Right From the Beginning

September 4, 2006 9:35 PM

Pat Buchanan blogs. Let the name-calling begin.
posted by Yakuman (80 comments total)

huh. Why does he list how long he thinks each post will take the reader to complete? It's like a homework assignment.
posted by jonson at 9:40 PM on September 4, 2006

"Unsurprisingly, it is neoconservatives, whose roots are in the Trotskyist-social Democratic left..."

lolwut
posted by p3on at 9:43 PM on September 4, 2006

I hate it when I agree with Pat Buchanan.
posted by tkchrist at 9:44 PM on September 4, 2006

Who is Linda?
posted by SkinnerSan at 9:51 PM on September 4, 2006

I don't mind agreeing with him, although one senses his rant against the term "Islamic fascists" is fueled by the experience of being called fascist himself. Seriously, though, that article is pretty good.
posted by grobstein at 9:56 PM on September 4, 2006

Then there are those random crypto-racist quotes that appear at the top of the page.
posted by grobstein at 9:57 PM on September 4, 2006

huh. Why does he list how long he thinks each post will take the reader to complete? It's like a homework assignment.

My oh my, what would the world be like if Buchanan was our history teacher?
posted by Holy foxy moxie batman! at 9:58 PM on September 4, 2006

The world would be 6,000 years old.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:00 PM on September 4, 2006

We'd all think that the Neoconservatives had roots in the Trotskyist-social Democratic left, of course.
posted by interrobang at 10:01 PM on September 4, 2006

interrobang, he's kinda right.

sonofabitch!
posted by PhatLobley at 10:10 PM on September 4, 2006

meant to include this link
posted by PhatLobley at 10:11 PM on September 4, 2006

He forgot to mention that neocons are all Jews, but maybe he assumed it was implied.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:14 PM on September 4, 2006

we all know how he feels about the jews
posted by Holy foxy moxie batman! at 10:20 PM on September 4, 2006

I shall call you by the name...Linda.
posted by allen.spaulding at 10:22 PM on September 4, 2006

actually, when I think about, he's kind of an equal opportunity type of guy.
posted by Holy foxy moxie batman! at 10:23 PM on September 4, 2006

My oh my, what would the world be like if Buchanan was our history teacher?

Well, 89% white, for one thing.
posted by blucevalo at 10:40 PM on September 4, 2006

I hate it when I agree with Pat Buchanan.
posted by tkchrist at 9:44 PM PST

Or how about when Lyndon LaRouche says something you can agree with?
posted by rough ashlar at 10:47 PM on September 4, 2006

Side bar:
Your Prez and Veep Dream Ticket: If the presidential election were held today, who would you vote for?

McCain-Pence
Rice-Giuliani
Hillary-Lieberman
Gingrich-Jeb Bush
Buchanan-Tancredo
Pataki-Ridge
Allen-Brownback
Cheney-Frist
Romney-Brownback
Huckabee-Hagel
Other
posted by growabrain at 10:55 PM on September 4, 2006

(they are sound nightmarish)
posted by growabrain at 10:55 PM on September 4, 2006

I'd like to see Clark-anyone. But that's just me.
posted by gregschoen at 11:04 PM on September 4, 2006

Other
posted by growabrain at 10:55 PM PST

Two poor SOB's pulled off the street and forced to serve. Shanghaied leadership can't work out any worse than the past leadership options.
posted by rough ashlar at 11:11 PM on September 4, 2006

No Obama? you racist fuck!
posted by Eekacat at 11:13 PM on September 4, 2006

Gore-Obama. Not that I get to vote for your president, I just get to be affected. :)
posted by aeschenkarnos at 11:13 PM on September 4, 2006

Gingrich-Jeb Bush??? shoot me now
posted by Holy foxy moxie batman! at 11:15 PM on September 4, 2006

The crisis of the West is a collapsing culture and vanishing peoples, as a Third World that grows by 100 million people, the equivalent of a new Mexico, every 18 months, mounts the greatest invasion in history of the world. If we do not shake off our paralysis, the West comes to an end.

