this issue could win in a landslide."

Polls don't seem to back up your claims. Tancredo, Hunter and Paul are in single digits. Nationally they are less than 5% (which means their support could be zero in fact). Iowa: Tancredo and Hunter 1-2% and Paul in most polls at 3% but one has him at 8%.

New Hampshire Hunter and Tancredo at 1%, Paul at 5% but one has him at 7%. South Carolina Hunter and Tancredo at 1% and Paul at 5%. Nevada Tancredo at 1% and Hunter between 2 and 4% and Paul at 5%, where is this landslide?

The leaders are Rudy, Romney and Huckabee--all showing much greater support for immigration, even some sort of "normalization" of illegals than the Puritans on immigration like Tancredo. If it is so important an issue, why are they barely above flatline in the polls? And immigration falls far behind other issues as the most important issue facing the US.

TH is like a echo chamber--you think just because people here think it is so important, it is treated equally as important in the real world.

Akagi
77% of New Yorker were against granting driver licenses to illegals. I call that an issue.

Facile Arguments
Facile arguments do not deal with the issues that Buchanan is discussing. The issue is not free trade or cheap products today. The issue is that the US is losing it's manufacturing base in return for those cheap products. Further, it is losing it's engineering and high tech base as well. As industry is exported - so are the jobs and the skills. He's looking into the future and pointing out that we will be a service society that is unable to produce what it needs - should it need to do so. We will not have the base necessary, and we won't have the skills to rebuild it. At that point, we will be entirely at effect to other countries.

A similar reality exists on illegal immigration. It's not about brown people - that's nonsense. It's about a country doing what all civilizations do - which is controlling who is permitted to live in that country, and the skills that are required. At no point in the history of the US have we had such an uncontrolled immigration situation - nor have we had anything remotely approaching this number of people coming in without any checks or balances. The current policy is not a policy at all - because we don't enforce it. It's an illusion of a policy. We can certainly continue without an effective policy - but it will ultimately completely change the US. It will not be the US as we understand it.

Again, is this wise?

So?
"77% of New Yorker were against granting driver licenses to illegals. I call that an issue."

I oppose them as well--what does that prove?

The anti-illegal immigration feelings simply don't translate into votes. Obama supports them, and he is rising in the polls in Iowa, SC and NH.

The three GOP top contenders all have a mixed past when it comes to illegals, those that are the most "pure" on the issue can hardly get above 0 when the MOE is factored in. Immigration as an issue just doesn't rise to the levels of other issues. While a majority may support fences, and no amnesty, etc, their votes don't follow. One issue candidates often have problems going anyplace.


Facile Arguments cont'd.
A third major issue is that the US is being financially degraded. When you lose your manufacturing base, as well as the skills necessary to rebuild it, you have a permanent condition of a huge balance of trade deficit. You cannot reverse this, because you must import what you need. At the same time, you will never be able to export sufficient product to bring that into balance. After all, you can't export most services, and we no longer have a manufacturing base that can produce other products for sale. When this is combined with consistent deficits, foreign governments exert increasing control over our internal economic affairs as they hold more and more dollars - or iou's, for that matter. Currently the world accepts dollars for payment. However, at any time they can refuse to accept dollars. And, if they force the US to convert dollars into another currency in order to pay for products it can no longer make itself - our cost of money and cost of goods will rise.

Pat is looking at this as the consequence of our actions over the last 20 years. A service society that will run high chronic trade deficits because it can no longer produce products for internal use or export, an increasingly likely refusal at some future point of accepting dollars for payment, rising interest costs charged by foreign governments to finance our budget deficits, the loss of the intellectual capacity necessary to develop the world's future products, and a constant flow of uncontrolled immigrants that will change the US from the country that it is, to something quite different.

These are trends. If you wish to argue - try to refute the trends. If you can't - then you can only accept that the world he is pointing to - is what we are becoming and will inevitably replace the one we have.

Pat, the chicken little of our time.
"The issue is that the US is losing it's manufacturing base."

This is nonsense. Toyota, BMW, Benz, Kia, etc etc all have moved production plants to the US in the last decade or so. Yes, the US has lost textile mills, what is better for SC, a textile mill or a BMW plant? And there are many other examples of this. Japan pretty much got out of the textile business in the 1970s and Taiwan by the late 1990s...neither economy seems to be hurt by these "sunset" industries going someplace else--China mostly.

