Pat Buchanan, Culture Warrior

[Perpetual Change]

Couldn't focus much today, and wound up watching a lot of Youtube. Got to this video, and couldn't help but laugh. See, Pat Buchanan's "Culture Warrior" speech,

Part One: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO5_1ps5CAc&feature=related

Parts two and three can be found pretty easily in the side-bar.

Couple thoughts: I find this all pretty frazzling. I thought political rhetoric had probably gotten worse, but man if this isn't a grand display of suppressed white supremacy at its finest. Despite those under tones, its strange to see such charisma coming from a politician. Today's politicians are so concerned with racing to the center and looking good in the media that I can't imagine someone as militant as Buchanan getting away with it these days. What's most interesting about the whole thing, though, is how he rallies his troops around George Bush. He really seems like a leader leading his troops into battle.

Mainly looking for reactions from people who lived through this era, though.  As an 80's baby, I'd like to ask the older members here: What the hell did I just watch?

[Scheavo]

I'm not the demographic you're looking for...

But I found it fascinating to listen to his speech given what we know today... I mean... the man was just completely wrong. Look what Reagan wrought upon this country, and look at what happened under Clinton.

And lol, in one sentence he credits Reagan for the largest "peace time" economic recovery in history... and then he goes on to talk about how great Reagan was at fighting militarily! I mean, seriously... what the fuck.

[Perpetual Change]

Yeah. I've gotta say, the whole "The Gipper was at the helm!" thing was just so over the top and outrageous.

Pat Buchanan's really gone off the deep end lately, though.

[Cool Chris]

Pat Buchanan's really gone off the deep end lately, though.

I was thinking this myself. I liked him a while ago. I didn't agree with everything he said, but he at least seemed consistent in what he believed and what he thought was best for the country. Not that I would have ever voted for him. 

[MasterShakezula]

I'm not extremely well-educated politically or anything (I don't know jack about this guy), but I listened to it, anyways and here are some things I've to say about it:

-He seems to express an unwelcoming view of the liberal side of the spectrum; he doesn't appear to be willing to accept his opponents' ideas to any extent, especially when he was discussing abortion and (I think) gay rights. 

-It seems contradictory to praise Reagan's peacetime economy and then praise his military campaign in Nicaragua, the arming of Afghan freedom fighters, and the US's role in promoting the USSR's fall.

-About Bill dodging the draft, I've read that George W. Bush avoided fighting during the war by taking part in the Peace Corps, and I've also read that during his service there, he really didn't do anything. 

-Calling Bill (or anyone) out on excessive spending makes sense, IMO, but the Reagan administration is as guilty as anyone in regards to spending.  (Compare the military spending of 1980 to that of 1988)

-Throughout the video, particularly the end, it seems like Pat's really reaching out to the audience's status of the working class and makes shout-outs of sorts to them and their fellow Americans to get them pumped up and make it clear (to them, anyways) that he and the GOP are the true American way to go.  I'm guessing (assuming that he's a neo-con) that the gesture, though it was clearly effective in getting the audience's support, was not exactly genuine. 

That's what caught my attention in the videos of the speech, anyways.

(Also, out of curiosity, is Pat Buchanan a descendent of sorts of James Buchanan?  Just wondering.)

[Nick]

My one quick point is that Buchanan is about as far from a Neo-con as you can be. As time went on he seperated himself more and more from the Bush's and their policies.

[MasterShakezula]

How would you best describe the modern Pat?

That change from heavy Bush-whacker to getting farther and farther away from Bush sounds like quite the, well, change.

I'm mainly in this sub forum for education, so I'm all for hearing some more on this dude.

[Perpetual Change]

My one quick point is that Buchanan is about as far from a Neo-con as you can be. As time went on he seperated himself more and more from the Bush's and their policies.

I know you're a Buchanan fan for those reasons, but what do you make of his ideas that the United States should have a clear racial, ethnic, and linguistic identity? The guy seems genuinely afraid that the Southwest is eventually going to be "over-run by latinos who don't care about 'our' culture or language", which seems bizarre given the fact that those people are more indeginious to that area than we are, and our attempts at annex it as "foreigners" would never be successful in terms of replacing the culture that was already there with our own. Heck, as a Civ player, you should know that never seems to work 

[jsem]

Buchanan is def. not a neocon. He has my respect, but his culture war thing is just hilarious.

[Nick]

My one quick point is that Buchanan is about as far from a Neo-con as you can be. As time went on he seperated himself more and more from the Bush's and their policies.