The Mexicans are invading! Civilization is coming to an end! Woe!
posted by jokeefe at 11:28 PM on September 4, 2006

I could dig Gore-Obama.
posted by darkstar at 11:48 PM on September 4, 2006

The world would be 6,000 years old.

Buchanan is a Roman Catholic - not an evangelical christian. Catholics don't take their bible literally, Astro Zombie. But as you seem to want to discredit him without making the effort of using logic and reason, that probably doesn't make much difference to you.

Or how about when Lyndon LaRouche says something you can agree with?

And if Lyndon LaRouche said the sky was blue, you'd disagree with him?

Buchanan is talking to that part of the Republican party that is still conservative, but who have seen their party hijacked by neo-conservatives flying airplanes into their conservative ideology (metaphorically, not literally.)

If you don't want to see Bush III or some copy thereof, it is these people - plain brown wrapper conservatives - who have to wake up and reject the evangelical and neo-conservative agenda.
posted by three blind mice at 11:52 PM on September 4, 2006

huh. Why does he list how long he thinks each post will take the reader to complete? It's like a homework assignment.

Because he (or Linda, I guess) grew up reading Bernarr MacFadden's house style. I find it kind of endearing.
posted by Phlogiston at 11:55 PM on September 4, 2006

I disagree with Buchanan on just about everything he says, but I've got to admire his candor in saying it. The time has come when most people exist outside of the Washington-approved political spectrum, and he's speaking for, well, some of that group. Again, my beliefs run pretty-much counter to his, but you can't really say that he's pandering, and at this point, anyone who calls the neo-cons on their bullshit is a friend of mine, and paleo-cons are more likely to be effetive than a liberal like me.

That and the fact that he stated outright that there was no way those elderly Palm-Beach-County Jews in 2000 were voting for him makes me respect him for his honesty and respect for democracy. He's awful in a lot of ways, but he's not a power-whore, at least.
posted by Navelgazer at 1:18 AM on September 5, 2006

Let the name-calling begin.

Yakuman... what the fuck is that? Some kind of freaky Yak-human hybrid? You're not going to leave me a mound of shaving scum or a poorly sanitized jar of weird smelling yogurt, are you?

Ohhhh. You mean make fun of the politardian! That's too easy.
posted by loquacious at 5:04 AM on September 5, 2006

Buchanan is a Roman Catholic - not an evangelical christian. Catholics don't take their bible literally, Astro Zombie. But as you seem to want to discredit him without making the effort of using logic and reason, that probably doesn't make much difference to you.

Actually, I was just making a joke.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:30 AM on September 5, 2006

*bows to yakuman*
posted by Wolof at 5:47 AM on September 5, 2006

Twin the words “Reagan, fascism” in Google and 1,800,000 references pop up.

No shit. Twin the words "Reagan, fish" in Google and 3,700,000 references turn up.

I, for one, welcome our fishistic overlords.
posted by Sparx at 5:48 AM on September 5, 2006 [1 favorite]

"Unsurprisingly, it is neoconservatives, whose roots are in the Trotskyist-social Democratic left..."

Well, one of the meanings of the term 'neo-conservative' is someone who is new to conservatism, and I've certainly heard it used to describe formerly young humourless, irrational Marxist zealots who grew out of their Marxism but not out of their humourless, irrational zealotry. They kept their burning need to change the world but forgot why they used to want to change it, and ended up as apostate lackeys of the right.

I think Christopher Hitchens made this point in his review of Norman Podhoretz' Ex-Friends (which Hitchens wrote before he went mad). It's in one of his collections, possibly For the Sake of Argument, and it's the funniest thing I've ever read in my life.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 6:01 AM on September 5, 2006

I just ignore his immigration stuff and read his anti-war stuff, which is full of good arguments, and particularly, good arguments to use in arguments with conservatives.
posted by empath at 6:01 AM on September 5, 2006

rough ashlar writes "Or how about when Lyndon LaRouche says something you can agree with?"

