Pat Buchanan and MSNBC
or: Pat Buchanan’s homophobic, anti-Semitic, racist, misogynistic, Nazi-apologist, pile of steaming excrement and MSNBC
BHASKAR SUNKARA
Am I prone to grandiloquent outbursts of hyperbolic bullshit? Yes. Do my articles normally start with an accessible, self-effacing introduction followed by psuedo-intellectual claptrap? Yes. Does that mean that conservative mainstay and MSNBC contributor Patrick Buchanan isn’t a dangerous reactionary who should be chased from the public domain? No.
I enjoy mustering up nasty ad-hominem attacks and I have no problem slandering anyone (or their aging grandmother) for their political views, but it’s easier to just let Pat speak for himself.
On the “Negro” question:
On race relations in the late 1940s and early 1950s: “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.” (Right from the Beginning, Buchanan’s autobiography, p. 131)
In a memo to President Nixon, Buchanan suggested that “integration of blacks and whites — but even more so, poor and well-to-do — is less likely to result in accommodation than it is in perpetual friction, as the incapable are placed consciously by government side by side with the capable.” (Washington Post, 1/5/92)
In a column sympathetic to ex-Klansman David Duke, Buchanan chided the Republican Party for overreacting to Duke and his Nazi “costume”: “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.” (syndicated column, 2/25/89)
On Apartheid:
Trying to justify apartheid in South Africa, he denounced the notion that “white rule of a black majority is inherently wrong. Where did we get that idea? The Founding Fathers did not believe this.” (syndicated column, 2/7/90) He referred admiringly to the apartheid regime as the “Boer Republic”: “Why are Americans collaborating in a U.N. conspiracy to ruin her with sanctions?” (syndicated column, 9/17/89)
On people that look like me:
“There is nothing wrong with us sitting down and arguing that issue that we are a European country.” (Newsday, 11/15/92)
Buchanan on affirmative action: “How, then, can the feds justify favoring sons of Hispanics over sons of white Americans who fought in World War II or Vietnam?” (syndicated column, 1/23/95)
In a September 1993 speech to the Christian Coalition, Buchanan described multiculturalism as “an across-the-board assault on our Anglo-American heritage.”
On “Jewry”:
Buchanan referred to Capitol Hill as “Israeli-occupied territory.” (St. Louis Post Dispatch, 10/20/90)
The Buchanan ‘96 campaign’s World Wide Web site included an article blaming the death of White House aide Vincent Foster on the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad — and alleging that Foster and Hillary Clinton were Mossad spies. (The campaign removed the article after its existence was reported by a Jewish on-line news service; Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 2/21/96.)
In his September 1993 speech to the Christian Coalition, Buchanan declared: “Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free.” (ADL Report, 1994)
On “sodomites”:
Buchanan has repeatedly used the term “sodomites,” and has referred to gays as “the pederast proletariat.” (Washington Post, 2/9/92)
In a 1977 column urging a “thrashing” of gay groups, Buchanan wrote: “Homosexuality is not a civil right. Its rise almost always is accompanied, as in the Weimar Republic, with a decay of society and a collapse of its basic cinder block, the family.” (New Republic, 3/30/92)
On AIDS, Buchanan wrote in 1983: “The poor homosexuals — they have declared war upon nature, and now nature is extracting an awful retribution (AIDS).” (Los Angeles Times, 11/28/86) Later that year, he demanded that New York City Ed Koch and New York Gov. Mario Cuomo cancel the Gay Pride Parade or else “be held personally responsible for the spread of the AIDS plague.” “With 80,000 dead of AIDS, our promiscuous homosexuals appear literally hell-bent on Satanism and suicide,” Buchanan wrote in 1990 (syndicated column, 10/17/90). In the 1992 campaign, he declared: “AIDS is nature’s retribution for violating the laws of nature.” (Seattle Times, 7/31/93)
Someone has had a hard-time with women his whole life:
“Rail as they will about ‘discrimination,’ women are simply not endowed by nature with the same measures of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism.” (syndicated column, 11/22/83)
“The real liberators of American women were not the feminist noise-makers, they were the automobile, the supermarket, the shopping center, the dishwasher, the washer-dryer, the freezer.” (Right from the Beginning, p. 149)
On democracy:
Attacking what he considers the “democratist temptation, the worship of democracy as a form of governance,” Buchanan commented: “Like all idolatries, democratism substitutes a false god for the real, a love of process for a love of country.” (Patrick J. Buchanan: From the Right, newsletter, Spring/90)
In a January, 1991 column, Buchanan suggested that “quasi-dictatorial rule” might be the solution to the problems of big municipalities and the federal fiscal crisis: “If the people are corrupt, the more democracy, the worse the government.” (Washington Times, 1/9/91) He has written disparagingly of the “one man, one vote Earl Warren system.”
In Right from the Beginning, Buchanan refers to Spanish dictator Francisco Franco as a “Catholic savior.” He called Franco, along with Chile’s Gen. Pinochet, “soldier-patriots.” (syndicated column 9/17/89) Both men led fascist coups in their country. Buchanan also devotes a chapter of his autobiography — “As We Remember Joe” — to defending Senator Joe McCarthy. He advocated that Nixon “burn the tapes” during Watergate, and he criticized Reagan for failing to pardon Oliver North over Iran-Contra.
