Losing Traditional America

October 21st, 2009

Buchanan_PatPat Buchanan has an excellent article today at World Net Daily. He writes about the loss of traditional America and the effect it is having on all Americans, especially white middle class Christians.

This piece is so good I’d be hard-pressed to add anything to it (but I will). Buchanan has mellowed into pretty much a liberal’s conservative, to the point of being a regular on MSNBC, where he is considered a suitable adversary for the likes of Chris Matthews and every other liberal that can be found.

I find myself pretty much within the part of the citizenry that he has described as those feeling most disenfranchised and rejected — a bitter pill to swallow from the very country we have loved all our lives. We are, after all, the descendants of what has been called “the greatest generation.”

It was our relatives of the last generation who fought and defeated what was at the time the most dangerous threat to peace and liberty in the history of the world. It now appears that we have let down those who gave so much. We’ve let our nation slip away while most of us watched, helpless to overcome the corrupt government of both parties that caused it to happen.

We now have in the form of this President, his cabinet, and his czars a group of admitted liberal socialists and communists who are hell-bent on changing every aspect of our lives. They’re making an effort to conduct a great social experiment in which the citizens will, in time, become nothing more than domestic livestock. The great danger now is the willingness of the people, driven by desperation, to embrace something even worse in order to unseat those now in power.

Our domestic situation is in a shambles. Our military is bogged down in not one but two wars with the commanders in the field unable to depend on the President for important decisions.

Yes, Pat, we are in one hell of a mess!


Articles written by
Tags: , ,
Categories: Media, Military, Politics | Comments (26) | Home

Bookmark and Share

26 Responses to “Losing Traditional America”



  1. Erik |

    It is a shame that traditional America has been pushed to the reservations.


  2. larry |

    Erik
    what you want me to say?
    what would be politically correct?


  3. Kevin |

    The loss of white privilege is indeed scary. Long gone is the traditional Christian value of enslaving blacks or lynching them from the nearest tree. Long gone is that traditional white Christian male value of being able to beat one’s wife where, when and why one wishes with utter legal impunity. Long gone is the traditional Christian value of committing genocide in the name of “Manifest Destiny”.

    There is indeed much for scared conservative white males to lament in the 21st century. Writing it all up for World Net Daily is the pinnacle of poetic irony.


  4. Tom |

    I’m glad to see you credited “the corrupt government of both parties.” President Obama has been in office for nine months. The economic distress we’re suffering, our continued involvement in two wars that haven’t gone well (and won’t in the future), and the social tension among the people were all present long before he came into office. You may not like his ideas and solutions, but it’s hard for me to see how he could do worse than his predecessor.

    I don’t see how you could possibly come to the conclusion that the President, the cabinet, and the White House staff are “a group of admitted liberal socialists and communists who are hell-bent on changing every aspect of our lives.” Quite simply, none of that is true. It’s true that liberal Democrats are in power, but that’s the government the people put in place, and we’ll all have to live with it until the next one comes along.

    You might also want to think about the terminology a little — few liberals (including me) are socialists, and very few socialists are communists. If you’ll do some factchecking, you’ll find that there aren’t any known communists in the White House (although Van Jones, a former lower-level staffer, claimed to be one years ago). I also doubt that more than a couple could be called socialists, and I’m not sure what that would mean anyway. And frankly, I don’t think you’d want to stand face-to-face with Secretary Gates, Secretary Clinton, General Jones, Admiral Mullen, Chief of Staff Emanuel, or any member of the Cabinet and accuse them of being socialists and/or communists.

    As others have pointed out, the good old days weren’t so good for everybody. The nation and its people have changed over the years, and it will keep on changing. I’ve lived in a lot of countries, visited more, and studied even more, and however terrible you may think America is now, it’s head-and-shoulders above the alternatives, and I don’t expect that to change.


  5. larry |

    Kevin
    I’m no more guilty of the deeds you list than you are.
    I’m a Christian for which I feel no need the apologize.
    I do not apologize for my race.
    Tom
    What can I say. This is an opinion forum covering many topics one of which is politics. I do agree that Bush failed terribly. Please don’t wag your finger at me about who is what in Obamas close circle unless you’ve got some proof that I’m the liar you insinuate I am. I’ve also been led to believe that you don’t live full time in this country. If thats true maybe its the reason your not all that worried about where Obama takes us. I on the other hand will have to endure what ever befalls us. I will survive. You can bet on it.


  6. Laurie |

    “It was our relatives of the last generation who fought and defeated what was at the time the most dangerous threat to peace and liberty in the history of the world” I agree — OUR relatives — men AND women, white AND black, Asian AND European, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist — all our parents, grandparents, etc., fought and sacrificed, but not to uphold some limited “white Christian middle-class” privilege!