Actually the Larouche team has people in Montreal who run a little information stand on Ste-Catherine st. on weekends. They get people's attention by asking bystanders if they want to "help bring down Dick Cheney", which is an attractive prospect, but I don't quite understand what they hope to accomplish in Canada.
posted by clevershark at 6:01 AM on September 5, 2006

Say what you will about Buchanan, his article linked here does make some very strong, well reasoned points. Buchanan has the ability to tap into a certain desire among many in the electorate for a political leader/thinker to speak clearly on issues - and many times it's entirely 'politically incorrect' when Pat speaks.

The comment earlier about Buchanan's Jews in West Palm Beach is an example of this kind of openness that is appreciated. His tendency to speak his mind openly and clearly is also liked by many.

This is why when he speaks on immigration issues, for example, and many recoil due to some of his more inflammatory comments, he still garners a lot of support for his position because unlike the politicos in Washington who would love to brush the issue under the carpet, Buchanan puts himself out into the open and takes the bullets that come with his views.

Unlike Coulter, he doesn't throw many cheap-shots or make wild statements without basis. Buchanan tends to have well reasoned, logical explanations for his views. While many on the left may disagree with his conservative viewpoint, you have to give him credit for making good arguments. Buchanan makes points that can be debated and discussed. People like Coulter do not.
posted by tgrundke at 6:07 AM on September 5, 2006

The Mexicans are invading! Civilization is coming to an end! Woe!

The Mexicans control the taquerias. Pass it on.
posted by jonmc at 6:12 AM on September 5, 2006

Buchanan makes points that can be debated and discussed. People like Coulter do not.

Like him or not, Buchanan speaks from the heart and is at the very least honest in his pronouncements. Coulter is a cipher, she's a dishonest shill that is forever trying to get her daddy's attention. There's a huge difference.
posted by Hypnic jerk at 6:14 AM on September 5, 2006

Hypnic jerk - you sum it up perfectly. Buchanan is honest when he speaks. Sometimes I think he's got it 'wrong' or he goes overboard, but he's intellectually honest. If you've ever watched him or heard him in a true debate, he's excellent. He sticks to his guns and more importantly, usually sticks to the issues and facts at hand.

People like Coulter just like to toss some mud around and sling some cheap shots at their opponents like a school yard bully.
posted by tgrundke at 6:19 AM on September 5, 2006

Buchanan's a troglodyte, not an idiot. He's a very smart man who often makes very good and well-reasoned points; the incredible and arguably racist (I wouldn't quibble over that word, myself, when it comes to Pat) blind spots that he has on issues like immigration and Israel (to pick just two examples) don't invalidate the rest of his arguments or analyses.

And three blind mice is quite correct: anyone who'd like to see the evangelical/neocon takeover of the Republican party stopped in its tracks had better hope that the paleocons get their act together (and, I might add, form some kind of useful alliance with the libertarian/economic conservative wing of the party.)
posted by enrevanche at 6:20 AM on September 5, 2006

Enrevanche - good points, all. The Republican takeover by the evalgelical/neocons is probably one of the biggest long-term disasters this nation has faced in ages.

The current group of 'conservatives' are merely masquerading as conservatives when in reality they're a bunch of power-hungry simpletons who want to use religion and the armed forces as the tools of control.

I disagree with Buchanan on issues such as abortion, education and other social issues - but on security and economic policy the man is dead-on correct.
posted by tgrundke at 6:26 AM on September 5, 2006

In addition - I have a feeling that the current crop of Religicons are in for a rude awakening when the true Christians feel betrayed, the swing voters get turned off and the true conservatives become totally disillusioned and ask for the Party of Lincoln back.