I know you're a Buchanan fan for those reasons, but what do you make of his ideas that the United States should have a clear racial, ethnic, and linguistic identity? The guy seems genuinely afraid that the Southwest is eventually going to be "over-run by latinos who don't care about 'our' culture or language", which seems bizarre given the fact that those people are more indeginious to that area than we are, and our attempts at annex it as "foreigners" would never be successful in terms of replacing the culture that was already there with our own. Heck, as a Civ player, you should know that never seems to work 

I do believe that as a nation we should share a common language and that in general terms we should encourage assimilation (melting pot)_as opposed to being a salad with no individual identity. As with many conservatives (actual, not repubs or neo-cons) I agree more on a monetary and foreign policy ground than I do a social ground. That said I think Pat is completely right in his worries about Mexican immigration. People like to write it off as just another wave of immigration in America, but frankly the number of illegal immigrants in the past ~30 years outnumbers ALL legal and illegal immigration for the entire rest of the countries history. That's something that simply can't be ignored.

And the costs on our school, justice, and social systems are just staggering. And in general I do have a major issue with people who are working/living here on a permanent or semi-permanent basis with no allegiance to the United States. In general I think immigration needs to be handled legally and I do believe illegal immigrants should be deported immediately. And I am a staunch defender of the economic blowback from this. Yes, Americans won't currently do the jobs that immigrant labor does, but that is simply because the large and readily available foreign labor force has driven wages low. If tomorrow the jobs had to be left to Americans there would be a drastic decrease in fruit production, but only because wages would have to be raised to meet a reasonable standard for the hard labor. This in turn would drive up the price of fruit causing demand to drop, but frankly all this is just fixing a market which has been allowed to be altered by a government that has not met its legal obligations to enforce the security of the country by securing the border.

[Scheavo]

but frankly all this is just fixing a market which has been allowed to be altered by a government that has not met its legal obligations to enforce the security of the country by securing the border.

Is it really possible to do this though? I cant' think of one example in history where a country or government has successfully kept out people who want to come. The only way to do it is to make your country undesirable to live in, which is rather... undesirable.

As someone who recently lived in the South West, I agree with your objective statement that the South West is basically becoming it's own cultural zone; where I disagree with you is the valuation that this is bad, or something to be feared. Wanting to stop it is going to do nothing to actually stop it, so the best option, in my opinion, is to accept it as truth, and try and make the results as favorable as possible to you, and everyone else.

[Nick]

but frankly all this is just fixing a market which has been allowed to be altered by a government that has not met its legal obligations to enforce the security of the country by securing the border.

Is it really possible to do this though? I cant' think of one example in history where a country or government has successfully kept out people who want to come. The only way to do it is to make your country undesirable to live in, which is rather... undesirable.

As someone who recently lived in the South West, I agree with your objective statement that the South West is basically becoming it's own cultural zone; where I disagree with you is the valuation that this is bad, or something to be feared. Wanting to stop it is going to do nothing to actually stop it, so the best option, in my opinion, is to accept it as truth, and try and make the results as favorable as possible to you, and everyone else.

I understand your perspective, but I don't think we have made any serious attempts to keep people out, and I do think it could work. There are two major ways we can keep people out, and one of them touches on what you said. We need to make it undesirable for them to be here without harming (or actually helping us). By taking away the free health care, schooling, and by more strictly monitoring and enforcing labor and hiring we can effectively eliminate many incentives they have to come here.

As for the border, it's frankly a resolve issue. Right now Mexicans risk practically nothing by coming here. I know it may not be a humane stance, but I don't believe citizens of Mexico have any more right to cross the border than the Mexican army, and frankly I believe that the border should be maintained by people with orders to shoot all trespassers. Whether that be current border patrol or the army I am not fussy about. And yes, a few people would likely die (of their own accord at that point), and the risk would keep a very large percentage of people from ever attempting it from that point forward.

[antigoon]

Dear God Nick I didn't know you were so ruthless

[Nick]

I really don't see it as ruthless. If you make it clear to people that by crossing this border you risk being shot, and then they choose to do it... that is just their mistake, not our ruthlessness.

[jsem]

Step 1. Remove welfare state and reliance
Step 2. Open up all borders completely.

[Nick]

Step 1. Remove welfare state and reliance
Step 2. Open up all borders completely.

You know, that's a deal I would have to think about, but I like where your head is at with that one.

