Pat Buchanan, anti-imperialist? Or, everything Old (Right) is New (Left) again;
Or, the beards have all grown longer over night...
Reading his newest article over at lewrockwell.com, one would get the impression that Patrick J. Buchanan is an anti-war and anti-imperialist paleocon who is sick and tired of seeing the neocons use the military might of the United States to remake the world according to their own utopian vision. Such utopianism is supposed to be contrary to the conservative temper and philosophy---though, of course, one could argue that the neocons are not conservative at all, and never were; several are former Trotskyists of the Partisan Review crowd, a few are old-line anti-communist liberals (of the sort who used to be published in Dissent), and at least a couple are ex-New Leftists (like the detestable David Horowitz and Ronald Radosh, whose story is much more interesting to me, see Justin Raimondo's article at antiwar.com [http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j101402.html] as well as the prolific and ubiquitous anarchteacher's listmania on amazon.com [http://www.amazon.com/John-Flynn-Anti-Globalist-Patriot-Prophet/lm/BO0CS7TYNXI2/ref=cm_lm_dtpa_fvlm_cfa_1/103-4697953-4053446], both of which deal with the book Radosh is now embarassed to have written: Prophets on the right: Profiles of conservative critics of American globalism, an analysis, from a New Left perspective, of the Old Right's anti-imperialist and anti-militarist tradition. Now that he is a member of the New Right who despises the Old Right, the New Left, and the New New Left, such works don't fit with his new job as apologist for the new American imperialism.)
But, I have a hard time keeping track of which Pat Buchanan is which. Is he the Pat of his eloquent articles on LRC and antiwar.com, or the Pat who appeared (in just one example of many) on Scarborough Country last night (http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=1DA0EF82-E4D7-4967-9D5F-33607D3A7B5B&f=00&fg=copy), evincing a dnagerously myopic view of history, especially as regards the Vietnam War and its relevance to the current quagmire in Iraq. Part of Buchanan's problem here, I suspect, is his undying loyalty to his former boss, Richard Nixon, and his desire to lay the blame for the loss in (and loss of) Vietnam, and everything that followed, at the feet of Congress. But, as I have already said, his view is, to say the least, myopic and downright false. What was it that allowed the Khmer Rouge to come to power in Cambodia, unleashing one of the worst genocides of the 20th century? Was it the fall of South Vietnam, or the ongoing meddling of the United States? We must recall that it was the North Vietnamese who finally invaded Cambodia to stop the Khmer Rouge. What are the lessons of that war for the current situation? And, is Pat Buchanan the one best suited to teach those lessons? I certainly have my doubts.
That said, as I pointed out some time back to
utopian_camorra, in regards to Iraq, Buchanan has been more sensible, and more often correct, than Hitchens---and ten years ago, I never would have imagined I would find myself more frequently agreeing with the former than the latter. This relates to the process that is implied in the subject tag and the opening paragraph, whereby, to once again quote that great song by The Who, "Won't Get Fooled Again":
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight
My own anarchist, radical, and conservative (as discussed previously) tendencies (and I prefer to call them that, rather than anything more deterministic) are to distrust any and all political parties, any and all individuals or groups who seek power, because as history is our guide, they will abuse that power sooner or later---probably sooner than we even imagined.
It is high time, I think, for a revival of the old anti-imperialist project, both internationally and domestically. It is time for a revaluation of values, and a long hard look at all the old idols and heroes of the long, losing fight against, as Albert Jay Nock called it, "our enemy, the state." Some of those people and projects I nominate for a second, third, or fourth look: Ivan Illich, Murray Rothbard (and especially his magazine Libertarian Forum, which was an early attempt to bring together anti-imperialist elements of the Old Right and New Left), Lewis Mumford, and Karl Hess. Any other nominations, thoughts, suggestions? I would like to hear them.