Skip to main content

View Diary: Pat Buchanan, Caught Making Sense! (331 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  My suspicion ... (35+ / 0-)

    Based on reading and listening to Buchanan, IMHO his primary angst is that the white race is embroiled in internecine warfare that is going to doom Western Civilization.

    Obama, don't take my advice. I'm just an anonymous blogger on the 'nets.

    by Bronxist on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:04:59 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Bingo Bronxist. (10+ / 0-)

      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. ..John F. Kennedy

      by irishamerican on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:07:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Buchanan always reminds me of Francis Parker (4+ / 0-)

      Yockey, the author of Imperium, whom I suspect he admires. His world view is very similar--it's the west vs. the rest.
      However, Buchanan has generally been a "Euroskeptic," opposed to a unified Europe. I think that's because he believes the US should be the reigning empire, as Europe is already "lost," as Yockey himself suggested would be the case. Yockey, on the other hand, was anti-US.
      For those who don't know his work, Yockey was a Nuremburg trials judge who gradually became sympathetic to the fascist point of view. He was one of the first post-war voices to openly call for a renewed form of fascism. His best-known US acolyte was Willis Carto, of Liberty Lobby fame. Go google him and Buchanan and the philosophical and actual links start to become very clear.

      Political Compass says: -8.88, -8.67
      "We never sold out cos no one would buy."--J Neo Marvin

      by expatyank on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:24:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No idea where y'all get this nonsense about race (5+ / 0-)

      with regards to Buchanan. He has a strong partisan connection to Western Civilization, with an emphasis on the Christian roots of the civilization but my impression from his writings is that he conceives the basis of this civilization as not primarily "race" but a set of ideas and principles. Civilizations and their rise and fall are not based on racial conflicts, but on conflicts of ideas. Don't know where you're pulling this "racist" slander from.

      •  Are you serious? (11+ / 0-)

        Somehow it's slander to suggest that Pat Buchanan, the person that thinks we shouldn't have intervened in WW2, is a racist?

        I've been watching his bullshit since he was on CNN's Crossfire in 1985, if you think Pat's not a racist you really haven't been paying much attention to him.

        "the train tracks all run parallel, but they'll all meet up one day" -- John Prine

        by rockhound on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:56:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm 100% serious. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          politicalget, beijingbetty

          The defense against charges of slander is to prove that the allegation is true. What's your justification? And where did he supposedly say the US should not have been involved in WW2?

          •  Ok... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mattman, MKSinSA, csquared, amk for obama

            Well, there's this:

            "If the objective of the West was the destruction of Nazi Germany, it was a "smashing" success. But why destroy Hitler? If to liberate Germans, it was not worth it. After all, the Germans voted Hitler in."

            "the train tracks all run parallel, but they'll all meet up one day" -- John Prine

            by rockhound on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:17:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  You are an uninformed ignoramous (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mattman, Bronxist, csquared

            If you don't know what a total racist Buchananin is, its because you don't want to know.  Biuchanaon is

            Here are some of his greatest hits -- and yet something tells me mnone of this will hcange your mind:


            McCain: Running for Hoover's 21st term

            by Finck II on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:18:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Wow. What answer can I possibly give (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              politicalget, MKSinSA

              to that substanceless mass of non-response.
              Awe inspiring, really.

              •  So you are a smartass as well as an asshole (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Miles, rockhound, csquared

                My comment above was obliviously a glitch.  This is shrugged off by adults, but it provides hours of gotcha glee for seventh-graders and those of similar intellectual seriousness.

                Here is the link I wished to provide.  But as I say above, I certainly don't expect it to alter your attitudes.  Your comments up and down this thread make it clear that you defend Buchanan because you share his viewpoint.  If he is a racist, then so are you.  Well, guess what.  He is... and you are.

                Here is Buchanan at his racist, anti-Semitic, misogynist, homophobic and above all fascist best:


                I sure you have a clever explanation for all of the above.  Of course, after a while, one is struck not by the excuses offered by Buchanan groupies but rather by the fact that there is so much they have to excuse.