This is not to say the Democrats would do much better....
posted by tgrundke at 6:28 AM on September 5, 2006

Okay...
I'm fairly familiar with Pat's stand on immigration/borders/et.al....And can understand and even side with some of the concerns/points. However, can someone who is more conversant with PJB's arguments, tell me if he speaks to the employer/wage side of the issue. Does he speak to the question of who will do those jobs that so many of the immigrants are performing. And does he speak at all to the low wages those jobs pay?
Or is his spiel just more of the "close the borders and let "real" Americans take the $3/hr jobs" without any acknowledgment that employers have to pay better wages before anyone other than illegals will take those jobs?

(Not a snark...I'm seriously interested if he speaks with any sort of depth to the employer/wage side of the problem. So few pundits seem even remotely willing to venture into this area. I think this is because so many of the more vocal pundits also come from a free-market position on most other issues)

Sorry...I haven't time today to wade though the abundance of Fox and MSNBC clips. Got a deadline this afternoon.
posted by Thorzdad at 6:33 AM on September 5, 2006

Let the name-calling begin.

Nativist isolationist protectionist racist populist anti-semite. How's that for a start?

I am a libertarian. I agree with the Republicans on some issues, the Democrats on others. I agree with Pat Buchanan on almost nothing. Which is a remarkable achievement. The man is everything I abhor.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 6:42 AM on September 5, 2006

The man is everything I abhor.

I can't think of a single thing on which I fundamentally agree with Buchanan, but I generally give him a break, because I do believe that he's sincere and intellectually honest.

I reserve my abhorrence for powerful, hypocritical, manipulating liars like Rove, Cheney, Bush, Pat Robertson, Coulter, Horowitz, Malkin, etc.
posted by Hypnic jerk at 6:51 AM on September 5, 2006

I can't think of a single thing on which I fundamentally agree with Buchanan, but I generally give him a break, because I do believe that he's sincere and intellectually honest.

I'll cop to disagreeing with just about everything Buchanan says, but still having a modicum of respect for the crazy fucker. Along with Will & Buckley, he's probably the only conservative I can say that about. The ones Hypnic jerk mentioned have pretty much taken over and ruined things, IMHO.
posted by jonmc at 6:58 AM on September 5, 2006

Why does Buchanan have a blog - doesn't he have a magazine?

Anyhoo, paleocon is a meaningless term. The old definition of conservative - before the current administration - meant fiscally and socially conservative, but the fiscally conservative part was never true.

Furthermore, Reagan would have fit the definition of a neocon, so Pat doesn't get to claim him.

Buchanan is very much a relic, his ideas and his approach are better suited to the 70's than now. He can't speak intelligently to the immigration question because he ignores the fact that illegal immigrant labor is to service industries what China is to manufacturing - low cost outsourcing.

His time has passed. Bye.
posted by Pastabagel at 6:59 AM on September 5, 2006

"We disagree so violently on almost everything that it's a real pleasure to drink with him."

-- Hunter S. Thompson About Pat Buchanan in a letter to Garry Wills (October 17, 1973); published in Fear and Loathing in America (2000)
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 7:02 AM on September 5, 2006

but the fiscally conservative part was never true.

But, importantly, people believed (and still believe) it to be true.
posted by sonofsamiam at 7:07 AM on September 5, 2006

I don't remember any "true conservatives" distancing from bushco when they were popular. But now that approval ratings are down, it's like rats off a sinking ship.
posted by bob sarabia at 7:11 AM on September 5, 2006

I don't remember any "true conservatives" distancing from bushco when they were popular.

Well, if we agree that Buchanan fits someone's definition of a "true conservative", Pat has been more consistently opposed to Bush's policies than any Congressional Democrat that I can think of. Similarly, George Will and Willam F. Buckley have also been very critical of the Administration since 2003.

Somewhat annoyed for having to defend conservatives.
posted by Hypnic jerk at 7:20 AM on September 5, 2006

I usually disagree with pat B, though I think he is a good writer and a clever if misguided person, but my grible is not so much with his views or perspective but rather that his site is is simply a dumping ground for that which he does when not blogging. He brings together his activities for those of us who were unfortunate enough not to listen to him or to read him elsewhere. There is nothing really that is on the blog that is fresh or new.I would think that those who like what he has to say should go from what they have of him elsewhere to find further stuff at his site. But this is not the case.
posted by Postroad at 7:25 AM on September 5, 2006

I am a libertarian. I agree with the Republicans on some issues, the Democrats on others. I agree with Pat Buchanan on almost nothing. Which is a remarkable achievement. The man is everything I abhor.