And Pat doesn't just complain about illegal immigration, but makes comments like (in 1960, 90% of the US was white and Christian)...sounds like he doesn't care if they are legal or not, what he cares about is if they are white or not.

And Christian too.


ApolloSpeaks
On "freedom", you state: "the blood of millions has watered its tree".

"Blood of millions" has also watered the tree of social justice, "liberte, egalite, fraternite", and, even I daresay, "communism".

Look at horrific excesses of "revolutions" undertaken to better mankind's lot: bloodbaths of French Revolution, Bolshevik revolution, and so on.

Our revolution turned out well. BUT, our founders were highly educated men, well versed in the enlightenment, in history and philosphy, and were guided by a commitment that government inherently IS oppressive...which is why they limited government, AND why they did not create a pure democracy where the will of the majority of people can oppress the minority.

Bush's simplistic idealism imbues all of mankind with some inherent, universal thirst for "freedom", and "democracy", as WE in the west define those terms.

Elections in muslim world, where the will of the man on the street prevails, ushered in hamas in Gaza, muslim brotherhood in Egypt, hezbollah in Lebanon, shia theocracy in both Iraq and Iran, to cite but a few examples.

Wilson's self determinism of peoples, or Bush's even more simplistic notion that peoples universal thirst for "freedom" will always prevail if given the chance, does not seem to have been vindicated in history.

Two quotes:

"The path to hell is paved with good intentions", ascribed to various people.

"The effect of liberty upon individuals is they may do what they please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations". Edmund Burke(a genuine conservative, not a leftist neocon "in drag").

A conservative recognizes the inherent evilness of man, even as man sometimes can rise above the evilness.

An idealist, or leftist, denies the inherent evilness of man.



Akagi - Question for you
How much do you think the border enforcement candidates polling next to nothing ( and that's a sad fact ) has to do with their non coverage in the media and people only knowing what they see on the boob tube? Even at the *big yawn* debates they are largely ignored. I have to think it's more than a minor factor. I also believe the media has an agenda that is decidedly pro illegal.

eben
I sure do appreciate how you say what I'm thinking and at the same time save me the drudgery of having to type it. Because, let's face it, that would just take to long. Ha!

Darn it!
That would be *TOO* long. Sorry for such a pathetic typo. My bad.

It works both ways
I find the chrage "they'd do better, but it is an evil conspiracy by the MSM" completely silly.

The positions Rudy, Romney, et al have held on immigration are well known. If the voters were so agitated over illegals, why are these candidates being supported? Oh, I know...brianwashing by the MSM. That or alien probes put in everyone's brains by aliens or the CIA...maybe both...aliens working for the CIA.




Akagi
I find it equally implausible that there isn't. And I'm in good company on that one.

By the way, your suggestion on the passports wasn't half bad. I've brought it up with the spouse in recent weeks, in light of the fact that it takes over six months to get one, and you never know when you might need to get the he!! out of dodge.

Akagi
You need to do a little homework before you make such an absurd statement that we're not losing our manufacturing base. Anecdotal talk is what you seem to specialize in. You should start looking at what the balance of trade deficit actually involves. We import, for example, over $150 billion in automobile parts every year. In every major industrial sector imports far outweigh exports. You talk about assembly plants. What you don't talk about is that the parts being assembled are not made here. We are replacing jobs - but the manufacturing jobs are being replaced with service jobs.

You haven't read the book - haven't looked at the facts, and refute nothing.

What nonsense!
"Does Bush think Mr. Lincoln's Union or the Confederate States of America were not accountable to their people? Democratic Israel bombed democratic Lebanon. In 1914, the most democratic nations in Europe plunged into the bloodiest war in history. Democratic peoples are not immune to blood lust."

No, none of the Confederate States allowed the people whether to decide to secede. That was done by the state legislatures, in some cases, such as
Georgia, explicitly against the will of the people.
Lebanon's southern portion was overrun by Arafat's Palestinians who were the targets of Israeli bombs. Lebanon, neither prior to that time, then, or since then, could hardly be regarded as a model democracy. In 1914, those nations that passed for representative democracies were all aligned against the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires.

Let’s eliminate all Immigration


You’re all Johnnny’s come lately in the Immigration business.

In 1950 I visited the United Nations HQ twice, at Flushing Meadows, NY, before the UN building was built in NYC.

I don’t know who I talked to, it may have been the janitor, but I asked that all immigration be stopped, worldwide. If you were born there, you stay there.

Except for one thing, Invitation.