    Pat Buchanan is far from mellow in my eyes — he is an unrepentant religious bigot, homophobe who is proud of his misogynistic, white supremecist statements. Not exactly a proud legacy to claim to have fought World War II over and pretty much the antithesis of the American way.


  7. Brianna |

    “I don’t think you’d want to stand face-to-face with Secretary Gates, Secretary Clinton, General Jones, Admiral Mullen, Chief of Staff Emanuel, or any member of the Cabinet and accuse them of being socialists and/or communists.”

    Actually, I would have no problem with standing up to Secretary Clinton or Chief of Staff Emanuel and calling them socialist. Hillary was the one who failed to put through Hillarycare in ’94, and Emanuel was one of the people who tried to help her put it over on… errr… I mean, put it into effect in, the nation. He was also a member of the Board of Directors for Freddie Mac, a *government-backed* institution that, incidentally, helped wreak havoc with our nation’s economy via unsound loaning practices. These things all being socialist, calling them socialists would thus be nothing less than factual accuracy. Incidentally, is socialism is such a good thing then why do so many people consider it an insult to be called one?


  8. Harvey |

    Tom,

    Nor would I fear standing face to face with any of the Marxist/Statists in Obama’s circle (including Obama himself) and telling them what I believe they are.

    A person doesn’t have to carry a membership card or pay dues to be called a Communist, Socialist, Marxist or Statist — their actions betray them and Larry is 100% correct about that lot.

    One should be able to respect the President of the United States and the office of the president; I always have respected the office but many of the men who have filled that office have not earned my respect — In Obama’s case he has not only not earned my respect he has earned the title of traitor.

    As a side note: In December of this year he will be in Copenhagen to sign a climate change treaty that will sell my country and yours down the river!


  9. Tom |

    So, now President Obama is a Marxist and a statist at the same time? Quite a lot of theoretical gymnastics, that. In addition, he’s also a traitor? Why can’t we disagree with him and his policy preferences without going off the deep end?

    There’s nothing — absolutely nothing — Obama has said or written that justifies those kinds of extremist labels. Why is it no longer possible to disagree with someone without feeling the need to demonize him/her? The liberal reactions to Bush were just as bad as these reactions to Obama, and neither was justified by reality.


  10. Kevin |

    Tom is IMO far too generous with you, Harvey. The “Marxist/Statists” allegation takes intellectual vacuity to a place that the written word is incapable of adequately describing.

    What you are doing is nothing more nor less than picking up the liberal’s charge of “facist” against Bush’s last term and refashioning it to reflect your political fears.


  11. Kevin |

    Larry, nobody accused you of being guilty of any of them. Furthermore, it matters not one whit whether you are or aren’t. They are but a short list of the things done in the name of Christian faith by the self-same “traditional America” which Buchanan laments the loss of.

    That you take exception to their mention just reinforces my perception that whenever conservatives start pining for “traditional America” that it is a fantasy version of history that they pine for.


  12. Kevin |

    Jan’s post up top just reminded me of something relevant here.

    The Islamist radicals we’re fighting around the world also pine for “traditional values”.


  13. Brianna |

    Kevin – Most Americans who are busy trying to reinstate traditional values aren’t doing it out of blind faith; they’re doing it because they’re starting to wake up to the fact that when the country was run under those values, it prospered. I doubt you can say the same of those who are trying to establish Islamic traditional values.

    As for calling someone a Statist and a Marxist at the same time, what makes you say that doing so is a contradiction? If Statism involves government-owned corporations and centralized economic planning, and Marxism involves government-owned corporations and centralized economic planning, then what’s the ideological difference between the two? One says that power should belong to the state, the other says that power should belong to the masses, but both agree that power should belong to some sort of collective. Additionally both of them actually line up quite well with Fascism, which says that power should belong to the race. Fascism is often mistakenly identified as a right-wing ideology because it promotes racism (which is ALSO mistaken for a solely right-wing phenomenon), but a collective ideology is a collective ideology, regardless of what collective it chooses to vest its power in.


  14. Jan |

    I grew up (in a Republican family) in the traditional values of the 1950s, which produced the Vietnam war. Some people during that hey day of traditional values called President Eisenhower a communist and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court a communist. Amazing.


  15. Kevin |

    Did America prosper while blacks were lynched, women legally beaten and children forced to work long hours in onerous conditions?

    Define prosper and exactly who did the prospering.

    While you are at it you might want to compare income tax rates during our nation’s economic golden age (end of WWII through the end of the 60s) to what they are now.

    Aren’t virtually all of those who, like Pat Buchanan, pine for traditional values also among the most vociferous opponents of any and all tax increases as well as against the bulk of the taxes we already pay?