                McCain: Running for Hoover's 21st term

                by Finck II on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:29:06 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Ah, a site full of "out of context quotes" (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  You know the discussion is reaching a pinnacle of intellectual rigour when one of those is thrown at you. Yeah, let me just get right at that, locating and reading 27 articles and news programs to understand the context of all those quotes, and then writing a full explanation of why they are out of context. Yeah, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to expect a person to do on an online board where the average comment is on the order of "yeah, lol stoopid troll, lol."

                  •  Ah, the old "out of context" con job... (5+ / 0-)

                    ..beloved by frauds everywhere -- as if there is some context that would transform the above fascist hate speech into a sweetly sung refrain of "It's a Small World After All."

                    Another problem with your bullshit response: it implies that you do not agree with the above quotes in their alleged "out-of context" version.  But of course, we see from your other comments that it is in fact Buchanan's very bigotry that makes you such an avid fan of his venom.

                    I leave you the last word -- I never met a schmuck who didn't insist on it.  But I would keep it brief -- that smell of smoke suggests the flames from your burning cross have gotten out of control and are in serious danger of burning down your room of Hitler memorabilia.

                    McCain: Running for Hoover's 21st term

                    by Finck II on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:08:39 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Ah, playing the "Hitler card." (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      You know someone is intent on ramping his sophistry to a new level of absurdity when he plays the Hitler card.

                    •  You can't be this naive (0+ / 0-)

                      You want me to dig up some Republican propaganda site of Obama quotes to bring home how it works?

                      Obama's pastor of 25 years: "God damn America"

                      Michelle Obama: "for the first time in I am proud of my country."

                      Etc. I'm sure there are a few such emails making the rounds. I suppose you're going to be consistent and say that such emails are completely truthful and in proper context.

                      Yeah. Didn't think so.

                      It's a tired game. Quote snippets are meaningless without the context of the entire piece to place the meaning.

                  •  Sorry but Buchanon isn't just a racist (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    rockhound, bperk

                    He's a clever racist.  But he's slippery.

                    Listen to him just a few times and you'll understand he wants a whiter America, and you'll feel is sneering disdain for people who are different from him.

                    He's simple scum... and what does that tell us about the network that employs him?   Everything we need to know.

                    "A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can even get its boots on."

                    by Miles on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 06:07:46 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Conception Day ... (9+ / 0-)

            HereBuchanan rues the fact that Russians and White Americans are not reproducing fast enough and that the Turkish and Chinese are.

            Can't get clearer than that, IMHO.

            Obama, don't take my advice. I'm just an anonymous blogger on the 'nets.

            by Bronxist on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:43:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Aside from the fact that the article (0+ / 0-)

              is reprinted on what appears to be a white supremacist site, I fail to see the connection between observing that "European man" is willingly going extinct and racism. I maintain that it is clear from an honest reading of his writings that his concern is about the accompanying extinction of the Western culture heritage embedded in those European men and women. It is quite natural for someone to feel upset about a trend of annihilation of his culture.

              •  White Supremacist? (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Bronxist, fromdabak, csquared, bperk

                Don't you mean "pro-Caucasian Pride" or haven't you gone that far over the edge yet?

                "the train tracks all run parallel, but they'll all meet up one day" -- John Prine

                by rockhound on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:09:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Well .... (8+ / 0-)

                First, there is no such thing as "European Man"  -- that is code for "White People", i.e., a racial construct. You are free to use this code word, but I'd call it racist.

                Second, Buchanan is hung up on white people not reproducing fast enough, and others replacing them.

                Third, your point about culture is BS -- Europe does not have one monolithic culture that is separable from the culture of the rest of the world, and its culture is very successful in spreading throughout the world (think Mozart, Democracy, the Roman Catholic Church, Shakespear).

                Buchanan is a hardcore, dyed in the wool racist bemoaning the era when "European Woman" was a breeding chattel.