[Nick]

Quick clarification. I'm not saying border patrol should just go guns blazing at anyone near the border. People should be given the chance to respond to agents and turn around or present identification etc. But I think if people insist on evading law enforcement with intent to trespass then the border agents should be allowed to shoot.

[jsem]

Yeah, I can definitely see the rationale behind that.

A long fence wouldn't do much good though.

[ClairvoyantCat]

Quick clarification. I'm not saying border patrol should just go guns blazing at anyone near the border.

But they will, at least to an extent.  I think the promise of getting to shoot some dirty good-for-nothin' border-crossin' Mexicans will draw the kind of border patrol that isn't going to think in terms of diplomacy.  I wouldn't feel terribly okay with trusting them with the authority to shoot without a process of law.  A good number of innocent people could end up in the cross-hairs of this plan.  You could regulate it to a point (and spend a fuck ton of money doing so) but all it takes is a few seemingly undeserved deaths (this is operating under the notion that people crossing a border do deserve to be shot, not something I really agree with) for the media to pick up on.  Hell, they might not even be as bad as it sounds, (maybe a genuine accident) but there would be a shitstorm of massive proportions as soon as the story got out that we were killing innocent Mexicans.  I see where you are coming from with the notion of a border guard with an actual threat to keep them out, but I just can't see it working in the state that we are in now. 

[Nick]

I definitely see your point about attracted the wrong crowd, and I think it would be important to be VERY aggressive with the screening process for border control guards, or to simply only give the military the type of permission needed to carry this out.

This shoot without a process of law thing does baffle me though. If an illegal immigrant is caught at the border simply put them back in Mexico. If they try to evade border patrol and succeed and are later caught and tried I don't want them shot, just deported at that point. This is an at-need scenario, what happens when due process is not possible. If an illegal immigrant is evading law enforcement/military I think that they should have a right to fire on not just a trespassing criminal (who could be fired upon if trespassing on private property), but one who is purposefully entering a country illegally. We are so concerned about airport security and other such things, but when it comes right down to it almost anyone could get almost anything into this country via our borders. Illegal immigration causes a rise in crime rates, including violent crimes and I think there should be some actual deterrent in place for both crime and national safety reasons along with the financial reasons.

You are right that a mistake would be a PR nightmare though, not sure how the hell to handle that.

[Scheavo]

China tried to build a wall to keep the Mongols out. They build a great wall, but they didn't keep the Mongols out. They manned it militarily, still didn't keep the Mongols out.

I mean, what would it cost for us to do what you suggest? It would cost a lot of money to monitor the entire border, it would cost a lot of money to hire the agents, and it would cost our economy a lot to not have the laborers (good chances are those fruit pickers would be replaced by illegal child workers, or it would cause the cost of fruit to go up, something our obese country does not need). I think it would be inhumane of us to not give health care to people who need it; when they're actually hurt, and in the ER, not to help them is wrong (and I believe against the Hippocratic oath). Not giving free education could deter some incentive, but it could also just make those who do come here all that less associated with the culture they're in, and all the less educated, making the problem even worse for us. Plus, this issue doesn't deal with "anchor babies," otherwise we're denying education to American citizens, and blaming kids for their parents mistakes.

The reason people come here isn't because they just want to live in America, but becuase their home conditions are so shitty, that they see it as a matter of life and death to get here anyways. Shooting them for crossing the boarder may prevent some people from coming, but for many, they're going to take the risk because they have to feed their families, or take care of their sick and dying mother. How long before they fight back? There's a ton of guns in Mexico, so maybe all we'd do is make the situation more violent, and more warlike.

Also, many illegal immigrants come to this country legally, then overstay their welcome. Stricter boarder control wouldn't address that issue, becuase they're not crossing the boarder illegally.

[livehard]

God damn mongolians...

[jsem]

Ben Powell on immigration:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtRmS7q9DlM

[Nick]

China tried to build a wall to keep the Mongols out. They build a great wall, but they didn't keep the Mongols out. They manned it militarily, still didn't keep the Mongols out.

I mean, what would it cost for us to do what you suggest? It would cost a lot of money to monitor the entire border, it would cost a lot of money to hire the agents, and it would cost our economy a lot to not have the laborers (good chances are those fruit pickers would be replaced by illegal child workers, or it would cause the cost of fruit to go up, something our obese country does not need). I think it would be inhumane of us to not give health care to people who need it; when they're actually hurt, and in the ER, not to help them is wrong (and I believe against the Hippocratic oath). Not giving free education could deter some incentive, but it could also just make those who do come here all that less associated with the culture they're in, and all the less educated, making the problem even worse for us. Plus, this issue doesn't deal with "anchor babies," otherwise we're denying education to American citizens, and blaming kids for their parents mistakes.