Recent claims about slavery, the holocaust and World War II:
In his recent article, which appeared on his site and MSNBC.com, “A Brief for Whitey,” Buchanan argues that black people should be thankful for slavery and government handouts:
First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known. Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American. […]
Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks — with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas — to advance black applicants over white applicants. Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks. We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?
This argument is a rehash of what 19th century apologists for slavery argued against radicals and abolitionists. The idea is that immature peoples need to learn the art of civilization from the more “advanced” races– to Pat slavery was merely on-the-job training. The 400-year transatlantic holocaust that took the lives of 10 million Africans don’t mean much to Patrick Buchanan. I know what you’re thinking, “That’s like defending Hitler.” Well don’t worry, our boy Pat has been polluting the internets with stunning apologias for that man too!
Last Thursday on the 70th aniversary of World War II, Pat Bucahanan asked, “Did Hitler Want War?” on the MSNBC website:
Six years later, 50 million Christians and Jews had perished. Britain was broken and bankrupt, Germany a smoldering ruin. Europe had served as the site of the most murderous combat known to man, and civilians had suffered worse horrors than the soldiers.
By May 1945, Red Army hordes occupied all the great capitals of Central Europe: Vienna, Prague, Budapest, Berlin. A hundred million Christians were under the heel of the most barbarous tyranny in history: the Bolshevik regime.
To begin with Buchanan ignores the deaths of millions of Atheists, Muslims, Hindus and others who perished during World War II and he equivocates the deaths of fascist soldiers with the Jews they ethnically cleansed. He also claims that Red Army occupation was more tyrannical and violent than the Nazi occupation and the extermination of Jews, Romas and other “social deviants” that went along with it. I’m no defender of the Stalinist police-states that stood for forty years in Eastern Europe, but this equivocation, along with the historical revisionism that idealizes Nazi-collaborators in Eastern Europe are absolutely revolting. In Buchanan’s world, the great crime of the Stalinists weren’t the labor camps or show trials, but rather their atheism, something that Pinochet, Franco and other fascist “soldier-patriots” fought vehemently against.
It’s easier to understand Buchanan if we examine his mindset. He is a narrow-minded chauvinist, White-supremacist who retains the worst aspects of 19th-century imperialist thought. He identifies with Hitler and German nationalism and instead of seeing ultra-nationalism and ethno-centrism as the root of the Holocaust, he sees it as a historical accident. (Ignoring the fact that Hitler had already killed 100,000 Jews by 1939).
The fact that Jews and Blacks keep getting oppressed and victimized is more-or-less their fault for failing to adapt to and appreciate the centuries of paradise that Christian civilization has bestowed upon them, despite their subversive plots to undermine Western values.
Pat Buchanan shouldn’t be treated like a regular, run-of-the-mill right winger, he should be treated like a dangerous radical and the left should be calling for his firing from MSNBC. Buchanan’s attacks on neoconservatives and the Bush administration probably will make it hard for him to find a job at FOX News and I know he won’t want to spend time around that “sodomite” Anderson Cooper (he’s afraid of catching the AIDS). So why does “liberal” MSNBC give these reactionary ideas a national platform? Let’s take Pat out to pasture and relieve the poor fellow of the burden of defending Christendom against the secular, Jewish, Black-militant, immigrant, homosexual agenda.
Take action:
1. Sign this petition to fire Buchanan from MSNBC.
2. Use the Twitter hashtag #FirePatBuchanan
3. Go tell some people at MSNBC you want Buchanan off your television set.
John Kelly, Exec VP/Ad Sales
Phone: 212-664-6749
E-mail: john.kelly@nbcuni.comRobert Foothorap, VP/Ad Sales
Phone: 212-664-5162
E-mail: robert.foothorap@nbcuni.comMichael Shusman, Dir/Ad Sales
Phone: 212-664-7039
E-mail: michael.shusman@nbcuni.comBarry Margolis, Dir/Ad Sales
Phone: 211-664-3559
E-mail: barry.margolis@nbcuni.comBRANCH OFFICES
Los Angeles: 3000 W. Alameda Ave., C-273
Burbank, CA 91523
Phone: 818-840-3303Steve Agase, VP/Ad Sales
Chicago, IL: 454 N. Columbus Dr., 3rd Floor
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: 312-836-5629Chuck Blomberg, VP/Ad Sales
Detroit, MI: 2855 Coolidge Hwy.
Troy, MI 48084
Phone: 248-643-8444
Great job pointing out the very asinine, historically inaccurate, and bigoted comments that this MSNBC commentator has made. I thought that one of the most recent and telling episodes of just how batshit crazy he is came during the Sotomayor controversy. In an interview with Rachel Maddow, Buchanan screams about how hard the white man has it in life. The video can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44gIZiHFOPo
The things he says are completely mind boggling.
I don’t watch TV so I’m not familiar with this guy. He sounds crazy, I’m checking into it….thanks for the heads up though.