                Obama, don't take my advice. I'm just an anonymous blogger on the 'nets.

                by Bronxist on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:45:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Pure nonsense (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  Mozart, Democracy, the Roman Catholic Church, Shakespeare

                  Yes, of course.  What was I thinking. All of those things are positively thriving today. Western Civilization is in no way in decline. Yes, everyone's listening to Mozart on their iPods and Shakespeare is being performed on city street corners and read widely on the city buses.

              •  now we're getting somewhere (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                You fail to see what this has to do with racism...

                "I fail to see the connection between observing that "European man" is willingly going extinct and racism."

                Go read a little about fascist rhetoric from the 1920s and 1930s.

                If you don't hear the racism in the European Man comment then there is really nothing to discuss with you.  You've demonstrated that we are talking to an unread, uneducated, historically unaware person.  And as always, ignorance is often the source of racism.

                "A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can even get its boots on."

                by Miles on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 06:11:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Some people think that the only (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  way another person can be racist is if they wear a white sheet and yell "nigger".  Anyone who can honestly argue that Buchanan is not a racist is likely in that group.

                •  There is nothing racist (0+ / 0-)

                  about bewailing what you perceive to be your culture's self-chosen path of decline and destruction of your culture. Those who call Buchanan racist are most likely hard-core relativists who don't think there is such a thing as great and not so great cultures. For such people, all cultures are equal, making the rise and fall of cultures not something to be cheered or mourned, but something of no consequence. So when someone like Buchanan says that Western civilization has certain values that are great and valuable and healthy for humanity, the relativists call him a racist, etc.

                  Was TS Eliot a "racist"for writing "The Wasteland?"
                  Yeats for writing "The Second Coming?"

                  You folks toss around these terms like sledgehammers to bludgeon anyone who disagrees with you.

                  •  Bewailing puts you off balance (0+ / 0-)

                    Sometimes when you are in a state of grief it impairs your ability to think...

                    T.S. Eliot was a virulent racist and antisemite... not for the Wasteland in particular, but for the sum of everything he wrote.


                    When Yeats defends Western Civ in The Second Coming he is indeed being parochial and narrow minded... and really quite insane considering the then recent Great War.

                    Should a man love his mother more or less than his father?  

                    I celebrate the birth and mourn the death of all cultures.  Why should I celebrate or mourn more for one than another?  Are you seriously proposing that all cultures are NOT equal?   And yet you contend that you are not a racist?  Well there you go again.

                    Tell us precisely how your culture is better than others.  I'm sure we are all listening.  Then let's invite some folks from other cultures and they will tell us how their cultures are better.  Then we will have a big party and try to decide who is really right.  Won't that be fun!  I'm sure it will be easy to come up with an objective set of measures to score each culture and determine whose is best.  

                    Oh, and be sure to bring along some judges who don't belong to any of the cultures so that we don't have any cultural biases in the decision making...

                    Seriously, does the fact that one happens to be born in New Jersey bestow a particular value on New Jersey culture that elevates it above Jarkarta or Sudan?  

                    Buchanan does not simply say that Western culture is good... he says that it is better.    And therein lies the problem.

                    Furthermore to proclaim one's goodness from a position of power (and Western Civ is powerful), is ipso facto, to claim one's superiority.  The great man speaks humbly, the great culture practices humility.  The braggadocio of Buchanan's ilk bespeaks the small mindedness and hatred of his heart and of his culture.

                    Since this Western Civ thing apparently includes Pat Buchanan's values, we have proof positive that there is an evil at the heart of Western Civilization that should be excised and that drags us down to the lowest level ... but we are forgiving people so we let the Buchanans fester in their isolated little corners spewing their hate and defending their own righteous purity.  

                    Unfortunately when we have the big "whose culture is best party" someone is going to point to Pat Buchanan over at the chips and dips table, with the guacamole all dribbling down his tie, and we'll be completely sunk.