The reason people come here isn't because they just want to live in America, but becuase their home conditions are so shitty, that they see it as a matter of life and death to get here anyways. Shooting them for crossing the boarder may prevent some people from coming, but for many, they're going to take the risk because they have to feed their families, or take care of their sick and dying mother. How long before they fight back? There's a ton of guns in Mexico, so maybe all we'd do is make the situation more violent, and more warlike.

Also, many illegal immigrants come to this country legally, then overstay their welcome. Stricter boarder control wouldn't address that issue, becuase they're not crossing the boarder illegally.

Technology and weaponry is a bit different today than China centuries ago. We are the world's largest military by far, and I think it's crazy to think we can't secure our borders efficiently. It's just unfortunate that the most efficient and cost effective ways are also the coldest. And I disagree that lots would still come. People are smart enough to know you can't feed your family if you're dead. And I don't think we should basically cave to economic terrorism by simply inviting them in. Health care should be denied, as well as education. If people have a right to it they have it in their country. If someone comes to an ER in America they should be given life saving care before being sent home for further treatment.

[MasterShakezula]

I agree that illegal immigration should be met with force, if push comes to shove.

I believe that people have a right to immigration, but if they do not follow the legal procedure to do so, they do not deserve citizenship.

I mean, yes, their living conditions in their country suck, but really, that isn't and shouldn't be our problem.

[Scheavo]

China tried to build a wall to keep the Mongols out. They build a great wall, but they didn't keep the Mongols out. They manned it militarily, still didn't keep the Mongols out.

I mean, what would it cost for us to do what you suggest? It would cost a lot of money to monitor the entire border, it would cost a lot of money to hire the agents, and it would cost our economy a lot to not have the laborers (good chances are those fruit pickers would be replaced by illegal child workers, or it would cause the cost of fruit to go up, something our obese country does not need). I think it would be inhumane of us to not give health care to people who need it; when they're actually hurt, and in the ER, not to help them is wrong (and I believe against the Hippocratic oath). Not giving free education could deter some incentive, but it could also just make those who do come here all that less associated with the culture they're in, and all the less educated, making the problem even worse for us. Plus, this issue doesn't deal with "anchor babies," otherwise we're denying education to American citizens, and blaming kids for their parents mistakes.

The reason people come here isn't because they just want to live in America, but becuase their home conditions are so shitty, that they see it as a matter of life and death to get here anyways. Shooting them for crossing the boarder may prevent some people from coming, but for many, they're going to take the risk because they have to feed their families, or take care of their sick and dying mother. How long before they fight back? There's a ton of guns in Mexico, so maybe all we'd do is make the situation more violent, and more warlike.

Also, many illegal immigrants come to this country legally, then overstay their welcome. Stricter boarder control wouldn't address that issue, becuase they're not crossing the boarder illegally.

Technology and weaponry is a bit different today than China centuries ago. We are the world's largest military by far, and I think it's crazy to think we can't secure our borders efficiently. It's just unfortunate that the most efficient and cost effective ways are also the coldest.

It's a very large border, and it would be a giant waste of money. Camera's and technology can help, but then you still are talking about huge costs to implement the system, and a lot of what I would say is wasted resources. Like I also said, this wouldn't solve the issue of people over staying their welcome, and people would just come up with new ways to bypass the technology. Longer tunnels, go by sea, etc. There are area's very close to the boarder where intelligent people have build tunnels underneath parking spots, and coming up through them into a car. There's the gulf of Mexico they could try their luck in, as well as the Pacific Ocean. THey may not use those options as much now, but that's becuase they're not forced to.

And I disagree that lots would still come. People are smart enough to know you can't feed your family if you're dead. And I don't think we should basically cave to economic terrorism by simply inviting them in.

People perform dangerous jobs all the time becuase of the pay, risking their lives. If you're stuck between a  rock and a hard place, you're going to make a decision you might not otherwise make. If you cant' feed your family period, you're going to take the risk of dying, because of the potential payoff that you can feed your family. I really don't think you're putting yourself in these peoples shoes enough. They already risk a lot by coming, death is a possibility in the desserts as it is, so I don't think anything would really change all that much.