He actually advised Nixon, Ford and Reagan, and ran for President three times.
Nice guy personally, but a little too moderate on race. Other than that and his views on abortion and sexuality he is pretty solid on the important issues.
Um, really?
I thought he was being a funny troll, but then I checked out that website he linked to. I was going to delete his comment, but I decided to keep it up because his avatar is sexy.
Buchanan referred to Capitol Hill as “Israeli-occupied territory.” (St. Louis Post Dispatch, 10/20/90)
would anyone here disagree with that? You don’t think our foreign policy is determined heavily by israel and their lobby here?
http://original.antiwar.com/author/buchanan/
I realize you all have big differences with Pat in regards to alot of cultural issues but my biggest issue is war and Pat is by far the best on this, at least in the mainstream media. He was virtually the only commentator to come out strongly against war with Iraq and has done similarly about Iran, which if you’ll recall was not far from happening at various points throught Bush’s term.
and I think you are missing the point on his ww2 column. his point was that if they hadn’t given poland the war gaurentee there would have been no ww2 and, thus, no holocaust.
saying hitler didn’t want war isn’t being pro hitler. saddam didn’t want war. that’s obvious is it not? at least not with the united states in 2003!
anyway again, I understand you have valid disagreements with him but he is the only guy we have up there trying to prevent wars and without him it’s just two sides of the same coin.
One:
The influence of the Israeli-lobby in the United States is **highly** overstated. It’s a populist myth and Pat’s comments had anti-Semitic overtones.
I’m an anti-Zionist, but US foreign policy is determined by the interests of our own ruling class and not that of some global Jewish conspiracy. The fact that Israel is a useful ally and has concurrent interests doesn’t mean that Jewish money and influence shapes US policy. And even if that’s not said literally people who rail on about the Israeli lobby are propagating this notion.
Two:
Hitler had begun mass killings by 1939 and it was clear from the start that his only goal was genocide and conquest. If he didn’t want war in 1939, he wanted it in 1941 or 1942. I don’t like when the Hitchenses of the world idealize World War II, as some grand perfect war, a people’s victory against fascism. I reject this narrative because left-wing forces were fighting fascism in Italy in the early 1920s, in Spain and Germany in the ’30s, but no one came to their aid. Not the Stalinists (a bit of an overstatement) nor the Western “democracies”. So I don’t like giving Stalin and Churchill the credit for the victory against fascism. But if we were in 1939 and the “cat was already out of the bag” you best believe I would have supported a militant fight against fascism. I do understand Buchanan’s argument, but I will say that solidarity and anti-fascism is something right-wing isolationists can never understand.
And I’ll go further and say that it’s important for mobilizations against specific wars be connected to a movement towards systemic change. To me this means against imperialism and capitalism and for internationalism and the unity of the working class. To the small, “libertarian” contingent this means anti- some Semitic conspiracy or a bad batch of leaders that don’t protect our sacred Constitution. I want our message to be the dominant one on the anti-war movement, not yours. Anti-war movements on the street serve the purpose of politicization through agitating and educating the public.
Anyway, Pat Buchanan is not anti-war. He supported the conflict in Vietnam, did he not? Didn’t he support the Contras and the death squads in Central America? He’s a reactionary, plain and simple. The fact that a portion of the left can end up with the same talking points as this man is just a symptom our intellectual and moral decay.
Hey Comrades! It’s good to see an article like this, but someone needs to do an article on Ann Coulter. And we need to find some way to put this stuff available to the public. Coulter said we should invade the middle east and kill all muslims and convert them to christanity, plus she wants creationism to be mandatory in all schools.
1) 9/11 had nothing to do with our support for Israel. And yes, historically having Israel as a bulwark in the Middle-East against Arab Nationalism and against Islamism has been in the interests of our ruling class. As far as oil, the ruling class wants access to be there and the prices to be relatively stable. They don’t want a strongman holding the world economy hostage through a monopoly on natural resources (hence the logic behind the first Gulf War). The idea that the U.S. directly steals oil from the Middle-East through crude extraction is an unfortunate myth.
2) World War II could have been prevented if fascism had been successfully fought. Leon Trotsky has some of the best writing on the topic, but the tendencies of intra-imperialist rivalries are bound to boil over in conflict eventually. It’s part of the logic of the nation state and class society.
***
The rest of your points can’t be refuted in the comment box, but I obviously think your characterization of “a move towards big government” is extremely simplistic.
The state is nothing more than “armed bodies of men” that is inherently coercive. It’s a reflection of class rule, which is inherent in capitalism. Working people have historically gained concessions from the capitalist class through class struggle — some public goods, etc, i.e. social security, health care, education, etc. But if anything the latest series of crises should have taught you that state intervention is needed to ameliorate capitalist crisis.
Personally I would ideally like to see the current state smashed and its replacement with a more libertarian one — a workers’ state.
If you want a good treatise on democratic socialism: http://theactivist.org/blog/archives/towards-freedom-the-theory-and-practice-of-democratic-socialism
Nice having this discussion, obviously we disagree on some (all) the fundamental points, but I do understand the libertarian “anarcho-capitalist” viewpoint.