                    "A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can even get its boots on."

                    by Miles on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 09:47:36 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  The title of his book was (5+ / 0-)

            "Churchill, Stalin, and the Unnecessary War" dipshit.

            But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false--about Hope ~BHO -6.38/-7.08

            by OH 09 Dem on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:27:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, and his premise was that the (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              politicalget, gzodik

              war in its entirety, from its roots in Versailles, through to the events leading up to war, were unnecessary. To take from that the notion that he would have approved of "leaving fascism and Naziism be" once it had actually manifested itself is an absurd distortion. Maybe you should read past the title to actually understand such nuances.

              I am going to choose to ignore your petty name calling.

              •  I read the book ... (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                rockhound, fromdabak, MKSinSA, csquared

                First chapter starts out bemoaning how white people are going to die out -- oh, why oh why did they have to kill each other, give up their empires and not continue to breed fast enough!

                Followed by a few hundred pages of historical what-ifs which are oblivious to the fact that fighting Hitler was possibly the only good war in this century.

                Obama, don't take my advice. I'm just an anonymous blogger on the 'nets.

                by Bronxist on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:53:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Ok, I have to first apologize for the (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                pacotrey, MKSinSA, csquared

                name calling, that's unlike me and I probably over-reacted a bit--especially considering that you are sincere and not simply trolling.  Ok, now the reason why I responded the way I did was because you said this:

                And where did he supposedly say the US should not have been involved in WW2?

                 Which of course, has been responded to many other times during this diary so I'm not going to beat it to death, but that's what I was responding to.  The title of the book and many other articles by him directly answer your question.  I should note, however, that the later arguments you make (e.g. Treaty of Versailles, invasion of Ruhr District, etc, etc,)  are compelling and accurate historical reasons as to why the War happened and how it could have been avoided.  But, Pat and you (by your comments) conflate the arguments vis a vis "The War should have been prevented" and "The War wasn't worth fighting."

                But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false--about Hope ~BHO -6.38/-7.08

                by OH 09 Dem on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:49:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No I don't conflate those two points. (0+ / 0-)

                  But, Pat and you (by your comments) conflate the arguments vis a vis "The War should have been prevented" and "The War wasn't worth fighting."

                  And neither does Buchanan, other than in the sense that it was a preventable and pointless slaughter of millions. But his argument lies firmly in the camp of "the war was preventable, and that post WW1 actions of the Allies largely brought a militant Hitler, and the war, on themselves.

          •  The Unnecessary War (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rockhound, csquared


            Buchanan argues that Britain and the U.S. should have stayed out of world war II

            Rules are good. Break them.

            by KariQ on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:16:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No (0+ / 0-)

              He argues that the war and the conditions from which it sprung should not have been created and started by Britain and others in the first place.
              I.e. that the war was not necessary, but preventable.
              E.g. the Versailles treaty, the dismemberment of Germany after WW1, various other treaties, etc. Not sure if he deals with American and British bankers and industrialists funding the rise of Hitler or not.

        •  Wait a minute (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Odysseus, Cool Blue Reason, gzodik

          WW II was about a LOT of things--racism was about dead last as a reason.  Winston Churchill was a notorious racist (see his comments about the lesser peoples of the empire).  FDR put the Japanese-Americans in camps and ran a segregated Army.  The Japanese believed they were racially superior.  And of course, the Germans though themselves the master race.  The Russians MAY have claimed to be against racism, but after once seeing how some African students were  treated in Moscow, I am pretty sure Soviet anti-racism was just window dressing.

          Moreover, the American people were overwhelmingly against involvement in WW II before Pearl Harbor.  My Alf Landon-voting Kansas Republican grandfather could give you about four hours of reasons why involvement in Europe's wars was more than merely foolish--it was a SIN.  And race was NEVER on the list of reasons.

          So Buchanan may be a racist--very few people are not.  But his beliefs that USA made a fatal mistake by getting involved in Europe's wars has NOTHING to do with racism.  They are completely separate issues.

          Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans

          by techno on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:31:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If it weren't for the attempted genocide of the (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            csquared, Anarchofascist, PixyStyx

            Jewish race in Nazi Germany I'd be inclined to agree with you.  Whether or not it was a reason for our involvement in the first place does not diminish the role the US played in ending it.

            "the train tracks all run parallel, but they'll all meet up one day" -- John Prine

            by rockhound on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:43:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Please! (3+ / 0-)

              The USA had very little to do with the end of German concentration camps--Auschwitz was liberated by the Red Army as were MOST of them.

              Besides, MOST of the world believes that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki were purely racial acts.  This does NOT excuse the Germans, but to suggest that we were the good guys fighting the "good war" is historically absurd.  I KNOW there are many Americans who believe that WW II was a battle between Hitler and B'nai B'rith, but they are usually the same people who cannot find the Pacific Ocean on a map.

              Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans

              by techno on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:54:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Do you really mean to suggest that the Russians (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                were doing just fine against Germany in WW2?  It seems to me that Germany having to fight a two front war probably ended the European component of WW2 a bit sooner than a single front war would have.

                "the train tracks all run parallel, but they'll all meet up one day" -- John Prine

                by rockhound on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:05:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not just fine, but... (0+ / 0-)

                  There was NO way the Germans would have defeated USSR.  And well over 90% of the casualties of WW II were on the Eastern front.

                  The RED ARMY defeated the Wehrmacht.  We had almost nothing to do with Germany's defeat.  There are thousands of statistics to back this assertion but one bugs me more than any other.  The Red Army took 400,000 casualties in the battle for Budapest--so a "minor battle most Americans have never heard of produced more death than ALL of WW II did for USA.

                  WW II is a fascinating story, you know.  Just because the Cold War liars prevented the real story from being taught in USA schools does NOT diminish the story one iota.

                  Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans

                  by techno on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:07:11 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  summery (0+ / 0-)

                    UK defeated Italy,

                    Soviet Union defeated Germany


                    US defeated Japan.

                    the fact that US economic support to UK, USSR, and the other minor allies made it happen a bit quicker do not diminish the fact that once the Soviet Union had survived the assault on Moscow, ironically winning the battle on 7th December 1941, it was very likly to win the war. Once it had won at Stalingrad it had become simply a matter of time.

                    In terms of the Western Front there were more non-US troops involved on D-Day than there were US, it was into 45 before the US forces were the majority on the Western front and Hitler was dead by April.

          •  WW II was about race. (0+ / 0-)

            The Germans tried to exterminate the Jews, considered Russians and slavs to be inferior.
            Japan was pushed ovr the edge by US oil embargo, but an underlying theme was to force Europeans (whites) out of Asia. Churchill begged Roosevelt to help secure England colonial empire. We put Japaneese Americans in camps.
            Lots of race.
            Pat quite often makes comments or arguments that are laced with racial superiority. I will say I'm unsure he realizes it.
            So canuckistani78, let it go, your just wrong.  

      •  C'mon, Pat Buchanan is all about race (11+ / 0-)

        He thinks that Western civilization equals white civilization.  He's constantly talking about how horrible it is that Obama gets 85% of the black vote and never seems to realize that any Democratic presidential candidate gets 85% of the black vote.  He's worried about the Mexicans taking back the Southwest, if not the whole country.  He's about as obsessed as Lou Dobbs when it comes to immigration.

        The sleep of reason brings forth monsters. --Goya

        by MadScientist on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:06:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Way to cut out of context w/r/t Obama (0+ / 0-)

          The comment was about Obama getting 90% black support WITHIN the Democratic party in the contest with Clinton in the context of the media spin that the white voters of WV, KY, OH, PN were "racists" because they didn't support Obama. Whereas 90% of black voters voting for Obama, the black candidate, because he was black is...what? Roots based solidarity? The point was valid.