I mean, yes, their living conditions in their country suck, but really, that isn't and shouldn't be our problem.

If your grass is greener, expect people to come over to your side of the fence. It's human nature, and you can say how unfair it is all you want, but it won't stop it from happening.

[Perpetual Change]

I guess I just don't get what's wrong with people coming here? I mean, does the fact that some communities in the US speak more Spanish than English truly offend anyone? Here in Hong Kong, rarely a day goes by where I don't hear Cantonese, Mandarin, English, German, and French. I love being in a place that's so culturally diverse. It makes life much more interesting and it is not something to worry about.

[MasterShakezula]

I have no problem with people coming to the US LEGALLY and integrating into society.

[Perpetual Change]

Define "integration?"

[MasterShakezula]

Obeying the laws, seeking and putting effort into education, pursuing a legitimate career, not leaching off of welfare, and (preferably) developing a fluency in English are probably the biggest things I can think of off the top of my head. 

Basically, behaving as any natural-born citizen ought to; I'm guessing the majority of legal immigrants do this and contribute to society as they should. 

[Dark Castle]

Obeying the laws, seeking and putting effort into education, pursuing a legitimate career, not leaching off of welfare, and (preferably) developing a fluency in English are probably the biggest things I can think of off the top of my head. 

Basically, behaving as any natural-born citizen ought to; I'm guessing the majority of legal immigrants do this and contribute to society as they should.

This pretty much.

[Perpetual Change]

Obeying the laws, seeking and putting effort into education, pursuing a legitimate career, not leaching off of welfare, and (preferably) developing a fluency in English are probably the biggest things I can think of off the top of my head. 

Basically, behaving as any natural-born citizen ought to; I'm guessing the majority of legal immigrants do this and contribute to society as they should.

This is fine, until the last sentence. Why does someone have to "behave like a natural born citizen," whatever that means? Furthermore, there are plenty of "natural born citizens" who can't speak proper English, who do illegitimate work, who leach off welfare, etc... I just don't see how the two are related.

I mean, I get it. People should at least have a working knowledge of English (fluency is another question, something I don't think is necessary), pay taxes, be able to provide for themselves and so on. But, aside from that, what else can you ask for? 

[MasterShakezula]

Ought to. 

Pretty important part of the sentence.

These characteristics I'd expect of an immigrant are exactly what I'd expect of a natural-born citizen.  Any citizen, immigrant or natural born is doing a favor to the country by following that sort of guideline.  Of course, there are (unfortunately) many natural-borns fail to meet these expectations, and unfortunately there's no way to deport these people; the US is essentially stuck with them forever. 

[Perpetual Change]

Yeah, I get that. What Buchanan is going off about seems to take it a step further, though. He seems to be suggesting that the idea that immigrants come to the US and then retain their own culture and language is scary unto itself. He seems scared of the fact that the Southwest will become predominantly hispanic and bilingual, with less prominent ties to White Ango-Saxon Christian culture. It has nothing to do with their productivity of those people, and everything to do with their color, language, and culture. Personally, I think that's bogus. Again, I can see why people need to have a working knowledge of English at least for the time being, but I don't see the other problems he's getting (people not being 'white' enough) at actually being problems.

To put it into context, check out this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_Ap_M_hisg

The guy's got a problem with people bringing their own culture with them, and speaking their own language in their own homes, regardless of whether they're able to speak the "official" language when need be. It comes down to the whole "multiculturalism is a failure" way of thinking that is pretty backwards, imo, even though Pat subscribes to it. It's usually the type of thing white supremecists say, but Pat seems to get away with saying it too, and it's interesting to see how just 15 years ago this person was a serious presidential contender for the Republican Party. You've gotta wonder just how many Republicans also share that sort of thinking.

[MetalMike06]

It's usually the type of thing white supremecists say, but Pat seems to get away with saying it too,

The major difference is that white supremacists actually believe that the white race is biologically superior to others. Pat's never advocated that at all; just that a common culture, language, heritage, values, etc. is better for long term tranquility, regardless of what country is involved. I agree to a certain extent, but I guess I'm also pretty weary of going too far with anti-immigration measures, because I think what's already in the process right now is, rather than having better border security (which I think makes fine sense), the government instead is opening the doors to things like National IDs, eVerify, etc...Various domestic policing activities that I think greatly hinder personal liberty.
I'm still sort of "agnostic" on this issue, if you will.