If a country asks you to come, you can, but you have two or three years to eliminate all signs of your previous culture, and completely adopt the culture of the country you went to, or out you go.

Remember, a country has two things, and two things only — a border and a culture, if you violate either, out you go.

Re: Democracy of tyranny
"Despite Buchanan's condemnation of Wilsonianism, the belief that history is democracy and democracy is history, we are witnessing the slow triumph of freedom over mankind, a process providentially accelerated by three world wars, and now by a forth."

Unfortunately, democracy and freedom are not, and have never been, the same thing. Ask the ancient Greeks. The "democratic majority" can be every bit as tyrannical as the dictator. Of course, our Founders understand this, and that is why our goverment was designed as a Republic and not a democracy. In fact, the Constitution guarantees every State a "republican" form of government and not a democracy.

See: "Republics and Democracies" by Robert Welch at: http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/welch.html

Eben
The facts are that Industrial production has steadily increased going back as far as 1970 (See Link: http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/articl e_10006598.shtml)

Furthermore, the reason that manufacturing jobs have decreased is because of “productivity” improvements. It takes fewer workers to achieve the same output (Clemson study). The best parallel example is agriculture. Back at the turn of the last century (1901), 40% of the American population was involved in agriculture. By the end of the Century, (2001), less than 2% of the population is involved in agriculture, yet we produce a thousand-fold more food than ever before!
The loss of our manufacturing base (jobs) is a reflection of our own internal productivity growth, not competition from overseas. The current manufacturing jobs may not be the exact same jobs as before, but the actual total manufacturing output in dollars has done nothing but increase for decades!

As for the trade deficit, we have a 3 Trillion dollar economy. The trade deficit (~$800 Billion) is less than 1/3 of our economy. Our GDP growth has been positive for years (increasing at about ~$90 Billion / year). Comparing outflow (exports) to inflow (imports) is inadequate as a measure of our real Economic output. The GDP number includes exports and imports. If we were truly losing money, our GDP would be negative.
Pat Buchanan is a journalist, not an economist. His prejudices against Jews and Non-WASP’s and/or Non-WASC’s are well documented, whether he admits to his prejudice or not.
American needs leaders who know how things work and will strive to follow practical, proven principles, like Supply and Demand and Free Trade. This isn’t ideology, its science, as immutable as Ohm’s law and Cause and Effect!

PAT
Does anyone believe everything that Pat says, hell he has been in every POLITICAL Party in America. He cant even decide what Position to take.

If you think jobs are not being out-
sourced, you clearly do not work in Manufacturing. My husband does, and he has watched 3 different companies outsource their entire production to Mexico, China, and Malaysia.

Sure, they keep the management here in the US, but all the manufacturing is outsourced, and the company shuts it's doors to all but the suits.

Add to that the intensive illegal immigration to the US, undercutting the wages, and taking the few jobs that remain, in both manufacturing, and Construction trades, and I see our country going down the tubes, with little hope for anyone who is not a professional Athlete, Actor, Lawyer, or lawsuit beneficiary.

You'd be surprised how few high school kids fall into those categories. My sons both went to college, and are in a lifetime debt equal to my house mortgage. College is just not a real option to many kids, even if they do get enough education to get into college (given the current school system). Those kids who can't afford it, will be left with nothing but service jobs, selling clothes in the mall, or fries at the fast food joints. And their wages will always be kept low, because there will always be 10 illegals at the ready, to do the work off the books, for half the pay.

Good exchange
Ok Eben wins the controversy. Excellent comments! Add me to the list who wishes he/she could have said it all as well.

Akagi. Ridiculous comment that Pat only cares about whites and Christians. That one put you way down on score.

Pat
No, he only cares about immigration by whites and Christians.

And yes, Buck, France and the UK were, but they were not fighting against each other. The Democratic Peace Theory doesn't say democratic states don't fight, it says they don't fight each other. Lebanon may have been a democracy, but it wasn't Lebanon that was fighting Israel, it was Hamas--hardly a democratic organization.

The CSA was not a legitimate state. It was never recognized by anyone, in the Union's view, it was an area in rebellion and the Union had the legal right to put such a rebellion down.

Democracies have attacked each other twice, once in 1898 (Spain a nominal democracy) and Finland in 1941 who sided with the Nazis. As I said in an earlier post, the critique of DPT is that the sample size is so small--before WWII there were very few democracies on earth, as the number of democracies rise so might the cases of they fighting each other. DPT doesn't argue that democracies don't fight or that they don't start wars, just that they don't fight each other.