I used to be a libertarian Slithy_Tove, but in the last few elections I've thrown my hat in with the miserable, spineless Democrats simply because they had the best chance of beating the Republicans who I have long considered as the greatest threat to American democracy. (And those rat bastard Democrats gave me miserable, spineless John Kerry as the best they could muster.)

I agree with nativist, protectionist Pat Buchanan on very few issues, but his stance on the Iraq war and his observations about the corrosive influence of the neo-cons and AIPAC on the Republican party and America as a whole are spot on.

Pity though that it is Pat Buchanan, and not William F. Buckley, who is speaking the truth to conservatives.
posted by three blind mice at 7:26 AM on September 5, 2006

Who are conservatives? What does that even mean anymore?

Defined in part as an "emphasis on tradition as a source of wisdom that goes beyond what can be demonstrated or even explicitly stated,"[1] Conservatism necessitates a defense of established values and the status quo.

A defense of the status quo? The status quo has never been more irrelevant in the world than it is now. The U.S. is faced with the prospect of no longer being the largest anything anymore - not the largest economy, not the largest military, etc. We aren't an educated population, we aren't particularly ambitious, and we are a little lazy when you get down to it.

China and India don't want to be third world countries anymore and when they modernize, they'll challege US dominance in the world. That is the natural progression of things. The idea that we are somehow going to restore America to its 1950's prominence while simultaneously shutting down our manufacturing industries and offshoring engineering work is laughable and borderline delusional.

But guys like Buchanan don't care about this, because conservative is more about maintaining all the traditions - stay-at-home moms, paternal authority in families and communities, suppressing alternative lifestyles and culture, opposing hollywood while relying on television as the primary method of cultural transmission, etc.

Imagine Rush Limbaugh or Pat Buchanan (the image he presents, not the oxy-chasing drug addict reality) as the Dad of America. That's conservatism. That stupid picture of Bush with the halo? That's conservative.

The fact that twenty year old colletge students are talking about conservative values scares the hell out of me, because those people do not have the intellecual depth or curiosity to address the challenges of the next twenty years.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:55 AM on September 5, 2006

Conservatives like Buchanan claiming neo-conservatives are not true Conservatives remind me of the hippy communists in my youth, claiming the Soviet Union wasn't a true example of Communism in action because they are embarassed by the results, or Christians claiming the Crusades were an aberration for the same reason, etc.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:41 AM on September 5, 2006

The Soviet Union wasn't a true example of Communism though. In fact, there has never been a true example of Communism in our world because "true" Communism, as described by Marx, arises out of a capitalist system.

/armchair Marxist
posted by stinkycheese at 9:12 AM on September 5, 2006

I currently subscribe to Buchanan's American Conservative and have found several articles that would match the MeFi dogma to a T.

His rag is stridently against the Iraq war and the current administration handling of it. The articles on that subject could be reprinted word for word in the Nation or Daily Kos without anyone raising an eyebrow.

They seem to take the long view regarding the War on Terror and constantly decry the loss of civil liberties, increased domestic spying, etc., while encouraging diplomatic solutions over war when possible. When reading an issue, I sometimes wonder how the hell these old Nixon cronies becamse such bloody peaceniks.

The editorial stance on Israel/Palestinian situation always takes the side of the Palestinians and always condemns the knee-jerk bipartisan US Gov support of anything Israel does. They also want to cut back or end the annual stipend given to Israel. They haven't published an issue since the end of the recent invasion of Lebanon but I expect some rather vitriolic articles about Israel's abuses in that conflict.

There's plenty of material regarding wasteful government spending.

