Junto Boys

WHERE THE RIGHT WENT WRONG by Pat Buchanan – a book review (4 stars of 5)

Buchanan has been an outspoken critic of the President on the issues of Iraq, trade, and immigration. This work provides the kind of thoughtful analysis and big-picture perspective I’m always looking for and never finding on the cable news channels.

This book is to the neocon right what Zell Miller’s book was to the liberal left – a public outing and flogging that exposes the corrupt underpinnings of the party platform. Each has seen his party become what it despised. They look to what the parties are doing, not what they say they are doing, and take them to task. “The GOP may be Reaganite in its tax policy, but it is Wilsonian in its foreign Policy, FDR in its trade policy, and LBJ in its spending policies.” Buchanan bemoans the departure from sound moral and cultural values that long defined and girded the nation’s fiscal, trade, and national defense policies.

How ironic that Mr. Buchanan, whose butterfly-ballot votes in Palm Beach County cost Gore the presidency, now provides the very talking points that may well usher the Dems back into the White House in 2008. (I don’t think that will happen—I think a more moderate Republican will win—but the Dems’ best arguments should be borrowed directly from these pages.)

“Though the object of being a Great Power is to be able to fight a Great War,” wrote British historian A. J. P. Taylor, “the only way of remaining a Great Power is not to fight one.” The U.S. until now has maintained its supremacy by coming into wars late, suffering fewer casualties than other world powers, and laying claim to the spoils. The strategy now is dangerously different. By conveying strength everywhere, we spread our resources thin and at great cost while stirring indignant opposition. I think of the board game RISK when I consider this administration’s show of strength and its geographic reach – when you spread your pieces all over the board, you become more vulnerable to a larger number of enemies. In that regard I think the attacks on Bush have merit. Buchanan argues that not only do we have no business interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, we invite our own demise by committing expensive resources to conflicts that do not threaten vital interests of the United States. Continuous war will drain any country. But what he fails to explain, and what Bush’s opponents always fail to explain, is why waiting for enemies to develop weapons to smash us with is better than preemptively smashing their capacity to develop them. Israel avoided decimation by decimating its enemy in the preemptive Six Day War. It’s a good workplace rule to not allow criticism unless the critic can also suggest a better way. O that the same rule applied in political sniping.

It is a different world today than it was in the Nixon White House when Buchanan walked the halls of power. The threats are real and imminent and we cannot afford to rely upon the moral restraint of sworn enemies. Dad once said, “If there is going to be a fight, throw the first punch and make it count.” I have not heard an argument that tops that sage advice (notwithstanding the loss of two teeth when I followed it). It may be true, Pat, that containment and deterrence have never failed the U.S., but the U.S. has never faced a world marked by otherwise weak enemies with massively destructive and disruptive weapons.

It may well be true that the war in Iraq and Bush’s tough talk is creating new enemy recruits, but certainly Bush did not create the enemy. The United States was in fact attacked on 9/11. The USS Cole was in fact attacked. The embassies and Marine barracks were in fact attacked. The World Trade Center was actually, factually bombed more than a decade ago. This fight was declared long ago. The doves say we’re giving Osama exactly what he wanted – global holy war. But jihad had already been declared, Bush didn’t create it. The difference is that Bush decided he had a unique opportunity to do what another or the next president probably wouldn’t, namely stop getting slapped like a sissy and put the wrongdoers on notice. Sure, it’s tough to wage war against an enemy you refuse to name (Islamic jihadists), but nonetheless we have effectively made a severe example of one bully as a signal to the rest. It costs money to run a global marketing campaign. They fault Bush for failed diplomacy, but you better know his diplomatic efforts will go a lot farther when the other party knows he has bullets in the chamber and is not afraid to fire. Bush’s democratic imperialism might “bleed, bankrupt, and isolate this republic” as Buchanan predicts, but at least we’ll go down swinging. A more pointed criticism is that Americans will not support indefinitely an abstract foreign policy with its blood, sweat, and tears. That Bush has never leveled with the American people regarding why we are at war is a valid criticism and a real concern. Popular support for the war will likely continue to erode. Look for Bush to expedite the withdrawal from Iraq, leaving them free to destroy their own country.

Buchanan explains how America has mortgaged the farm to Mexico and China and revisits the protectionist trade policies for which he is known -- and ridiculed. I think he is right that America has tough times ahead. Our manufacturing base is moving offshore at an accelerating rate, sapping the nation of its capacity to create wealth. In this age of free trade, absent tariffs, we invite savage pillaging. “Thank you sir, may I have another?!!” The service jobs that replace the manufacturing jobs pay less, do not fuel R&D and investment, and offer little long-term benefit to those who hold them. The dollar gets weaker and weaker, and there is so much foreign investment in our economy that we have surrendered control of our very economic engine. From 1900-1970 the U.S. produced 96% of everything it consumed. Today we import 14% of total consumption and 33% of manufactured goods. We have run 33 straight trade deficits, now 4% of GDP. At some point that spells economic collapse. Meanwhile, in China we are creating our next superpower enemy, one that will beat us with the stick we handed her.

The bottom line: America’s monetary, fiscal, trade, and foreign policies have mortgaged the nation’s future for short-term political gain. You cannot run an empire on a falling currency, eroding manufacturing base, consumer economy, diluted culture, overextended military, and policies that fail to focus on protecting vital U.S. interests. It’s not selfish to pull in, reassess, regroup, and refocus; it’s a matter of national survival.

Pat makes a lot of sense, but I fear he may have peaked in 1988, that the train left this station some time ago.