I'm late to this, but having read through this, a lot sticks with me.
First, I have some of Pat's books. I have yet to make it through any particular one, simply because his rhetoric and venom are that much of an affront. I realize I probably should force my way through, but it almost feels like I'm violating something sacred as I do, as though I'm repudiating what makes me an American.
Buchanan has been offending me in some way or another for ages. His appearances on The McLaughlin Group have always been offensive, (and, no, he hasn't been booted from that program... So much for the Bigoted, Ignorant Left on that score.) His service to Richard Nixon demonstrates a total lack of understanding of what made Nixon so damnably evil. I don't think Buchanan understands the idea behind a "democratic republic," and if I had to guess, I don't think he wants to.
From one of the links provided, a few gems bear mentioning, both for Robert Prey and MaGZ:
The War Between the States was about independence, about self-determination, about the right of a people to break free of a government to which they could no longer give allegiance. How long is this endless groveling before every cry of 'racism' going to continue before the whole country collectively throws up?
Actually, it centered on the right of one group to own another. Based on the color of another person's skin. The last time I checked, that qualified as "racism." Clarence Page once noted that, indeed, there were those of African descent who fought for the South, and that their courage and sacrifice should not be forgotten. But he also noted in the same article that the Confederate flag was raised over the South Carolina state house as an act supporting Segregation.
Page suggested that the Confederate flag currently flown be lowered, retired, and the reason for doing so stated clearly. At that point, a new Confederate flag could then be raised, and and open declaration made why: To honor those who served in the Confederate Army during the
Civil War... errr, War of Northern Aggression, regardless of their race.
I don't think Buchanan ever got on that wagon, though if he weren't a racist, I would have thought he would have.
Another little gem...
There were no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The 'negroes' of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches; and we had ours.
True enough, but what the "negroes" had was decidedly inferior. I'm reminded of the Delany Sisters, and one of them declaring she was going to have some "white water." She was surprised as a child to note there was no difference. (Well, yes. It's water.)
The reality remains that when you pound a population down over the course of at least three centuries, there are certain members of that population who will accept their position is due to something benign, even when it's been proven to be anything but.
Hence, even African Americans found themselves in some numbers in opposition to the end of Segregation after Thurgood Marshall went before the Supreme Court and forced the whole business to be overturned. "Our" side of things were liveable at the very least, while it was perfectly acceptable to force people with darker skin to deal with less, with that which no one else would have.
This was one of the points of
Brown V. Board of Education. That Buchanan doesn't get this speaks poorly of him.
There is a legitimate grievance in my view of white working-class people that every time, on every issue, that the black militants loud-mouth it, we come up with more money.... If we can give 50 Phantoms [jet fighters] to the Jews, and a multi-billion dollar welfare program for the blacks...why not help the Catholics save their collapsing school system.
Well, the Catholics are generally running a
religiously based education system. And there's this little part in the Constitution -- you've actually heard of that, haven't you, Pat? -- that states the Government will not establish religion. Material support for Parochial Schools would be a violation of that.
At least, that's what most Constitutional Scholars see in this.
What were the Black Militants "loud-mouthing" about? Well, there were objections to what happened at Jackson State. There were police turning dogs loose on peaceful protests, (though much of that was before Nixon), and there were continuing acts of violence against African Americans.
You know. The kind of thing most "reasonable" Blacks should have accepted without a word.
Take a hard look at Duke's portfolio of winning issues and expropriate those not in conflict with GOP principles, [such as] reverse discrimination against white folks.
Even Rush Limbaugh blew a gasket over this one. 'Nuff said.
...White rule of a black majority is inherently wrong. Where did we get that idea? The Founding Fathers did not believe this.
No, the Founding Fathers were largely white landowners, and they were in favor of harsh, even barbaric treatment of the true majority in North America, the indigenous Americans. Not all of them, of course: Benjamin Franklin was vehemently opposed to slavery, the South's "peculiar institution," and insisted that it be brought to an end. Ditto a number of Northerners. It should also be noted that while the South didn't want Blacks allowed to vote, they were more than willing to insist their numbers be counted as part of the Electoral College.
No, the Founding Fathers did not believe this. It was also admitted the Founding Fathers were wrong about a number of things. This is why we can amend the Constitution to correct where it's wrong.
The list goes on and on, and Buchanan is certainly within his rights to spew whatever venom he desires. CNBC simply said they weren't going to provide him a venue for his bile any longer.
The man has other options. As I've noted, he's still a part of the McLaughlin Group, and he still has his regular column. He's hardly been silenced. Indeed, the very book that CNBC found so offensive, that CNBC viewers found so sickening, is still available. He's likely made more money from CNBC firing him, and found a broader audience than he otherwise would have.
I generally don't watch CNBC; I don't have cable. I personally think they should have kept him on just so they could say they've given equal time. But, perhaps his critics are right: Perhaps Pat Buchanan has crossed the line. He's gone too far, even for the more conservative viewers.
No loss. There's always another "true believer" waiting in the wings, ready to take the place of the place of someone who's fallen.
One thing's for sure: Pat's not going to fall very far. He's marketable. That's a lot more than can be said for David Duke.