And the US has a 12 trillion dollar economy, 3 times as large as Japan, 6 times as large as China, 120 times as large as Chile, such a economic powerhouse that Pat and others were too afraid to support an FTA act with it. Only the EU has a large economy. Reminds me of the same mindless hysteria that brought us all the Japanese phobia in the 1980s--remember the book and later the movie (which was "disowned" by the author of the book) Rising Sun?


Trade
And Eben:

The trade imbalance is actually improving and it doesn't seem to have had much of an impact on the robust US economy. Of course, you modern day Smoots and Hawleys are running for the bomb shelters. And Eben, which area of the economy had the highest growth? Those connected to the domestic economy or the international side? Which sector was the major factor keeping the economy from going into recession when the housing crunch hit? Do you think Pat's policies would have a positive or negative impact on these numbers?




Yes, KM
Jobs are being outsourced and they always have been. Where did those textile mills in South Carolina come from in the first place, well try New England. And insourced jobs from the last data I saw was more than the outsourced jobs.


Akagi: Yes, there are polls
Akagi: There are repeated polls that say Americans want to get control of illegal immigration.

You are right that hasn't translated into votes for presidential candidates.

Why the gap?

Politics and particularly presidential politics is a process of people knowing the candidate from someplace before.

Usually politics, but also possibly entertainment.

Frankly, the open border candidates were already much better known than the pro-enforcement candidates.

They had the money networks already established.

Also, the political money is for open borders -- don't kid yourself.

In the negative, amnesty supporters have been hurt: Look at McCain. Now all the front runners are trying to take the anti-illegal alien position.

The media created a self-fulfilling prophecy.

They covered the candidates that had early name recognition and were receiving campaign money.

Thus favoring and amplifying the established political personas.

It didn't help that the media didn't really want border control candidates.

Huckabee -- filled a need in Iowa for a faith-based candidate and is likable and speaks well.

Romney had no name recognition, but a ready money supply, through business contacts and mormon contacts.

Why all the early coverage when he didn't have more than single digit national support?

The money.

It's not a straight line, but certainly media has an impact.

The monied elite and the media make a strong gate keeper.

Bottom line. Concern about illegal aliens invading the country is a majority position by a wide margin (70% to 75%).

Huckabee was an open border guy while a governor in Arkansas, but now has "got religion" on illegal aliens (promoting a "touchback" surge plan with no numbers).

This all suggests that private polls are telling candidates that voters care about illegal aliens swamping the country.




TANCREDO VIDEO ON YOUTUBE
Has anyone seen Tom Tancredo's youtube spoof of the Univision debate Sunday? Check it out. It's pretty darn funny and really blasts the candidates for pandering to illegals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5GUCQAdlxg

So, it’s your fault,
I am going to ask a question before I state what I came here to say.

I just looked in a box of old shoes, and found a pair of bed-room slippers that must be something like 25 to 30 years old. On the sole of the shoe it says, “Made in _____. You get 15 guesses as to which country name fills that space.

===

You ding-dongs don’t understand why out sourcesing is done. You blame it on the manufacturer, rather than where it belongs.

It’s just like that stupid statement that, “The Mex. criminals are taking jobs that Americans won’t do.”

Both out sourcesing, and job refusal are true, but not your reason.

The reason is that Americans look at the price tag and not at the place of manufacture.

If you would pay the price of the more expensive goods, no one would bother out sourcesing, and they would pay the wages needed to hire English Speaking, hard working citizens of this great country.

So, it’s your fault, not the fault of the companies that used to manufacture and grow goods in this country.

==========
Answer?

Would you believe Spain? I don’t remember ever seeing that before.

Jerebaub and Appollo
Great dialog.

Sadly this will fall on deaf ears...
As I read this book my head grew tired of the constant 'affirmative nodding' that Pats' words and propositions elicited. It is a sad commentary on where our society is headed when the masses fail to heed any sort of 'warning' from a voice with sound footing. You only need read the balance sheet of the trade deficits to know where our future lies. I have to say that the authors anger and unsettledness is easy to embrace. Stop the madness......

Sadly this will fall on deaf ears...
As I read this book my head grew tired of the constant 'affirmative nodding' that Pats' words and propositions elicited. It is a sad commentary on where our society is headed when the masses fail to heed any sort of 'warning' from a voice with sound footing. You only need read the balance sheet of the trade deficits to know where our future lies. I have to say that the authors anger and unsettledness is easy to embrace. Stop the madness......