          •  not necessarily (5+ / 0-)

            lots of us non-blacks thought Clinton was using under the radar cues to white people (e.g. "hardworking white americans")

            If I could catch on to it, i'm sure it was even more stark to blacks, who live withit freaking every day

   the end...the primary showed that race based politics was factor...but not just b/c he was black.

            Remembre, Clinton was getting 60 percent of the black vote until late december

            and then bigdawg had to open his stupid mouth (and my sig should clue you in that i'm not an Obama partisan)

            Obama lied. The 4th amendment died.

            by daddy4mak on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:54:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Wow. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rockhound, csquared, bperk

            If you don't see the fundamental difference between Obama having 90% of the black vote and voters in appalchia refusing to support the black candidate, then I don't know why you are even on a progressive blog.

            "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

            by PixyStyx on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:55:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  But that's an assumption on your part (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              that the voting of Appalachia or Pennsylvania or Ohio. There was this current of reverse racism encouraged by Obama's campaign where because he was black, the mere act of voting for someone other than him could only have racist reasons. The very suggestion that on the basis of merit, Obama was a weaker political candidate for presidency than Clinton was framed, unfortunately with a great deal of success, as "closet racism." The great success, sophistry wise, of the Obama campaign was promoting the idea that holding Obama to the same merit based standards as any white candidate or using the same campaign tactics that would be perfectly acceptable against any white candidate is "racist."

              •  There is no such thing as reverse racism (0+ / 0-)

                and you are clearly a moron if you think that there is.  I clearly understand your defense of Buchanan now.  You are cut from the same cloth.

                •  True... (0+ / 0-)

                  There is only racism. If anyone assumes that they are superior to another based solely on that collection of phenotypic traits that we have called "race", things likes skin tone, eye shape, etc...

                  Then they are a racist. Period. Full stop.

                  It matters not one bit which traits they have, or which ones they assume make others inferior.

                  David Duke is a racist. So is Louis Farrakhan. So was General Togo.

                  Mormonism was a racist religion. As were Rastafarianism and Shinto.

                  It's the arrow that matters, not who's holding the bow or where they're aiming.

                  Racism is racism. It's also completely obliterated by an understanding of modern evolutionary biology and the human genome.

                  There is, however, a difference imbedded in this conversation that we might want to talk about separately from Pat Buchannan... The underlying question I'm seeing here is this:

                  Is there a middle ground between racism and total cultural relativism? Because I've got little patience for either extreme. Presented with a black man in a suit and tie and a white kid dressed hood-rat style, on the same dark street, I know who I'll be keeping an eye on.  But that doesn't stop me from saying, for example, that human sacrifice is wrong, and that cultures who do not practice it are morally superior to those that do.


                  •  You are describing bigotry. (0+ / 0-)

                    Racism is a cultural phenomenon that individuals reinforce with their bigotry.  White people in this country never suffer from racism.  You can see racism play out in studies where white man with a felony and a black man have equal rates of getting hired - even if none of those individual people doing the hiring believes they are racist.  

                    •  If you are defining "racism" (0+ / 0-)

                      as "The idea that white people are superior, and all the actions that result from that belief," then of course, you are correct.

                      I'm using the word in a larger context, to describe any differentiation of people based on "race". In this context, nobody gets a pass, and nobody gets automatic guilt. It is solely one's individual actions and thoughts that define whether one does or does not deserve the title of "racist."

                      Ultimately, it is only my own moral choices that I can be held responsible for, because that is the limit of my control.


                      •  Sure, but when people are screaming (0+ / 0-)

                        about racism that white people suffer in this country, it is disingenuous.  It ignores all the privilege that comes with being white.  Further, the common stereotypes that are depicted about white people don't even remotely compare with the common stereotypes about black people.  We aren't working from a level playing field here.

                        •  No argument about playing feilds was being made.. (0+ / 0-)

                          at least not by me.

                          We also have a nasty tendency to use race as a proxy for discussions of class.

                          I've never been black, but I've been poor. And I'm pretty confident that I'd be better off, overall, as a rich black man than as a poor white man. But we don't talk about that part of it, because it would contradict our most important social myth, that we have created a classless society.

