They shouldn't! Pat is a bastion of conservatism. He's one conservative I could vote for because he is consistent in his views regarding our security, he's got a brain, and good reasoning powers. He also worked for Richard Nixon as a speechwriter and a counsel to the president. But, he had the good sense to advise Nixon to resign during the Watergate crisis. He also has run several times for president as a Republican. He tells it like it is, but with common sense.
2007-02-26 00:35:52
·
answer #1
·
answered by gone 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Pat Buchannan falls into a catagory called "paleoconservatism". Liberals hate him more, but many conservatives disagree with paleoconservatism.
There are several reasons.
1. Many paleoconservatives have a pro-arab mindset. They often side against Israel in foriegn policy disputes. The majority of conservatives (in particular neoconservatives) side with Israel, especialy after the attacks of 9/11. Bob Novak is an example of a conservative who shares Pat's opinions on Israel.
2. Many paleoconservatives are anti-immigration. While most conservatives are anti-illegal immigration, want a border fence, and oppose amnesty, paleocons go the extra mile and want to restrict all LEGAL immigration heavily.
3. Many paleocons oppose freetrade and support unions. This runs against conservative principles. Although Pat would disagree, conservatism holds that unions are a form of socialist collectivism.
4. When Pat left the republican party in the early 90's he also angered many in the conservative movement. It is felt by some that he cost Bush Sr. some votes that went to Ross Perot and cost the election that went to Clinton.
Pat's views are still conservative, but considered fringe in the above areas. He remains conservative on social and fiscal issues. Pat was the Director of White House Communications under Reagan and served in Nixon's administration as well. He is known for his columns and appearences on shows like the Mclaughlin Group.
2007-02-26 00:48:43
·
answer #2
·
answered by Poli Sci / Law Prof 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
My opinion - Pat is a wild pessimist in death of the West. I question his computations, and underlying assumptions. I incredibly take exception along with his "ethnic majority" concept; it vaguely smacks of Nazi racial concept (i'm not calling Buchanan a Nazi, in basic terms declaring a aggravating parallel). I recommend for a "melting pot" usa, the place there is room for all, Latinos secure. That there are issues those days encouraging immigrants to incorporate English as their public language - i don't dispute; yet i think of it is a controversy which would be resolved extremely. Pat has geared up a unswerving following of well matched some distance superb political and evangelical conservatives. however he's not extensive of the mark on social subject concerns, he does even with the reality that exist on the fringe. So, no, i don't think of Pat is actual in his death of the West.
2016-10-16 12:42:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Buchannan is a bit on the extreme of right wing.
He's not despised by all conservatives. But he's just TOO far right wing to be a viable candidate.
2007-02-26 00:34:02
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
I'm a conservative and who is Pat Buchanan?
2007-02-26 00:35:42
·
answer #5
·
answered by Kevin A 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Because he is the voice of reason, most of the time. Reason and most right-wingers go together like oil and water.
2007-02-26 00:35:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by Mario Savio 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't despise him. He has every right to his opinion
2007-02-26 00:34:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by Ethan M 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
pat tellls it like it is
repukes hate him
sometimes he wrong
but sometimes he right on
2007-02-26 00:33:13
·
answer #8
·
answered by WMD LIE p 1
·
1⤊
1⤋
because he has a girls name...patty..come on now..he needs to change his name to a manly name like Jim..or Joe...or John...
2007-02-26 00:36:30
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Do they really?
And what about Huntington?
2007-02-26 00:33:28
·
answer #10
·
answered by theocide84 2
·
0⤊
1⤋