I think this is really remarkable, in how it proves how radical the current Republican government is. No one else could have created so much common ground for both the liberals and the paleocons to stand on, hand in hand, singing kumbaya.
posted by pandaharma at 9:22 AM on September 5, 2006

I don't remember any "true conservatives" distancing from bushco when they were popular. But now that approval ratings are down, it's like rats off a sinking ship.

"True conservatives" were always vocally wary of Bush's weird, hybrid conservative/big government policies. They were still willing to mostly support the administration so long as things were working generally well and it looked like "true conservatism" would get its day in the sun. (How far "bushco" can/could push support from them has been a common question through a good chunk of the administration's policy manuevers.) With the days numbered and the administration burning, they seem more reserved about their support. That shift is part of why the administration's popularity is dwindling; that's how popularity works. I'm sure there's some insincerity, but I don't think it's an insidious as you imply.

Pastabagel :
Defined in part as an "emphasis on tradition as a source of wisdom that goes beyond what can be demonstrated or even explicitly stated,"[1] Conservatism necessitates a defense of established values and the status quo. etc etc etc

omgwtfstrawmanbbq
posted by pokermonk at 9:24 AM on September 5, 2006

There is no Metafilter dogma.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:27 AM on September 5, 2006

/armchair Marxist

armchairs are a product of the bourgeois need for 'comfort,' you reactionary enemy of the people.
posted by jonmc at 9:59 AM on September 5, 2006

In fact, there has never been a true example of Communism in our world because "true" Communism, as described by Marx, arises out of a capitalist system.

Tsarist Russia wasn't capitalist? This is the sort of thing I'm talking about.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:05 AM on September 5, 2006

No, it wasn't capitalist, not remotely.
posted by empath at 10:09 AM on September 5, 2006

From what I've read, the country was modernizing heavily in the mid-1800s and early 1900s and was moving, if slowly, to increase private ownership.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:31 AM on September 5, 2006

It is of course incredibly unfair to try & summarize Marx in a sentence or two, but...basically, he was saying that when the corporations gobble each other up until there are hardly any, or just one, left (in other words, when capitalism reaches its apex), the people will rise up and assume control of the means of production. That is real Communism. It's a historical process.

That has never happened. Lenin read Marx, liked Marx's vision of what would follow this process, and basically forced those changes on people in much the same way as Bush is spreading "freedom".
posted by stinkycheese at 11:15 AM on September 5, 2006

Feel free to ignore the Bush bit there, I just couldn't resist.
posted by stinkycheese at 11:16 AM on September 5, 2006

No, I have been pushing that analogy for a long time: Our economy is to capitalism as the USSR's was to communism.

Capitalism and communism as envisioned by the true believers bear almost no resemblance to any modern economy.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:25 AM on September 5, 2006

To be honest, I'm rather fond of Buchannan even when I disagree with him. Unlike the more popular pundits out there he comes across as intelligent and literate.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:15 PM on September 5, 2006

stinkycheese: That has never happened. Lenin read Marx, liked Marx's vision of what would follow this process, and basically forced those changes on people in much the same way as Bush is spreading "freedom".

This is fantastically far from the truth, but it's hardly surprising for a US blog. Lenin didn't "like" Marx and therefore "force" anything on the broad masses of Russian people; he was at the head of a mass revolutionary uprising, and directed it where everyone else had failed utterly in even the most minute respect (e.g., the Kerensky government's default on the desperately needed land reform and end to the war with Germany). It was the first time in history that the ruling classes had been overthrown and a government that was directly and consciously for the formerly exploited classes came up in its place.

