Pat Buchanan, archaic type

From Jogo:
Pat Buchanan's remarks have, very understandably, turned a lot of people OFF. Including me. I think they're outrageous, and I'm surprised he isn't ashamed to make his case in public. You have to wonder who his constituency is. He surely has one ... but it cannot be very big. His immigration views appeal to a good number of Americans.. But that is not enough of a reason to admit him to the table of decent people.

You can't call him "a conservative" with the same meaning as you call, say, Newt Gingrich or Bush a conservative. Pal Buchanan is almost an archaic type, a Roosevelt-hater, something from the 1930s. Something about him makes me want to say: He is not a modern man.

I find media-power interesting. PB has never been elected to an office, he has made no mark on society -- say, in business ... or for some high-level contribution or bravery like John Glenn or John McCain. He is not a scholar, and has no academic weight or credentials. He has written books, but they are all polemical; they are not exactly reportage, or based in some area of research or expertise. He was never an athlete or performer, or anything else in the public eye except a MOUTH.

What is the difference between him -- in terms of authority -- and the fellow driving a bus, sitting on a bar stool, or slicing fish at the market?

Previous: Yalta


Popular Posts