Zhong Hua Min Guo Zai Taiwan
Unlike the CSA, the Republic of China still is recognized by nations on this earth and at one time, a majority of those nations. Unlike the CSA, Taiwan has never been part of the PRC and unlike the CSA, Taiwan has never been a party to the PRC constitution.

Germany was not considered a democracy in 1914. While Israel may have not have permission to bomb terrorist locations, it was in a war against Hamas, not Lebanon. And for Taiwan's government being accountable to the people until the 1990s (1987 at the earliest) you'd be right. Today, Taiwan is a fully democratic state, but democratic reforms didn't begin until 1987.


Athens was a Democracy but had Empire
Athens as head of the Athenian League ended up in the Peloponesian war against Sparta.

Athens ended up in war because of her heavy handed actions asserting power through its empire.

The point is not that democracies never engage in war, they do.

For me, Buchanan's point is that wanting to spread democracy by any means necessary makes us no better than the Soviets wanting to spread communism by any means necessary.

There are limits as to what America can do internationally.

I have no problem being helpful to democratic movements, but America shouldn't impose democracy by the barrel of a gun.

And America should be mindful that what we consider promoting stability -- others may consider imposing an alien order. Resentment is bred by people who feel they are conquered.

America should seek to be a "normal" nation, not the "indespensable" nation.

We are overstretched now. How much stretching can America take.

Our founding fathers recognized "searching for dragons" was the wrong way to go.

Do we have to learn the hard way and find ourselves exhausted and prostate on the ground.

"You can't Stand the Truth!
Akagi writes: Wednesday, December, 12, 2007 12:33 PM
"The issue is that the US is losing it's manufacturing base...
This is nonsense. Toyota, BMW, Benz, Kia, etc etc all have moved production plants to the US in the last decade or so."

Yeah Akagi, Toyota, BMW etc. can also pull out of the U.S.

America has an almost trillion dollar trade deficit with China.

The American "middle class" is shrinking, lower income families growing.

Our country is becoming more divided along social economic and racial lines.

Are we paranoid if someone is really after us? Pat B. is awesome, some people just like to bury their heads in the sand because they don't like what they see.

Peace... Duncan Hunter 08


ROHRABACHER (R) Bush “lying”


WIAN: The Justice Department requires applicants to wait five years after their sentence before applying for a presidential pardon, but lawmakers say it is well within the president’s power to release the agents now.

REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R), CALIFORNIA: Yeah, I think the president has been lying about this from day one. Got that lying, not telling the truth and that was fully exposed when he let “Scooter” Libby go in a millisecond.

WIAN: This month Rohrabacher and Delahunt introduced a new bipartisan resolution, asking President Bush to immediately commute the sentences of the former agents.



WATCH VIDEO

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/rep-dana-rohrabach er-r-bush-lying

Maybe not
Buck:

"You ain't as smart as you pretend to be!"

But smarter and better educated than you. I also can spell "Buchanan" correctly. It is called the Democratic Peace Theory and so far it has held up pretty well but as I stated one of the major critiques of the theory is the small sample size and as more states become democracies you may see more cases of democracies v. democracies.


One Error at a Time
I've seen enough Akagi comments to know Akagi has hobby horses like most others. And when riding the dogmatic hobby horse -- Akagi falls off from time to time.

Akagi is an open borders, amnesty, free trade, Wilsonian, liberal ...on and on.

If this line up doesn't speak to an individual with a strong streak of ideological utopianism, I don't know what does.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid Akagi.

America's superpower status?
Seeing how Pat played baseball with the President's privates on immigration reform, anti-immigration voters don't have to elect a 'borders' candidate to get their way.

I'm not sure about Buchanan. The Iraq War has the effect of making otherwise dubious people look good. Like the anti-war ultra-lefties. I worked with them trying to stop the Iraq War and Bush's re-election. But after a closer look, I realized they were, let's just say, very dubious. Their opposition to the Iraq War gave them cover for some dubious attitudes -- like their counter-recruitment campaigns where they discourage young Americans from joining for the armed services.

Call me an American 'exceptionalist', but I like living in a superpower. With all our faults, the world is better off with a democratic America as the dominant global power. If nothing else, I thank Pat for raising the question - are our days as a superpower numbered?

I will never support a candidate who was ambivalent about America's superpower status - that's why I cannot support Obama.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.