                          This cripples us in so many ways. For example, what if we moved the college admissions affirmative action stuff from a race-based system to an income-based system? This would still benefit minorities, as they're statistically more likely to be poor, but it puts the poor white people's interests where they should be... with the poor black and brown people. Instead, the (predominately but not exclusively white) rich folks set the poor black people against the poor white and brown people, and vice-versa, and verce-visa, and every permutation you can imagine.... while they make off with all the fucking money.

                          If you have been, as I was, homeless and poor in a mixed-race environment, you will immediately recognize what I'm talking about. The Whites hate the blacks and the Latinos, the blacks hate the whites and the Latinos, the Latinos hate the whites and the blacks, the whites and the blacks hate the Jews, everybody hates the Asians... and around and around it goes.

                          I've also noticed that, in the circles of wealth, they are much better at aligning their interests in the way that works best for themselves. In other words, the rich black and Latino folks that I have known have been much closer to the rich white folks, at least in their disdain for the poor... regardless of color.

                          In general terms, rich folks are more likely to define "us" and "them" in terms of class, while poor folks tend more to do it in racial terms. Granted, this is a generalization, but it's based on years of observations in both worlds, some of them simultaneous.


                          •  A zero sum game? (0+ / 0-)

                            The problem is that among poor blacks, whites, and Latinos, there is an assumption that it is a zero sum game.  A job for a black person is one less job for a white person.  A job for a Latino is one less job for a black person.  No one unites to look around and wonder why there are not enough good jobs for everyone.  Race/ethnicity is used to divide and conquer.  The same goes for college admissions. You want to move affirmative action to consider class instead.  I want to know why we don't do both.  Why do we have to choose between those two?  Because once again it is considered to be a zero-sum game between poor whites, blacks, and Latinos.  It shouldn't be. More spots are filled by legacy candidates than by affirmative action candidates.

                            A rich black person may be better off than a poor white person.  But anytime we are talking about equal classes (or relatively equal classes), white is better.  That is where you see racism coming through.  This is why I find it problematic that a white person would complain about some minor discrimination that they suffered at the hands of a black person, and calling it racism.

                            I'm not sure I agree that what happens about the alignment of rich people together though.  The only black people I know who have money (I wouldn't call them rich though) are the first ones in their family to ever have money, so their families are still struggling.  Perhaps it is different after you are several generation removed by poverty, but that is a rarity in the black community.

                  •  I agree with you that this is the more (0+ / 0-)

                    central point. There is a big difference between rejecting cultural relativism, being proud of your culture or civilization and defending it AND racism. This is where I feel people are missing the point on Mr. Buchanan.

          •  mad is that. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            politicalget, gzodik, beijingbetty

            buchanan is a civil man with whom I disagree about half the time. He's not a racist, he's a merit-ist. He's sometimes amazingly illuminating with his deep draw on history-- my god, why is he the only elder speaking on 20th century events?

            today he's calling out US imperialism, guys, listen up.

            "Don't push the river but don't pull no punches." Van Morrison

            by bob zimway on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:57:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Of course it helps if you ignore (0+ / 0-)

            all the other times when black people supported one candidate in Dem primaries in large numbers.  You know like with Gore.  Obviously, black people must have mistaken him for black.

      •  here's a start... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mattman, rockhound, csquared

        Cloaked in the self-righteousness of a conservative rationalization of the truth.

        There's more out there, but you can find it yourself - as if.

    •  And he is too much a Libertarian (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peace voter

      to like involvement in international situations.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (148)
  • Community (71)
  • Elections (50)
  • 2016 (48)
  • Bernie Sanders (45)
  • Culture (35)
  • Climate Change (35)
  • Environment (35)
  • Hillary Clinton (33)
  • Science (30)
  • Education (28)
  • Barack Obama (28)
  • Media (28)
  • Republicans (27)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Law (24)
  • Labor (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Economy (21)
  • Congress (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site