I find every ounce of cavilling about the USSR and China and the other socialist countries disingenuous; after all, nothing done by Stalin or Mao (and overall, much more Stalin; most of Mao's so-called "atrocities" are in reality famines that would have happened under Chang Kai-Shek as well) could possibly compare to the centuries of enslavement of Africans and African-descended peoples in the Americas, or the genocidal policy of the US government toward the native peoples. Compared to the beginnings of bourgeois democracy, the very worst parts about socialism are a fucking walk in the park.
posted by graymouser at 2:28 PM on September 5, 2006

Thirty odd comments since Sparx uncovered the Reagan/fish conspiracy, and not one MeFite has taken notice? Or are they just being silenced...
posted by Kwine at 2:44 PM on September 5, 2006

Metafilter: your favorite social system sucks, you capitalist running dog.
posted by scrump at 2:48 PM on September 5, 2006

as a huge fan of the mclaughlin group i was stunned by how much i found myself agreeing with pat, especially during the kerry/bush debates.

say what you will about the little fuck, he's no partisan hack, he calls em like he sees em and hes far less predictable than pretty much anyone on that panel other than the host.

id call him an Independent

*ducks*
posted by tsarfan at 2:48 PM on September 5, 2006

Thirty odd comments since Sparx uncovered the Reagan/fish conspiracy, and not one MeFite has taken notice?

Not true! I noticed, and...hold on, there's someone at the do
posted by scrump at 2:54 PM on September 5, 2006

or the genocidal policy of the US government toward the native peoples

Graymouser -You have got to be trolling. Nearly every frigg'n country had a genocidal policy towards native peoples back then.

If Stalin had run into Sioux indians... what? You think he would have made them The Red (skin) Guard?

The fact is most other old world countries had already murdered less advanced societies centuries before. The US was merely one of the last to do it.

And Mao deliberately starved certain groups and regions of China for political reasons during your "famines."

Give me a fucking break, dude.
posted by tkchrist at 4:05 PM on September 5, 2006

nothing done by Stalin or Mao (and overall, much more Stalin; most of Mao's so-called "atrocities" are in reality famines that would have happened under Chang Kai-Shek as well) could possibly compare to the centuries of enslavement of Africans ...

That was just a classic pro-communist rant. Best I have seen in what, 15 years? I thought I was in college again! Thanks for the trip down memory lane!
posted by Hypnic jerk at 5:03 PM on September 5, 2006

Ok I have to comment on graymouser said...yeah, it's a crime what we did, but it's nothing new. Look at the 40,000 Lucayans that Christopher Columbus wiped out in about 28 years. That's a hardship.
posted by Holy foxy moxie batman! at 5:42 PM on September 5, 2006

My point, graymouser, is that Marx said, 'this is how things will change', and Lenin created that change, believing its end-point (Communism) to be a goal achievable by such means. I'm hardly the first person to suggest that the Soviet Union does not really represent Marx's ideas in action. From the Wikipedia's entry on the October Revolution:

"1917 October Revolution, led by Vladimir Lenin, was the first large scale attempt to put Marxist ideas about a workers' state into practice. The new government faced counter-revolution, civil war and foreign intervention. Many, both inside and outside the revolution, worried that the revolution came too early in Russia's economic development as Marxism requires capitalism to have exhausted its mechanisms of growth before attaining socialism. Consequently, the major Socialist Party in the UK decried the revolution as anti-Marxist within twenty-four hours, according to Jonathan Wolff"
posted by stinkycheese at 6:23 PM on September 5, 2006

but I generally give him a break, because I do believe that he's sincere and intellectually honest.

Sincerity and honesty are only estimable qualities in relation to what one is being sincere and honest about.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:49 PM on September 5, 2006

I think it's funny that on Metafilter, everyone who for one reason or another 'kinda-sorta' likes/agrees with/sympathizes with/can relate to/likes what they hear from Pat Buchanan has to preface their comments with, "Well, i don't really like the guy normally, but......"

Haha. The Metafilter TeamLiberal will come out and 'gitcha otherwise!
posted by tgrundke at 8:49 PM on September 5, 2006

preface their comments with, "Well, i don't really like the guy normally, but......"
Haha. The Metafilter TeamLiberal will come out and 'gitcha otherwise!

Or maybe they really don't like the guy, but have some grudging respect for him. The preface is the "grudging".
posted by flaterik at 12:02 AM on September 6, 2006