    Define prosper and exactly who did the prospering.


  16. Kevin |

    Seems to me that there is a great deal of blind faith, not to mention historical revisionism, among those pining for traditional America.


  17. doris |

    I just pine for riding and driving horses, instead of those horrific gas prices. The price of diesel went up 22 cents today, why? Truth is, “hay ain’t hay” anymore, at 12 dollars a bale, either. I don’t think the good ole days were really so good, for anyone but the white males either, Kevin.


  18. Brianna |

    *Did America prosper while blacks were lynched, women legally beaten and children forced to work long hours in onerous conditions?

    What about the whites who died in the civil war, worked the underground railroad, and marched in the civil rights movement? What about the men who passed the 19th amendment? And do you honestly think that factories during the turn of the century were the only places and times that used child labor?

    *While you are at it you might want to compare income tax rates during our nation’s economic golden age (end of WWII through the end of the 60s) to what they are now.

    While YOU are at it, you might want to look at the tax rates of the 1920s, “arguably the nation’s most prosperous economic period” (“The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression,” by Robert Murray) and actually read up on economic history.

    1950s: http://elcoushistory.tripod.com/economics1950.html
    1960s: http://www.historycentral.com/sixty/Economics/Economy.html

    P.S. Eisenhower was conservative.

    *Aren’t virtually all of those who, like Pat Buchanan, pine for traditional values also among the most vociferous opponents of any and all tax increases as well as against the bulk of the taxes we already pay?

    I can’t speak for Pat Buchanan; I don’t know enough about his views. I know that *I* think government has turned into a bunch of thieves and that the concept of a steep progressive income tax is vicious. It punishes successful people for succeeding, and attacks the very virtues required for life.

    *Define prosper and exactly who did the prospering.

    Every honest man to the extent of his ability. Was America perfect? No, of course not. No sane person will not admit that women and minorities got the short end of the stick for a very long time. But to the extent that America actually lived up to its ideals of freedom and equal rights for all, the nation (and its people) prospered from it.


  19. Kevin |

    I’m not ashamed of my white heritage, nor am I ashamed to be a man. But neither do I gloss over the gross inequality that the bulk of our nations history represented for virtually all BUT white males.

    Many white men indeed did prosper… while most women prospered at the whim of their husbands and fathers, children at the economic prosperity of their parents, many blacks at the whims of the white land owners – even after slavery ended – and Native Americans at the whim mostly white politicians while the mineral wealth of their “reservations” was being plundered.

    Life in these United States wasn’t the rosy utopia for many of it’s inhabitants that it was for the white men who had economic and political power for the first 195 years of it’s history. That doesn’t therefore mean that this nation is evil or that I hate America. It simply means that I don’t willfully pull on blinders so that I can glibly go through life pretending that being an American was a bed of roses for those whose shoes I can’t even pretend to be capable of walking an inch in.


  20. Kevin |

    Income tax rates from 1919 to 2009 for those interested: http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/federalindividualratehistory-200901021.pdf


  21. Brianna |

    “It simply means that I don’t willfully pull on blinders so that I can glibly go through life pretending that being an American was a bed of roses for those whose shoes I can’t even pretend to be capable of walking an inch in.”

    Nobody here is wearing blinders about our history. We are simply putting it in its proper perspective. America was founded on the ideals of freedom, individual rights, and equality under the law. Did we have that in fact at the time of our founding? No, of course not. But that does not change the fact that our nation was founded on the proper premises, that they were *good* premises, that they are worth upholding, and that it was this base that allowed us to move forward to our present state.


  22. Harvey |

    Tom, Kevin:

    There is no need to be “generous” with me and no need to be insulting.

    Calling Bush a fascist was obviously a corruption of the definition of fascism but there is ample evidence to justify calling Obama a Marxist and a Statist.

    Obama, the Community activist, is still playing that game of pitting the poor against the rich but he’s using healthcare as his Trojan Horse — classic Saul Alinsky, classic Karl Marx. “Change,” Obama’s favorite vocabulary word, was also Marx’s.

    As for his entry into the ranks of Statist, it’s plain to me (obviously not to you) that he is rapidly trying to put the government in a position where it is in complete charge of the economy. He’s too smart to swallow that climate change BS but he’s also too smart not to use it to his advantage — his Cap and Trade proposal would do just that.

    OK, I’m sure neither of you believe what I’m implying and I really don’t give a rat’s rear end. This isn’t the place to expand my argument any farther and, as Larry said: no one is as blind as he who will not see. But do let’s see where we as a country are a few years down the road with Obama in the White House — if I’m wrong, I’m wrong but if I’m not wrong it would be irresponsible of me right now not shout out what at least I can plainly see.

    I’m as sure of what I see and think as you are of what you see and think and neither ‘put downs’ or insults will change my mind or silence me.

    BTW: I mentioned the Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen; I was misinformed — this conference is just to develop a draft for the final treaty that will follow . . . who knows when.


  23. Brian |

    Brianna makes salient points. I’d add another. There are really only two forms of government: oligarchies (rule by a few), and republics (governance, as opposed to rule, by elected representatives). Oligarchies go by many names: communism, theocracy, monarchy, democracy, fascism, socialism, etc.

    It makes no difference what a government calls itself if it imposes its will upon a populace that has little or no choice. The hallmark of all oligarchies is force. The one and only justification for the use of force is in response to the unjust use of it. Some oligcarchies are more oppressive than others, but they only differ in degree of unjust use of force, not in the fact that they are oppressive.

    Does anyone honestly believe that we have not become an oligarchy? You cannot live for 24 hours here without dealing with a federal regulation of some sort. In fact, I’d bet most people meet with a federal regulation within 1 hour of arising in the morning. You didn’t think you had a 1.5 gallon per flush toilet because toilet manufacturers all decided it would boost their sales, did you? You don’t shower under a 2 gallon per minute shower head because shower head manufacturers thought those inadequate things would boost sales, did you?

    I know, I know, those things have all been done “for our own good.” God, please, spare me from the do-gooders who want to save me from myself. If you don’t recognize the paternalism in such things, it is because you chose not to recognize it, not because it does not exist.

    Yes, slavery and Jim Crow laws were abhorrent. But have you stopped to consider that it was government power, an unjustified use of force (against blacks), that was used to maintain those institutions? Today, we have affirmative action. The government uses unjustifiable force to ensure the equal outcomes of the different races. The common factor between both of those things is government force used against people that have not quantifiably done anything wrong, but who may at some point in the future do something wrong. Can you say “Minority Report”?

    Problems will exist under any form of government, and in any society. However, problems imposed by government are ALWAYS arbitrary and based solely upon the proclivities of those who wield the power. I would much rather deal with the problems inherent to freedom than those associated with oppressive government. I cannot comprehend a rational mind not chosing the same course.


  24. Tom |

    Kevin, the data you linked to above on income tax rates from 1919 to present is interesting. The highest marginal rate went to 94% in 1944-45 and stayed over 90% for 20 years. And super-high rates didn’t apply to just the richest people. Amazing — why would anyone bother to work and earn beyond a certain point?

    Kennedy brought the rates down (resulting in more tax income), and so did Reagan (again resulting in more tax income). When you look at the whole picture, Bush’s tax cuts of recent years weren’t really so generous.

    I have to wonder at the extent to which clever people managed to avoid paying those confiscatory rates.


  25. Brian |

    You can bet that many went to great lengths to avoid paying those taxes. But, few actually paid those rates anyway. Back then, though, there were many tax loop-holes (for example, personal credit) that do not exist today.

    And if you think about it, that is a huge problem, one I’ve railed against constantly: the power to tax income based upon a set of laws that are, literally, 10s of thousands of pages, is a spoils system designed to reward cronies and punish enemies. Other than the unethical, immoral nature of enslaving productive people for their efforts, the income tax should be scrapped to deny congress critters such power.

    Switch to a national sales tax set at around 18-23%. That would mean the end of the IRS (which is about 1/3 the size of the USMC at around 120,000 employees, give or take) and odious tax courts. We would no longer have to waste so much money on CPAs and tax attorneys. Tax courts would cease to exist. There is almost no cost of compliance with a sales tax. And lest anyone think that a national sales tax would be regressive, know that we already have a regressive national sales tax in place – it’s called “corporate income tax.” The big problem with this tax is that nobody can say with any degree of certainty what the rate is.


  26. Kevin |

    What I find most interesting about the uber-high income tax rates from WWII through the early 60s is that this is precisely the period where the United States matured as the richest nation on the planet. It was our economic Golden Age.

    And, contrary to the claims from the “tea party” crowd, those high tax rates didn’t result in the doom and gloom scenarios currently being predicted.

    Some might say that we thrived as a nation despite those high taxes. But perhaps we thrived as a nation *because of* those high taxes. It’s a debatable question of course. But what’s not debatable is the fact that those uber high taxes were in place as we grew into the richest nation on Earth.


Leave a Comment


(To avoid spam, comments with three or more links will be held for moderation and approval.)












Authors

Recent Posts

Categories


Archives


Meta

Blogroll



Creative Commons License;   

The work on Opinion Forum   
is licensed under a   
Creative Commons Attribution   
3.0 Unported License
.    






Support Military Families 
















   Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory

Listed in LS Blogs the Blog Directory and Blog Search Engine  

Demand Media

Copyright 2017 Opinion Forum